Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Here's a very quick rough draft:

AA 7.0 to 7.99 10.6
A 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
B 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
C 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
D 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
E 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
F 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
G 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
H 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
I 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
J 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
K 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
L 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
M 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
N 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
O 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
P 25.00 and higher 16.3


Automatic indexes would be 0.05 higher.


To merge the FWD cars, you'd use a weight offset to get them to a class where they're at a similar index. For example, the rule might read, " FWD cars run in a class 3.0 pounds heavier than their published factor". Instead of the wide weight breaks currently in FWD, you'd narrow them up.



For example, a A/FS FWD car that factors at 13.0 would be given a 3.0 offset, to make it a 16.0 factor. That would make it an I car with a 13.6 index, dropping their index 0.25 (almost all the indexes for the consolidated classes stay the same or get lower). You could either continue to run stick and auto together with a weight break, or separate them.

Counting separate classes for stick and automatic, you'd only have 32 classes, as opposed to the current number of around 45-50.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Alan,
That is an excellent proposal, nicely done.
But while you are at it, can't you slide the letters up and eliminate AA?

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Always an interesting discussion. similar results. Many still satisfied as is...No interest in change even if it would be good for S and SS. I would be interested in WHY people care one way or the other. That would be enlightening.
Want no change, WHY? you still take the same car, still race bracket style 90% of races.
Still have same cars to race with class plus some more to make it more fun when allowed.
Answers?

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

I don't think you'll be "schooling" me any time soon. I never suggested you do not know how to do it. I used to build FWD transmissions for a living, so I know what's in them. The Chryslers, for example, do have a "ring and pinion" of sorts. And yes, I know how the finals of the GM stuff work. They ALL have a differential, Owen, or they'd never go around a corner (there's your "free schooling", a little bonus just for you). They started life as street cars, if the front was locked, you couldn't drive it. It's not as simple, in a way. But the flip side is you could actually not only change ratios, but also go to a straight cut gear set to cut down on end loading. It's easier to find someone with a shaper to make sets of spur gears than it is to find someone with the machinery capable of a hypoid ring and pinion.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Sure I could. I did that 2 years or so ago, in a hurry, to show how it could be done. I just pulled an old Word document I had saved of it and posted it.

Not that it makes any real difference, other than the fastest class being called "A" instead of "AA", and the slowest being called "Q" instead of "P".

There is however a serious problem with that old quick and dirty rough draft. It's brought on by the "new" cars. If you allow the new cars to run at 7.0, they'll likely be fast enough to pose a safety problem on a 9" tire. Yes, I know, there are a lot of "10.5 Outlaw" cars out there running real fast. The difference is, it is rare for them to have a race without a crash of some sort, where it's fairly rare to see cars in Stock crash. Also, the speeds would far exceed the current safety equipment standards for Stock (which are really set for a 9.90 or so ET at 130MPH). You just can't safely run 8.90 at 150 on 9" slicks, with stock seats, relatively stock suspension, and a cage that cannot even extend through the firewall.


A 7.0 to 7.99 10.7
B 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
C 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
D 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
E 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
F 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
G 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
H 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
I 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
J 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
K 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
L 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
M 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
N 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
O 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
P 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
Q 25.00 and higher 16.3

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

If thats the case then the new junk needs to be in S/S anyway.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

That won't happen any more quickly than any adjustments to the AHFS will solve the problems.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Answers? Half the people would not have to do anything and continue to have fun while the other half would have work to do which would limit their fun factor.

Consolidating classes would be fine for the people who are already on the full pound break. Example...A/SA, C/SA, E/SA, G/SA, etc. What about the people who are in B/SA, D/SA, F/SA, etc? There is a lot more to do than just adding or removing weight to fit a full pound break if you are looking at running heads up against already proven combinations in a class.

Maybe that is why there is not an overwelming interest in change even if those who are agenda driven THINK it would be good for S or SS. You want something good for S or SS. Try this agenda...LEAVE THE CLASSES ALONE.

PS> Looks like a majority in the poll kinda feel the same way. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Alan, I suggested the same 3 lb. deal to Len (NHRA) when they combined and eliminated the FWD classes years ago. It didn't seem to matter to them that at the time I either was involved with or owned 6 FWD cars. I was just flat ignored!

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Give the Mustangs & DPs 100 hp :D and let's race under last years rules.