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 rules for 2010? (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=20569)

Dick Butler 09-22-2009 12:18 PM

New rules for 2010?
 
Anyone considering campaigning for combined classes and less classes? Just satisfied as is?

Michael Beard 09-22-2009 12:23 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
I'm not campaigning for anything, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see full-pound weight breaks and combine sticks and autos. (This, coming from one of those "&^#$! bracket racers who just want to infiltrate Stock without having to worry about heads-up racing." Not.) :rolleyes:

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 12:42 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Beard (Post 142039)
I'm not campaigning for anything, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see full-pound weight breaks and combine sticks and autos. (This, coming from one of those "&^#$! bracket racers who just want to infiltrate Stock without having to worry about heads-up racing." Not.) :rolleyes:

I like you, Michael.

I think that would be awsome. Also, chop .50 off the indexes. Stockers shouldn't be able to run .80 under the Superstock indexes.

GTX JOHN 09-22-2009 01:18 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
If you dropped .5 off the index the bottom 1/3 of the car at Bakersfield would not been able to compete. Neither of my kids would have ever built a stocker if the index was faster. A lot of us that race simply can't afford to build a $30,000. stocker , but we still love to race! It is the hoursepower factors and their quirks that make a lot of the reason why! Example: My .7 under stocker is at 314 HP in Super Stock it is 283 HP therefor it runs .4 to .5 under with no changes

i

Dick Butler 09-22-2009 01:54 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Changing the index excessively would be hard on some people. It would be better to make a tighter AHFS first to tighten up the HP problems. Like a run of 1.00 under gets hp.in the AM. Suddenly everyone with normal cars are competitive again. People do not have to start over with the latest "weak" factor car to win classes or appear on the Qualifying sheet. and they begin to LOVE it again.(I am TOO conservative on class racing because I have watched it be watered down and devalued too long.)Since I am not currently racing I would not suggest these things only comment on them.

X-TECH MAN 09-22-2009 01:56 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
You can not make anyone or everyone happy no matter what comes about. You will always have the "HAVES and the HAVE NOTS" in racing of any kind.

bill dedman 09-22-2009 02:01 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
What you say is very true, Terry, but IF NHRA was interested, and worked at it, they could do a few things to minimize the difference (in the "haves" and the "have not"s.)

I think HP at 1.00 under is the best idea I've heard, along with publishing the e.t.'s at 1,000 ft.

X-TECH MAN 09-22-2009 02:11 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bill dedman (Post 142051)
What you say is very true, Terry, but IF NHRA was interested, and worked at it, they could do a few things to minimize the difference (in the "haves" and the "have not"s.)

I think HP at 1.00 under is the best idea I've heard, along with publishing the e.t.'s at 1,000 ft.

Thats a mighty BIG IF !

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 02:59 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GTX JOHN (Post 142043)
If you dropped .5 off the index the bottom 1/3 of the car at Bakersfield would not been able to compete. Neither of my kids would have ever built a stocker if the index was faster. A lot of us that race simply can't afford to build a $30,000. stocker , but we still love to race! It is the hoursepower factors and their quirks that make a lot of the reason why! Example: My .7 under stocker is at 314 HP in Super Stock it is 283 HP therefor it runs .4 to .5 under with no changes

i

GTX JOHN-

Stock eliminator wasn't supposed to be easy. You have to work on your combo. Being smart is as much of a reason for being fast as having a lot of money. Most, usually don't give credit for a racer working smart, it's always how much money they spent. You answered one of my questions I was eluding too. Why should a Stocker be able to qualify for Superstock?

Maybe, just reduce the Superstock indexes .50?

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 03:05 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour (Post 142066)
GTX JOHN-

Stock eliminator wasn't supposed to be easy. You have to work on your combo. Being smart is as much of a reason for being fast as having a lot of money. Most, usually don't give credit for a racer working smart, it's always how much money they spent. You answered one of my questions I was eluding too. Why should a Stocker be able to qualify for Superstock?

Maybe, just reduce the Superstock indexes .50?

Sean,

Wouldn't you agree that the reason why most stockers run that far under the super stock index is because of the loosening of the rules and the amount of people who run heads that are actually ported?

hadtobethere 09-22-2009 03:08 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour (Post 142041)

Also, chop .50 off the indexes. Stockers shouldn't be able to run .80 under the Superstock indexes.

I 2nd that......all in favor?

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 03:10 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Kennedy (Post 142070)
Sean,

Wouldn't you agree that the reason why most stockers run that far under the super stock index is because of the loosening of the rules and the amount of people who run heads that are actually ported?


Too agree, or not. That should have nothing to do with all of the performance gimmees that have been dealt down to the racer over the years. If NHRA is going to change rules, or allow things that shouldn't be allowed, then knock .50 off the indexes. Pretty simple!

Mark Faul 09-22-2009 03:25 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
If NHRA would allow all the classes at all the national events there would be no need for stockers to run ss.

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 03:27 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Mark-

If I was independantly wealthy like you, then I could afford to attend all National events. lol!

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 03:38 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour (Post 142073)
Too agree, or not. That should have nothing to do with all of the performance gimmees that have been dealt down to the racer over the years. If NHRA is going to change rules, or allow things that shouldn't be allowed, then knock .50 off the indexes. Pretty simple!

Fair enough. But it does hurt a lot of people.

But following that same line of logic... if we are going to allow head porting in stock (let's be honest, it is allowed regardless of what the rules say) why not just kill the class and make everyone run super stock?

How about ... if you lift at 1000 and still run 1.20 or more under your index you get an automatic HP hit? That'll never happen, because it's the fast guys that get hurt.

I like the idea of automatic AHFS at 1.00 under, but it'll never happen. And even if it did, all those fast guys will still lift early... they just lift at half track instead of 1000ft.

Is there a way we can do this without screwing over the slow guys? Or are we just not welcome in stock? I have been told that before...... But I don't think you feel that way.

It's not because I'm not trying. Last year when we brought out the new motor it was .05 over the index. The last time I ran in stock, at the national event, it was going .30 under. It just didn't show... I was running in F, and can't get the car below G weight.

And not just the slow guys, it makes it harder for anyone to get into the class and get their feet wet. That is actually a concern to me because fields are shrinking not growing. I'm afraid by the time I have the dollars and experience to build something fast I won't have very many guys left to race against. I just feel like we need to be keeping this an entry level class. I know I'm probably the only one, but I'd be in favor of having a few import classes so we could get some new blood into the class. I don't want to watch the impending slow death of stock eliminator, but it's pretty much what is happening right before our eyes.

And isn't this a change? I thought in that other thread everyone was against changing anything.

Mark Faul 09-22-2009 03:39 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Sean, I think you mean if you were a dumba$$ like me! With no regards to the value of a dollar! LOL

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 03:41 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Faul (Post 142086)
Sean, I think you mean if you were a dumba$$ like me! With no regards to the value of a dollar! LOL

Mark,

You are living the dream. Even if it isn't the smartest decision financially, I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't trade it for ANYTHING.

Ed Fernandez 09-22-2009 03:53 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
And not just the slow guys, it makes it harder for anyone to get into the class and get their feet wet. That is actually a concern to me because fields are growing not shrinking. I'm afraid by the time I have the dollars and experience to build something fast I won't have very many guys left to race against.

Where do you see fields growing?All year,mostly due to the economy,fields are going away.The way it's going you'll probably get into any national with a 3 or 4 grade and things don't look too good for the foreseeable future.

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 03:54 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez (Post 142090)
And not just the slow guys, it makes it harder for anyone to get into the class and get their feet wet. That is actually a concern to me because fields are growing not shrinking. I'm afraid by the time I have the dollars and experience to build something fast I won't have very many guys left to race against.

Where do you see fields growing?All year,mostly due to the economy,fields are going away.The way it's going you'll probably get into any national with a 3 or 4 grade and things don't look too good for the foreseeable future.

Oops Ed, I meant to say it the other way around.... I will go edit it....

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 03:57 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Sean-

When I started racing 15 yrs.ago, (I know, I sound like a parent) but, I owned Gary Waldo's Nova. Damn good car, still is obviously. My family and I beat on that thing, and we could run .87 under. With all of the "performance enhancements" that have been dealt out, or allowed, don't you think that a index adjustment is warranted? Oh, and that .87 under would get you a top 5 qualifying spot.

A top 5 spot now is at least 1.20-1.35 under. Given where, and when. I just have a view that seems to be fading a little bit. Performance still means something in stock and superstock. You have to learn how to find it, then spend wisely on how to maintain and improve it.


Sean

Ed Wright 09-22-2009 04:00 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour (Post 142066)
GTX JOHN-

Stock eliminator wasn't supposed to be easy. You have to work on your combo. Being smart is as much of a reason for being fast as having a lot of money. Most, usually don't give credit for a racer working smart, it's always how much money they spent. You answered one of my questions I was eluding too. Why should a Stocker be able to qualify for Superstock?

Maybe, just reduce the Superstock indexes .50?

I've been saying that for a long time. If a stocker can run that far under the SS index, the SS index is way too soft. I have caught a lot of flack for it, but I never said lower the stock indexes. I don't have a Stocker, don't have a dog in that fight, so don't care what they do "over there". I also don't spend a lot of money on mine, I just work on it.

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 04:03 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Faul (Post 142086)
Sean, I think you mean if you were a dumba$$ like me! With no regards to the value of a dollar! LOL

Mark-

You have done almost everything, within your means. You're just a junky. Just when you think you're going to go back home, you win one, then two.

I, for one, am envious. You do an outstanding job for doing it on your own.

Sean

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 04:05 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sean cour (Post 142096)
mark-

you have done almost everything, within your means. You're just a junky. Just when you think you're going to go back home, you win one, then two.

I, for one, am envious. You do an outstanding job for doing it on your own.

Sean

+1

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 04:12 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour (Post 142092)
Sean-

When I started racing 15 yrs.ago, (I know, I sound like a parent) but, I owned Gary Waldo's Nova. Damn good car, still is obviously. My family and I beat on that thing, and we could run .87 under. With all of the "performance enhancements" that have been dealt out, or allowed, don't you think that a index adjustment is warranted? Oh, and that .87 under would get you a top 5 qualifying spot.

A top 5 spot now is at least 1.20-1.35 under. Given where, and when. I just have a view that seems to be fading a little bit. Performance still means something in stock and superstock. You have to learn how to find it, then spend wisely on how to maintain and improve it.


Sean

Sean,

No, you don't sound like a parent. LOL. I enjoy your insight into the class.

I actually completely agree with you. I love bracket racing. I also love technical innovation and ingenuity. So naturally, I love stock and super stock. I really love comp but I'm pretty sure it will forever be out of my budget.

Personally though, I would rather see the current rules at hand enforced rather than changing the indexes. If people were more likely to get bounced for dirty heads I don't think you would see people going quite as fast. But I am guessing that has been a problem since before you even started class racing 15 years ago.

Super Stock has been given some "performance enhancements" over the last 10 years too, though not as much as stock. Would it not be reasonable to say that the super stock indexes are the ones that should be lowered? Or maybe both?

Doug Blackley 09-22-2009 04:17 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Instead of messing with the indexes, just raise the triggers. This will accomplish the same thing as lowering but not effect those who aren't as fast.

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 04:36 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Blackley (Post 142104)
Instead of messing with the indexes, just raise the triggers. This will accomplish the same thing as lowering but not effect those who aren't as fast.


The reason (at least, my opinion) is to level out some of the ridiculousness. Don't you think the indexes are weak when a LT-1 stocker can run .80 under the superstock indexes? (just an example)

A stocker, if purpose built for stock, should struggle to run the superstock index in mediocre air. Obviously, there will be some combos that will perform better, and some worse. But it's a start.

With all of the "enhancements" over the last twenty years, most stockers should be able to run .75 under the current index system. Where in the rule book does it state, " I class race, it is my right, that I should be under the index?

Doug Blackley 09-22-2009 04:49 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Sean, I was intending that by only raising the trigger will not effect anyone on the lower end but still give the fast guys a chance to show their work off. My thought is to have to least adverse effect and just adjusting the trigger will do that.

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 04:56 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Twice, out of twelve teardowns. I understand what you're saying Ed, but if NHRA isn't going to enforce the rules that are written, and/or hand out performance gains. Then the indexes need to be adjusted.

Pretty simple to understand.

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 05:08 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour (Post 142115)
Then the indexes need to be adjusted.


Why not adjust super stock indexes? Or BOTH classes? If it's good for the goose....

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 05:08 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Ed-

Well, I'm not saying that they will do it. But for Superstock, it's ridiculous when a "stocker" can run .80 under. That's what I'm trying to say.

Sean

Michael Beard 09-22-2009 05:13 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Kennedy writes: Personally though, I would rather see the current rules at hand enforced rather than changing the indexes. If people were more likely to get bounced for dirty heads I don't think you would see people going quite as fast.
Pandora's Box, unfortunately... not only the "grey area" (?) stuff, but also the loosening of rules over the years, superceded parts, etc... it's not that Stockers are that amazing to run under Super Stock indexes, it's that they've become so much more like Super Stockers!

Quote:

Blackley writes: Instead of messing with the indexes, just raise the triggers. This will accomplish the same thing as lowering but not effect those who aren't as fast.
I've advocated numerous times, and always been summarily ignored: We have *years* of data on the books already. Run all the figures based on a -1.000 trigger and factor EVERYBODY once right now, and then you'd hardly have to touch anything for years! Simply factoring cars properly would get rid of a lot of issues with crazy -1.40 under runs, 1000' racing, and on and on.

Quote:

Cour writes: Don't you think the indexes are weak when a LT-1 stocker can run .80 under the superstock indexes? (just an example)
Precisely that: Just an example, and one that does not translate across the board. The Mirada I was driving in Super Stock last year is among the best Stockers in the country, yet it only ran .15-.20 under the Super Stock index. Stock and Super Stock really are two different animals, and shouldn't readily be compared. Some Super Stock combinations are extremely difficult to make run that far under.


My opinion is that by combining a large number of classes (weight breaks, trans?) and thus generating a much higher probability of having a heads-up race, you incentivize those "bottom feeder" -.50 under cars some are so concerned with to "work on their cars" or "spend money" (whichever you subscribe to)... as opposed to simply legislating them into doing so.

Sean Cour 09-22-2009 05:14 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Kennedy (Post 142121)
Why not adjust super stock indexes? Or BOTH classes? If it's good for the goose....

Adjust away. What's with the paranoia? If you can't run the index, do like Ed says "cheat!" lol!

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 05:19 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Beard (Post 142125)
Pandora's Box, unfortunately... not only the "grey area" (?) stuff, but also the loosening of rules over the years, superceded parts, etc... it's not that Stockers are that amazing to run under Super Stock indexes, it's that they've become so much more like Super Stockers!



I've advocated numerous times, and always been summarily ignored: We have *years* of data on the books already. Run all the figures based on a -1.000 trigger and factor EVERYBODY once right now, and then you'd hardly have to touch anything for years! Simply factoring cars properly would get rid of a lot of issues with crazy -1.40 under runs, 1000' racing, and on and on.



Precisely that: Just an example, and one that does not translate across the board. The Mirada I was driving in Super Stock last year is among the best Stockers in the country, yet it only ran .15-.20 under the Super Stock index. Stock and Super Stock really are two different animals, and shouldn't readily be compared. Some Super Stock combinations are extremely difficult to make run that far under.


My opinion is that by combining a large number of classes (weight breaks, trans?) and thus generating a much higher probability of having a heads-up race, you incentivize those "bottom feeder" -.50 under cars some are so concerned with to "work on their cars" or "spend money" (whichever you subscribe to)... as opposed to simply legislating them into doing so.

Excellent points as always, Michael.

Although I disagree on the raising the trigger. I feel like that just benefits the people who bend the rules (i'll put it more diplomatically this time).

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!

Jim Storms 09-22-2009 05:32 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
I think we need "Gaynors" thoughts on all this?

Nitro Joe Jackson 09-22-2009 07:40 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Hey Michael, i know someone that has the numbers from 93 till now, lol

Rules, wow where do you start and where do you leave off.
like what was said on earlier Stock & SS was made for performance classes and lot of hard work has went into a lot of these cars to be as fast as they are. But mainly these days i would say don't rock the boat to hard cause you never know what the next act behind the stage is.

Jim Bailey 09-22-2009 07:56 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
I would like to see a rule for "PURPOSE BUILT RACECARS". aka, Cobra Jet Mustangs, Drag Pac Challengers, Shelby Mustangs, Nascar Hemis, and any other "Stock Eliminator" car that has never been, or ever will be street legal.... I'd like to see these cars legal in AA/Stock only...period. If you wanna step up and try to run in this big d$ck club, Knock yourself out. But don't let these cars ruin any of the lower classes.

bill dedman 09-22-2009 08:13 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Jim, As I see it, the problem is in no way the cars themselves; they don't have 40/60 front-to-rear weight distribution, vastly superior aerodynamics or much of anything you can't do to a '69 Camaro (which I only use as an example, because they can run a variety of classes from AA, down.)

The problem is, getting the people at NHRA to put a workable, realistic, FACTOR on them, and they won't be any more of a threat than any other Stocker with a factor that has proven reasonable.

IF NHRA will factor them realistically, so they can't totally dominate, I think all the problems relating to these anomalies will go away.

If NHRA refuses to do that, then what you're proposing would surely be better than what we have, now.

GUMP 09-22-2009 09:20 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
I think that Mr Beard has the right idea. Less classes. More heads-up runs during eliminations would force class racers to run hard or lose.

I'm one of those guys who loves to read old (60's) magazines. It seems to me that, back then, Stock Eliminator used to be the place to be. What happened with all you old guys?

I'm so glad that Jim brought up the "New Cars". Jim, what else would you like to see? It's 2009 and the factories are building stocker combinations, why shouldn't they be superior to anything built 40 years ago?

Phillip marvetz 09-22-2009 10:59 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
[QUOTE=Sean Kennedy;142085]Fair enough. But it does hurt a lot of people.

But following that same line of logic... if we are going to allow head porting in stock (let's be honest, it is allowed regardless of what the rules say) why not just kill the class and make everyone run super stock?

How about ... if you lift at 1000 and still run 1.20 or more under your index you get an automatic HP hit? That'll never happen, because it's the fast guys that get hurt.

I like the idea of automatic AHFS at 1.00 under, but it'll never happen. And even if it did, all those fast guys will still lift early... they just lift at half track instead of 1000ft.

Is there a way we can do this without screwing over the slow guys? Or are we just not welcome in stock? I have been told that before...... But I don't think you feel that way.

It's not because I'm not trying. Last year when we brought out the new motor it was .05 over the index. The last time I ran in stock, at the national event, it was going .30 under. It just didn't show... I was running in F, and can't get the car below G weight.

And not just the slow guys, it makes it harder for anyone to get into the class and get their feet wet. That is actually a concern to me because fields are shrinking not growing. I'm afraid by the time I have the dollars and experience to build something fast I won't have very many guys left to race against. I just feel like we need to be keeping this an entry level class. I know I'm probably the only one, but I'd be in favor of having a few import classes so we could get some new blood into the class. I don't want to watch the impending slow death of stock eliminator, but it's pretty much what is happening right before our eyes.



So Sean, now who's paranoid? Don't worry little buddy by the time you have enough money to go racing again you'll be to old to cut a light anyway. And why the hell would you run F if you can't even make the lower end of G weight? Maybe you need to put those good heads back on............

Sean Kennedy 09-22-2009 11:14 PM

Re: New rules for 2010?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip marvetz (Post 142195)

So Sean, now who's paranoid? Don't worry little buddy by the time you have enough money to go racing again you'll be to old to cut a light anyway. And why the hell would you run F if you can't even make the lower end of G weight? Maybe you need to put those good heads back on............

Thanks for being so complimentary Phil.....

Ed and Phil, you guys need to learn how to use the QUOTE function.

It looked like there were going to be more G and H cars, so I can F. I'm so far down the latter it's not like it makes a difference whether I run .1 under or .30 under. So mathematical odds of getting a heads up would be less.

It turned out not to really matter, there were 2 cars faster than me in all three classes. But none the less, basic math Phil. The less cars in your class the less chance of a heads up.

The 'good' heads were not legal. As in blatantly not legal. The person who Steve Kelly had rebuild the motor did some grinding in the ports..... So they are junk for stock eliminator. The car ran good with them, we went .6 under with that setup, so believe me I'd love to use them.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.