Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Alan, your spin on reality is funny. Most agree that the engines are clearly underrated. OK, we get it. and I know the LT1 engine was already in the book, however, by '98 GM stopped using that engine in the F-body. So, why is it OK for GM to do what ford and Dodge are doing?

Your answer is "two wrongs don't make a right," but I don't see you lobbying to have those cars removed from competition? Nor does Greg care about that. Again, I ask why? Because the engine was already legal?

OK, two wrongs don't make a right. We heard that, boo hoo. This is reality and life is not fair. It's not fair in the workplace, on the sportsfield and in racing. Someone always has the advantage and now it's Dodge and Ford having a chance in the limelight. Yes, the cars are underrated, but Stock will not go away, people will race and have plenty of fun.

NHRA set precedent by allowing GM to run this car, period! The level of performance is irrelevant.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Many precedents don't turn out so well. In the real world the precedent you reference here would be quickly reversed.

Also, you left out a very important point. Pay to Play. That is what nhra and the OEMs have been up to for a very long time. We all have a better understanding of this corrupt process because of this site. Even ten years ago the racers did not have this valuable asset to get together and figure out what is actually going on here. Remember the muffler deal. The Internet sites helped to prevent that deal from going down. And the Internet sites helped move the GM cars into injected classes. So we are moving in the right direction now. It will soon become the norm around racing that a sanctioning body will not be allowed to "feed" off of it's membership. Even though at least one sanctioning body claims to have no members.

Yes, it's easy to look back now and see that nhra made, what I consider, underhanded deals. And just because they got away with this behavior in the past does not mean that they should get away with it today. Times have changed and nhra will have to change it's practices as well.

Why do the new crate motor cars have to run in regular Stock classes? How is anybody injured by placing them in injected classes? Injected classes made a lot of sense before - why not now?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Bruce, personally, I hated the injected classes and so did many other racers. During those years my car was no faster than a good-running carbureted 305 Camaro, or a 360 or 283, but I got to race myself for five years. BORING! While the LT1 cars were very fast, there were many EFI racers with cars that were not killers and they blended nicely in the regular classes.

It was much more fun racing you, Henry, Stevie and Bobby F. and the rest of the Jr. Stockers.

I understand your point about underrated cars, but segregation is not the answer.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Evan,
Segregation sounds punitive. Separated classes is what we are after. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the injected classses. We were very evenly matched in those days and we did have some fun. But this is a different deal. Some folks are saying, well this is just like the GM deal. It's not. And some people would like us to believe the bogus crate motor Horsepower factors are pay back for not standing up to the bully the last time around.

This latest headache from nhra cuts across 20 different classes in Stock alone. The GM deal was a minor infringement to the membership compared to this one. So what is so bad about putting these crate motor cars in their own classes? It's important to remember that we have been debating this issue for more than a year and the intensity has grown rather than diminished. We will be kicking this thing around this time next year if the racers don't come to some reasonable compromise. I spoke to several racers who were racing at Las Vegas this weekend and they told me that the crate motor cars are causing a lot of negative buz for nhra.

So, I ask one more time. Who is hurt by nhra placing the new crate motor cars in injected classes within the Stock category? IHRA has shown real leadership by placing the new cars in injected classes. Why not nhra?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Bruce, you asked, Who is hurt by nhra placing the new crate motor cars in injected classes within the Stock category?"
I believe the component (cam, tires, etc.) manufacturers that support the Stock and Super Stock classes are hurt by having seperate classes. They are not getting any benefit from having one car per class. Class eliminations are becoming "single fests". At Charlotte in stock there were 28 Stock class elimination runs, 12 were singles. That's not going to help grow manufacturer support is it?
I'm not an "old timer" but I have been competing since the mid 80's.
Can someone tell me about class participation/ eliminations prior to 1985?

My pipe dream would be to have fewer classes, simpler tech inspection, more competition, and more contingency support for class winners.
If the guys like Ken Meile could "push" the CJ's and DP's to run sub 1.00 et's at a National for a class win, then perhaps the AHFS could actually work in a timely fashion.

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Our factory DP crate motor? What a joke and BIG disappointment.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

I'll bet 9 out of 10 Stock eliminator racers that don't own a '97 or '98 Camaro couldn't visually tell a '97 Camaro from a '98 Camaro. The LT-1 was produced for street use.
Quit focusing on the past! (and I was quite vocal on the soft HP of the LT-1 / LS-1; but at least they were built for the public!)

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Wayne,
Sorry you don't like extra classes. The manufacturers' support is not a consideration in this debate.

The AHFS was never designed to compensate for the corrupt factoring process that we are dealing with. In fact, nhra wasn't happy enough with the gifts they had given out. nhra then reduced the AHFS further by giving away .300 for good measure.

Two things that everyone seems to agree about:
1.) The crate motor cars have been given very generous factors of 100 - 150 Horsepower over the competition.
2.)The AHFS was further weakened by taking .300 off the tirggers after these crate motor combinations were "accepted".

Suppose the NFL decided to give favors to two teams. Lets say these favored teams had to play offense on an 80 yard field while their competitors had to play on a 100 yard field. Easy enough to do. All the officials would have to do is move the ball a plus 20 yards every time the ball was turned over to the favored team.

How about MLB giving favors to teams? The out field fence could be moved in 40 feet for the favored team when they are at bat and then return the fence to it's normal position when their competitors come to bat.

What about allowing special equipment for privileged Tennis players, Golfers, Hockey players, or lowering the net for one team during a basketball game?

All of the above examples would cause any competitor to claim foul. And justifiably so!

The NFL, a 501 (c) (6) just like nhra, would be hammered into the ground for trying to pull off such a stunt. Why should nhra get a pass from the racers, news media or legal system when they have actually moved the goal posts to favor a privileged few?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Ken you will win class again if: You race Big Daddy, Get a new NEW car, race another carbuerated car without Santa Clause parts or all the new Fords and Challengers BREAK.

Good luck! To my knowledge Fletcher has been the only car to beat a new car heads up.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Geez Larry, I didn't know my odds of wining class were that good, thanks man. Oh oh oh oh.......don't for get if I am the only one in the class.

Man, do I love this sport!

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Who did Fletcher beat "heads-up"? To my knowledge, the only one of these new factory $%&#-boxes to lose "heads-up" was Drooze to Robbie Shaw.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Ken I hope you do win often, but it does not look promising. I figure you are down 100 hp to the 08 and 10 Mustangs. Thats your flywheel hp. compared to the rear wheel hp of the supercharged Mustangs.

3131 was a no show against Shaw

Friendly Racer use your real name and get some answers.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Bruce, I'm not arguing the HP ratings, as no one would want to race against an underrated car. But where does that leave the other underrated combos that are seemingly obscure?

There are some very unhappy racers, but also quality cars/drivers who are giving it there all. One example is Shaul, who isn't afraid to drag that bad Wedge across the country and race no matter who shows up. He and many others, like Kenny, are going out to race. I'm sure you've talked to a lot of racers, but so have I, and I can find plenty of positive opinions as well the negative ones.

If Teuton put a stick in the Challenger and beat me by two tenths I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't be screaming on the Internet. Guys have had me by that amount or more in the past and I found a way to improve my car.

You believe that Stock will be 50 percent full of these cars and that is just not going to be the reality. You may feel that even one is too many, but I doubt that those who love racing and have a big investment in racing will quit because a few cars are faster no matter what the cause.

As for the AHFS, it will never be 100-percent effective until every run counts and the altitude tracks have a real adjustment with runs there counting, too.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Bruce, here is a thought, and nothing more—how about instead of separating the new cars, we create Stock GT, where you can run any approved engine from the same manufacturer, in any car. Don't create new classes (like Super Stock), but allow the cars to fall where they will based on HP and weight. Then GM could simply supply similar engines and all of the three current makes could benefit. Racers would only need to build a new engine to take advantage of better hp factors (until they get hit, that is) without the expense of building a new car.

I know, this is not in the spirit of Stock, it's just an idea, so everyone cilll out, but it's an idea nonetheless. Racers are always saying old parts are hard to get, so here is a chance to get around that by running a new engine in an existing car. This keeps the muscle cars in Stock.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Ya ok, Its esay to sit here and say that now, Wait till those racers you mention has their
--S handed to them by these cars. I know for a fact a good racer that has been frustrated with these cars enough to sell all his good equipment in a A/SA early Camaro and put the car back on the street. Its a joke to watch a CJ leave in a heads up race when the car next to him gets to 60ft then pass him and hit the brakes. How is that Fun? please explain how you think if you work on your stuff enough you will pick up enough to be competitive with that ?? this otta be good!

Bob Aceves
#746 E/SA
A&M motorsports

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Evan,
Why should nhra get away with these shenanigans when other Sports Associations would never consider such self serving (if not illegal) behavior? Can you please answer this question for me?

Stock GT is a non-starter. The crate motor cars belong in another series of classes within Stock or Super Stock.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

One of these "crate motor cars" just got whacked at Vegas by an "overrated" combo in class. This is what happens when you actually race them! Instead of giving up before you stage!

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Oh, you mean the racer with the .700 light - probably a malfunction and not a whack.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Really Bruce? Is that all you got? Recess is over kids....time to go back to class!

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Apparently it was plenty to answer your juvenile post. Try to contribute to the discussion rather than acting like an illmannered child. Grow up!

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Brillant Crate Motors in stock!! Why not take it one steep further Crate Motor Supe Stock???

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Your answer is like a scorned child. I would love to be an adult with you and meet you on the playground.....you name the place! I think Indy would work for me. The only thing of contribution you provide to this board is waterworks. How much a month for the faucet?

You grow up and start acting like a sportsman, instead of a poor sport!

Sean

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Sean,
You wish to level personal attacks rather than discuss the issue at hand. Please PM me and we can exchange numbers and get to know each other a little better. I think you'll be surprised to find that I am a Sportsman and certainly no child. Post about the topic of this thread and no more personal attacks.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Bruce,

Every manufacturer over the history of Stock and Super Stock (or any form of motorsports for that matter) looks for an advantage, and it is the sanctions job to keep the field fair. Most agree that the Ford and DP cars are underrated, ok we get it and can't argue that fact.

Your question is one for NHRA's tech department or the S/SS group at NHRA who makes the decisions, not for me or anyone who frequents this board. All we've gotten is battling opinions and lots of pissed off people.

What about the guy who works his tail off to qualify number one, only to be thwarted by some odd-ball combo that is grossly underrated? Why is there not an urgent fight to clean that up?


Evan

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

The rhetoric is the same as the other 57 threads the "regulars" have participated in.
There has NEVER been parity in motorsports when different combinations are permitted. There is ALWAYS an advantage or perceived advantage.
I'm done wasting my time, over and out.

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Evan,
My question about Injected classes is for you; not the tech staff. Who is injured by placing the crate motor cars in Injected classes? Boring does not rise to the level of injury.

You said odd ball combinations...right? Well sure there are a few of them out there but they are not the result of colusion by nhra and the OEMs.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Actually, Dean, you are the master of spin. The LT-1 was not only already in the guide in the 97 cars, but it was also a production engine, fully certified for street use. There is no performance advantage held by a 98 F body with an LT-1 over a 97 F body with an LT-1, you're just grasping for straws to support an argument that has no basis in fact or reality. Unlike the LT-1 you constantly cry about, no engine in the Drag Pack cars is certified for street use, nor were they already in the guide. The same applies to the crate engines in the new Mustangs.

The bogus factors is only irrelevant in your mind. Reality is far different than the dreamworld you are trying to create by saying crate engines never certified for street use, installed in cars that won't even run or move when you buy them, are the same as a year old production engine in a new production car.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

It's Monday morning and I got back last night from our first Bowling Green combo race at about 9;00 p.m., Andrew and I both lost first round. These new cars and the crate motor deals that have been approved were a major topic of discussion. I didn't talk to one person who felt like these new cars with the hp ratings they have were good for stock eliminator. A lot of people don't post on here and quite frankly don't even look at the site. A good friend of mine and a guy that builds a few stock eliminator motors had no clue about the crate motors that are legal for the new Challenger and Mustang. When I filled him in on these motors and the specs along with the hp ratings his comment was " Are you f@#$ing kidding me?" He went on to say " Why would someone build one of these cars?" What gratification would there be when all along you know you are running in the wrong class?" This is a guy that runs a 69 Camaro with a 302 rated at 309hp.

I truly think people are just beginning to realize how these cars are going to affect them and the sport they love. A lot of people feel there is nothing they can do about it. They feel powerless and are not vocal because they think NHRA will punish them if they speak out. If we do nothing then we become powerless. if we continue to go to National events we condone what NHRA does. It makes us complicit in the whole process. There are good racers that are truly thinking about quitting because they feel they can't compete any
more.

Another good friend of mine who doesn't post on here and has one of the fastest G/SA cars in the country told me after watching Jeff run 10.57 in H/SA at Belle Rose he was depressed for the rest of the weekend. I don't know if anything we do can change what's happening to stock and eventually super stock,but I do know one thing if we don't try to change it we get what we deserve.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Alan (aka spinmaster), you obviously don't read or comprehend very well. My point about the LT-1 has NOTHING to do with certification or performance! I know it is a legit engine, if used in a 1993-97 F-body (or Caprice w/steel heads). I don't care if the LT-1 IS a certified engine, it wasn't used in 1998 F-bodies, period. That is a fact that cannot be spun or argued.

Why was this engine allowed? I will tell you: It has everything to do with the fact that when GM needed to, they submitted bogus facts to NHRA to get a combination in the guide. That is my point, it is PURE fact. If Ford or Dodge does the same thing to get a combination in the guide, how is that any different?

I understand that in the end the performance doesn't change on an LT-1 car if you change the bodywork, but still, GM was the first to get a crate-motor car approved.

It's the same friggin' thing either way, you want to say it is not because of the level of performance, but that's not how it works.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Dean,

I agree with your comments about the LT1 for 1998 to a great degree, but that is the only V-8 listed in the NHRA guide book for 1998. You cannot run a LS1 and claim a 1998 if you wanted to. You could, of course, call it a 1999-2002 instead.

Don

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

it's not even close to the same thing. None of the motors for the challenger or Mustang were ever produced in a street car. This is a red herring. The LT1 is not a crate motor.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Greg

what kind of #'s did your son run with with his new car?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Theres an easy fix(except for the west coasters). If your unhappy about the new cars you can always go race IHRA. They have injected classes and you know they need the cars. That would have to be easier then hoping NHRA will change things for you. Or you can do what Kens going to do. Not as easy but way more rewarding in the long run.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Evan, I just have to ask, if Jeff put a stick in his Challenger and beat you by .75 would you feel the same? Do you think you could find a way to "improve" your car that much, without dropping a 427 in that is? Jim


.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Let me fix that . If I put a stick in the car, I can assure you I would run around 14 flat. However there is always Kevin.......... . I think Steve Kent has a couple Jerico's for sale, I got a Browell Can (never used from Top Stock) and a couple trick clutches (new also). Hmmmmmmmm. I don't think there is enough memory on Class Racer to handle that one.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

I went a best of 10.70 in D/SA Saturday night testing, 10.74 on Sunday.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Go for it Jeff! Then I won't have to worry about you anymore!!! Please? Jim

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

And while we are doing this, lets get the facts right. I hired Joe Friday, famous Dragnet detective to get 'just the facts': I ran a best at No Problem at the Cajuns of 11.01 in H/SA. I ran a best of 10.47 in SS/KA in Houston, qualified in the bottom of the field. I beat Vern Bucannon (probably mispelled, sorry Vern) from Arkansas by .004 in class at No Problem. The rest is testing, time trails, and other assorted BS that seems to overrun this forum at times from speculation, enuendo, and who knows what else. Just the facts. Anybody got any other facts, or speculations? And if you don't remember Joe Friday and Dragnet, you probably are too young to throw rocks at me anyway. Personally I'm glad for the factory involvement. GM won't be long before they are in the mess. Or maybe we should get NHRA to do like NASCAR and we all have one car, and one motor, and change stickers from race to race. Do you like Heads Up racing? Every Round? Every Race? Stock and Super Stock would shrink 75% overnight. Bruce, that what you want? No, then what do you want? And if 50 words or less. Greg, you get 50 words also. And anybody else gets 50 words. But not the same 50 words. I ran over 50, sorry. Greg, by the way, loaded the boat with Redfish this weekend, and had a couple beverages along the way.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jim, .75 off my best run in H/S is a 10.13, as I have run 10.88 in legal H/S trim. I don't believe Jeff's Challenger is capable of that. Of course, I could be wrong. He has run fast, but do you know for sure that the car was at legal weight? I know plenty of guys who yank weight on test-and-tune runs.

But, to answer your question, I would be unhappy.

Evan

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Evan, thanks for your honest answer. 10.13? Yup, I believe that car is capable of that. OK, with that said, I have to admit I embellished a little. My best at H/SA weight has been 11.12 @ 118 in a mineshaft. Jeff ran 10.50 @ 127 in testing at the Cajuns. Thats only -.62 and 9mph better than my best. Jeff says he "only" ran 11.01 in H/SA class, but he forgot to say was he only ran 101 mph. I am willing to bet the farm when he was testing the day before the class race he was at legal weight, and he never denied that. At Houston,the car ran -.78 under (10.47) in SS/KA. In December that would have been -1.07 in SS/KA with a "Stocker" motor! 275 HP my ***! The point being NHRA needs to be realistic, or is there an ulterior motive here?

As I said before, I do not begrudge anyone for taking advantage of these highly underrated combos. If I had the money I might be tempted myself. What does tick me off is NHRA not even making an attempt to rate these cars fairly. Jim