Re: New rules for 2010?
 

I have asked racers who do it, "How do you legally pull over 100 lbs out for a heads-up race?" Not one answer so far.

It's not nice to ignore old people's questions. :D

100 lbs total for the ballast and the box, then additional weight bars are supposed to have the nuts welded to the mounting bolts. Cutting those 1/2" bolts must be a real pain. :D

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Make everyone run off their indexes for a while. Wow would that keep AHFS busy!

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

I actually like this idea.

But there it does pose a problem for a small portion of combinations. Some big cars that are on the heavier side of a 1 pound weight break might not be able to make the minimum weight break in their class. I'm guessing it would be a small minority. But how do you deal with that. In example if you have a B car that is 8.90, there is a good chance you have a hard time making minimum weight. The only options I can see are giving them a way to lighten their car more, which is a whole different can of worms, or you can let cars that within .25 of the top of their class move up. Does that make sense? It's not perfect. But forcing some cars to become completely obsolete, simply because they can't come within 100 pounds of minimum, does not seem to be perfect either.

And in case you are wondering, this is hypothetical. This would not be a problem for me personally, I would meet the minimum just fine.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Ed Wright

I'm sure that I'm older than you so I'll answer try to your question on the removal of 100 lbs. I play with weight quite a bit and I can actually remove a lot more than 100 lbs legally.

!00 lbs. ballast
50 lbs. remove 2nd 16 volt battery and brackets
10 lbs.1.5 gallon fuel out of 3 gal. cell
10 lbs remove large bias tires and replace with small radials

170 lb total

In my car that is close to .2 et. Not to bad of an increase and with a little help it can be done in 15-20 minutes.

By the way the NHRA Tech guys do some times police the "100 lb rule". I have been pulled over at least twice in the past several years and ask how I lost X amount of lbs. from one run to the next.

Take care
Dave Layer

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

As stated before: factor the combos correctly. Adding a small percentage of weight to a car that triggers and is already 200 to who knows what heavy does nothing except give the guys with an underfactored combination a big laugh. It dosne't surprise me at all that alot of stockers can get under the SS indexes by as much as .8 as soft as some of the combos are rated. Same way in SS. Also a small cam swap can make those factory "lookalike" cylinder heads work better. Like mentioned before rpm potential with higher spring pressures are one cause. Also to set that up correctly it is alot more than $800.00.
I've seen too many under factored combos built that will run 1.3 under still carrying some weight and they are fast right from the start. Day one. Built and maintained by people that haven't been faster than .8 under in the last 20 years in anything. When someone who knows how to work smart builds one then you get the 1.5 under and higher figures.

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

SEAN Says "I 100% agree with your idea of moving the trigger to 1.00 and factoring EVERYBODY at once. That would work well. But it seems like the vast majority of class racers don't think they should get h.p. no matter how fast they run. And in the interest of disclosure, it would benefit me as well. Only a few people are running the 300hp 350 (290 hp factor). And I don't think any of them run under a second. So naturally, I support this!"

MICHAEL Says "Which reminds me of another suggestion I've made before: Each class should have a minimum AND maximum weight. If you're running heavy enough to run the next class, then you should be required to run that class. This is actually born out by the rulebook labeling classes as 10.00 - 10.49, 10.50 - 10.99, etc... NOT 10.00 and up, 10.50 and up, etc.

Consider:
- Min & Max weights
- combined classes (1.0 weight breaks, sticks & autos, or both)
Results in:
- cars no longer running 200lbs heavy
- more heads-up runs
- cars will quickly factor themselves to realistic numbers
- guys can still get started in Stock relatively easily with the "soft" indexes, but are incentivized to make their cars faster.


In all fairness, again, I'm not campaigning for these things... just academic discussion. Doesn't bother me either way if they adopt these things or not. It *would* bother me if they dropped all the indexes .50, as it effectively legislates cars out that are not hurting anything (In fact, quite the opposite... easy pickin's, right?) "


I am also a slow guy (only .25 under) running the 300/290 sbc 350 and was pretty concerned when the rumored drop of the index was reported, it would mean i am no longer able to run under. I agree that the trigger should be 1.00 as Michael has stated for the reasons stated, it will benefit me as Sean stated. As was mentioned dropping index .5 means guys like me are on the sidelines till more 'work' can be done to the combo. I am one of the so called 'young guns' in these parts and I could probably puke 15- 20 grand at my ride and be fast, but then getting to the track becomes a problem. I dont know about anybody else but at the end of the day, headsup or heavy hitter ,i have the biggest SH** EATING grin on my face when i am able to hang hoops and let the fruits of my labour bring a win OR a loss after all it is fun right? at this point i dont really believe further rule changes or additions will fix the problem, Mr. Beard is correct take all retro performances and analyze what is right in front of all our eyes

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Lowering the indexes.

What bothers me about this is that new guys that don't have engine builders, chassis guys, or can't afford the newest gadget might just give up on class racing because they can just make the index which allows them to race while working on their combination.

We don't want to discourage new blood coming into the sport.

JimR

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

We don't want to discourage new blood coming into the sport.

JimR[/quote]


Just keep discouraging the ones already here!

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Uh... how?

Re: New rules for 2010?
 

Mr. Beard-

Just keep making the rules easier for the less fortunate, and more difficult for the performance minded!