Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Lots of thought here but Alan hits it on the head. Define what you are wanting, step back and decide if you are willing to make the changes to get there.
Want more heads up? fewer classes.
Want more even HP? Make more runs count to AFHS or 1/8 times
Want more old cars? Decrease HP by a % as suggested prior to given year.
Want to be in a modern motor class with low hp? Buy a new car.
Want to just have a good time? run what you have and enjoy your friends at the races. Points meets are dial in so you are competitive there regardless.
More combinations will only dilute the class structure even more taking away the challenge of being the fastest----------( Fill in your combination) in the country.
I remember clearly waiting for the next Dragster to see how fast the California Cars ran last week or the NJ guys hit the record. With only one guy in your class in the world where is the challenge to run faster?

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

To some of us being able to compete for class at Indy is important , having a fast car is something we strive for and work for and spend money on. Ask Bruce Parsons how much time I've spent on his Dyno. I realize that's not what's important to some folks who race stock but it is to me and most of the older guys. The difference between how fast your car is and how fast my car is could be narrowed considerably if you chose to do so. The difference between how fast my car is and the new Mustang or Challenger is a half a second and there is nothing I can do to change that because the hp ratings for those cars are so soft. What got me to thinking about starting this thread was the fact that this winter I have to freshen up Andrew's motor and I was going to do some work on mine to try and make it faster. Should I spend several thousand dollars to try and make our cars go faster or should I just leave mine alone and put rings and bearings in Andrew's car? I'll probably spend the money and see if I cand squeeze a few more hundredths out of our old cars, but I realize it's probably a waste of time and money. In the end I get some satisfaction out of seeing how fast we can make our cars run.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

My point was that the horsepower factors are not correct for the "old" cars either.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Great answer Greg. Daryl, the winning of a race is a great goal. For most of us, it dosent happen that often. If your only goal is winning the race and nothing but total victory is unacceptable, you will be dissapointed more often than not. The idea of racing stock, compared to pro ET, or bracket 2 is that we can work on our cars and it means something. If you find a tenth, it can be a competive advantage, bragging rights, or personal pride.

With the brand new cars that are coming in, and the performance they have just started to show we are all in trouble. I'll still race, work on my car, and enjoy the people we race with. When it comes time to go heads up with these new cars, our chances of winning are slim. Like a Sherman tank trying to stop a Tiger tank.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

If they were a couple of tenths away, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Most of them are .50 to 1.00 faster than us in bracket mode. That's what can be discouraging.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Andrew had a great season and will probably end up finishing second in Division 3.
Congratulations!

He might have been able to WIN the Division Championship,but he lost a key fourth round heads up race and it wasn't to a new car!


Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed-----Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET-- Speed
339L Randi Lyn Shipp 3207 Andrew Hill
E4 ****WINNER**** 0.066 10.537 121.64 0.055 10.664 115.91
D/SA Dial: 11.55 (+/-): -1.013 D/SA Dial: 11.55 (+/-): -0.886
Prior rounds:
E3 (T Gillespie ) 0.079 10.821 0.121 (K Zaskowski ) 0.010 10.788 0.038
E2 (B Bishop ) 0.020 11.262 0.602 (A Fernstrum ) 0.001 10.710 0.030
E1 (N Botten ) 0.100 10.656 -0.004 (E Buth ) 0.019 10.694 0.034
Qualified: #8 10.620 -0.930 #12 10.634 -0.916
Heads-up! Shipp will face Anderson in the next round.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

the answer is that nhra had it fixed with the fuelinfected cars in there own class like ihra has it. put it back like it was and problem will be solved.then the fuelinfected cars can beat up each other and everybody will be happy again!!!!!!

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Thanks! I wish I could have made it a few more rounds to win it, but I'll get more chances.

This is exactly why Stock Eliminator is so cool, Randi Lynn and I raced at the Indy points race and I won. They went to work, and in Chicago, she beat me. Since then we have worked on my car, and I think it would be a really good race now. It's not just about the round win, it's a hell of a lot of fun winning a heads up against one of the fastest (real) D cars in the country.

Kevin, I'm the same way. I go to every race with the intention of winning, and I believe I can win every race I go to, but winning class or a tough heads up is a huge part of racing Stock too.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I dont have a problem with the fuel injected cars anymore, just the "super cars." Give them their own class and the problem will be solved.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Everybody wants to go and win. We all want to win. Nobody is going to turn down the fame and prestige of an eliminator win. Being a class racer, I would think you would have to enjoy the class, and it's unique rules. If you are just here for a paycheck there are better and easier places to race.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Billy how many new cars are in your class?

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

the Hp might be close if NHRA wouldnt have mysteriously dropped the index 3 tenths

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Upcoming Stick Combo entrants that will compete against one another in Pennsylvania. Guess which guys don't even have a chance? Do you think if those pre-1992 vehicles lost 5% in HP rating they may have a fighting chance? What if the new Super Cars gained 3% HP at the same time? Hmm....


Stick
1587 AA/S Don Fezell Du Bois PA '08 Mustang MRLN 331
3695 A/S Luke Ubelhor Bristow IN '09 Challenger Dodg 370
1222 P/S Joe Cokinos Elmwood Park NJ '96 S-10 Chev 262
1578 G/S Jim Roberts Portsmouth RI '69 Camaro Chev 350
1609 F/S Louis Centolanza Newburgh NY '69 Plymouth Plym 383
1710 D/S Jerry Mac Neish Eldersburg MD '67 Camaro Chev 302
19 C/S Mike Ficacci East Hanover NJ '12 Ford Ford 302

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

my money is on mike ficacci! probably wont even be close.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I agree providing he runs in the combo. His first pass, supposedly in D/S, was 10.43 @ 134.20 mph. I wouldn't want to make an assumption here but that seems like a lot of mph for a D/S car, and that is with a 1.56 sixty foot. hmmmm

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Do I wish they would have kept the rules the same (i.e. if a care gets to much HP then it is asuperstock only car)...YES I do, but they did not ask me. Do I like the new cars...Yes I do. Would I like to have a new Camaro...Yes I would.

However be careful what you wish for in proposing new ideas. How about a '69 Impala with a new small blower Chevy engine 4000+lbs going 10.0's or faster.

Greg, I agree with most things you write/propose, but GT Stock is a stupid idea. Stay out of Larry's Kentucky's Finest. Figure 75+ classes how many heads ups would there be. Class wins would mean nothing...It will be a big Stick/Auto Combo. Wait...that's a great idea, They could even lump us in with Comp by creating classes with lower indexes. Then get rid of Stock once and for all. Yeah, thats the ticket.

I do agree with Creating lower weight breaks for GT in Super Stock. Now that would be a kick in the pants!

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I think it would be a cold day in he!! before NHRA considers adding more classes. I do think there is a glimmer of hope that they can cut classes in half by combining sticks and auto's.

I had lunch yesterday with a Stock racer that once raced a stick in A/S and now has an auto trans in the same car for A/SA racing. One of the big reasons he put an auto in the car was the chance for more heads up racing as the A/S field dried up around him. This guy's a serious racer and has held A/S records and spends an enormous amount of time improving his car; stick or auto under the floors, doesn't matter. He didn't hesitate a second when I asked him if sticks and auto's should be combined. He said, "hell yes!" and then stated he would probably put a stick back into the car and he could care less if the HP assigned was for the auto, stick or in between. No index changes, just run what ya brung!

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I don't remember why the Fuel Injection cars don't have their own classes? Why were they dropped?

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Mickey, that's harsh. Wanna borrow a 6 cylinder?

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

x2

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

x3!!

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I agree with Greg Hill let everbody go fast old and new . Great post Greg

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Roll back the HP & weight on the older cars.
No new classes. NHRA will never buy into it.
I do think they would give some consideration to a HP roll back to make the older cars more competitive.
This may not be the ultimate solution that would make everybody happy (is that really possible?) but there's no way NHRA is going to penalize the new Super Cars outside of the confines of the AHFS.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

NO MATTER WHAT IDEA YOU COME UP WITH IT WILL HELP SOME AND HURT SOME - UNAVOIDABLE.

If I were "King" I would have NHRA:
1.) Become much more proactive in the HP factoring game, especially the newer hi -tech engines;
2.) I would have LESS classes to promote more class racing by using 1 lb. weight breaks; and allowing everyone to add or remove MORE weight to make the newer weight breaks; and
3.) Once the hp factors are in-line, lower the indexes by about .75 sec., so that it takes a decent car to run on or below the index.
But I'm not sure that idea would be very popular with the masses.

..................at least that would make me interested in racing again......................and "yes", I agree about having 7.0 and maybe 7.5 SS/GT weight breaks.

One thing that I never agreed with was how NHRA took the factory hot rod engines (the older ones), that we all aspired to buy and race, and made them totally uncompetitive, Why did most of the tri-power 348's, 409s, 413 and 426 wedges, 406 Fords, etc.go by the wayside (except for nostalgia racing) and become less favorable than a 255hp/350 Chevy to race??? An engine that wasn't what we went to the dealership back in the 60s to purchase because it was such a powerhouse. By comparison some of those factory hot rod combos should have been de-factored because their factory hp rating was due to camshafts, etc. which , at least in S/S can be changed anyway....and in Stock the available cam profiles can really turn on these engines which came with poor camming.
but that's just me, an old racer, speaking !!

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I agree with Rusty and Tom. NHRA should reinstate the Fuel Injected classes, and combine the sticks and autos. That would keep the number of classes the same and separate the new cars from anything that has a carb in a heads up situation.

People who earn a living building carbed engines are in the same boat with the racers. I have spent my whole life learning how to make a carb work on an old engine. I'm not too interested in learning a new trade at this point. If the carbed cars are forced out, those guys have no place to run their cars, and a guy like me is out of a job. Let the laptop guys race each other with their keyboards, and the carb guys can do mechanical changes. Then, everyone could race cars with the same tools as the guy they are racing when it comes to a heads-up run. Injected engines can tune themselves to some extent because of the O2 sensors, so they should absolutely be separated from carbs...........and blower cars should be separated from other injected cars.

Blair Patrick 2425

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I like the sound of that!!!

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Most of the carbureted guys I know tune by a wide band O2 sensor too. If not your behind times.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Yes we can download it after the pass and make changes to it for the next pass but we can not program a Big Stuff 3 and set our optimum A/F and have it tune itself going down track. Big difference!

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

What Ed said. Plus, I tune my car like a carbureted car.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

If you rely on the ECU to tune the car going down the track then you will be slower. The ECUs are not capable of reading, correcting, and optimizing the tune within the few seconds of the pass IMHO.

Of course, I am still learning and have a long ways to go.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I have heard that in order to do this a very very very expensive O2 sensor is needed. Almost as much as the cost of the car. And you would need one for each cylinder.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Your absolutely correct. I hear that all the time. It does not work that well. I don't know many fast guys doing it that way. That is assuming it always runs quickest, in all weather, with any number of water grains, at the same air/fuel ratio. Not in the real world. The majority of the faster EFI cars use it as a reference, same as the carbureted guys do. We have different tune ups, or fuel pressure adjustments we make for different conditions, just like the carb guys changing jets. The guys telling the "It tunes it's self going down the track" simply don't know what most of us actually do. I have helped several guys pick up by putting their cars back into Open Loop so they don't try to make adjustements. It simply does not work that well in the real world.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

I must have misunderstood what I was told then. I used to hang around some NMRA guys and I was under the assumption that a certain Super Street Outlaw turbo car that was pretty fast and was being tuned this way. I have no first hand knowledge just hearsay. The EFI guys can tune cylinder to cylinder better and more efficient than you can with a carb, yes???

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Very few can do each cylinder properly. It is slightly more exact than a carb car with staggered jetting, but that isn't all you are limited to on a carb car. You still have the ability to advance and retard timing to each cylinder and/or hotter/colder staggered plugs.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

You can, most don't. You do know how to stagger jet a carb, right? If you don 't, you need to learn how. We were doing that in the 1970s. Sharper guys before that, I'm sure. Tuned properly, that turbo car would be at least as fast in open loop. If his ECU has to make adjustments going down the track he hasn't done a real good job of tuning it.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Plus you would have to have an ECU with a much faster Baud rate and far faster processing.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

OK, we got a lot of comments, suggestions and complaints, but here is MY list of what makes sense so far:

1. The new cars are not a problem for the RACER because they are new, it's because the HP factors are totally out of the ballpark.

2. The manufacturers have a vested interest in the new cars dominating class racing, so they stacked the HP deck, and NHRA allowed it.

3. AFHS is working too slowly, and the FI, Computer and carbureted cars have different tools available to tune, and different infrastructures for their building and race support.

4. The cost of entering the "new" car classes is prohibitive for most of the Sportsman racers that have been racing their favorite car for a long time, stacking the S/SS ranks with "bucks up" supported teams and individuals.... this is a disincentive for the longtime participants in S/SS, who are now at a competitive disadvantage in both performance and money.

Am I on point so far??? Suggestions for fixes follow on next post. Sorry, I accidentally duplicated this post.....

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

OK, we got a lot of comments, suggestions and complaints, but here is MY list of what makes sense so far:

1. The new cars are not a problem for the RACER because they are new, it's because the HP factors are totally out of the ballpark.

2. The manufacturers have a vested interest in the new cars dominating class racing, so they stacked the HP deck, and NHRA allowed it.

3. AFHS is working too slowly, and the FI, Computer and carbureted cars have different tools available to tune, and different infrastructures for their building and race support.

4. The cost of entering the "new" car classes is prohibitive for most of the Sportsman racers that have been racing their favorite car for a long time, stacking the S/SS ranks with "bucks up" supported teams and individuals.... this is a disincentive for the longtime participants in S/SS, who are now at a competitive disadvantage in both performance and money.

Am I on point so far??? Suggestions for fixes follow on next post

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

#3 covers two different subjects, but otherwise pretty close.

Re: New cars, old cars and horsepower ratings.
 

Alright, here is my take on the suggestions so far....

I think a good solution is emerging among the comments, especially when you combine idieas from Bad Banana, Capt Cobrajet, Jeff, Sammy, 442Olds and X-Tech who are all kinda in the same framework, and Myron, who also addresses the marketing side (which the Big 3 are primarily interested in). Just trying to give credit where it is due

1. Factors need to be examined and adjusted ASAP. I would suggest reviewing these by going thru this year's runs and making the adjustments over the Winter.

1a. New cars need HP, older cars need WT break. (You could do one or the other, but a combo is probably the most fair, let old cars lighten up some, and add HP to the newer ones. 1/8 mile performances from this year are probably the fairest assessement)

2. FI/Computer cars need to run in their own classes, the TOOLS to make adjustments are in a different league from the carbureted cars and they definitely have an advantage in ease of adjustment and precision over the older cars - level 'em out by letting them compete with each other in class eliminatons.

2a. Supercharged cars need to be in their own class - period.

3. Readjust the indexes so they are more realistic. (Something on the order of .5 seems to make sense to me... cars should not routinely be .8 - 1.2 under.)

4. More classes and crate motors are not a good solution, this would dilute classes and make the eliminator even more difficult to monitor and manage... not what we need.

5. Better media coverage of the S/SS would give manufacturers the exposure they crave.

Old idea, not likely to get much play, but a joint NHRA/Racer committee should be looking over this stuff on an ongoing basis, and have seasonal meetings to assess and make changes, with racer representation in the form of divisional delegates to vote. The actual number and structure of this body would need to be "discussed" and agreed on....

These measures seem to cover most of the bases fairly and are doable, if the will to do so is there on the part of NHRA At the very least, they suggest a workable framework for improvement.... just one racer's opinion

I think if these measured are done realistically, we could make S/SS much better for everybody....