Re: Ahfs
 

I was only ten years old in 1970 but my understanding from those that raced in that era was S/SS racing was just about dead because of low turnouts; always been told due to running off records. Remember the loss of Stock and transformation to a pure stock creation in the early
'70's?
I've been fast in all the classes I've raced in Stock and I'm working on obtaining that level in SS. So I should be all for such an idea. But I know nothing would destroy S/SS faster than running off records.
This proposal is from either spectators that want to see blood or racers that believe they are capable of dominating.

Re: Ahfs
 

Eddie,

As someone who raced during those years I can tell you that it didn't work then and it wouldn't work now.

All it takes is for someone to bomb the record and you get to take your car to the dump as useless trash...and that happened alot! That's why the index system is a little better

What system will work fairly.....I don't pretend to know...but I believe the racers will be the ones that can fix it.

Jim R

Re: Ahfs
 

Amen!

Re: Ahfs
 

I remember running off national records and for awhile, it worked.

Remember; this was a simpler time before ten thousand ****house lawyers disguised as racers started doing things to screw up the system... but it DID work for awhile.

That in no way is intended to mean that it can work now, however.

It worked then for several reasons that don't apply, today.

1. National records back then were held in high esteem by racers everywhere. If you held the record, you probably were the baddest of ther bad in the whole country, and you probably traveled hundreds of miles to get to a track where a record could be set. It was a BIG DEAL to hold a national record. Cam grinders advertised it; racers painted it on their car "NHRA NATIONAL RECORD HOLDER," usually above the door/drip rail; You had the respect of everybody, nationwide, who ran that class. Competitors spoke your name in hushed tones...

Really.

2. It was SUCH a big deal that at least, in the beginning, NOBODY sandbagged to install a national record that was "soft," because somebody else would come along and nail it for themeslves. Everybody who COULD, tried to set that record as low as they could so it would remain theirs; that's why it was the record... it showed who was F-A-ST!!!

3. You weren't penalized by a cockamaymie system that rewarded your efforts at going faster with bestowing horsepower on your engine; it stayed where it was. Performance was king... and, the science that provided that performance was the brainchild of the racers of that period of time who could generate lower e.t.'s through their own intelligent thought, inventiveness, clever engineering and one-upmanship without fear that it was going to mean that they'd be pulling more weight because of it.

Back then, you had to weigh whatever the shipping weight was for your particular car; there was no adding weight to get into the top of the next lower class, nor removing weight to get to the top of your natural class. That fact caused a lot of strange combinations to be built (9-passenger wagons, convertibles, etc.) which just HAPPENED to fit the very top of a class break. If you didn't have such a car, usually, you could forget about ever having the national record in that class, because somebody with one of the fortuitous combinations would have it. I didn't say it was easy...

But, nothing lasts forever. It didn't take too long for the "thinkers" (and, there were many) to figure out that this system could be manipulated by artificially soft records, and letting records go to MINIMUM and not re-setting them to maximize handicaps.

If you had a "fast" car and reset an already quick national record by dropping it a couple of tenths, you became a VERY unpopular person, nationwide, overnight, with everybody who ran a car in that class. You just cost them two car-lengths of their handicap, from then on.

This situation didn't take long to escalate into a scenario that made it abumdantly clear that the "handicapping off national records" just wasn't going to be effective any longer. The racers had defeated themselves again, and the NHRA had to come up with something to replace the national record handicap system. I believe that's when Indexes were born... and the deal we have, now.

Returning to racing off national records sounds appealing,but due to the totally different mindset of today's racers, and the way the importance of national records has declined ( a real shame, IMHO), I am pretty sure it would not work anything like it did in the sixties. Too bad; for a while, there was Camelot...

Bill

Re: Ahfs
 

Yeah, Div 4 points races used to only have 75 or 80 or so SS cars in 1970. Had 44 this last race at Ennis, looked like about that many at Memphis. I have only been trying to do this again the last two years, but I have not seen anywhere near 80 SS cars at a Div 4 race in that time.

Re: Ahfs
 

The guys that want to race off national records don't remember how it would apply in todays world. I am 58 and can remember how it used to work and I think it would be a step in the wrong direction. Back then there were no reaction times to tell how good of light you had. Also if you think it is expensive to race now, just go back to the old system of running off national records. You would need an operation like the Westcotts have with your own Machine shop and dyno, a stable full of cars, and a trailer full of engines to change classes and combos at the track. You will get to the track and find that someone on the east or west coast had bombed the record you were going to run off the week earlier because you are now racing in 2400 foot air at Indy or Joliet and there is no way you can go that fast, so now you need to change classes, to get a soft record to run on. Beleive it or not the system we have now keeps the cost down and makes it better for almost everyone.

Re: Ahfs
 

I have been in and/or around drag racing since the late sixties when the handicap system was based on national records. The index system, in my opinion, is really a much better option for a number of reasons, (especially cost) but it really is overdue for some major refinement.

Nothing is perfect but the basic index concept is as fair to everyone as it's going to get. If you have the resources to go faster than everyone else, have at it. If you don't, you can still take part and have just as good of a chance at success (winning) as the next guy. Either way, nothing worth having is going to come easy.

Re: Ahfs
 

Bill, I'm guilty of having a 9 passenger station wagon at one time. Tires got better and the sedans looked better. Easier on parts for sure. I never set a record I could't run at least .015 under in the summer heat. Don't know why anybody with any sense would. No need to travel anywhere else to set one if you could't run under it at home you would be screwing yourself.

Re: Ahfs
 

Ed Wright, you are "RIGHT" we used to have more cars and spectators at local races than they now have at points meets. You youngsters that are in your 50's remembering how it was with the record system have your timing wrong. I believe the car counts stared to go down the very fist year that the index system started., as it had no breakout. There were 3 drivers in the country that would win every event, if they showed up, because of their combo. But in the following years it just kept getting worse, and the count, kept going down, down, down.Yes in those day, with the record system, your car could be made junk overnight, but with today's up and down, addition, or subtraction of weight and being able to run the GT combos, it should not be much of a problem, sorry GT does not work in stock. The index system has too many things deciding what gets HP, or index change, or whatever. The record system would only have the racers themselves, make those decisions. I don't remember a lot of individual people overly dominating the system in the old days. As for all of you sea level racers complaining about running bogus altitude factors, this all started at the first Mile High Nationals when most of you could not run with us high country folks. We were qualifying at 2 to 4 tenths above the index and you guys couldn't go that fast, so it was flat out, no break out racing, so don't blame the high country people, we loved no break out racing. Even though I am in my 70's I have a darn good memory, so I think I am pretty close on all of this.
ED, I also raced a 9 pass 59 FI 283 4 speed wagon, 4005#, without my 220# body.
Eddie Rezac

Re: Ahfs
 

Ed;
(Oh boy another Ed),you raced at a time when for all intents and purposes you guys were racers'
chassis tuners,engine builders,transmission men,etc.It was a different world.Today alot of guys
(me included) couldn't tune up a lawn mower.Almost everything is "store bought".We're at a time when
NHRA is cutting classes not increasing them.Sponsors are dropping like flies,payouts suck,fees
increasing.Enhancements up the kazoo.
The whole world is changing and so is drag racing.I was just a young spectator in the early 60s and
although limited in the tech end it was ingrained in me, it was part of a culture (even for us living in the middle of Manhattan in NYC).Times have changed though.I guess progress can't be stopped,good or bad.

Ed F.