Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

Look at the finals of the Div. 7 National open Angelo Phillips and myself, the two slowest cars in the field, and we were in the finals !!!! GO SLOW CARS !!!!

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

For those so inclined, you ought to take a look at the ad I just placed in the Race Car classified section here at C/R

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

x 2 for, and congrats to both of you!!!

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

18 cars left in Stock > Seven 9 sec. cars , nine 10 sec. cars , one 11.0 car, and one 11.80 car.. Oh well

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

Okay,so I was half asleep last night..
Correction for Kevin Zaskowski : nine 10's, five 9's, two 11's
And so, does this make the point any different now?
BTW, good luck to Kevin Zaskowski, who's still in with only SIXTEEN cars, in case you didn't know it.

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

congratulation to Paul Wong u/sa -1.550
for #1 qualifier at the U.S. National
Unfortunately the higher class were dominant in elimination, my original question was answered. Maybe I can talk Larry Hill to rent me his truck since he's not using it. Claude

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

That's too bad, but speed cost money, and those obviously with the most money also had the bargaining power over how Stock Eliminator at Indy is run (with the recent year qualifying changes, that now could allow a whole class of similar cars to race just because they all are amongst the quickest 128....what happended to the so-called diversity of Stock Eliminator? Not becoming so at this race)!

This underscores the reason I'll likely not race Indy in the forseeable future (if ever), because I won't go there just to try to win class (especially with this flippin' joke of a runoff system for single class entries, since it cater's to the quickest vehicles against their index, instead of the former system, that worked great and was fair to all stocker racers regardless of class), no if I can't afford to make my car run at least .8 under the DF/S index, then it's a waste of my time, meager money, and wear and tear on my equipment to even try to participate in the event! Racing for class has become a joke (for single class racers who even run .7 under their indexes), so if I can't have a good shot of qualifying for the new quickest under the index system, then I'll go to races with smaller turnouts, where that isn't an issue (like one of the other national events offered during the season, where everyone who attends gets to race in the first round)!!! My .02

p.s. It's been a while since I've posted here, and there may be some who're greatful for my abscence, but to those of you who think that way...BOO HOOOOOOO, because I wasn't going to let this topic go without my heartfelt reply from a racer who's not swimming in money to race a car nearly 2x's as fast as the one I have (even if I did have that kind of money I probably wouldn't...unless I could buy/own/race a Hemi Dart, Savoy, Coronet, or Belvedere, but I'd still race my Z24, because I like the challenge, and the low maintenance costs....

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

I would imagine your happy you didn't race when you had to win class to race in the eliminator? I think it was way more fun and I wasn't one of the fast guys. It was fun to run off the record, you were always working on your junk. I would say now a days with the check book racers it could be very expensive.

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

It was a blast to take a week's vacation to buy fuel, hotel rooms, drive to Pomona for the Winter Nats, loose class, then get to go back home. Still liked running off records.

Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning
 

Wish there was still such a thing as "Class" at Pomona.