my opinion

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Toby Lang

Jeff, I didn't see you respond to Mark's reply. If you did I must have missed it.


-Toby

I didn't feel like typing so much but here goes...

My point is if the racer claimed the points at the race, that's what he is stuck with. So if you claimed 6 national events and coincidently all were third round losses, then that's what you get, even if you went to 6 more races following and made it to the final on those 6 races.
The way it is now, you can hit all 24 races and then claim your best 6. There is an advantage in being a "professional" at this game, this being one of the big ones. Maybe it's the same as playing poker with x-ray vision of the deck?
I'm at a loss to think of any other sport that allows full-time professionals to compete with the amateurs. Like I said previously, if a racer wants to go to all 24 races, I see nothing wrong with it. I do have a problem with being able to pick and choose after the fact. Not allowing this would make it more equitable for the true Sportsman. Correct me if I'm wrong but there were a lot more world champions , call it a more diverse mix, before they points system changed to it's current system. I believe the evidence points to an advantage by a professional racer towards the championship.
Make any sense Toby?
Jeff

[Dave Ficacci]

[QUOTE=Jeff Lee;155494]I didn't feel like typing so much but here goes...

My point is if the racer claimed the points at the race, that's what he is stuck with. So if you claimed 6 national events and coincidently all were third round losses, then that's what you get, even if you went to 6 more races following and made it to the final on those 6 races.

This is the way it's done. You claim your best 5 of your first 8 divisional's and your best 3 of your first 6 Nationals. Every race u attend after that you are just racing for $ and fun.

The way it is now, you can hit all 24 races and then claim your best 6. There is an advantage in being a "professional" at this game, this being one of the big ones. Maybe it's the same as playing poker with x-ray vision of the deck?

Not true. This is not how it's done.
Perfect example. His wins at the end of the year did not count towards his total
http://www.nhra.net/stats/pointsdtl....rn=6108&pt=556

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

I didn't feel like typing so much but here goes...

My point is if the racer claimed the points at the race, that's what he is stuck with. So if you claimed 6 national events and coincidently all were third round losses, then that's what you get, even if you went to 6 more races following and made it to the final on those 6 races.
The way it is now, you can hit all 24 races and then claim your best 6. There is an advantage in being a "professional" at this game, this being one of the big ones. Maybe it's the same as playing poker with x-ray vision of the deck?
I'm at a loss to think of any other sport that allows full-time professionals to compete with the amateurs. Like I said previously, if a racer wants to go to all 24 races, I see nothing wrong with it. I do have a problem with being able to pick and choose after the fact. Not allowing this would make it more equitable for the true Sportsman. Correct me if I'm wrong but there were a lot more world champions , call it a more diverse mix, before they points system changed to it's current system. I believe the evidence points to an advantage by a professional racer towards the championship.
Make any sense Toby?
Jeff

Whether they earn points early or not the "welfare" racers will then complain that they race too much and take purse money from the poor weekend worriors.Bitch,bitch,bitch,
moan,moan,moan.
The last 10 years has seen 6 world champions in stock.all but one were the dreaded
PSR's.You can beat them to one inch of their lives and they'll still get up and beat your whiney asses at the track.Stop worrying about everybody else and try to make yourself
competitive.
Let's see,red lights,hood scoops,what's next?I know,alot of the TPS's have nice tow rigs,who the hell are they to drive around with them when we only have a ****ty p/u or duelly.

[Toby Lang]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

I didn't feel like typing so much but here goes...

My point is if the racer claimed the points at the race, that's what he is stuck with. So if you claimed 6 national events and coincidently all were third round losses, then that's what you get, even if you went to 6 more races following and made it to the final on those 6 races.
The way it is now, you can hit all 24 races and then claim your best 6. There is an advantage in being a "professional" at this game, this being one of the big ones. Maybe it's the same as playing poker with x-ray vision of the deck?
I'm at a loss to think of any other sport that allows full-time professionals to compete with the amateurs. Like I said previously, if a racer wants to go to all 24 races, I see nothing wrong with it. I do have a problem with being able to pick and choose after the fact. Not allowing this would make it more equitable for the true Sportsman. Correct me if I'm wrong but there were a lot more world champions , call it a more diverse mix, before they points system changed to it's current system. I believe the evidence points to an advantage by a professional racer towards the championship.
Make any sense Toby?
Jeff

No, it doesn't make any sense. Did you even read Mark's post? I take it reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.


-Toby

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Toby Lang

No, it doesn't make any sense. Did you even read Mark's post? I take it reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.


-Toby

Sorry it doesn't make any sense to you. Guess I just can't comprehend why the points structure is geared the way it is. Maybe Toby or Ed can help me understand because in between all the jabs, nobody's addressed my major point; why do we have this points system over the previous points system which was in effect for a very long time? Since everybody here seems so versed in the new system, how does it relate to the old system? What are the advantages of one over the other?

David & Mike,
Thanks for clarifying best 3/6 Nationals and best 5/8 divisional races. I didn't mention that because my point is getting to pick and choose after the fact versus claiming the race at it's conclusion. Whether it's 3/6 or 6/6 was not my point. From my understanding the old system was a better system. I would like a clearer understanding as to why it was changed and whom benefited the most by the change. So far, nobody has addressed my question. And I could be educated to understand my assessment is incorrect. I was open to debate, not jabs.
Thanks,
Jeff

[Toby Lang]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

Sorry it doesn't make any sense to you. Guess I just can't comprehend why the points structure is geared the way it is. Maybe Toby or Ed can help me understand because in between all the jabs, nobody's addressed my major point; why do we have this points system over the previous points system which was in effect for a very long time? Since everybody here seems so versed in the new system, how does it relate to the old system? What are the advantages of one over the other?

David & Mike,
Thanks for clarifying best 3/6 Nationals and best 5/8 divisional races. I didn't mention that because my point is getting to pick and choose after the fact versus claiming the race at it's conclusion. Whether it's 3/6 or 6/6 was not my point. From my understanding the old system was a better system. I would like a clearer understanding as to why it was changed and whom benefited the most by the change. So far, nobody has addressed my question. And I could be educated to understand my assessment is incorrect. I was open to debate, not jabs.
Thanks,
Jeff

OK, Jeff, I will try to explain the new system to you.

Nobody gets to pick and choose which races they claim. You go to a race and it counts towards your quota no matter if you want it to or not. You go to six nationals and you have met your quota. NHRA then takes the best three out of those six and they count towards your total. Same thing with divisionals except it's your best 5 of 8. Bottom line: nobody gets to pick and choose which races they claim. Do you understand this point?

About the old system. I heard that Jim Waldo lost out on a championship one time because he didn't claim a 4th rounder thinking he could do better and didn't. If he would have claimed that race he would have been champ. This is just what somebody told me. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Don't you think the current system gives the person who doesn't travel across the country the same chance to win a championship as a Touring Pro Sportsman®?


-Toby

[Ed Fernandez]

Evan,your post was like the shot heard around the world.Hopefully someone who is someone at NHRA reads this and does his homework to make it a workable system.BUT,
it's all contingent on national tech letting the local tech guys do their job.When they are in doubt there should be KNOWLEDGEABLE tech people to consult immediately for a ruling.No gray areas,just black and white.I hope something like this can be worked out.Thanks for the breath of fresh air Evan.See you next year.

[Jeff Lee]

Let me see if I can wrap this up as I haven't looked here in almost 24 hours...I'll do my best!

Mark Faul said:
With the current points system it's fair for everyone! If any racer competes at 6 national events, they have the same number of races to claim as a "touring pro". Because ONCE AGAIN, you claim your best 3 out of 6. No races after your FIRST 6 count towards national points. Same with divisionals. Best 5 out of FIRST 8. So anyone that does well at their points claiming races could be national champion. There is no benefit in points to going to more than the 14 points claiming races. Touring pro or whoever.

Yes, fine. But in your scenario you, the traveler, are rewarded with a "bigger bucket" in which the top races are chosen. It really doesn't matter if you, the racer, or NHRA chooses the top points earning races; you'll benefit. Neither the racer or NHRA will pick anything but the best. Right?
As you have pointed out, the system is geared to favor those that can attend (6) national events and (8) divisional events.


Mike Carr said:
Jeff, I am guessing you are referring to the old "waiver" system, where racers had x-amount of races they could waive, pre-event and post-event? I'm not sure how many waivers a racer had back then (I think the current points structure has been in place since the early 1990's). I think a racer had two pre-event and two post-event waivers. Maybe three. Someone else will have to help me out here.

What we need here is somebody that can accurately explain the evolution of the NHRA Championships. As Mark Faul said, he didn't start class racing until 1996 and I didn't start until 1998. A lot can be learned by the history and I believe it will demonstrate how it has grown to favor or actually encourage attending as many events as possible.
At one point in time a racer received more points for attending intra- divisional events than out of divisional events. Why? The racer was encouraged to stay "local". I guess that was when NHRA was concerned about the Sportsman racer and new there was a line separating the Sportsman from the Pro.
At one time the Championship was decided when all divisional champions competed against each other at the World Finals (much like Jegs All-Stars). Originally held in Oklahoma (or Kansas?) as a "central" location then moved to California. Somewhere along the way it was determined that the TRAVELING DISTANCE of the World Finals was a HARDSHIP for the division champions. That thought has been lost and now NHRA encourages, no mandates, the Sportsman to travel through the current points system if a championship is a goal. Again, NHRA new there was a line separating the Sportsman from the Pro. Not today though.

442OLDS said:
What defines a "full-time professional drag racer" versus AMATEUR racer?

Who knows. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck! I understand from a bowler friend that if his average over a season is 195+, he is not allowed to participate at amateur events. Golfers that participate in amateur series once obtaining a 3 handicap or less are placed in the pro category (pretty sure that's the correct numbers as I'm not a golfer).
The absence of a full-time job other than drag racer, full sponsorship deals that pay the racer to attend races (note: not limited to winning races), IRS declarations...those would be strong indicators to me.

Evan Smith said:
My question is: should the national champions be simply the best bracket racers or the best overall racers, based on building and tuning your car as well? Award points for the top 32 qualified spots at national and divisional events and award points for rounds won during class eliminations and for records set. This also will entice racers to run hard and the AHFS system will be more effective.

I've said here more than once, points to #1 qualifier and record runs. Evan has expanded on this and he has my agreement.

Paul Merolla said:
Evan, that's the FIRST rule change discussed on this thread that made any sense to me. Don and Jeff's ramblings sound like recess in 2nd grade..."I can't win so change the game to suit me!!" How many times do they have to explain it? The best 3 of the FIRST 6. Anyone who can attend 6 nationals has the same playing field as the guy that attends all 24.

Paul, I'd bet I posted that before Evan but who cares. Like I said above, I've repeated this more than once on this site. Don and Jeff are not trying to change the rules because we can't win, Don & Jeff are supporting ideas that would be more favorable to the average Sportsman racer. Don't forget Paul, you can't attend AA of those national events without attending ALL of those divisional events if you want a championship. Anybody out there operating under the current points system ever win a championship without attending the maximum allowable events? I don't think so...

Under the current system, it would be foolish to chase a championship unless you have the commitment of time and money to attend all 14 races.
The old system, as I understand it, was more favorable to a true Sportsman racer. The new system favors the pro racer. So who "changed the rules"?

West Coast said:
The only disadvantage to the current points system would be were you live and how many races are close to you. So that solution would to be move.

Yea, move. That's the argument presented by IHRA racers as well. Sell your home on the west coast lately? Have enough left over for the move?
The old system as pointed out gave points for intra-divisional races. Now you get the same points if you live in California and race there or New Jersey. Yes, I call that a disadvantage.

Ed O'Brien said:
If they ran off records my bet is Bob Shaw 2010 world champ . Have a nice day Ed

And maybe he deserves it. I have a client that set 28 records one year and won his divisional. I say he deserved it. To the next comment by Ed to Evan Smith about "bogus" engines qualifying at #32 or better, all NHRA participants are subject to tear down. Even the last qualifier.

Toby Lang said:
Same thing with divisionals except it's your best 5 of 8. Bottom line: nobody gets to pick and choose which races they claim. Do you understand this point?

About the old system. I heard that Jim Waldo lost out on a championship one time because he didn't claim a 4th rounder thinking he could do better and didn't. If he would have claimed that race he would have been champ. This is just what somebody told me. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Don't you think the current system gives the person who doesn't travel across the country the same chance to win a championship as a Touring Pro Sportsman®?

1st paragraph. Yes I understand. As I said before, you or NHRA pick the top 5/8 divisional. Either way it will be the top 5/8 so it doesn't matter who does the picking.
Jim Waldo's issue - yea, he took a gamble and lost. He didn't have the opportunity to "stuff the ballot box" as can allowed today. Another analogy is today the racer that can attend the maximum number of races is in a "buy back" situation and Jim Waldo did not have that luxury. Again, this shows that the person who can attend the maximum allowable of 14 races has an advantage.
Last paragraph - I would hope by now you see my point that no, it requires full use of all allowable races to chase a championship. Like I said before, I don't think it has been done under the current system with anything less than 100% attendance.

Ed Fernandez said:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lee
How about this. Since NHRA has a limited quota on entries to national events, once the touring pro's have met their allowance on races claimed, they can not enter races if it bumps out a potential participant. If the quota is not met, then entry is open.
You can't be serious can you comrade Jeff

Not on that one. But I have heard this from more than one source so maybe it has some merit. Nothing pisses off a racer more than to not get into a race in your own backyard because your shy one point. And when 40 out of 60 in attendance get in from other states....oooh, they git a little miffed.

By the way, I just found out today Mexico manufactured AMC's (VAM - Vehicle American Motors) had a 302 CID 4bbl equipped straight six! You have any info on that? There's an intake on ebay right now, factory 4bbl. I asked around and found out about the 302 six. That's all I know about it but that would be worth looking into. Maybe a SS/GT engine for you? If I were into sixes I would look for some SAE papers for NHRA!

Ed O'Brien said:
I forgot Merry Xmas everybody !! Is that better ? Have a nice day


Yea, great post! That's the longest response I've ever made and I'll bet 1/2 or more gave up on the second paragraph. Kudos to those that stuck with me. Now I have work to do that pays the bills...good night all and I've enjoyed your opinions; hopefully as much as you've been entertained by mine...

[Tom Moock]

Evan Smith, I think the point Ed OBrien is trying to make. You have wrong size valve`s, you go home, and race the next week, I`m sure they checked your head before you raced. James Kunkel raced in 2008 at Great Bend, Ks. points meet, in a borrowed red 66 Impala wagon, set record and was disqualified for runner volumes. He got a year off and couldn't race. Marv Ripes borrowed the same car and raced at 2008 Pacific Sportnationals, I wonder did he go to the race with head off and have it checked? Tom

[Evan Smith]

Tom,

Since you are speaking for Ed, I will explain it. The difference is that valves can be legally cut, port volumes are not supposed to be manipulated. So if the volume is too big, either the spec is wrong, you have a magically oversized casting, or you have modified the head. Period. As we have seen, it is certainly possible to make a head pass with one inspector and then it fails with another.

My cylinder head guy installed valves from the manufacturer (1.85-inch) and the spec calls for 1.84. Neither the spec or the valves were checked. It was an honest mistake, albeit a huge and very stupid one. At Indy, I was checked by a D1 tech inspector who is a friend of mine and he did his job properly. It would have been very easy to look the other way and "let me off." I didn't expect him to do this and did not get any special treatment.

In the 15 years I've run Stock, I have been to the barn numerous times and have never had a problem—never in fuel check, or on the scale. Perhaps a clean record goes a long way.

I did not race at the race where I returned with the engine apart. Because of rain-shortened qualifying, I did not get the car back together in time to qualify. If Ed would like to protest me, I will gladly take the engine apart and collect his money. The car sat in the trailer and I raced a week later.

As for my idea on the points, it would be easy to make the points awarded for qualifying a very low count and you could limit the amount of races where you could earn them, just as it is with races claimed. Also, you could set a max on the times you could get points from setting a record, say twice a year or something like that. My idea is not that you can win a championship if you qualify first and lose first round wherever you go.

These points could enhance your points total from round wins. But make it so you can't win a championship based only on points earned from records, qualifying and Class wins. Maybe it would allow a hard-working racer who can't make a ton of races sneak into the top 10 in his/her division? It would be cool and performance really would matter.

Evan