Dear SRAC Members
 

Gentlemen,
As you must already know the new 128 car fastest qualifying rule the topic of much debate on the internet. The biggest problem I and many other racers have is the apparent blackout of information on how this rule came about. It has been asked dozens of times in various threads on ClassRacer.com and not one of you have come forward to speak to the situation. I do not happen to agree with the rule as it violates a 40 year tradition of NHRA Stock and Super Stock tradition. However, where this is a major concern, it is not why I felt compelled to write you. The fact that there appears to be no transparency as to the way this rule even came about is of major concern for many racers.
Gentlemen, You do not belong to a secret society. You were elected by the racers to represent all racers and their wishes. Voting on rules in what appears to be the dark is not the way to do this. No other club, business, or organization operates this way. Notes are taken and information is shared openly with the members. That is the proper way to do it. This is not an unreasonable request. Doing so will, I am sure alleviate many rumors and unneeded angst. I look forward to your response.
Thank you,
Jim Wahl
2239 Stock

I sent this to each of the members. I hope we get answers. Jim

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Below is a copy of an email sent to Gary Sinnett from Jim Waldo commenting on the new rule recently adopted by NHRA:

If you had a senior moment then so did I at the young age of 46. It didn't come out the way I remember it being agreed on. Gary

--- On Fri, 7/18/08, Lgwaldo2@aol.com <Lgwaldo2@aol.com> wrote:

From: Lgwaldo2@aol.com <Lgwaldo2@aol.com>
Subject: Re: committee secretary
To: gph.hill@insightbb.com, evan.smith@sourceinterlink.com, woodyrace@yahoo.com, jefft@southlanddodge.com, gsracing5545@yahoo.com, jimmy@calcarcover.com
Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 11:33 PM


Greg, We have been busy racing last 10 days or so. Glad to see you volunteered for the secretary job. Did the Indy class rule change come out the way we submitted it? I thought we said if a guy raced somebody for class and won, he would be in the field. I thought we eliminated single run class winners getting in the field unless they were fast enough to qualify. That isn't the way it turned out. Have I had a senior moment?

Jim Waldo

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Here is a copy of the new rule enacted by NHRA, it clearly is not what the above committee members remember being submitted!:


NHRA Technical update: Policy and procedure update
Thursday, July 10, 2008

Effective July 14, 2008, class winners in Super Stock and Stock will no longer be automatically placed into the eliminator fields. All national and divisional Super Stock and Stock eliminator fields will be based on the quickest 128 qualifiers.

Super Stock and Stock class winners

To be declared a class winner and awarded a class winner trophy and be eligible for other awards, a driver must be the winner of a class with multiple entrants or if a single-entrant class, a contestant must:

1. Have recorded a qualifying run five-tenths or more under the class index during qualifying preceding class eliminations or during the first round of class, and

2. Self-start, self-stage, and accept starter's signal in first round of eliminations. If class eliminations are cancelled for any reason (i.e., weather, curfew, etc.), class win will be awarded to the contestant recording the quickest elapsed time up to the time of cancellation. If class eliminations are cancelled after a round of eliminations, win will be awarded to the winning contestant recording the quickest elapsed time from qualifying or class eliminations up to the time of cancellation.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Interesting development on this matter...............

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

How long are you going to beat this dead horse? The only race this could possibly impact is Indy, I don't know if I've ever seen your name on the Indy entry list. Do you plan on attending this year, is that why you keep beating this dead horse?

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Fred I will second that , Amen

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

It's pretty obvious what happened here. The committee intended to allow winners of CONTESTED classes in to the final eliminations. However, NHRA decided that they could not enforce the rule as it was written, most likely because of what we hear so very often on this board "It's not MY fault NOBODY ELSE races in MY class". So NHRA decided you either qualify on time or you don't. So those who whine about not being able to SINGLE for a class win are responsible for NO class winners bumping in.

REMEMBER, the committee is NOT solely responsible for the rules, or if/how they are changed. NHRA has the FINAL SAY.:eek:

So, those of you who have been on here trashing committee members owe them an apology, that is provided you are good enough to admit your error.:eek:

And after this fiasco, if no one wants to represent YOU to NHRA, for free, on their own time, and listen to you bitch, you have only yourselves to blame.:eek:

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Well said Alan. Not that it should be this rule but....SRAC is voluntary, unpaid and at this point known to not make rules only "advise".

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

So NHRA has gone full circle over the years. Starting with, you must win class to even race the eliminator to, winning class doesn't necessarily mean anything.
The fact Jim Wahl is not or may never be entered into Indy is irrelevant. The point is this is a grevious error on the part of NHRA against 40+ years of tradition brought about by those with their own agenda.
And the fact SRAC menbers are volunteers has no merit about what has or will be said for or against them. You step into such a role, you should expect no less. As our elected representatives, they owe it to us to report the minutes of the meeting so it can be publicly seen as to what transpired.
As I have said before, personal agenda's have should have no weight in any issue. Reading these post's filled with personal slam's makes it apparent this is not the case.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Asking for an explanation is slamming somebody? I've seen one derogatory statement about a committee member.
How times change, in the mid 90's when I was looking at running a stocker I was advised to run the body I have now rather then what I had in mind by an NHRA official because my choice would not be very competitive and the other class had noone in it then.
At the time you did not even have to run the index to win class though you did not get on the ladder. Since then singles not only have to run the index but are required to run .50 under to win class. DISCRIMINATION???????
Trying to discriminate against a certain segment generally has unintended consequences!

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

JEFF!

We have had our differences on here before, but in this case I have to say..."WELL STATED!"
I could not agree on your point more...we all need to think of WHY these rules were put into being in the first place and their relevance of the NHRA model that attracted us all to this racing format in the first place!

See my postings on the thread "If Wally was not already dead, this would have killed him" for my views on this new rule.
WHAT is NHRA's RUSH to IMPOSE this???

Why must they do something mid stream part way through the year, it is not like Indy is a new race...
Why not put it up for discussion for the 2009 rule book and INDY rather than IMPOSING it on us?
The new 1000ft fuel rule, it is a safety issues and had to be implmented asap, I get that...but this?? wtf

Can there be TOO many stockers and Super Stocks at the Big GO? I think not!....
Now as for the "Super Classes" that the fans hate who try to create the illusion of a heads up race ( Blast and Bog throttle stoppers), reduce them if there is a space or time concern....These are de facto bracket bombers. The Nationals are DRAG RACE not a bracket race. No place at Indy or any national event other than a bracket nationals for these guys.

The CORE of drag racing are the PRO Clasees and the grass roots S & S/S. Period.


Cheers;

Derek

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

If you HAVEN'T seen a derogatory comment directed towards the representatives, you haven't been reading the threads. Woodro Josey and Jeff Teuton were called out BY NAME on this board, and that is ONE example. There have been multiple derogatory comments directed towards the entire committee.

Unless you are a member of the committee, or privy to the rules that apply to the committee, you do not even know if anyone records the minutes, or, more importantly, if NHRA even allows them to be published, if they are recorded.

From what Jim Waldo wrote, the committee voted to no longer allow people who single for a class win to get a pass into the final eliminations. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention at that point that NHRA made the other change, that is not allowing ANY class winners who did not qualify by ET into the final eliminator.

IF you've been listening, and asking the right people, you've heard by now that this latest rule was only PART of what was proposed and voted on. I've been told by multiple sources that there was also a proposal to lower the indexes 2 tenths. As to the class win rule, well, that is quoted in another post, and above in this post.

It's called an ADVISORY committee. Meaning these people advise NHRA, and NOT that NHRA does what the committee tells them.

By the way, so far there are two polls, and I have voted in neither, and both show that by at least some margin, at least a slim majority would prefer that the 128 fastest cars qualify. Of course, these are not scientific polls, and only reflect the opinions of a few who come to these forums and vote.

I'm not a fan of the 0.90 Super classes. However, if you are so deluded as to think that NHRA is going to kick them out, and let more Stock and Super Stock racers in, you are just that, deluded. They require only a cursory safety tech, and a heads up Pro tree. They are 20% the trouble we class racers are. I used to crew multiple cars in the 0.90 Super classes, I never cared much for them then, and do not now, although I have some VERY good friends who race those very classes. But I sure do find it amusing that people who say no one has the right to tell THEM they shouldn't have a place to race are very quick to tell someone else the exact same thing.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

WOW!!

For someone who takes exception in your posting to "derogatory remarks" that you percieve, you sure quick to dole them out!
No one is deluded sir!

If you wish to trade insults, I do not and you are in fact VERY derogatory and insulting.
You can prove that you have class with an apology ..or not.

I KNOW NHRA will not elminate the So-Called "Super" Clases from Natiaon Events.

They are a CASH COW and although boring as hell, with a lot of nice guys running them, they will remain for the reasons you state.

I have to give NHRA credit for being " inclusive" in rtecent years and responding to trends.
Examples are: Sport Compacts, Pro Stock Truck (knee jerk reaction to NASCAR Truck Clasees) , Pro Stock Bike...that class still has me wondering why BIKES are at the drags, No cars run at the bike events do they??

I am stubborn in accepting the fact that NHRA has been slow in changing it's logo and name to reflect that it is really now the NHRC...the National Hot Rod CORPORATION . dedicated to PROFIT!
It is all about the Bottom line, balance sheets and profits.
The fan and the racer are an afterthought that get lost in the shuffle, as long as there is SOME source of revenue they keep proving that they really care very little for those who supported them.

You must know PT Barnum's old line. NHRA has it as it's credo....


Now please do not take my opinion as DEROGATORY, I would not want to ellicit more insutls from you beacuse my OPINION Upset you...after all according to you I am deluded.

Cheers;
Derek

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Derek, I said "IF you are so deluded". No where did I say "Derek, you ARE deluded". See, the word IF is the operative word. I owe you no apology, and you'll get none. I can be insulting, but I choose not to.

As to derogatory comments, Jeff Teuton and Woodro Josey were called out here on this site by name, and it was done BEFORE anyone knew what happened. I have only met Jeff Teuton once, briefly, in passing, in the staging lanes. However, Jeff has been helping to support sportsman racing and class racing for years. I know Woodro Josey pretty well. Woodro has been doing this about as long as just about anyone here, and I'd say Woodro has about as good a grasp on what is good for class racing as anyone even remotely likely to be willing to give their time to represent us. The remarks made about Woodro and Jeff were entirely uncalled for. I did not "perceive" them, they were posted plainly. The ink on the paper the rule was written on was not dry before people began their tirades, and the tirades haven't stopped yet.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Derek, I know Alan and I am sure in his defense at this point he has been pushed to respond as you see his wording. His values and position I feel you would find very close to the thoughts you have offered. Reading the written word is tough . Thanks

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Ed, (note, I have the courtesy and respect to spell your name correctly) I have no problem whatsoever with anyone requesting information from their representative. I do have a problem with someone insulting a personal friend of mine for no valid reason. There was no reason, and no excuse for it. But the same people who do things like that will wonder why no one wants to represent them, and no one wants to answer their questions or address their concerns.

I posted the name and email address of every person on the committee. I also posted the link to the page that detailed all of it. It's sort of like knowing who your congressman or representative is and how to reach them.

However, I agree, more could be done to make the process better, and more transparent. For example, NHRA could put up a page on the Lucas Oil part of the site that gives the addresses, it is actually there, but there needs to be a link on the main page. NHRA could post the agenda and the minutes. But the committee can only do what NHRA allows them to do, using the tools NHRA gives them.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

I can feel the pain of the Bump-in guys on this issue. I have been unable to obtain information from nhra on several occaisions and it is no fun.

But this issue is finished. Someone comes up with a copy of an email message from a person who admits that he is at least a little fuzzy on the details of the SRAC vote. This information is no smoking gun.

From what I have been told the vote went 6 - 0 to eliminate class winner bump in. One person was not able to attend the conference call. And now the poll shows that the racing public believes the class winner bump in should be eliminated. nhra looks at this stuff.

The small group of bump in advocates on this site can come out and create the appearance of support for bumping faster cars from the sheet. But, in the end, they fail to persuade the majority of the racers and nhra.

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

I have received timely responses from Jim Waldo (see above) Evan Smith and Woodro Josey. I thank them all! Below is what I received and my response. Jim

Jim,

Thank you for the email. I believe none of the reps (myself included) has responded because whether we are right or wrong we will be taken to task in unfair manner on the boards. As of right now, there is no way we can contact each and every racer on every topic. Perhaps we could establish a forum with registered racers. But for now, this would require me personally contacting with about 400-500 S/SS racers in my division alone every time an issue comes up. As for responding on the web, I just don’t have time to get into an internet debate, especially when half of those who post are no-names. Now on to your question. After receiving many requests from actual racers, we were asked to look into changing the qualifying rule because many have been bumped out at Indy and feel that a slow car should not bump out a fast one. Well, we know this will break tradition so we talked it over and also had a conference call with NHRA. There are seven reps and we all love the sport and it’s tradition, but what’s right is right and at times the sport has, and will continue, to change with the times. Just look at the new 1,000-foot rule, talk about breaking tradition?

First, I will tell you I am a purist—more than some—less than others. I don’t like change unless it helps the sport. But look at the past, change is always taking place: Stock has gone from 7-inch tires to 9-inch tires, to stiff valve springs, to wild cams, to radials and trick transmissions and light brakes, and so on. We have had rule changes (for better or worse) and the sport will evolve whether you or I like it. Lately, we’ve seen smaller fields, quotas for entry lists and so on. OK, you, and many others, speak of tradition in regards to qualifying. Our goal is not to break tradition, but serve the majority of the racers. You may or may not agree with this, but many racers are for this change, even if they don’t voice an opinion on the internet. Anyone registered on Classracer.com can vote, you can have your mother or brother vote so that poll has no validity.

Looking back, any racer can recall that the qualifying “tradition” was that Class winners earned their way into the eliminator by having the fastest car in their category and/or by out-driving the competition. When the tradition began there were fewer classes and nary a single. Over the last decade even a blind man can see that this “tradition” (at Indy) has turned into something totally different. Being a Class winner is something a racer should be proud of. I have about 15 Class trophies and I’ve singled for about five or six of them. To be honest, the single wins mean nothing to me. Sure I earned them, the trophies look cool, and I couldn’t control if no one showed up to race in my class, but there is noting to be proud of because I didn’t race anyone. On the other hand, the ones I’ve earned mean the world! How can a racer expect to race if he is not quicker than the guy ahead of him? Should a racer get to run in the eliminator because of a rule, that has become a loophole, allows them to compete, even if it is tradition? It’s like the provisional in NASCAR. If you really want to argue about tradition, then what you are arguing for is the right for the fastest cars to race? Or should single class winners get to compete even if they are slow, because of an outdated rule, even if it is tradition? Stock and Super Stock are performance-based classes, shouldn’t that count?

Fact: Single class cars can still win Class and race, now they must make the show on performance, which is the intent of the original rule. It is not the fault of a racer if he or she is the only one in a particular class, just make your car quick enough to make the show based on performance, that’s all. Indy will showcase the 128 best performing cars, which is in the spirit of the original tradition.

Jim, I will tell you that personally I voted for the qualified field, accept if a racer actually beats someone, then he or she should make the show, regardless of how quick the car is. While I still feel it should be the quickest 128 cars regardless of Class wins, there is something to be said for beating the competition and that in itself should be a means to ear you way in. So, I voted for the tradition and not with my personal feelings. And the majority of the SRAC members did the same. Still, NHRA went with an “all or nothing” approach, which was out of the hands of the committee.

Evan


Evan,
Thank you for replying to me in such a timely manner! After reading your email I find myself agreeing with you almost 100%. You are obviously an educated, level headed man and I believe you will serve your Division and all of the Sportsman racers well. I thank you for such a detailed explanation of the situation from the SRAC's point. This is what was needed, it was needed last week however. If I came off as critical or harsh I apologize, but it was born from frustration. Frustration from lack of communication from the Committee. I still feel the Committee should communicate with the masses on important developments and the forums are a great way to do it. After all it was the way you members were elected. You are a professional communicator, I hope you will use your talent to inform your fellow racers and nip in the bud the type of humors and fears that have been exhibited in this situation.
As I wrote to Woodro, I could live with the rule the way the Committee submitted it, however I do not agree with the final version. I think you all, as the Committee, should voice your displeasure with NHRA about being usurped. That said, I thank you and all of the members of the SRAC for the work you have and will do for your fellow racers. Thank you, Woodro, and Jim Waldo again personally for your timely response.

Jim Wahl

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

alan,

i did not "call out" woodro and jeff... they are my friends

if you take time to read my post i simply stated i could not beleive the srac could have voted this way, especially knowing woodro and jeff (purists i thought) were on the committee.

my srac rep told us the "vote" was taken as part of the discussion over lowering indexes -.20 and wasnt really clear that the resulting rule was actually what they voted on (see evan / waldo response).

i for one am sick of the constant enhancement process where EVERY time a rule changes the class i love is further deteriorated from the way i was brought up and the class NHRA sold me on 30 years ago. once again it will cost the jim gowers, marty buth's MORE $$$ to race if they wanna be able to go to indy... and WHY i ask and that is the question NO ONE has been willing to address.

simple enough ?
and sorry to woodro and jeff if you took it wrong.

jack mccarthy

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Jim,

I would like to point out that there is a section for racers only. I have carefully confirmed all members that have access to this section are racers, and that they have raced within the last 2 years.

There are 296 members registered for the competition only section. Of the 296, approximately 220-240 are Stock/Super Stock racers.

Why this section is not used to get a better prospective on how the class racer feels is beyond me.

Any poll that is voted on in that section are by racers only. I asked Lynn if he wanted his poll moved, he declined. Chris Hill started a poll, but as you can see there are very few votes.

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

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

Re: Dear SRAC Members
 

Removed