Dear SRAC Members

[Alan Roehrich]

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.