CLASS RACER FORUM

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)

- Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - New AHFS (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=81154)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDT1DYI (Post 654341)

So James I went back and looked at the Qualifing Sheet at the Sept Divisonal at Boise. 37 Cars in Stock. 13 of the cars were more than 1 under. You were # 3. The 18th qualifer was more than .950 under so even with the recent changes to the Mineshaft rule it's still going to happen.
It could be time to adjust the indexes as NHRA did several years ago.

Steve Teeter STK/SS 620

This would not be mine shaft. First car on the bottom half of the ladder would be #20.

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrypuppy4865 (Post 654377)

This would not be mine shaft. First car on the bottom half of the ladder would be #20.

With 37 cars why would it not be # 19 that has to be .950 or higher?

Steve Teeter STK/SS 620

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDT1DYI (Post 654380)

With 37 cars why would it not be # 19 that has to be .950 or higher?

Steve Teeter STK/SS 620

Because it's half plus 1. Half would be 18.5 and you know NHRA always rounds up lol. So 19 plus 1 is 20

So here are the facts 3 divisional and 4 National events last year that were Mineshaft

None of them would be considered Mineshaft under the new .950 under rule

I just spoke with Lonnie about this. I'm not sure how things will play out, but I can say that his heart is in the right place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUMP (Post 654403)

I just spoke with Lonnie about this. I'm not sure how things will play out, but I can say that his heart is in the right place.

Daren, I also believe Lonnie's heart is in the right place. He seems to be a performance guy. Unfortunately, the ones that made the changes trying to bring the small percent of combo's that are underrated in line. Will have more of an effect on several combo's that don't need any more HP added. Especially those classes that have a large number of cars in them. (more chance of a heads up run) For those that think it can't happen to them take a look as I pointed out to the 1970 Nova 402/375 HP. One heads up run at a real fast track and now they are carrying over 100 pounds more. At Indy in 2019, 95 cars were 1 second under during qualifying in Stock. Indy has to be at least .20 slow compared to mine shaft weather. So, all those combo's are now even more subject to getting HP. I like racing Stock because It was a class that if you worked harder, tested more parts and maybe had more experience in making a car go fast you might have an advantage on your competition. Isn't that what a performance base class is supposed to be?

Billy, I wasn't trying to pick on your car or the way you want to race. Your car belongs in Stock just as much as mine. I was trying to make a point that a combo doesn't have to be running 1.20 under to have a favorable HP rating.
There are SIXTY plus pages of non-stock parts that NHRA has now allowed. I had nothing to do with any of them. And by the way both my heads and intake on my car have GM part numbers. Yes, I get because GM stopped making them that Edelbrock now makes them for GM. These are not the only parts that the car manufactures have outsourced. I have had nothing to do with how Stock has evolved from the sixties till now. I don't agree with all of the changes, but I would rather race the Stock we currently have now compared to what we had in the 60's and 70's. BP

My suggestion to all is to reach out to the NHRA with your thoughts. There are other changes being discussed.

As a side note, the change in the mineshaft rule was proposed by our representatives....

Gump, I have the utmost respect for you, and I think Lonnie is the best
thing to happen to NHRA in a long time, I am hearing a familiar theme.
That theme is that the Stock/Super Stock council asked for the change.
In the past, when we have asked our division reps if this was factual, we
have been told that "No, we did not put that request forward." I am not
suggesting that this happened in regard to the AHFS change, but I
think it is incumbent on us to check on this with our respective reps, and
establish a system with each Division, where we are sent a copy of the
requests that are being put forward, so we can discuss the ramifications
of these changes, and then vote on them. That way we will not be blind sided by a surprise change. In a perfect transparent world, we should find
the year end rule changes boring, as we would be more up to speed
as to what ALL division reps are asking for, and which ones WE had agreed to.

J.R.

I agree about Lonnie. He is probably one of few people in charge that I feel like he would actually listen to what you have to say and take consideration in whatever matter it may be. I’m really unsure as to why our representatives would suggest that. I feel like a majority of input from people who are active racers would be better. How about polls that could also be considered with other factors?

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrypuppy4865 (Post 654434)

Jimmy I would hope that our Reps didn't suggest this. But as we know the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Are there more complaints about combo's that are underrated? Not sure if a poll would help. Not long ago there was a poll about not having the AHFS in place for Indy. The poll was overwhelmingly to have Indy without the AHFS in place. Both with current racers and members. Did our Reps look at it? My friend that races Stock suggested to Dave Mohn at the Cecil County Divisional that we at least have Indy every other year without the AHFS. Dave did say if he received enough email about it, he would consider supporting it. My same friend had recently called California about another issue but suggested the same thing about Indy. He said the person was in favor of no AHFS at Indy and that he was into the performance end of Stock. Not sure if it was Lonnie he was talking to.