Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

Automatics still have a weight break in the modified classes; cars with a fully automatic trans can remove up to 5% or 250 lbs., whichever is less, from regular class weight. This is what makes Scott Gove's stick car so impressive. If I remember correctly, at the Dutch Classic last year in air that was not good; he ran 8.02 in SS/AM. If he is at the Classic this year and the air is as good as it usually is at the end of October; a 7 second run is very possible.
Bill Seabrooks - superfan1

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

Bruce,

I am not championing this cause, I just chimed in after the point was made that sticks are simply better because of direct drive and better mph. That is simply not true. Nor can you say just because one car is fast that sticks are quicker than autos, as some would suggest.

I just don't like it when people don't tell the whole story. We all know stick cars mph better, but all the facts were not talked about. I really don't care if the indexes are changed for the stick cars, because I don't run heads-up in eliminatons against autos. I just wanted to make a point that all the facts should be considered if you are going to compare which cars are faster.

Evan

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

Really after thinking about it some more, the stick guys should be happy and I should shut up. Presently I'm .10 further away from a HP increase than my SS/HA competitors and Rob youngblood is .200 further away than his SS/JA competitors (I'm referring of course to the weight break each designation falls into). I'm getting some things tweaked on my car and suspect it could put me dangerously close to AHFS re-factoring territory.
I had the same thing happen when the east coast racers complained about the factored tracks out west a few years ago. That move lifted about .15 off my runs and made it easier to stay off the AHFS hit.
By the way, I started to post the spread on the SS indexes but don't see much sense in it. But it sure is ugly!

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

My guess is that only if classes were combined we would get the real answer...to many variables ,alot more guys are flogging the auto's,(like 4:1) and who's to say what the time money and skill are playing in this,and who's having it? and all the sandbagging..etc. I still believe that if a stick and auto gets the same power..in a perfect world..the stick is always faster..also i think it's wromg to bring up radial tires in this dilemma...talking about indexes..should not be a factor..maybe someone figures out how to use them..or. maybe there is a faster tire for stick cars coming out in the future .well..thats if the demand gets big enough ofcourse..

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

d.p,

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

I was at that race.....he had a broken valve spring when he ran the .50. The next run he expected to run in the .40's

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

Rick I do not think my car could run with Kips car with his 10 teen somthing. Robin Browns 9.89 run killed the chevy IIs in SS/K there hp is now 241 ves 230 for the autos and 230 in the GT classes so you have to look at the gt runs when comparing to SS/KA. Plus the fact that there was only 3 cars in SS/K. Now as far as alt corected records most of us set them at the tracks we run at. How many cars out east have a 2500 ft tuneup this is the air we run in all the time. Maybe my car is different but I ran a 49 at earlviile and my record is a 52 set at great bend which is corected. Now last week at kearney the air was at 3500 ft at a track that is at 2100 ft. but we did have a tail wind. But untill the cars run a honest door handle to door handle can we start looking at it right. Tom

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

Tell me how this is even. We use to run GTF. Same index as SS/HA, but the autos got a 140? pound weight advantage. Now we run GTE. Same index as GT/DA. Another weight advantage for the autos. We make as much HP as any 327 in the country, and all things equal, it doesn't always show on the track. We are lacking in the clutch department (see Westcotts Beretta and Grand Am a few years ago), but can't come close to some of the automatic combinations. We could have reset the E record at Denver this year in the 9.50's, but chose not to because it would have been a bogus, corrected number. Then all would say the auto and stick cars are about equal. This is not the case.

You have to look at the norm, not what is above or below it. It is MUCH more difficult to duplicate a stick combination unless the same person builds both cars. Even then it's not a given. Yet there are many similar automatic cars running similar numbers across the board. Also, you can't compare cars on the east coast to cars in the midwest or left coast unless they come together at the same track on the same day. I would love to see a time slip of our car at Atco or Belle Rose or anywhere there might be -200 feet altitude conditions. But that would not at all be close to the norm for our car.

Yes, transmissions and clutches have come a LONG way in the last 10 years, but not in terms of performance as much as longevity and consistancy. The right automatic transmission change and torque converter change can and will net several tenths in performance. The right transmission and clutch change in a stick car is only good for .10-.15, on average.

Even the indexes. Even the car weights. Run this way long enough to build the proper database of information to make a decision on adjustments that might need to be made. But the only thing I guarantee you will see is who has built the BETTER combinations, not who has the ADVANTAGE based on NHRA rules.

Just my 2 cents worth. . .

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

On the Wescott runs ot .50 and .51 auto vs stick the other interesting thing is the auto was 1.16 60 with the stick 1.25 in the 60. The stick was still .07 behind at the 1/8. If they get the stick to hook, lookout.

Re: Stick vs. Auto index
 

Very nicely stated. 4000+ views and nobody came up with an argument, good or bad, in keeping the descrepancies on the indexes. I'd settle for a logical explaination...