ShareThis Page
Two good starts, one decent finish |

Two good starts, one decent finish

| Friday, June 6, 2003 12:00 a.m

We got to race twice again last weekend, even though Jennerstown was on Sunday instead of Saturday.

At Motordrome last Friday, we scored a third in our heat after starting eighth. Our car was real good, but then we really got lucky when we pulled a second-place start for the feature. After a couple of laps, I got past pole-sitter Mark Poole for the lead and held the point for the next 10 laps or so. Meanwhile, Neil Brown, who put a crate motor in last week (I don’t blame him) and explained to the fans before the race its advantage, was making his way up through the field. He eventually got past me for the win, while I finished second. That was the third time this year that we finished second to a crate motor car at Motordrome.

It’s a shame for our team and sponsors that we aren’t being given a fair chance to defend our championship at Motordrome. The crate motor concept should have been slowly initiated into the program instead of being the dominant engine right from the start. Is it a coincidence that crate motor cars have won three out of the five races so far at Motordrome• I don’t think so.

Saturday racing at Jennerstown was moved to Sunday because of rain. We started fourth in the heat and finished second. We knew we had a loose car in the turns and thought we’d better tighten it up for the feature. We then pulled the outside of the front row for the start, which was great.

Unfortunately, as soon as the race started I knew that our adjustments hadn’t worked because it was still very loose. I fought the thing around the track the whole race while steadily losing positions. So we ended up finishing a disappointing seventh after starting in the front. When it was all said and done, we found a failed shock was the culprit.

Tonight is a 100-lap special at Motordrome. Saturday we’re back to Jennerstown to give it another go.

See you at the races.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.