Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Jack, if we want to go to Indy, it'll cost us more too, for both cars, either the way the rule was, or the way it is now, or even the way the committee actually voted. Guess what? That's racing.

Not everyone who believes in the class has the same opinion on everything. You can be a "purist", and believe in a performance based eliminator, and still not believe in the idea that just because a class exists, and one car shows up to run it, that the one car is entitled to the same consideration as a car that defeats at least one or more competitors, or a car that runs 3 tenths further under the index.

If you read Jim Waldo's reply, that's his position. I don't think Jim Waldo is any less a purist or believer in the class than anyone. Jim Waldo said himself, of his own class victories, that those where he won on a single pass were not the same as those where he defeated actual competition. And he also says that when the original rule was written, singles for class were few and far between, and there were far fewer classes. So the class has changed, and the rule has now changed because of it.

I don't think their opinion makes Woodro or Jeff any less a purist or believer in the class either. So if Jim, Jeff, and Woodro all voted that you either have to make the race on ET, or you have to actually win a contested class to get in, they've probably got enough experience, and they've talked to enough racers to have a sound reason for their vote.

I'm aware of the fact that the rule that was actually written was not what was actually voted on. The Sportsman Racers Advisory Committee is just that, an advisory committee. They advise NHRA on rules that affect sportsman racers. I doubt they have a great deal of control over how much, or more likely, how little of their advice NHRA takes. I was not really expecting the committee to be able to do anything other than what they've been able to do.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

By the way, Jack, I took your mention of Jeff and Woodro by name in the post you made in the context of the rest of the text of that post. I interpreted your mention of them on that basis, and that gave the appearance, at least to me, taking the post as a whole, that you called them out by name. I take you at your word that you were not calling them out, as I do respect you both as a person and a racer, whether I agree with you or not.

So, Jack, I regret that I did not understand what you were evidently trying to say in that post, and withdraw my statement that you were calling them out.

And I'd hate to see you bail out of Stock Eliminator as well. I really hope you'll reconsider.

Fair enough?

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Mr. Moderator,
To answer your question as best I can, all I can say is I think most of the guys are used to posting her in the S/SS forum and we know old habits are hard to break. You are right, the poll on this forum means nothing as any Tom, Dick or Harry can vote.

As for me not being passionate about where the class racing is going I again say WHAT? I was accused just yesterday of being TOO passionate! Why do you think I am spending time posting here and trying to get to the bottom of this issue? Don't you find the developments at all interesting? I can not believe you said that!

Since when is trying to get information wrong, and doesn't MY opinion matter? Shame on you. Jim

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Jim,

My post did not say you do not have the passion.

"The tools are here, but it seems the very few like yourself have the passion or even care where class racing is headed."

My post was giving you credit for expressing how you feel.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

I think he meant you are passionate about stock, unlike some others.
Thanks for persisting and getting some answers!

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Mr Moderator,
OK, I read it wrong, sorry, I am not used to receiving a compliment of late. Hope you understand. Jim

Bill,
Thanks buddy, I do appreciate your comment. Jim

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Thanks, Jim. Everyone appreciates you finding out the facts and posting here..
Dick

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Dick;

Thank you for you insight as to the style of response that Alan has doled out to me, Jack, Jim and others here.
I atke you at your word that he is a quality person and racer and needs to comprehend that his words can be taken as an insult when he makes flip remarks as he did such as " I owe you no apology".
Somehow I was never expecting one and eluded to that in my post, given his style and position that someone dared to "Call Out " one of his friends.We now see that was NOT the intention of the original poster at all.
His reaction to someone spelling his name wrong was special too, glad it was not me... lol!

By the way, it was not me nor my post that had to do with his friends, it was intened for Jeff.
Alan chose to comment.
Oh well, I can still extend him my respect and best wishes.
In the end, we are all passionate about the same thing here.

I think what we really want are assurances that in the forseeable future that Stock and SuperStock are Viable classes that will continue to be supported by NHRA and not pahsed out or gutted as they have done with many different classees in the past. When rules are changed, it is done BEFORE the year begins and not mid stream unless it is a safety related issue. I fail to see the urgency of this change. If they need more room my point was they need to review some other classes that take up time space at Indy in conjunction with these changes.

Come on guys! Let's support the commitee, NHRA could do a LOT MORE to get input from racers and fans, this has been a problem of late.
I do not think anyone could disagree on that (I am sure I will be corrected on that point though...lol), stong communication builds a stong organization!


Cheers;

Derek

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Derek, I think I pointed out pretty clearly that I never said you were deluded. If you cannot grasp that, I can't help you.

Most everything can be seen as an insult, if you're looking for it. Evidently you are.

Spelling a persons name correctly is a sign of courtesy and respect. You'll notice I make an effort to do so in every case. In your case as well. The point I was making there is that there are a few who will show no one the courtesy and respect if they are not in lock step agreement. Regardless of how much I disagree with Jim, Art, Jack, or even Ed, I at least show them the respect of spelling their name correctly.

Oh, and I already took responsibility for not understanding Jack.

I got your point about other classes, too. It is still very obvious that you think that it is okay to tell them not to show up. And there's a distinct difference between what you are proposing and the new rule. You are talking about reviewing someone else's class, and cutting someone else's quota (review other classes has no other implication). The new rule for Stock and Super Stock actually says that now more than ever, if you're coming to Indy, bring your A game and be fast. It does NOT cut the quota of either class, the quota for Stock and Super Stock remain the same.

I do actually agree with you that the rule change wasn't really a priority, and could have, probably should have, waited until 2009 to go into effect. I do think it is a little too close to Indy for this rule change to have been implemented.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Alan;

Thank you.

Derek