Originally Posted by Billy Nees
(Post 528816)
I am posting a copy of a letter that was sent to the NHRA over a year ago by Dwight, Yac and I. We received no response at the time from them so I am posting it here hoping for a better response from the Racing Community. Please, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
OBTW, I can't take any credit for the actual writing of the letter, that credit should go to Dwight!
Dear NHRA,
This letter is to propose for consideration a change or addition in policy concerning Stock and Super Stock Eliminators with the purpose of encouraging participation by current non-participants. While these suggestions are not meant to be a panacea to “cure all the ills”, there are indications and evidence to support an argument that they could increase participation. While this is primarily pointed toward Stock Eliminator, the principle could be applied to Super Stock as well.
Let us lay out some facts and descriptions of characteristics of racing in Stock Eliminator that are relevant. Consider the following:
Building a competitive Stock Eliminator car is neither inexpensive nor easy in the current environment. Newer factory produced race car combinations are on the upper level of the cost to build race cars.Changes in technology away from rear wheel drive vehicles have reduced the choices of competitive combinations to older cars. Most of the current sets of older competitive race car combinations have been refined to the point that the most technologically advanced cars set the power ratings and thus the standard of performance. “Technologically advanced” equates to expensive and less attractive. Older car bodies are being removed from use for recycling thus reducing the choices for race car combinations. Now, I would like to point out some related behavior in Stock Eliminator racing.
When Paul Wong, or whoever the initiator, got the ’86 Chevrolet pickup accepted into the classification pool, everybody knew that it was a very favorable combination because of the power rating assigned to it. Now there are at least three of those that are being raced and their performance is noted and followed throughout the Stock Eliminator community. Two are being raced by people who were not racing before.
When the full sweep of defactoring of the 1973-1979 Ford 302 2-bbl engines took place, the Stock Eliminator racers recognized the ability for car combinations using those engines to be competitive. As a result, the participation for Ford 302 2-bbl combinations grew from possibly two to now having eight cars in competition across the country, with more on the way. All of those cars except the original two are being raced by new racers.
Bob Shaw has worked to come up with several race car combinations that have been very competitive because of their favorable power ratings. In several cases, he ended up selling his cars to people who wanted to race competitively but could not afford the expense of high tech racing. Bob’s cars have been affordable and thus he is personally responsible for three new racers over the years who have purchased his cars.The major defactoring of the 318 Chrysler 2-bbl engines that occurred several years ago has been responsible for several cars built that would not have been built before.
The logical truth is that a car that will run the index supposedly has the potential to win, but the truth is that it rarely happens. Heads-up races and changing environmental conditions require that a racer be able to perform relative to the index with the majority of the field. Also, the ego part of the racing experience plays a major part in people’s inspiration to race. Since Stock Eliminator carries the image of a performance category, the ability to be able to run under the index in whatever class is a major factor for most racers. In the examples cited above, most of the possible combinations would have been able to run the index when properly prepared. But the attractiveness of a stellar performance is a major factor in the now popularity of those race cars. Also, if each competitor represented in the above examples were interviewed, every one would state that the favorable power rating was the encouragement to build their cars.
So what this letter is about is to propose a change in policy for NHRA regarding the defactoring of certain engines that have never been raced before due to an unattractive power rating. The hope would be to add racers to the Stock Eliminator racing pool and thus help NHRA to increase participation, promote championship drag racing at the grassroots level, and to give some racers an opportunity to participate in class racing that seems to be further and further out of reach. The implementation of this proposal will result in lots of discussion and concern within the racing community. However, the basis of ultimate support for making it acceptable is that the AHFS will eventually level any competitive advantage that would result, much as it does now with the factory race cars and is doing with the combinations mentioned in the example above.
Billy Nees, Mark Yacavone and I have been immersed in Stock Eliminator drag racing for over 40 years each. We have each been intrigued with ferreting out untried, competitive combinations during our racing years and especially those combinations that could be built and raced on a budget. We have collaborated on this proposal with the hopes of increasing interest and participation in Stock Eliminator. We would each be behind the effort to promote it, defend it and encourage it throughout the racing community. We also volunteer our opinions and advice for any considerations that the Tech Department might have as purely professional and analytical advice. We ask for your consideration for this proposal.
Sincerely,
Billy Nees
Dwight Southerland
Mark Yacavone
Proposal One: NHRA Tech Department will allow a racer to request a reduction in the power rating of any engine in the technical bulletins and classification guide, even when the engine has not been raced at an NHRA Championship Event and the racer does not even have a race car that uses the engine in the request. A form would be available on the NHRA Racer web site and the status of all requests would be publicized on a page on that site to reduce duplication of requests. If multiple requests were submitted for the same engine, the first would be the only one considered.
Basic Guidelines for the request:
1) Engine does not have a history of being raced or has not performed better than -.4 sec against the current index.
2) Has to be listed in the class guide and tech bulletins.
3) Maximum reduction 20% of current listed power rating or to the OEM listed and advertised rating, whichever is a higher rating.
4) This is a one-time deal only.* Once a reduction is granted, then the AHFS takes over.
5) Request has to be in writing and the engine clearly defined.
6) Reduction must apply across all manufacturer-models that use the engine. No one-off rating for a particular body style or model.
7) Engine cannot currently have an assigned factor in another manufacturer-model.
8) Engine has to be a unique combination based on some critical component part. For example, a Chev 327 300hp engine from a Corvette that has not been factored could not be reduced to 240 when a 327 275hp engine from a Camaro has the same specs but carries an NHRA-assigned factor.
Optional Proposal Two: NHRA Technical Department will reduce all pre-1971 engine combinations that have no current NHRA-assigned power rating by 20% and reduce all 1972 and later engines to their OEM-assigned rating if the engine has no current NHRA-assigned power rating.
|