Has anyone changed their mind about AA/SA index?

[Billy Nees]

Oh, I forgot R. We take it in the pants for another tenth for R and T then U gets back a tenth. U to V is a 2lb. difference and V gets shorted .05 AND it's 6 cyl. only.

[HR9121]

Originally Posted by Mike Carr

Yes, I forgot K and L were close together. The rest are all .15 apart. I don't know why K and L are so close.

2 tenths between J and K also. 12.45 to 12.65

[Larry Hill]

AA/S and AA/SA my car does not fit anymore, so I don't and should not have a say!

[Jim Bailey]

Larry, I guess that gives me a little say! (laughing) Here's the key :

Who is willing to give up 0.40 seconds for 200 lbs.?????? Raise your hand !!!!

10.60 index is tuff if you race a lot... I made a lot of runs last year, in a lot of different weather conditions. If you only run Gainesville, Englishtown, Atco, Reading, Sonoma, Pomona, and other mineshaft venues, it's nice to run your car all out and not have to worry about an HP hit. However, if you wanna travel a little and race a lot, it's a tuff index. You're gonna have trouble at places like Indy and now the Sportsnations with qualified 128 car fields and 200 entries.

The index should be 10.75 or at the very least 10.70. To "protect" our combo, sometimes we might have to run our cars like normal stocker racers, but, for the most part it would be much better and a much leveler playing field.

Taking a little hp off won't help. We'd just drop into A/SA, that would cause some ****.

The fair and correct thing for NHRA to do is adjust the AA/S and AA/SA index.

It doesn't matter to me ... I'm gonna race -

[Mike Delahanty]

I ran AA/SA all last year - ran CC/SA the year before. I don't think it hurt my racing program one bit - but I didn't go to Indy.

I'm just fine with the 10.60 index.

[Jim Bailey]

And you ran how many NHRA National Events in the last two years Mike ?

[Jim Bailey]

Another consideration for NHRA (and AA/ stock racers) would be that a more favorable index might attract more cars to the class. Many of the fast A cars might take some weight out and come play. This would increase competition (chances for heads up races),and an interest in the fastest stock class. (As Races we forget that we are a performance based class.) An increase in the Class Car count would help a lot.

My final thought is - looking down the road : With the addition of the "New" cars to traditional Stock Eliminator, ( Like Jeff's beautiful Pink Drag Pac Showroom Challenger ), it's only a matter of time before some legal showroom street engine combos will be approved, or AHFS will move these cars into A - and AA stock. A reasonable index for AA will help bring HP factors for these cars into line much faster, and will delay the "OLD" musclecars demise into NSS.

[Mike Keener]

Nobody could have said it better Jim!

[Bruce Noland]

Based on the performance of some very fast cars at Indy, I think softening up the AA indexes by .200 would be a fair move. And that would still put these cars near the bottom of the sheet.

[Mike Keener]

The only car at Indy I saw was Jim Bailey who ran 9.90. Earlier in the season he ran a 9.68 in Div 2 but Indy ain't Florida.

The fastest time recorded anywhere in 2015 was in Div 7 at Sonoma when Chuck Rayburn went 9.61 which would maybe equate to about 9.80 or so at Indy last year. Unfortunately 9.80 would be no where near good enough since it took .870 under to get in to the field. Good luck to any AA car capable of running 9.72 (good for the 128th spot) in those conditions.

Rayburn's car is extremely fast but If this is the fastest AA has to offer there can't be a reason good enough not to bring this index ALONG WITH OTHERS OBVIOUSLY OUT OF WHACK pointed out by Billy, Mike Carr, etc back in to line where they belong.