|
|
Post by crewman on May 11, 2010 14:25:31 GMT -8
wanted to get eveyones take on that last min rule change that cost the drivers this week as 3 were dq'ed...
|
|
tj
Bumper Bender
|
Post by tj on May 11, 2010 16:15:56 GMT -8
who got dq'ed and what for?
|
|
|
|
Post by goat roper on May 11, 2010 16:17:36 GMT -8
Guess management wants to make the class go away.  Verne |
|
|
|
Post by crewman on May 11, 2010 17:08:08 GMT -8
fuel...charger drivers were mandated to run 110 from vp at the track instead of the 91 or 100 they were running befor they could get anywhere...also were given 2 week notice of the change.
42 the 6 and the 64 were all dqed after they teched every charger...
42 didnt even finish the race!
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 11, 2010 20:43:35 GMT -8
The fuel rule was published right before the season began. Short notice sure but it's been almost two months. We can argue the merits of single source fuel or even if the contingency benefits most of the racers for that class but when you present a car, even if you don't finish you still have comply with the rules. It doesn't seem like much but when you add it up over the season it's a couple hundred (if you are using Rebel 100) to several hundred dollars (if you were using pump gas). I just don't see any good coming from the fuel rule for the Chargers.
|
|
|
|
Post by crewman on May 11, 2010 22:06:10 GMT -8
when i worked on a charger last yr we ran shell 91 and it was 3.10 a gallon and we were hurting to do that this 9 bucks is gonna hurt car count
|
|
|
|
Post by griff42bomber on May 11, 2010 22:12:01 GMT -8
we had a blow out on the 42 with 2 to go and we were already down 2 laps! the rule change i think its a bunch of b.s and the the bullring is gonna make the track go down cause drivers are gonna get pised and go elsewhere and no cars equal no moneyy
|
|
|
|
Post by wayfast01 on May 12, 2010 7:18:02 GMT -8
This rule change was not last minute, it was posted before the season began, and a bulletin went out about a month ago regarding cooling the fuel and it included the language that you must us the VP fuel purchased at the track. Hell, they even mentioned in the drivers meeting a couple races ago that "we will be teching fuel in the next few races". There is a reason they track the car number and class that you are buying the fuel for, they then know what class has people not purchasing it at the track, and then they can tech it and DQ those that are not buying it there. You may perceive it as not fair, but everyone was given fair warning of the change and impending tech of fuel.
Racing is not a cheap hobby, and fuel price increase is just another thing we all have to take into account when we are budgeting for our season. The fuel increase just means I have to hit my sponsors a bit harder for money and cut back on my beer comsumption on off race weekends......
I am not one who regularly defends the track, but on this one I have to.
|
|
|
|
Post by crewman on May 12, 2010 8:33:12 GMT -8
i give the track 3-4 more yrs before either the drivers get fed up and just dont show up or the managment team is fired....
the meaning of this post was to hear from charger drivers that race and have to deal with the matter first hand...wayfast i appreciate feedback but you guys pay 3 less a gallon and use less fuel in the legends and bandos...charger drivers are using more fuel, paying more money for the fuel and more for tires...
|
|
|
|
Post by wayfast01 on May 12, 2010 10:34:00 GMT -8
Take a look at crewman's response to my post, that is a perfect example of why things are not getting done. While he acknowledges and appreciates my feedback, he dismisses that feedback by using that magic word "but". He then moves on to basically say my opinion doesn't mean anything because I pay less for fuel and tires....I guess I have been going at this racing thing wrong, I didn't realize tires and fuel are free for is INEX racers/teams...Racing isn't cheap for anyone or any class, we are all for keeping it as affordable as possible. But you have to remember, that on top of keeping it affordable we also have to maintain a level playing field for all competitors. Part of trying to do that I am sure is standardizing tires and fuel, while establishing rules some are not happy with.
Review my post in the track v. racers thread, I address this point exactly. We need to not dismiss the tracks point of view because it is not ours. Doing so we will be in the same position a year from now but with less racers/teams out there. How about we do something and actually try to work with track management to voice our concerns professionally and without emotion, and to try and impart some change. It would be great to vet out our concerns with their reasons for the change and at least walk away with both sides understanding each other. This mentality of them v. Us will never change unless some one steps up and offers the olive branch and some realistic expectations to limited change and involvement in some of the decisions that most impact us as racers/teams.
But again, just my 2 cents....
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 12, 2010 11:29:05 GMT -8
Having spec fuel and tires is different from single sourcing spec fuel and tires. The track makes money from the exclusivity deals. It would be easy enough to get fuel from another VP distributor and tires directly from Hoosier West but that's not the way this deal is structured. It's not for standardization as much as it's for revenue generation. If that's how the business model works that's all and well but the track shouldn't try to spin it as a benefit to the racers.
At the end of hte day this is a business for the track and for the vast majority of us it's a hobby. We'll make decisions on where to spend the money. Look at the Super Lates, most of the top teams have gone to either OSS or SRL. The track is using a carrot and stick approach but are pretty short on the carrots.
|
|
|
|
Post by wayfast01 on May 12, 2010 11:54:40 GMT -8
Hell.....99.9% of INEX parts are single source.......
|
|
|
|
Post by crewman on May 12, 2010 15:49:25 GMT -8
wayfast that last point u said right there is y alot of us dont race tr or legend cars...that was one of the reasons why we raced chargers in the past were it was cheap fun and we didnt have to deal with the 600 or inex now to get parts. nuts we can buy a piece of alluminum and build a door without having to go to 600 and buy one...like the fuel we use to be able to save money by going to shell and getting 91 or rebel for there 100 but now we spend an extra 800 a yr in just fuel. to me and most drivers it doesnt make a whole lot of sence to RAISE COST in a down economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 12, 2010 16:47:53 GMT -8
Because wayfast chose a spec class has nothing to do with the discussion. If you are into that sort of thing that's fine but I think they're too expensive for what you get but my primary reason is the size of the car. It's too d**n small or I'm too d**n big.  I'd rather run a limited late model or street stock like a Charger but to each his own. The fuel rule for the Charger isn't about parity it's about a business deal to increase track revenue in a down economy at the expense of the racers. The contingency is a red herring as it's likely not to be very much and it's not going to be distributed over the entire field. I'd rather see a more traditional contingency that's paid weekly if you run the stickers. It's common to have to use track fuel but the way it was implemented a week prior to the season, particularly when open fuel rules were published tells me that management wasn't very organized or proactive when they made the rule. At the first race they thought the Bombers might have to use the fuel as well. But they didn't know. That's right, the people that ran the track did not know at the first race which classes were going to have to run the fuel. That's hardly confidence inspiring. |
|
|
|
Post by justagirl on May 12, 2010 17:24:27 GMT -8
Help me out please if we are nascar licensed track why wouldn't we use Sunocco fuel? ?  While watching the nascar races that is what the big guys use so wouldn't they be at the track selling there fuel to the divisions that need to run racing fuel? Again I'm confused why VP Fuel??? Just wondering........  Just my 2 cents that's all.
|
|
I'd rather run a limited late model or street stock like a Charger but to each his own. The fuel rule for the Charger isn't about parity it's about a business deal to increase track revenue in a down economy at the expense of the racers. The contingency is a red herring as it's likely not to be very much and it's not going to be distributed over the entire field. I'd rather see a more traditional contingency that's paid weekly if you run the stickers. It's common to have to use track fuel but the way it was implemented a week prior to the season, particularly when open fuel rules were published tells me that management wasn't very organized or proactive when they made the rule. At the first race they thought the Bombers might have to use the fuel as well. But they didn't know. That's right, the people that ran the track did not know at the first race which classes were going to have to run the fuel. That's hardly confidence inspiring. 
