Full fields? At what price? (3 Viewers)

[chop]

I understand the concept of why people race/compete. I ran stockers back in the 70's and I would spend my last dime to race. If fact,believe it or not but I had a National record holder making minimum wage. There was nothing more important to me than racing,nothing and I begged,borrowed but did not steal to make the show. It was in my blood,an ego thing now that I look back and just hauling my race car down the highway gave me a rush. So I understand it probably better than some why people race.

 

[Bill]

I'd like to clear up some misconceptions before any more fairtyales get posted here...

1. My name is Bill Dedman, for sure, but I am NOT "THE" Bill Dedman who has won the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting. He's a much younger man. I was born 12/20/'38... I think he' about 50, or so. But, thanks for the compliment. Just wanted to get that straight.

2. Some of you have inferred that I am somehow critical of the "filler" cars (I called them that because they weren't showing up, consistenly, until the "full fields" that everyone thinks are so important seemed to be in jeopardy.) It seemed to me that given that circumstance, that's what they were. No offense meant.

I am fully aware of the budget-strangling costs associated with Fuel racing (see my many posts on a cheaper alternative) and am astounded that anybody could do this AT ALL, on his own dime. I pointed out the numbers from the St. Louis race as a "heads-up" as to what the effect these lesser-funded cars were having on competition. That's the beginning and the end of my feelings as regards these cars; I am surely glad they're there, and I salute ANYBODY who can "qualify" for a national event in a non-sponsored car... anybody! I can't imagine the dedication and effort that must take. Seriously... Don't be so quick to assign nefarious motives to my writings; I am not being critical of these people... not at all. As I said in another post, Bobby Lagana was someone whose "career" in T/F I have followed for many years, hoping that someday he'd catch a star and grab a sponsorship worthy of his talent and dedication. Glad to see his son getting some ink!!!

3. A little about me, so you know I'm really not "James Maxwell," whoever HE is. From that recent post, I would seem to be more like Mike Richards than anyone else on this board. I went to my first drag race at Carlisle, Arkansas in 1955, when I was 17. In 1959, I was in attendance at Carlisle, when Dave McClelland announced his first-ever race. (Talk about witnessing history!!!) About that same time, I became the Stocker Tech guy for that strip. A year later, when Little Rock Drag Strip opened, I worked as their Stocker Tech, there until moving to Des Moines, IA in 1964. I was the Stocker Tech at Des Moines from '65 'til the strip closed in 1968. During the years of living in Des Moines, I built and raced an H/SA '57 Chevy sedan delivery (one of the cars later banned because of the G.M. Hydramatic trannies.)

In '76 I started writing magazine tech articles and car features, freelance, and sold several to Super Stock and Drag Illustrated, a popular magazine of the day, and a couple to other magazines. Also, did a bit of race coverage at Fremont, for Nat'l DRAGSTER after I moved to CA in 1980.

I hung it up after about 1994, and just became a fan. Retired from the San Francisco Chronicle's production dept. in 2004 (1980-2004,) and moved back to my native Arkansas and built a "hobby" bracket street/strip car, a Vortech-supercharged 360 Magnum-powered '72 Valiant. It runs high 11's @ about 116... no great shakes, but adequate for an old geezer on the street...

Drag racing been berry, berry, good to me, filling my life with excitement and fascinating technical tidbits for fifty-four years. I've never been a viable racer, but I've been to 46 different dragstrips in my life (by actual count.) I'm a much better fan than I am racer!

I am devastated to have witnessed what has happened to the NHRA over the last 20, or so years, on several different levels, but feel fortunate that we still have what we have, given the circumstances.

My other life-long hobby is playing jazz guitar. But, that's inconsequential in the extreme, here, so enough about that.

The bottom line is, I have seen this sport grow almost from its beginnings (attended the first-ever drag race season in Arkansas, in '55) and as such, probably have a somewhat different perspective that a lot of people.

But, I love it in all its forms... and don't ever doubt that. It's been my life.

Thanks for listening. I hope this clears up any misconceptions as to who I am, and what my motives are. If, indeed, anyone gives a rat's ass... LOL!

Bill
PS Totally forgot to mention that I was partners in a three or four Gas Coupes (one, blown) back in the late fifties/early sixties, not that it matters.

 

[MaC]

Bill,

Great to see all the posts. I guess us old guys got us a lotta time on our hand's!!!

Seriously folks, Bill Dedman is for real...a true drag racing fan from the earliest days. In the mid to late 50's...if you lived in Arkansas and Louisiana as Bill and I did...you were lucky if you had less than a multiple hour drive, with no interstates, to even find a drag strip...and almost all of them were on either abandoned or active airports.

Bill and I have talked numerous time when we would see each other at the races when Bill was located in CA and compared notes as to the "good old days".

Every time period has it's shining stars...and depending upon your age...your pick for the Good Ole Days will vary by decades.

Bill and I see eye to eye about those formative years in the sport and while I remained active for several decades longer...I will tell anyone I cherish the memories of the '50's thru the mid '70's. Was a different time and correspondingly, a different attitude from everyone.

Bill, great to see your posts and while we don't always...and probably never will...see things the same way, you certainly can get some folks thinking. And to me...that's the value of these conversations.

Hope things are well back there and if ever you make it to CA and the L.A. area...lunch is on me.

Stay well my friend and hope to see you soon.

MaC

 

[Bill]

Dave,

Thanks for the kind words! I am always astonished when I see your posts on here, in that I am sure even in your "retirement," you must have an unending stream of invitations to speak about our favorite subject, and are way busy! People will pay good money just to hear you talk, of that I am sure!

Nobody does it better...

I was fortunate to have gotten in on the ground floor of that deal.... (Carlisle, '59)

Keep on keepin' on, Dave! Great to hear from you!!! I'll take you up on that lunch one of these days. Say Hi to the TUNA TANK for me (the shirt still works; lots of comments!)

Bill

 

[Randy]

Big Mac checks in. Hope all is well, Dave. Still think of you whenever we pass a Waffle House.

Regarding the "fillers", I would suggest that the worst nightmare scenario is more on the shoulders of the Bernsteins, Cory Mac's, Tony Shoe's, and Antron Brown's when racing first round fillers than the "filler." Given the chance, wouldn't you like to be the person prestaged against the likes of Larry Dixon, knowing anything can happen.

When I switched to TA/FC I remember my first official race was against Bucky almost 20 years ago at the Winternationals. It was televised on NHRA Today so the pressure was on. Bucky was expected to beat me and he did. But If I somehow won it would have been on Bucky, not me.

The reason? The pros are given the nod before the green comes on by the announcers and everyone else. The veteran crew chief is looking at the ladder to see who they race in round two before the National Anthem is sung. Unfortunately, we've all seen it where the "filler" makes his typical run while the pro stumbles and smokes the tires. It's never a "gimmie" in drag racing, and the pressure to beat a "filler" can sometimes be worse on a seasoned veteran with more money than some guy who owns a country in the middle east than the guy who threw his wife's VW out of their 2 car garage to make room for the race car.

I can tell you from experience that at any time someone can walk into your pit and ask you why you don't run more races. You never know who they are. Next thing you know you are fully funded. And that will never happen if you are sitting on the couch come race day.

RG

 

[Nunz]

Jim, how can you judge someone who you deem they are blowing up their financial future to race? For 99% of the racers out there, including all the different sanctioning bodies, I would venture to say racing is not improving their financial picture, probably the opposite. This is kind of a crazy thread. Racers race, and we all predicted that with sponsors going away, we were likely to see more part-timers coming out and playing this year, and we have, which is a good thing. Like Randy says, if you're out there trying, you may get that visit to your pit that changes everything.

 

[FABMAN]

Dave,

Thanks for the kind words! I am always astonished when I see your posts on here, in that I am sure even in your "retirement," you must have an unending stream of invitations to speak about our favorite subject, and are way busy! People will pay good money just to hear you talk, of that I am sure!

Nobody does it better...

I was fortunate to have gotten in on the ground floor of that deal.... (Carlisle, '59)

Keep on keepin' on, Dave! Great to hear from you!!! I'll take you up on that lunch one of these days. Say Hi to the TUNA TANK for me (the shirt still works; lots of comments!)

Bill

Bill, I don't know you but keep the threads coming. I got to do my racing in the 70's to mid 80's when you had no worries other than if you could get off Friday so you could go racing. When I get my health straighten out I plan on getting out and racing with my grandchildren and show them how racing was when there was no electronics, just horsepower and driving abilities. My hats off to ya! Keep it up.

 

[hateful]

Bill, with no disrespect, if you don't like the quality of the cars don't watch them or build your own. It is quite obvious, even though you say it isn't so, that you don't know how hard it is to get a car to the track in the PRO categories. That, combined with the amount of sacrifice each person makes to get there should at least garner some respect from everyone. By insulting the cars, you are insulting everyone involved with those cars. Did they ask to be judged by some random person on the internet? No. They only sacrifice their time, sweat and some cases money to be out there. For what?

 

[Bill]

Kevin,

This is a discussion panel. As such, it is an invitation to folks to post different ideas, ideas perhaps not in the mainstream. That is not a license to insult, however, and I am at a loss as to exactly what I said that came off as an insult. That surely was NOT my intention.

Can you point out, verbatim, what I said that sounded like an insult to you?

I'd really appreciate it. I have repeatedly said how difficult (financially) it must be for independents, with no major sponsor, to do this. Does that sound like I think it's EASY?

My initial post was an effort to show the disparity in the competitive picture now, with three years ago, due to the disappearance of one set of cars, and their having been replaced with cars that wouldn't have made the show at that time. They are there to provide full fields; without them, there would be a lot of "bye runs." In an effort to identify those cars, the most expeditious thing was to call them what they are; "filler" cars, because that is their function, from a pragmatic standpoint.

That is in NO WAY meant to be an insult. If it insults anyone, maybe they need to go back and read the whole thread to realize that all I did was post the factual numbers. If they infer an insult in there, somewhere, then.... I just don't know any other way to present this.

I said I was glad they were there, and repeated at least TWICE how difficult it must be to be someone who could field a qualified car without a major sponsor. I just don't see an insult there.

Show me an insult in that... please... and I will apologize. None was intended. I don't knowingly do that; it would serve no purpose.

Bill

 

[luxexpress]

No offense to any of the "big guns," but I appreciate and have a bit more respect for the Greeks, Haddocks, Laganas, Hartleys, Zizzos, and other "fillers" you are out there year out and year in, racing on their own buck, racing for the love of the sport. They have little or no money. They know they aren't going to get a NHRA championship, and likely are not going to win the race. However, they are there, and when the cameras are off, are usually a lot more fun and accessable that the "big guns." Plus, when the "big guns" lose their sponsor and are left with the choice to race on their own buck, I think we see who is the real backbone of the sport. While I am a fan of anyone who runs a nitro car, pretty much anyone can run with a million dollars, or rich team owner behind them. But I am really fascinated and amazed by what some of the guys with neither can do.

 

[Bill]

Jesse Robinson wrote:

>>>>"Bill, I don't know you but keep the threads coming. I got to do my racing in the 70's to mid 80's when you had no worries other than if you could get off Friday so you could go racing. When I get my health straighten out I plan on getting out and racing with my grandchildren and show them how racing was when there was no electronics, just horsepower and driving abilities. My hats off to ya! Keep it up."

Thanks for the support, Jesse!!! I appreciate it. I'm sorry to hear you are having health problems. I can relate. Last year, I spent three continuous months in the hospital (July through Sept.) getting skin grafts done on my legs (diabetic ulcers that wouldn't heal due to insufficient circulation.)

That put a serious kink in my own racing plans as I had just finished up the installation of a Vortech supercharger on my play-toy, an old '72 Valiant 4-door sedan (sleeper?), and I hadn't gotten to drive it down the strip yet, so the anticipation and curiosity was KILLING me!!!

I'd wanted a supercharged car of my own all my adult life; now, I HAD ONE... but couldn't drive it!

Time fixes everything, though, so just wait... you'll be out there with those grandkids, giving them a righteous education in the art of turning rubber into smoke! Keep us posted on your progress!!!

As to my posts, don't worry; if they don't kick me off here, I'll be posting my so-called "mind" from time-to-time. Been doing it since the Prodigy days (early '90s), and can't seem to break the habit! LOL!


Have a good week!!!

Bill

 

[hateful]

Your quotes

"Well, we HAVE "full fields," but upon closer inspection it would appear that the quality of the cars represented at the bottom half of these qualified fields isn't what it used to be."

What do you see that isn't insulting here?

"T/F in 2009: .578, slowest to quickest"

Only two runs of qualifying and your using it as case study, you're insulting to our intelligence.

"That's why I think it's appropriate to call them "fillers," because that's what they are doing; filling up the vacant spots that faster, but absent, cars populated, before the financial crunch."

You are insinuating that none of us would be there if the "big guns" hadn't been sidelined. You shouldn't even call yourself a racer if that is what you think.

 

[Randy]

No offense to any of the "big guns," but I appreciate and have a bit more respect for the Greeks, Haddocks, Laganas, Hartleys, Zizzos, and other "fillers" you are out there year out and year in, racing on their own buck, racing for the love of the sport. They have little or no money.

Another thing you might want to point out is that racing with "little or no money" still means having a half million $$ (or more) wrapped up in a very modest truck, trailer, parts, tools, stuff and more stuff. Then, the $25,000 or so for the weekend just to show up and make a few runs provided everyone on the crew pays for their own hotel rooms, flights, food and such AND that you don't throw any parts on the ground.

For the "fillers" doing it "just for fun" they couild do quite a few things for that kind of money, and not be considered "fillers" doing it.

They get my respect, for sure.

 

[Bill]

Well, we HAVE "full fields," but upon closer inspection it would appear that the quality of the cars represented at the bottom half of these qualified fields isn't what it used to be."

What do you see that isn't insulting here?

What do YOU see that isn't TRUE? The cars are not as quick, and that's a fact. Since when is pointng out a FACT an "insult." I didn't make this up; these are hard numbers. You inferring that facts are inherently "insulting" is indicative of an attitude that would bear further discussion.


"T/F in 2009: .578, slowest to quickest"

Only two runs of qualifying and your using it as case study, you're insulting to our intelligence.

It's not a case study, and was never represented as such; it's one instance of what I thought was a "representative race." Can you demonstrate that as such, it's inacccurate?

"That's why I think it's appropriate to call them "fillers," because that's what they are doing; filling up the vacant spots that faster, but absent, cars populated, before the financial crunch."

You are insinuating that none of us would be there if the "big guns" hadn't been sidelined. You shouldn't even call yourself a racer if that is what you think.

What do the numbers tell you? If the bump was quicker than you ran, then you WOULDN'T "be there" (qualified and racing in the eliminations) in the field of three years ago. That's not insulting in any way; it's just a fact.

When did I call myself a racer? I didn't. And, I wouldn't. This is hard enough, without you putting words in my mouth. I did call myself a "fan," and as such, I like to discuss what I see. Lord knows, there's a lot to discuss about NHRA racing at this point in time.

What I perceive as the advent of "filler cars" (for want of a better term) happened to be something I thought was worthy of discussion simply because of what effect they had on the top-to-bottom stats at the St. Louis race. Do you think that the slowing of the field is something that should go totally unnoticed and un-noted in the interest of not "insulting" somebody, somewhere?

If everybody were that sensitive when presented with real numbers, this wouldn't be much of a forum.

My efforts to engender some discussion have been misconstrued as insulting.

I do apologize for that. None was intended.

But, having said that, reality bites, and slower is slower. No insult there; just fact. If you can demonstrate that the gap from the fastest to the slowest hasn't changed appreciably this year, feel free to do so; I'm here to learn.

Bill

 

[hateful]

Every race that has abbreviated qualifying has a relatively softer bump. Case in point, Pomona. I believe the bump was a 4.85. ( I know that because I get the qualifying sheets after run ) The exact same field except for one extra car went to phoenix and on a much worse track the bump jumped right down to a 4.09. And we are in the same position at Vegas two runs and a bump that is about a tenth and a half off. Anytime you take runs away from the teams BIG or FILLERS it hurts the bump spot.

As far as you not being racer just makes my point even more clear. Just another sideline critic.

This board has really gotten bad with all the "yeah but it ain't the same as a year ago" or "I hate 1000 feet". If you talk to the actual people who do this sport for a living or fun, you'll see that very few of them care about these issues.

Tell us where and when to race and whoever shows up, shows up.

 

[Shaggy]

Your numbers are not usable for a few reasons...

2 Qualifying sessions in 2009 - 4 in 2006

1000FT in 2009 - 1320FT in 2006

Totally different racetracks and weather...


Your using numbers that dont suit your point your trying to make...Might as well be comparing apples and oranges...

 

[Bill]

Kevin said:

>>"As far as you not being racer just makes my point even more clear."

I thought your point was that I had insulted somebody. How does my not being a racer affect that contention? Can non-racers fall victim to being accused of insulting people more readily than racers???

This whole discussion has degenerated into the absurd.

My email address is: [email protected]. If you have any more to say to me about this, please just send me an email; I'll answer you back. I'm sure that the folks who read this forum are not interested in your accusations nor my denials.

Let's give 'em a break....

Bill

 

[Guppy]

the teams that are "filling" out the fields are competing because it is what they want to do and there are opportunities right now. Yes, they are competitive personalities with egos that get beat down. But they will keep coming back as long as they can find a way.

You cannot win unless you enter and play the game. Opportunity will come knocking when you least expect it, and you have to be ready to open the door when it does knock.

The teams work hard and can take pride in the little victories. These can include but not be limited to: Qualifying, expecially above a sponsored team or two, winning a round or two when it isn't expected, leaving an event with more money and parts than you arrived with, meeting new friends, and/or meeting a potential backer or supporter.

Niether hra pays teams to compete at their national events. All teams pay the same surcharge for insurance, same amount as all entrants to an event. They will sometimes point you in the direction of an income producing event off track that the larger teams are unable to accomodate.

Compare these teams with the extras on any major league stick and ball team. Why do they work so hard for such little playing time? Because they are part of the elite of the world that get to compete with the best on the big stage in their chosen field.

well said virgil!!!!!

 

[Bill]

Eric said:"1000FT in 2009 - 1320FT in 2006"

The numbers generated by 1000-ft race tracks should be closer than the ones from 1320, so the fact that the race track was shorter this year would actually make the numbers CLOSER, not farther apart, so that factor doesn't do much to invalidate the e.t.'s I used.

But, I agree with your contention that it was a very poor choice of races to compare, for the other reasons you mentioned.

Thanks for your input, Eric!

Bill

 

[Nunz]

Randy, that was a good post, I enjoy your posts, like Virgil's and others, because it's coming from a racer's perspective. It's funny how people describe low-buck or underfunded teams, I would bet most would be shocked to find out how much these teams have invested in equipment and what kind of financial commitment it takes to pull the rig out of the driveway and head to an event.