Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Ed and Phil, you guys need to learn how to use the QUOTE function.

You got me there little fella

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Check your PM's, bud.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Going back to using class winners ONLY and inspect each one in teardown (let the GOOD tech guys do their jobs) for the eliminator would cure all this BS of shutting off at 1000 ft. It would also make the AHFS system work like it should especially if the trigger was brought down to .8 under. Get rid of that farthest under qualifyer and a lot of the bogus and high dollar stuff will start to go away. Thats the way it was done for years until the slow guys whined. If you didnt win class you got to watch on Sunday.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

it does not matter if they raise the index 2 seconds or lower it 5 seconds, it is still just a bracket race. and if you run someone in your exact class, and run 3 seconds under or 5 seconds over the car with the power wins. i love superstock, but it has lost the mystique. we have no real fan base like they had in the 70s.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Gump, I don't have a problem with any of the new cars. As long as the car can be purchased at the dealer, titled, and legally driven home. Then and only then should the car be eligible to be factored and compete as a Stocker. Stevie Wonder can tell the difference between a Drag Pac Challenger and a Showroom Challenger, or a New Showroom Mustang and a New Cobra Jet. I'm talking about "Purpose Built Factory Racecars". They are Superstockers.. period.. end. If you're gonna let them in stock, give them their own class or limit them to AA. I'll take my lumps (already have) and hope that the AHFS works, but wait for the whinning when the New Challenger starts showing up with the other "approved" engine combos and it infiltrates the lower classes....JB

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Jim is right on they are SS cars. The drag pak cars have the rear moved up 1/2 inch just like the showroom cars,,,,,,NOT, so they must be SS not to mention the intakes and alum oil pans OH I said not to mention that. Stock my a..

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

I know a way to factor all the cars, make them use the stock valve spring pressures and you'll see them all slow down. No need to refactor anyone engine, it'll be done on it's own.

Casey Miles
248H

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Which reminds me of another suggestion I've made before: Each class should have a minimum AND maximum weight. If you're running heavy enough to run the next class, then you should be required to run that class. This is actually born out by the rulebook labeling classes as 10.00 - 10.49, 10.50 - 10.99, etc... NOT 10.00 and up, 10.50 and up, etc.

Consider:
- Min & Max weights
- combined classes (1.0 weight breaks, sticks & autos, or both)
Results in:
- cars no longer running 200lbs heavy
- more heads-up runs
- cars will quickly factor themselves to realistic numbers
- guys can still get started in Stock relatively easily with the "soft" indexes, but are incentivized to make their cars faster.


In all fairness, again, I'm not campaigning for these things... just academic discussion. Doesn't bother me either way if they adopt these things or not. It *would* bother me if they dropped all the indexes .50, as it effectively legislates cars out that are not hurting anything (In fact, quite the opposite... easy pickin's, right?) ;)

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Michael, as a point in fact, some of the racers that were in "teardown" this past weekend at Z-Max were asked how much ballast they were carrying and where it was located. They were then given a good looking over. Fact finding mission?

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

One year of No Break out Eliminations at National Events would Make for fast correction of HP factors when combined with a 1.00 under Monday Trigger. THIS WOULD FIX THE WEAK HP CARS>
PAY BIGGER money for eliminator to make it worth the work to run and win also.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

I have asked racers who do it, "How do you legally pull over 100 lbs out for a heads-up race?" Not one answer so far.

It's not nice to ignore old people's questions. :D

100 lbs total for the ballast and the box, then additional weight bars are supposed to have the nuts welded to the mounting bolts. Cutting those 1/2" bolts must be a real pain. :D

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Make everyone run off their indexes for a while. Wow would that keep AHFS busy!

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

I actually like this idea.

But there it does pose a problem for a small portion of combinations. Some big cars that are on the heavier side of a 1 pound weight break might not be able to make the minimum weight break in their class. I'm guessing it would be a small minority. But how do you deal with that. In example if you have a B car that is 8.90, there is a good chance you have a hard time making minimum weight. The only options I can see are giving them a way to lighten their car more, which is a whole different can of worms, or you can let cars that within .25 of the top of their class move up. Does that make sense? It's not perfect. But forcing some cars to become completely obsolete, simply because they can't come within 100 pounds of minimum, does not seem to be perfect either.

And in case you are wondering, this is hypothetical. This would not be a problem for me personally, I would meet the minimum just fine.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Ed Wright

I'm sure that I'm older than you so I'll answer try to your question on the removal of 100 lbs. I play with weight quite a bit and I can actually remove a lot more than 100 lbs legally.

!00 lbs. ballast
50 lbs. remove 2nd 16 volt battery and brackets
10 lbs.1.5 gallon fuel out of 3 gal. cell
10 lbs remove large bias tires and replace with small radials

170 lb total

In my car that is close to .2 et. Not to bad of an increase and with a little help it can be done in 15-20 minutes.

By the way the NHRA Tech guys do some times police the "100 lb rule". I have been pulled over at least twice in the past several years and ask how I lost X amount of lbs. from one run to the next.

Take care
Dave Layer

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

As stated before: factor the combos correctly. Adding a small percentage of weight to a car that triggers and is already 200 to who knows what heavy does nothing except give the guys with an underfactored combination a big laugh. It dosne't surprise me at all that alot of stockers can get under the SS indexes by as much as .8 as soft as some of the combos are rated. Same way in SS. Also a small cam swap can make those factory "lookalike" cylinder heads work better. Like mentioned before rpm potential with higher spring pressures are one cause. Also to set that up correctly it is alot more than $800.00.
I've seen too many under factored combos built that will run 1.3 under still carrying some weight and they are fast right from the start. Day one. Built and maintained by people that haven't been faster than .8 under in the last 20 years in anything. When someone who knows how to work smart builds one then you get the 1.5 under and higher figures.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

SEAN Says "I 100% agree with your idea of moving the trigger to 1.00 and factoring EVERYBODY at once. That would work well. But it seems like the vast majority of class racers don't think they should get h.p. no matter how fast they run. And in the interest of disclosure, it would benefit me as well. Only a few people are running the 300hp 350 (290 hp factor). And I don't think any of them run under a second. So naturally, I support this!"

MICHAEL Says "Which reminds me of another suggestion I've made before: Each class should have a minimum AND maximum weight. If you're running heavy enough to run the next class, then you should be required to run that class. This is actually born out by the rulebook labeling classes as 10.00 - 10.49, 10.50 - 10.99, etc... NOT 10.00 and up, 10.50 and up, etc.

Consider:
- Min & Max weights
- combined classes (1.0 weight breaks, sticks & autos, or both)
Results in:
- cars no longer running 200lbs heavy
- more heads-up runs
- cars will quickly factor themselves to realistic numbers
- guys can still get started in Stock relatively easily with the "soft" indexes, but are incentivized to make their cars faster.


In all fairness, again, I'm not campaigning for these things... just academic discussion. Doesn't bother me either way if they adopt these things or not. It *would* bother me if they dropped all the indexes .50, as it effectively legislates cars out that are not hurting anything (In fact, quite the opposite... easy pickin's, right?) "


I am also a slow guy (only .25 under) running the 300/290 sbc 350 and was pretty concerned when the rumored drop of the index was reported, it would mean i am no longer able to run under. I agree that the trigger should be 1.00 as Michael has stated for the reasons stated, it will benefit me as Sean stated. As was mentioned dropping index .5 means guys like me are on the sidelines till more 'work' can be done to the combo. I am one of the so called 'young guns' in these parts and I could probably puke 15- 20 grand at my ride and be fast, but then getting to the track becomes a problem. I dont know about anybody else but at the end of the day, headsup or heavy hitter ,i have the biggest SH** EATING grin on my face when i am able to hang hoops and let the fruits of my labour bring a win OR a loss after all it is fun right? at this point i dont really believe further rule changes or additions will fix the problem, Mr. Beard is correct take all retro performances and analyze what is right in front of all our eyes

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Lowering the indexes.

What bothers me about this is that new guys that don't have engine builders, chassis guys, or can't afford the newest gadget might just give up on class racing because they can just make the index which allows them to race while working on their combination.

We don't want to discourage new blood coming into the sport.

JimR

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

We don't want to discourage new blood coming into the sport.

JimR[/quote]


Just keep discouraging the ones already here!

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Uh... how?

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Mr. Beard-

Just keep making the rules easier for the less fortunate, and more difficult for the performance minded!

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Sean, I think you miss the fact that many of the "Performance Minded" have also found "favored" HP motors that will never be brought back into line with the previously hammered Motors. NHRA will never remove HP from some performance motors while restarting NEW motors found at minimum to encourage a new contruction, a possible new racer and entry money. That is the reason for 90+ classes. Get everyone to Buy something to PAY ENTRY money. Many of the less fortunate are actually overfactored cars too. That why no break out would be a bad long term idea. It would be a great Quick FIX for underfactored stuff.
It would be better to hit the FAST stuff down towards the slower cars than give favoritism to less competitive cars because some might just not be worked on as hard or long....Hit the Hot stuff for a time and suddenly Class becomes a race of 4 different motors, not just the BOGUS one who everyone has to build next to stay in contention.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

How do more heads-up runs make things easier on the less fortunate? It seems like that is exactly what performance-minded racers would *want*. I also repeatedly noted how this would incentivize slower guys to work on their stuff.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

When people talking about working on their stuff, does that mean you go to your engine builder and work on the dyno or buy the latest trick peice? I called for a cam shaft from Bullet cams and the first words out of the salesman was "who's your engine builder?". I said you are talking to him! I'd like to know what is meant by work on your stuff? Yes, I stopped working as hard as I can, but I build my own engines and work in my garage with limited time and funding. I think that old guys use the "Purple Pill", why not let us slow guys who work on our own stuff in ower own garage use the "Blue Bottle" to catch up with the guys who work on their professionally bought stuff? I'm angry because I keep hearing about lowering the indexes, my car is carrying weight from a car from 1968 Stock Eliminator. Which never got lifted off and just keeps on getting more weight because professional engine builders find more horsepower on a dyno so that the purchaser of the engine can go faster.
Work on your stuff, what a joke!

Casey Miles
248H

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Sorry, I usually put "work on their stuff" in quotes like that --- I agree with you!

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Micheal: My post wasn't aimed at you.
Casey Miles
248H

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Mr. Miles-

Your post is exactly what I've been posting about. Because some racers are more fortunate, guys like you, which by the way, I admire, want things given too them. You want the "blue bottle" to be fast! How about taking pride in the fact you're doing it on your own. The potential is their, you said it in your post.

Cars aren't just fast because of an engine. They're fast because of the whole package. "Work on your stuff," at least from me, means torque convertor on back. Balancer, forward. You can pick a car up quite a bit with refining the good parts you already have. It's not always about making horsepower. Most of the time, it's about refining it, and applying it.

Sean

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Sean: I've worked on my car now for about 38 years, I've set the record with it when stock was stock. Now stock is if the after market vendor has the part in "Stock" means you can use that part in Stock Eliminator. My pockets aren't that deep and I sure I'm not the only one. Don't anyone understand that you can't recoup what you have spent on the latest parts no mater how fast you go. I went to Indy one year and I was missing a bumper bolt and they wouldn't let me go until I put one in it's place, now as long as the car has a bumper it's OK.

Casey Miles
248H

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

What are you complaining about the fact that Stock has evolved, of the fact that you cant keep up with the Jones??? On an average, how many heads up runs does someone have per racing season not including class run off?? You dont have to run everyone heads up every round, its a bracket race for the most part, just run the race. Believe me, I would love to run Superstock, but I cant afford to run the way I would like to, so I go to the track with my friends that do run Superstock and Stock. Life isnt fair, If it was everyone would be running fast...

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

There's a difference between having things given to you, and having things taken away from you.

I haven't seen "the slow guys" asking for anything, outside of the Worst Redlight discussion, which I feel is largely academic and highly unlikely anyway. Leave 'em alone. Lots of people got started because goals were attainable. Just because I was an index-runner as a rookie doesn't mean I'm an index-runner now. Nobody held a gun to my head and said "spend money". I did it of my own volition, as will the vast majority of "the slow guys". (I've run -1.000 under... can I join the country club now?) :rolleyes:

Gotta work on that sarcasm detection... ;) LOL I really don't think Mr. Miles was being serious.

The biggest thing that needs attention is rules enforcement, and proper HP factoring. (which -=gasp!=- might hurt some of "the slow guys")

Look at the big picture. Not through the peephole.

$.02,

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Does anybody know what year NHRA gave racers back .20 on the indexes? Early 90's I think.:confused:

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Sean
The year the indexes changed was 1993 I believe. I remember my first time out w/ my original car running GT/DA in '92 on a 10.60 index and literally doing cartwheels the first time I ran under it (a 10.57 if I remember correctly). I got my rear end kicked in class for a year or so before I figured out how to go fast and run with the guys who had been doing it a while. The next year, in 93 all the indexes were raised two tenths. That helped cars that could barely run the index then.... before that if the air got worse during the race they would have to dial the index and were "dead ducks" if they couldn't run the index.
Angelo D.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Dick
(I edited your quote just to save room)
Your 1st statement is not really true. You may or may not remember it but a few years back (and maybe someone can remember exactly what year it was 2000? 20001?) the NHRA gave HP back to a ton of motors, & not just chevy's. One of them was the 350/255 that I had run for a long time. As a matter of fact, when I first ran the 255 in '95, it was rated at 300hp. It was reduced to 295 when I ran it and was subsequently reduced to 290 during the round of hp reductions I am referring to. By that time I had moved on to the injected stuff...... there were a bunch of other combos that got hp back. I remember the 350/315 was reduced to 310. The 624 head motor was originally 285, then hit to 290, was put back to 285. There were several 327 combos that were lowered, some from 300 to 280 !.The NHRA did try to level the playing field because they had no AHFS (or it was just in the embryonic stages of development). Do you remember what combos where dominating then? The Chevy 400 rated at 275hp ! Which is now 325 I think. My point is those "classic or traditional refactored combos" were beat up by people who ran them and all have since been factored upward. They have no one to blame but themselves. The rules that exist have loopholes. They could have exploited them. If someone or a group choose to do what they can to protect the combo they run, well that's the way the game is played. I don't want to name specific combos because I don't play that way.... but there are a bunch of combos (that aren't necessarily chevy's) that milk the system without much fanfare. Either way money is always going to be a factor in this. No one should be spending the mortgage money or the kids college fund to field a competitive race car.