Re: Index Change
 

Toby, I resigned from the SRAC a year ago after figuring out that the committee had no influence on the rules making process. We did discuss the indexes last year and I voted to leave them where they were. My vote was in response to several of our div. 3 racers who race on a budget and felt the change would keep them from racing. Last year our discussion was about lowering the indexes 2 tenths not 3.

The SRAC is a joke. They have no power and no influence.

Re: Index Change
 

One thing NHRA didn`t even consider before they did this was think of the lost revenue to the race tracks from racers like myself no longer participating in the Combo races. I myself will save over $1300 in entry fees and race fuel for just the seven events I attend up here each year,so not all is bad.

Re: Index Change
 

I'm curious, what do you guys guess is the average age of a stock eliminator competitor and car?
Based on that data what is the future of stock eliminator 10-15 years from now?

Re: Index Change
 

Mike, I noticed that also, and wondered the same thing......

Re: Index Change
 

Not quite true Rick,

Doug Patrick #4 @ Morrison, CO 12.624 13.96 -1.336 under

Doug Patrick #1 @ Kent, WA 11.743 12.95 -1.207 under

Doug Patrick #4 @ Sonoma, CA 11.840 12.95 -1.110 under

Not bad for a car tuned in Boca Raton, FL. Like most are saying, fast cars are always fast, no matter what the conditions.

Hope everyone has a Happy Holidays, we'll see you guys soon.....

Wade O

Re: Index Change
 

Why didn`t they leave index`s the same and change the instant hp to 1.55 under, 1.30 under the index to trigger review at national events, .65 under to win class on single, .65 under to set record on min., 1.15 under to count on averages for AFHS at nat. events? or is this change to keep stocker from running SS? Tom

Re: Index Change
 

Alan,
I've seen mineshaft conditions at Atco and Englishtown that produced very fast ET's! But I've never heard of NHRA taking these conditions into account when they gave out horsepower for that review period! So why should an altitude factored track be any different??? What they should do is get the factor right!

Rick,
It seems to me that if the ET factors to a record, than that same factor should be used when figuring out horsepower adjustments! My claim always has been how can someone go to a factored track and set a record at 1.40 under the sea level index (factored) and NOT get horsepower??? I understand how but not why!!! Again, they should work on getting the factors right!!!

Re: Index Change
 

Wade,
Again that 1.33 under at Denver corrects back to only .03 faster than Seattle. Neither Seattle nor Sonoma in July or August are usually particularily fast either. How does that compare to what Doug can run at Orlando or Bradenton in the spring? Remember when NHRA corrects the altitude runs to sea level he was only 1.23 under. I know that car is way faster then that in good air. Also did I mention that I think the correction factors are about 10% off.

Bryan,
I don't disagree with that at all. If you can run 1.40 under the sea level index at an altitude track. That car deserves horsepower as well. My problem is what if you run 1.40 under the index but it corrects back to 1.35. You shouldn't get horsepower.

Rick

Re: Index Change
 

Whenever "1.25 under" comes up in any further discussions,I think it is important to realize that it is actually 1.55 under.(old indexes of course)

Re: Index Change
 

Sounds a little bit too much like a trap if you ask me.....
So a fast car needed to be concerned about going 1.40 under (with the exception of ahfs review triggers at national events)
Indexes lowered .3 - - the instant trigger changed to 1.25
a car can now go up to 1.65 under the old index and not get an instant hit?
if this is correct then to me it looks more like a ploy to weed out the real soft combos