DRR Sportsman
| quote: I'm curious why QC isn't having Tri-State Stock SuperStock this year. Mike's program offers EXTREMELY racer friendly paybacks, the program brings in quite a few racers that normally don't run at QC, and he and his family are good people. It is a win/win/win for everyone, and the crowds seem to love the class from the feedback I've heard.
I,m trying just spoke with Norm today and told Mike to get ahold of him. |
| Posts: 412 | Location: Clinton Pa. | Registered: February 25, 2007 |
IP
|
|
DRR Trophy
| quote: I'm curious why QC isn't having Tri-State Stock SuperStock this year. Mike's program offers EXTREMELY racer friendly paybacks, the program brings in quite a few racers that normally don't run at QC, and he and his family are good people. It is a win/win/win for everyone, and the crowds seem to love the class from the feedback I've heard.
I hadn't realized this and interested as well. I'm currently helping my friend pull his B/SA 69 Camaro out of mothballs. It was last run in the early 80s. I've been after him for years to get it out and run Mike's program as well as the Buckeye series. He's also a fan of Quaker having run there way back when. So after me bragging about how neat this would be, it would be disappointing if it gets sidelined to say the least. |
| Posts: 72 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: October 23, 2014 |
IP
|
|
DRR Sportsman
| quote: Wayne, If your talking to Norm, See if he would add the Pontiac Ventura,74 GTO 389 and up to the list of allowed cars. He does allow the Nova with a big block and the Ventura is the same car.
Tom he said if it's a big block your good to go. |
| Posts: 412 | Location: Clinton Pa. | Registered: February 25, 2007 |
IP
|
|
DRR Trophy
| quote: Wayne, do you or the track management team plan on posting the information passed out at the meeting to the website or to this site? The meeting was held a week ago and if you do not want a bunch of rumors or misunderstandings, it makes sense to post the information on the web page.
You mean like "anonymous sources have reported" LOL Seriously, you do have a point. |
| Posts: 72 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: October 23, 2014 |
IP
|
|
DRR Sportsman
| quote: Wayne, do you or the track management team plan on posting the information passed out at the meeting to the website or to this site? The meeting was held a week ago and if you do not want a bunch of rumors or misunderstandings, it makes sense to post the information on the web page.
Jimmy it is posted on Quaker City's web site under rules at the top of the page. |
| Posts: 412 | Location: Clinton Pa. | Registered: February 25, 2007 |
IP
|
|
DRR Trophy
| |
| Posts: 72 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: October 23, 2014 |
IP
|
|
DRR S/Pro
| I agree that I am not a fan of run after run of burn downs but there is an element to it that is part of the sport. In baseball when they expect you to swing away and you bunt or football when they expect a pass and you run, if you get that racer that feels entitled to stage last, sometimes you got to try to shake them up. Now if you got that same racer that pair after pair creates an issue, you address it. My concern is for a guy like Sam Kobl who never is there to burn anyone down but is precise in his routine. Whether he is 1st in or last in, he never changes what he does. I think this rule tends to rush a very critical component that tends to be the deciding factor between a win light and a loss. The other concern is when you use the human element to make this type of decision. There is going to be some inconsistency in the enforcement with the starter already having to watch the tree, the lanes down track and the starting line. That is 1 more job for the starter that can really open the door to errors. Enforce the rule with dial in or lane and take the human element out of it along with 1 less responsibility of the starter. Just my opinion on it. |
| |
DRR Trophy
| quote: Wayne somebody needs to correct the rule on starting line burndowns, the rules says if either side start to move forward withing 5 seconds the starter will motion them to move forward and it should say if neither side starts to move forward sighing five seconds.
I agree, that typo makes it hard to read and understand. I think a lot is being made out of the 5 second deal that isn't an issue. I would suppose that to make a rule, some time limit would have to be specified otherwise it would be meaningless. I think it becomes pretty apparent when a duel is taking place and the starter is being ignored. I interpret the rule as saying no such contests will be permitted. I personally have no problem with the rule. I just hope we could have a weekend without rain. |
| Posts: 72 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: October 23, 2014 |
IP
|
|