Fellow QSAC Members,
This is an open letter to all the QSAC members. Given some feedback we have received from some of the membership regarding the recent sprint car rules change proposal, as well as the intent and outcome of the RRC process, we believe it is a good idea to walk through our intentions, and thoughts. The intention of this letter is to be as transparent as possible with the membership. At the same time, we fully realize that we cannot, and more than likely, will not, make the entire membership happy with our leadership choices. Our hope is that there is at least a better understanding after reading this letter.
Let’s address intentions; we (Dave and Denny) both feel we absolutely did what was in the best interest of QSAC as an organization with the submittal of this proposal to the Rules Ratification Committee (RRC). This is stated with the mindset of looking forward, and specifically the rules and technical specifications of the Sprint Car class. Going forward, the rules change will generate a much more uniform look for all sprint cars, regardless of manufacturer; a unified set of rules that pull all the varieties together under one umbrella.
What is the impact to the sprint car class? Prior to this proposal and rules change, there were opportunities for creative interpretation of how wings could look, as well as how and where they could be mounted. The rules change that was voted in addressed how a front wing was mounted so the opportunity for a “wind-tunnel” effect was erased.It provides a set distance from the chassis for the center section vertically, as well as side-to-side with regard to the side dams of the front wing. This results in a definite visual separation of the front wing from the body.
Regarding the center sections of both the front and top wings, there were discussions via social media about the pros and cons of airfoil versus slab/flat constructed center sections for wings. With the change, there is now a clear choice of wing construction, as well as measurable values that will provide clear direction for technical inspection. The racer has a choice for their wing center sections; flat/slab Lexan wing, or an airfoil shaped. Individuals weighed in on social media about the benefit of one style versus the other. Now the racer has a choice, and the choice has measurable boundaries. We are certain individuals will think one option is better than the other, or that one will provide better performance than the other, but that’s the main reason for choice. We look at this similar to how we look at tires; one racer may prefer a 96 for a RF; one racer may prefer a 96Z for a RF, while another may prefer a split-band for a RF. Similarly, one racer may swear by a TNT shock, another likes JR Quarterscale Center-flow shocks, while another likes Invader shocks, and yet another likes WCM DRX shocks; the individual has a choice. With the new rules, a racer has a choice of his wing center section, with the respective size and measurements clearly defined. Some of you may not agree with this direction, believing that allowing a flat/slab Lexan style wing is inappropriate. The fact remains that this style of wing has been around and used for a long time; long before a certain manufacturer came out with its own version of a flat/slab Lexan wing a little over a year ago. In fairness, the introduction of the wing caused some stir and a formal rules change proposal request. This also created discussions about tightening up the loose sprint car rules overall; specifically to drive toward a more consistent visual look out on the track.
All of these changes were driven by a voiced concern to have ALL sprint cars to closely resemble one another while on the track. We firmly believe when viewed from on the track or from the drivers stand, an individual will be hard pressed to determine which type of wing a particular sprint car is utilizing. The only appearance difference that should be remotely noticeable on the track, after this rule change, will be a difference in overall height. This overall height difference is a byproduct of a certain manufacturer fully reading and reviewing the existing rules package prior to creating a new sprint car. The manufacturer chose to take advantage of the 9.5″ minimum frame height requirement. In contrast, other manufacturers chose to create a frame that is taller than the minimum requirement of 9.5″; that was their choice as this 9.5″ overall frame height rule has been in place since 2013.
Looking back at our rules packages prior to 2011, there was no definition for the height of a sprint car frame; it did not exist. The addition of a visual image of the side of a sprint car, along with a minimum height measurement was instituted in the QSAC Rules Package for the year 2011. When the minimum height was added to the 2011 Rules Package, the value was 10″ minimum, and it was measured from the ground (not the actual frame height). In 2013, the rule was changed to a minimum height of 9.5″, and this value was specifically for the frame overall height; this was not a measurement from the ground as was the case previously in 2011 and 2012. If an individual looks at this objectively, it is more than likely a ride height of .500″ or more is normal for racing set-up. Previously the rule was 10″ minimum frame height from the ground, then it was changed to 9.5″ frame overall height, regardless of its position relative to the ground (meaning ride height had no influence on the frame measurement). We believe it is reasonable to look back over this change and state there should have been no real difference between sprint cars should a manufacturer choose to work toward the minimum frame height value listed in the rules package. Objectively, all of this uproar over the visual difference between some of the sprint cars currently available comes down to .5″. Step back and think about that for a moment. Under the rules as defined in 2011 and 2012, a racer could run a minimum of .500″ ride height AND have a frame that was 9.5″ tall, all the while still meeting the rules definition. Granted, this illustration was contingent on maintaining a ride height, but it was still feasible. So, the frame height rule change fundamentally had ZERO impact on the possible visual look of the sprint cars.
In addition to the changes to the wing rules, provisions were made to prevent any creative ideas of having cambered rear ends on sprint cars, reduced the allowable amount of body panel overlap relative to the frame, and greatly reducing the opportunity for body panels to get out of control. Each and every change was to provide a level of boundary, specification definition, and specification measurement.
Regarding the original proposal for these rules changes, the rules change proposal was first presented to the RRC on December 5th, 2019. During the course of the original proposal, there were a couple of mistakes with dimensional values, and errors that were brought up.In addition, through the dialogue in the RRC, it was clear further tweaks were needed. We (the Co-Chairs) felt it was in the best interest of all parties to withdraw the proposal with the intention of re-evaluating the errors, addressing concerns that were shared, and re-submitting a second rules change proposal to the RRC within a short period of time. This second rules change request, or part two, was submitted to the RRC on January 2nd, 2020. This was announced to the membership via the QSAC website and shared to the Benchtalk FB page. Discussion took place between January 2nd and January 12th, 2020, with the final vote due by a set time on January 12th, 2020. As was outlined in the results of this RRC process, all but one member of the RRC cast their vote on the rules change proposal. Mark Hogue (WCM principle owner) chose to not cast a vote (abstention). Mark’s sentiment was that he felt inclined to bow out of the vote since the WCM Sprint Car was a main topic of discussion from members wanting to see rules changes addressed or made to the sprint car class. The abstention by Mark puts that vote in the hands of the Co-Chairs. Taking into consideration the abstention, the final result was a vote of 5 in favor of the rules changes, and 3 not in favor of the rules changes.
As we wind down this long letter, we would like to address a concern that was brought to us regarding the RRC members and their respective membership status with QSAC through rules change process. When this original process started in late December, all members of the RRC were in good standing with their QSAC membership. In our attempt to reconcile this rules change through a second effort, we believe we operated in good faith by submitting the revised rules change proposal as quick as reasonably possible given the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. While some of the RRC may not have had their membership renewed for 2020 when the second attempt at the rules proposal was submitted, each and every one were a paid member in good standing when this whole process started in late December, 2019. While most RRC members have renewed their memberships for 2020, and we are absolutely positive the other members of the RRC have every intention of renewing their membership; we are sharing this to dispel any conspiracy theories or thoughts otherwise. There was absolutely no ill-intent to bypass any semblance of the Bylaws, or foster an illegitimate vote to get this proposal passed. The vote ultimately belongs to the members of the RRC. Our thought and intention was each RRC member involved in the first proposal process would still be the ones making the final vote; no matter when that took place.
In closing, we want to convey that each and every thing that we (Dave and Denny) do, say, and create while we are in our elected roles as QSAC Co-Chairs is done with the absolute best interest of the organization and its future. We truly want to be as transparent as possible to our entire membership. We want to hear from you; we want you to be comfortable reaching out to us; we want you to be involved and invested in quarter scale and QSAC. Please; we ask you to reach out to us with questions, concerns, comments, or anything else.Our phone numbers and email addresses are listed on the QSAC.org website. Additionally, we are both available vie messenger on Facebook, or by connecting with us through the QSAC page on Facebook. We are truly open and willing to talk with all of the membership. We want to ensure a bright and fruitful future for QSAC and quarter scale racing.
Thank you for taking the time and energy to read this letter; we appreciate it greatly.
One last thing! Pre-registration for the best race of the year is OPEN! The 2020 QSAC National Championship is just around the corner and it’s being hosted by the great group of racers at DFW Speedway in Burleson, Texas this coming June 8th through the 12th! It’s Texas; everything is BIG, and there is Barbeque close to the track! Get pre-registered now to get your event t-shirt reserved!
Thank you,
Dave Dygon
Denny Andrews Jr.
QSAC Co-Chairs