Re: Index Change Rumor
 

How come you pick on the 302 FFFords? It's all I can aFFFord and Im having a blast. Entry level and dont cost an arm and a leg to build. Geez

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

For the racers that want no Heads Up Racing what's wrong with you ?? I have lost a lot of heads up races but tried hard to go faster. Its part of class racing, leave it a lone !!!!!

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

What is the end game here.What are we trying to accomplish by changing the system.

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

Robbie, not picking on Fords or the people that operate them, it was referencing gracious gift to the 302 to make them instantly #1 Q, in a multitude of body combos. I mean come on BJ out west battered that combo several times and can still go 1 second under if she wanted to. But that's another story, this one is about a rumor that several racers would like to see come true.
Pete, I wrote to them people twice, with graphs and comparison sheets when the Buicks, and the Banana car (Cutlass) were dropped into U/SA, all they did was give the Dodges with a better carb an even weight break with me. Guess they could care less about a station wagon in U/SA and I've given up hope and any form of goodness coming from Glendora.
Bob, I've had so many defeats in Class that I consider it a one time time trial.
OK, time to come clean, I do it for the money.

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

Ron
The truth of the matter is that the 302 Ford went from a ridiculous 200 hp where a very good car could just run the index to factory hp. You complain about BJ's car without ever seeing it. Believe me it wasn't instantly #1 material. That car is a VERY good car with all of the tricks . A lot of time and money was spent on that combination and it's not my first rodeo. The HP is about right now. Almost any class has cars that can run 1.3 to 1.5 under. They just don't show it.

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

Mike, I was referencing your car as it was the fastest out of all of them. I know that you flogged it to get it where it is at, and I trust Billy's judgement on how hard you two work, but it was a real nice gift to begin with. I bet you could go .5 under to begin with. I mention you both as you hit that index several times, and still can run way under. Mind you I'm not talking about you, it is your combo that most of the racing community knew was going to be fast to begin with, that NHRA allowed.
When I first got my car, it fit real nice into U/SA also, and after years I got to go pretty fast, but never 1 second under, they kept lowering the index or the Dodges would get hit with HP and me too.
My concern is with the index getting lowered.

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

There are a lot of you that need to quit drinking the kool aid, put your bong down and lay off the PBR's.

This is Class racing, if you don't want heads up get the F out. What the F are you thinking this is a performance base class.

Do the combos need to be even out YES
Changing the index only helps the fast guys and gals

To make this **** work, the Afhs

Put Indy back in the mix.

Get rid of mine shaft rule.

Quit publishing the Avg's

Change the triggers

Something needs to be done with combos with lots of cars, as posted above example the LS, look at 69 Camaro, i am sure there is more examples of these.

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

Sorry if I offended anybody. I foolishly assumed cars running less than .5 under were slowed down. I stupidly thought it would allow guys to pull that extra weight, etc, and just run them. I apologize.

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

Jon Irving is my son (Finished 3rd Stock/5th SS in Div. 7)

He runs a 71 Duster 340 in SS and a 73 Satellite 400
and they are plenty fast/expensive and great combos =
(SS)340 High comp @ 268HP
(Stock) 400 Alum. Head @ 296HP


My Cars:
80 Aspen 318/155 @ 235HP = SS/KA or SS/LA -.1 to .25 under
78 Aspen 318/150@230HP = N/SA or O/SA -.5 at Pomona (Best Run of the Year)

Re: Index Change Rumor
 

I've been reading this thread daily, and have come to exactly the same point as the gentleman above. What does dropping the indexes actually do? If a guy with a 1.35 under combination has his index dropped by, say, 3 tenths, he's now got a 1.05 under combination. If he's a consistent class winner/number 1 qualifier, he'll still be at that point, because the guys who are always close to him have their "capability number" dropped by the same margin. Do people think the guys who can run 1.20/1.30/1.40 under will take out the weight, put the timing back where it should be, shift at the "real" RPM, etc., because the index is lower? They won't. They'll just continue to win class and qualify number 1, but now at 1.00 under. And I hear (but don't agree with) the argument that "It's a performance class". It hasn't been a performance class for decades. It's a "money and combination class". If you can afford the cost, you can either spend enough to make a bad combination good, or you can just buy a combination that's crazy soft, and run it, until it gets horsepower factor-neutralized. To prove my point, has anyone seen a situation where a traditionally fast guy got slow, over time? They just keep spending, or (more commonly), changing cars and/or combinations. Used to be that the sharpest, hardest-working guys were the fast ones, but those days are LONG gone. The people who cry and say the current system's unfair should remember that first, they made the conscious decision to race Stock or Super Stock; second, all they have to do go become a winner is open their wallet; and third, there are alternatives, like Super Gas, Super Comp, Top Dragster, Top Sportsman, etc., where every car is "fast enough" to win.