Toyota Supra in Stock Eliminator (Poll)

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Sgrossi7158

Daren, thank you for the response to my question. I think what you are doing in terms of adding an exciting new car/combination to Stock Eliminator is a good thing and your hard work should be commended.

Thanks!

However, one does not have to look back too far to see the results of what I believe is over generous NHRA HP ratings related to new cars/combinations.
For example, 2010 INDY; 11 of the top 16 qualifiers were 2008-2010 entries.
2011 INDY; all top 16 qualifiers were 2008-2011 entries.

I guess that was all Drag Paks and Cobra Jets? My thought is that it would be better to look at more years if you want to make a fair argument. I can think of more than a few combinations that are really strong when the AHFS is turned off.

In my opinion, new cars/combinations in Stock Eliminator should be competitive, but they should not be dominating classes full of previous top qualifiers that have been flogging out there combinations for the past 20+ years.

That assumes that the performance increases are all due to "flogging". But, not "enhancements". Why shouldn't a new car be Bad ***** right out of the box?

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by GUMP

Thanks!


That assumes that the performance increases are all due to "flogging". But, not "enhancements". Why shouldn't a new car be Bad ***** right out of the box?

Why should a new car immediately be able to negate all of the hard work, development, and investment of combinations people have had for a long time?

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Why should a new car immediately be able to negate all of the hard work, development, and investment of combinations people have had for a long time?

People were asking pretty much the same questions when the "supercars" ruined everything in the sixties....

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by GUMP

People were asking pretty much the same questions when the "supercars" ruined everything in the sixties....

"It's happened before" is no excuse for it to happen again. History is to be learned from, not repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

"It's happened before" is no excuse for it to happen again.

I wasn't talking about the cars. I was talking about the crying...

[Dyno]

Last year at Indy, there were 5 ?Newer FS cars? in the top 16 for Stock. It seems to have leveled out from 10 - 12 years ago.

[Rory McNeil]

Originally Posted by Dyno

Last year at Indy, there were 5 ?Newer FS cars? in the top 16 for Stock. It seems to have leveled out from 10 - 12 years ago.

Do you honestly think that "10-12 years" is a reasonable amount of time for soft make believe paper combinations to "level out? Certainly you must also remember how many years it took some of the modern EFI cars, like the 4th gen Camaros (and Firebirds), with both the LT1 and LS engines to finally move up 5 or 6 classes, and how many older combinations were essentially "Robbed" in Class or heads up races in eliminations.

[Crisco]

Originally Posted by GUMP

I wasn't talking about the cars. I was talking about the crying...

Congratulations on having 2(!) threads about your car.

[goinbroke2]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Why should a new car immediately be able to negate all of the hard work, development, and investment of combinations people have had for a long time?

Reminds me of flathead fords that were 90hp. Bored/stroked/relieved/blown and they get 200hp! Then in 55 the overhead valve sbc was introduced with 200hp in a family car.

Technology is great, but shouldn't replace hard work. So the question becomes, how do you stop newer technology from dumping all over older tech that was messaged to get where it is?
Factor it correctly.

What happened when fwd cars came out? The hp/weight didn't take into account of the natural problem of pulling the car compared to pushing the car so they were factored by themselves (fwd classes)

What happened when turbos became common? Spec's for turbos to prevent "cranking it up and dominating" (buddy ingersol turbo pro stock)

What happened when blowers became common? Pulley dia spec's.

The common denominator is that newer tech is "better" than old tech so adjustments have to be made. Put it in a class that it doesn't immediately dominate or bump it up a class (add hp)

Not against toyota joining the fun, just want it done fairly. It's all a moot point until the first pass is made, then if it's 1/2 sec off the index and has to start like everyone else, fine. If it's -1.00 out of the gate then yes, adjustments need to be made.
You can't factor a 1965 sbc the same as a 5.3ls.

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

Not against toyota joining the fun, just want it done fairly. It's all a moot point until the first pass is made, then if it's 1/2 sec off the index and has to start like everyone else, fine. If it's -1.00 out of the gate then yes, adjustments need to be made.

So, in your world. I can build a 1969 Camaro with a 396/375 that will run 1.20 under and not use one original part in the entire car, that would be OK? But, if I build a new Supra from the ground up using the same rulebook and it runs 1.00, it should be penalized?