Dear SRAC Members

[Dick Butler]

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

[Alan Roehrich]

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.

[Bruce Noland]

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.

[Jim Wahl]

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

[Jack McCarthy]

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

[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.

[Alan Roehrich]

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?

[Jim Wahl]

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

[Yo Ken]

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.

[Torque addict]

Originally Posted by Dick Butler

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

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