question for the 90 guys and gals

[wsmracing]

I Think We Should Run Flat Out , In Reverse, With High Gear Only......... But I'm Sure Some One Would Build Something Bigger. & Faster To Screw Up That Class Up To............................its Not The The Index.....its Everyone That Overbuilds For The Index.....................................but Then Again, When I Started ....it Was Without A Delay Box And Using A Nut & Bolt......&...... Look Where We're At Now..............but Thats Just My Opinion....and You Know What They Say About Opinions.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wsm

[H.A.A.C. Racing]

I agree with Lynn! I think for the most part we are not seeing the big picture. In a perfect world, we would only need 3 days at a national event. Weather and oil downs happen and the schedule needs to allow for that. Does everyone on here remember the post about N.H.R.A. being sold and speculation of not having sportsman racing at a national event?? No one was complaining about how the events were run then. Personally I think it is an awsome experiance to see John Force ride through your pit and wave to you as your eating a burger, or driving under the Bud car on your way up to the lanes as they are unloading from the transporter. Let face it, we are all a profitable fill in for the N.H.R.A. The big picture as to why we do it???? Ask Chris D, or Lynn, just to name a few. I bet there was no complaining in their camps after they help up " the big Wally"

[Jason Oldfield]

OK, it's time for Mr. Long-Winded to chime in. I'll keep this as short as I possibly can.

1. Regarding lowering the indexes, I would really see this as a move to appease the racers more than the spectators. As others have alluded to, lowering the indexes would generally just mean an increase in cost. Initially, it would mean less time on the stop, but people would then continue to make their cars go faster and faster to gain the speed advantage at the top end. And, as we all know, speed = money.

I personally believe that one of the reasons why Top Sportsman and Top Dragster has seen a surge in popularity is because racers found out that it was fun to race their fast cars all out. Of course, these same competitors still race S/G and S/C when they are forced to do so or the opportunity arises, but for the most part I think they'd rather run their cars all out.

So, my suggestion would be to add a 7.90 class, rather than lowering the indexes across the board. This would allow those that didn't want to spend the extra money to go faster to stay where they are. And those that want to go faster, could. I would expect you would see an equal shift of cars from one to the next. People currently running S/C that could go faster than 7.90 and either wanted to run their cars all out, would move up, and because it would be a new class and the car count would initially be lower, some would move up simply to race against less cars. I would then expect to see others in S/G and S/St also move up to S/C and S/G as the average speed and car counts in those classes dropped (as the faster cars move up to the next class, the average speed in the class they just left would decrease).

Now, what I don't immediately know how to address is how this new class would fit into the existing National Event schedule / quota system. Obviously, NHRA isn't going to want an extra 80 sportsman competitors at their events, and I don't think anyone would be happy if the number of races that their class was contested was reduced by a third. So, from NHRA's standpoint the potential downside of adding a class would be that each class would have less cars, AND they'd have to pay out more money to cover the cost of the new class (as would the contingency sponsors). Then, we'd all have to have the discussion about what we'd prefer; the addition of a faster class, or leave things as is and simply take the extra money that would be paid to this new class and instead split it among the 3 existing classes to raise the payout in them.

In the end, I'm not sure what I would do. I don't see the addition of a 7.90 class as a sure thing. But, it might be an interesting experiment.

2. As for reducing national events to 3 days, I think that is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Rock must be a moron to think that. Who wants to take less vacation days off of work, spend less time sitting around the track doing nothing, and spend more time with their families?

Sheer stupidity.

Next Rock is going to suggest trying to find a way to eliminate the insurance surcharge, or re-institute the one free crew pass per car entered policy.

Pfffft. I like giving NHRA all of my money, and we all know they need it more than we do.

[wsmracing]

Definately Sounds Like A Much More Educated Plan...............................& I Write My Entry Fees Off As A Charitable Deduction..............make Them 6 Days...............who Wants To Work..........!!

Good Job

Wsm

[Jason Oldfield]

Originally Posted by wsmracing

Definately Sounds Like A Much More Educated Plan...............................& I Write My Entry Fees Off As A Charitable Deduction..............make Them 6 Days...............who Wants To Work..........!!

Good Job

Wsm

Thanks for the compliment! And I agree...I'd much rather be racing than working. There's just this small part about earning money that I personally have to address. Of course, if I won more....

[H.A.A.C. Racing]

Originally Posted by Jason Oldfield

OK, it's time for Mr. Long-Winded to chime in. I'll keep this as short as I possibly can.

1. Regarding lowering the indexes, I would really see this as a move to appease the racers more than the spectators. As others have alluded to, lowering the indexes would generally just mean an increase in cost. Initially, it would mean less time on the stop, but people would then continue to make their cars go faster and faster to gain the speed advantage at the top end. And, as we all know, speed = money.

I personally believe that one of the reasons why Top Sportsman and Top Dragster has seen a surge in popularity is because racers found out that it was fun to race their fast cars all out. Of course, these same competitors still race S/G and S/C when they are forced to do so or the opportunity arises, but for the most part I think they'd rather run their cars all out.

So, my suggestion would be to add a 7.90 class, rather than lowering the indexes across the board. This would allow those that didn't want to spend the extra money to go faster to stay where they are. And those that want to go faster, could. I would expect you would see an equal shift of cars from one to the next. People currently running S/C that could go faster than 7.90 and either wanted to run their cars all out, would move up, and because it would be a new class and the car count would initially be lower, some would move up simply to race against less cars. I would then expect to see others in S/G and S/St also move up to S/C and S/G as the average speed and car counts in those classes dropped (as the faster cars move up to the next class, the average speed in the class they just left would decrease).

Now, what I don't immediately know how to address is how this new class would fit into the existing National Event schedule / quota system. Obviously, NHRA isn't going to want an extra 80 sportsman competitors at their events, and I don't think anyone would be happy if the number of races that their class was contested was reduced by a third. So, from NHRA's standpoint the potential downside of adding a class would be that each class would have less cars, AND they'd have to pay out more money to cover the cost of the new class (as would the contingency sponsors). Then, we'd all have to have the discussion about what we'd prefer; the addition of a faster class, or leave things as is and simply take the extra money that would be paid to this new class and instead split it among the 3 existing classes to raise the payout in them.

In the end, I'm not sure what I would do. I don't see the addition of a 7.90 class as a sure thing. But, it might be an interesting experiment.

2. As for reducing national events to 3 days, I think that is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Rock must be a moron to think that. Who wants to take less vacation days off of work, spend less time sitting around the track doing nothing, and spend more time with their families?

Sheer stupidity.

Next Rock is going to suggest trying to find a way to eliminate the insurance surcharge, or re-institute the one free crew pass per car entered policy.

Pfffft. I like giving NHRA all of my money, and we all know they need it more than we do.

Jason, did you really try to keep that short??

[Jason Oldfield]

Originally Posted by H.A.A.C. Racing

Jason, did you really try to keep that short??

OK, probably not. I probably should have gone back through to try to edit it down a little. But, I said my peace...

[CBS]

Thanks Jason.....I think moron is an improvement for me.....

[Bill Baer]

In my opinion Mr. Oldfield is right on target. If we could take away the throttle stops and get back to a fixed stop we could all race side by side and save a bunch of $$$$ because we would need 540's 632's or superchargers.
Guys like Ernie Kendal could still race in top dragster.
Thants My 2 cents worth.
Billy Baer 3391 S/C

[Jason Oldfield]

Originally Posted by CBS

Thanks Jason.....I think moron is an improvement for me.....

No problem Rock. I know you've been called worse. Plus, considering the topic of your post in this thread, I'm as big a moron as you are (well, even if I didn't agree with you, I'm sure there are plenty out there that would still think I was a big moron).

Originally Posted by Bill Baer

In my opinion Mr. Oldfield is right on target.
Billy Baer 3391 S/C

Yikes! Mr. Oldfield! I feel like I'm in court. Hopefully that's just some southern hospitality. Either that or I'm older than I feel...

But, at least I was right in somebody's eyes...