Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Late Model Factory Experimentals..... title seems to fit the description. :)

Ken: You are on the right track tho for sure by putting these new and exciting cars in their own class !

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

What you propose is to create a new class within the class, with looser rules, and that moves even further from the original spirit of the class than the new "never sold for street use" cars that are one of the biggest problems we have now.

"Any automatic transmission" and "any custom piston, so long as it measures correct", as well as "no natural class, pick the one you want". Sounds a lot like some sort of modified class, or something of that ilk. If you have to write special rules for it to get into Stock Eliminator, it does not need to be in Stock Eliminator, period. Leave the class intact, with the original intent and spirit of the rules, it's time to stop diluting Stock Eliminator.

Why not simply add a set of F/X classes, say starting at 7.0 pounds per HP, with 1 pound increments, up to 11.0 strictly for cars that the factories submit, but were never sold as street legal production cars?

The real production cars are not likely to be a problem, and few if any are likely to be raced, given their shipping weight, and the reluctance of the factories to even put them in the guide.

I don't think we need or want 5.0 or 6.0 classes in Stock Eliminator. The 9" tire rule, along with the suspension rules, neither of which need to be changed, do not really allow for cars with that power to weight ratio to be raced safely and consistently. Yes, I know some of the "outlaw" series guys do it. I also know they seem to wreck a lot of cars. I know most of us would prefer to not get caught up in someone else's wreck when they roll one of those cars up in a ball because the tires and suspension simply cannot cope with the power to weight ratio.

Why do we not need crate motor classes in Stock Eliminator? Because, if you really want to race in Stock Eliminator, you can find a combination that you can find parts for. For crying out loud, there are cars in the guide from 1960 to the current 2010 models that are legal for Stock Eliminator. That's 50 years worth of combinations. There are tons of superceded parts already accepted, and more every year. We already have so many classes that it is not uncommon for an 80 plus car field to run an entire race and never have a single heads up race. We do not need another dozen classes, especially if we now need to add a set of FX classes for the new factory race cars.

I can get behind merging a considerable number of classes in Stock Eliminator. While it would likely prevent a lot of cars from moving around, we could change the weight breaks to 1 pound increments starting at 7.0 pounds per HP for AA, and going all the way through 22.0 pounds per HP. That would allow room to add a few FX classes, say from 7.0 pounds per HP to 11.0 pounds per HP. If NHRA really wanted to do something, they could even roll the FWD cars in there somewhere, they can be properly factored to fit in a regular Stock Eliminator class.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

So far, I think that Alan is making the most sense on how to "fix" Stock.

I really don't think that the class is broken. I just think that it needs some kind of adjustment for the new cars that are coming out.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Ok Ken , I will go with Jimmy C. Why should the tail wag the dog ? Why try making the class fit the car . This class racing has been around a long time and why should they rewrite the rules to fit these cars as they DO NOT fit the intent or the RULES of the class. Leave the class alone. I am all for late models in stock but ones you buy from the dealer with a VIN and factory warranty.-John

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

I like x-stocker's idea. Factory Top Stock.

Or even at divisional races, put them in that class: Factory Top Stock, sticks & auto's combined.

Or Factory Stock.



Pistol Pete
1374 Stock

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Alan as usual you are right on the money. FX classes is where these new cars belong. I think the new cars are cool and they add to stock eliminator but only if they are in their own classes. Combining sticks and automatics may be more of a problem than many people think. A lot of combinations have different hp ratings and perform very differently. For example a 327 Chevy in stock with a stick is probably .12 to .15 better than a powerglide, where a 455 Buick or 454 Chevy may be better with an automatic. If these new cars were just put in FX classes and everything else was left alone it would suit me. Also the blower cars need to be in their own class maybe AA/FX. As far as adding 6 or 7 FX classes, what difference does it make? Nobody pays for class anymore any way.
Kenny, I am really proud of you for changing your thinking on these new cars. If something isn't done by next year I think you are going to see a lot of old time racers park their stuff.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

My vote is with Jimmie Carter--stock is not broke so quit trying to fix it--put the new cars in there own class--and that goes for super stock also-it aint broke so dont change it--food for thought-who is going to want one of these new fords or chryslers in a couple of years when they weigh 6000 lbs because they tried to put them in stock--they need a class that allows them to be run at the mfg weight and see how fast they will run ,instead of chokeing them into stock or super stock--who knows some day I might want to race one --something tells me that the car counts will keep on shrinking if someone with NHRA does not make a good decision-- my plans for raceing next year will depend on what NHRA does on this topic--thats my 2 cents worth--Emmett

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

I will preface this post by saying that I am a fan of both early and late-model muscle and both sides have great points. But new cars are here to stay and if rated equally there is no problem.

With that said, in order for Stock to continue, and be something more than a nostalgia class, we need new cars—but there is a big problem that is not often discussed. The vast majority of the '60-70s muscle cars, which makes up a larger portion of our class, were rated far differently than today's cars (gross vs net). In addition, new cars are more efficient and make more power for their displacement (especially in OE trim), so there is not as much performance to be gained and therefore, it is not fair to rate old and new cars the same.

I've drag tested virtually every new American performance car since the mid-'90s and some early muscle, too. Most stock big-block muscle cars such as a 428 CJ Mustang and a 396/375 Camaro basically run high 13s at just over 100 mph. Any one of these cars suffer from inefficient front engine dress, crappy exhaust systems, and would make about 100 hp less than the factory rating at the wheels. But in Stocker trim, they can make 200-or-more hp than the factory rating! That is a huge swing, upwards of 300hp over what a stock muscle car can make at the wheels once you eliminate the front dress, and build a Class-legal engine. This is not the case for most new cars. As the new 412hp Mustang makes about 360-370 at the wheels, or, about 100 more than a typical 400hp muscle car from the '60s, yet with about 100 less cubes.

A '66 427 Fairlane I tested ran 13.3/105 on 7-inch tires, CJ Mustang ran 13.8, '71 Boss 351 ran 13.6 and a 396/375 Camaro ran 13.7, all over 100 mph. Any of these cars would probably 12s with open headers, gear swap and slicks, but can run 9s in Stocker trim.

The 2011 Mustang GT, rated at 412 hp ran 12.6/112 on stock tires and at 3,800 lbs, about the same weight as the Fairlane. This is a 427 vs a 302 (both naturally aspirated) at the same weight. My point is that there is not going to be nearly as much left in the 302, but we expect it to compete with the 427 under the same NHRA hp/engine rule system. You can make the same comparison with the new Camaro; A 426hp rating from the factory, which would have to compete with a 427 Camaro (again 376 vs 427 cubes, both rated about 425). In race "built Stocker" trim there is no way a new vehicle can compete using the OE ratings so what is the factory to do if it wants to have cars out there running? Answer, it builds specialty cars with reduced hp ratings.

So what is the answer?

It has been suggested that NHRA use a chassis dyno, but this will not work because loose converters and today's clutches won't produce accurate numbers, at least enough to compare the cars for the purpose of evaluating hp. Most stick stockers would burn up the clutch on a dyno (I know I've wasted a few), and any two different converters can produce varied results, even behind the same engine. Fail!

My suggestion is to devise a hp system that allows the mass of new production cars to compete and to have NHRA monitor and police this (yes, I'm dreaming). As amazing as the standard-production Challengers, Camaros and Mustangs are, there are none being raced in the regular-production trim in NHRA Stock. That is the sad part to me, but who in their right mind would race a new 302 rated at 412, or a Camaro rated at 426?

Imagine if by 1971 no one had built a '69 Camaro or 428 Mustang? Unthinkable. I think the specialty cars are great and deserve to race, but I would also like to see the regular models being raced, and this will only happen if NHRA can devise a system to rate them more equally.

As for the current CJ and DP cars, most of those guys just want to go fast, so let them run in a special class for new cars, but also let other Stockers compete if they want to do battle. I love the factory cars, but having the best cars in the country be outrun by a half-second makes no sense. BTW, I'm all for combining stick and auto, realistically, it would be a wash across the board (better efficiency with the stick vs radials and ultra-light autos). More heads-up competition, but not over the top.

Evan

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

And the amazing thing about that is, my stock, daily driven '95 LT-1 automatic Camaro ran a best of 13.881 at Quaker City, 99.83 mph at Dragway 42, granted with a wider profile street tire. Best 60' was 1.98.

My opinion about the new cars, the quickest, easiest fix is to create FX-classes. I echo the sentiments of many--the new cars are cool, and if they bring new cars, drivers, fans, manufacturer interest, media attention, etc to our sport, that is a good thing. It just isn't good/fair to have them dominate at the expense of the old iron. If the performance levels of the new cars eventually equal out, then you can re-combine them, as was done with the FI cars/classes.