Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Below is a list of ideas and proposals on how to join the old with the new and still make Stock a great place to race.

The ideas below are not all mine, they come from many racers.

I would like to here more input and suggestions. Please do not turn this thread into a NHRA bash. I would like to here constructive ideas. I would also like to keep this thread civil, if your going to respond in a discourtesy way please do not post.


1: New classes specifically for late model performance vehicles.

2: Proposed name, Late Model (LM).

3: Classes are for 2005 and newer vehicles. Designed to allow late model cars to advertise real horsepower levels and compete with one another while keeping the older cars relevant in the Eliminator.

4: Bringing factories into the sport to showcase what they sell.

5: Make it cheaper and easier to build fast stockers from street cars. Parts are readily available and a 2005 Mustang can be had for a little more than $10k.

6:Real horsepower ratings (2011 Mustang is 412hp, 2010 is 315hp, V8 Camaro is 435hp I think, etc.)

7: Inclusion cars like CJ's and DP's can race in Late Model, but with horsepower factored higher. Instead of 400hp say 600hp. The rating would be more realistic, the way it would be if you bought them as crate engines from their catalogs.

8: No "natural" class - let people put the cars at the weight they want for their engine hp

9: No automatic class. Sticks carry an added 50lbs, but they all are the same class.

10: Any auto trans allowed. The Jerico is basically a Ford toploader and everyone runs it so why not let Ford or Chrysler guys run a Turbo 400? The bellhousing are readily available and more than half the internals on the auto transmissions aren't stock anyway or use another brand.

11: Any custom piston allowed as long at is measures correctly. Seems silly if everyone is buying aftermarket pistons to worry about a list. If it measures correct then it's good.

New Class Ideas:

Lighter weight breaks so cars are safer and more relevant to what's on the showroom (Corvette has a 3200lbs 638hp car from the factory)
ALM - 5lbs
BLM - 5.75lbs
CLM - 6.50lbs
DLM - 7.25lbs
ELM - 8lbs
FLM - 8.75lbs
GLM - 9.50lbs

LM cars still have to run factory suspension and have limit on cam lift. These are not SS cars. Just a natural evolution of stockers to keep up with the times and availability of parts. Why should we pay the same amount of money for an inferior part?

The biggest problem with this is that it adds more classes. There are too many already. There hardly any heads up runs in the eliminator and many classes during runoffs are either unopposed or
have no competitors.

I would propose changing the weight steps between classes. .75lbs steps where they are currently .5lbs, and 1.5lbs steps where they are currently 1lbs. There should be fewer classes than there are now even adding the LM classes.

Another idea is crate engines. This could really keep costs down and make parts easy to find. The manufacturers have crate engines that are equal power for their circle track programs.

This could be a Super Stock item but in the spirit of keeping costs down Stock seems like a better fit. We'd have to factor the horsepower differently so they are competitive but this could jump start some cars where parts are expensive or hard to find as well as allow cars that are dialed in to get engines capable of making them faster for higher classes. The crate engines would be just like the car came from the factory with that engine and could go into any like make body.

These ideas allow older cars to stay out there and be competitive while at the same time allowing the new cars to flourish. If we can get corporate support and young people interested in racing affordably, we can make Stock and Super Stock like it was in it's prime.

Thanks for everyone's time.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Yo Ken,
2 snaps up!
You need to talk to Mike Pustelny, you two are on the same page. Mike's deal was called "American Muscle".

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Ken

If you look at my post from page 4 "just a thought for stock elim." I combined the sticks
with the automatics & brought the class count down to 34 from 51 classes.
Most index's ( stick & auto ) are .05 or a tenth of a second different.

I agree to going with your new Late Model class, but disagree to a crate motor class.

Less classes would mean more heads-up runs, which would be cool for racers & fans i think.

If you wanted to add a couple of classes i would like to see Top & JR. Stock come back
to the eliminator.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Why the objection to crate motors? They have specifications just like any other engine. They could easily be blended into the class structure, just force anyone running a crate motor to declare it as such. That way, real simple, I go to the teardown barn, the tech inspectors know what spec sheet they need to pull.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Your proposal makes a lot of sense, Ken, but it still puts the OEM in the drivers seat (pun intended!) to publish a realistic HP figure to establish a baseline. Until that happens, nothing is going to change the inequities we now have. I have always had a problem with how the Classification Guide is put together. The factory decides what model/engine combination is listed. There are whole years that no models are published. Why? If the OEM builds it, I should be able to race it! That would make more combination's available, and the engines would not need to be rated differently in two very similar body styles. What class would a CTS-V station wagon fit in?:D

This problem isn't going away anytime soon, sad to say! But as long as we can suggest alternatives, there's still hope!!

Lew

"Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one else is looking!"

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Ken alot of good ideas. The days of automatic cars needing a weight break over sticks are gone. Most records are faster in automatic than stick cars. Automatics have come along way and are very fast. Jeff Dona went 9.54 I believe in HA a week or so ago in an auto. I need to go back to work.This is the first time someone has proposed the LM class. Sounds good, but as you said more classes. Do you think NHRA wants to keep up with more classes. Ed

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

The easy fix is no heads up in the eliminator. If folks wish to spend $150,000 on a cupcake for $200 and a trophy for class well then God bless em. I'm not bashing but FI classes were deleted a couple years ago and class win payout remains unchanged. Hence, the poor car counts. I'm for combining sticks and autos with a drastic purse adjustment. Adding classes has already failed in the past. Division 2 is looking dismal and there doesn't appear to be any incentive to get racers excited about next year. When there is only 25 Stockers in the lanes the new cars really don't bother most unless you have a heads up. I think purse should be adjusted before classes are.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

No matter what ends up happening or not happening with the new cars, I think the worst potential outcome would be to do away with heads-up racing. As much as getting smacked by a half second by a "new car" sucks, the heads-up race is really what separates us from the rest of the "bracket" world.

Think about it. Doing away with heads up racing basically means doing away with fuel check, scales, cylinder head rules, rotating assembly weights, matching engine/body, factory interiors, factory-style suspensions, etc.

I think the horsepower factors on the new cars is crap just like most people and someone running .5 to 1 second faster than the crowd with a piece that is brand new is crap. Saying that though, I would rather get smacked by these new cars for the next 100 years than to do away with heads up racing with the strict rules that we live by. If that happens, I'm out and I'm sure a large percentage of people would be also.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Ken:

With all due respect, the tail is wagging the dog.
Why are we making all these changes to our beloved Stock Eliminator to accomodate a few new cars?

Keep them out of stock and don't change a damn thing.

Boom!! Problem solved!! No new classes in stock eliminator.

We can't call those cars the "natural" progression of Stock because they are Not Stock.

Not without rewriting the rules. And when does late model no longer mean "late model?
Some people refer to a 1995 Camaro LT-1 as late model. The damn thing is 15 years old. A few more years and it qualifies for antique plates.

When did our humble little world of stock eliminator become the big three's show case to the universe?? When they (or the govt) decide to impose a moratorium for racing and cut us loose like a hot potato, then what?

Leave stock alone and start a new category. Call it whatever you want , just don't call it stock. The "powers that be" changed the rules and lowered indexes just to give these cars a place in a category they don't belong in.

This "new car" category can showcase all the latest technology they want, but unless that motor (and trim) comes on a production vehicle that you can order from the dealer and drive down Main Street it is not stock. It is "something else". Those DP intake system are not stock. NHRA wants to make Ford, GM and whoever owns Chrysler happy? Fine. Just leave the world of traditional NHRA stock the way it was before someone got the bright idea to "let the tail wag the dog".
They can rate their engines however they want to.

Case closed!! Simple!
Why are we beating a dead horse??
These cars will be the death of stock eliminator.

Just my two cents.

JimmieC.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Or just factor the cars properly...

I like some of the new ideas, but I also like the idea of the newer cars vs older cars...

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Daran, if we are going to go to that then why not go to my idea (sarcastic, of course)?
No more class designations, engine has to look stock, flat hood, 9" tires, dial the car and race! We can call it "ET-2".

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

What a way to start the day off - Billy and I agree on something - can't wait to see what happens the rest of today . Stock should be just that ..........more classes is not the answer . If we were to make all the changes that are suggested I wouldn't need the NHRA -- we could all just go to our local track every weekend .

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Ken,
You have listed good thoughts.
Discussion of class combinations to reduce numbers is important too.
50 lb added to Stick wt is a good start. Many Stick classes are just not run as intensely as auto classes due to numbers of cars and cost and maintainence of the stick cars.
Latest clutchless trans (if used) can boost performance even more.
Heads up runs are a MUST in Stock and SS to keep it a "race" not a bracket show.
Crate motors, if given an equivalent factor of the motor they resemble are a positive.
No more junk yard searches.Issue is appearing like a non production car.
.75lb between classes has been discussed by Len Imbrogno as a definite workable separation which decreases classes.
Drag racing "Class Racing" needs the Factory excitement and involvement. BUT they need the limits managed better than in the 60s and 2000s have shown.
Now if NHRA just will really LISTEN or THINK constructively all will improve.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Ken,

Thank You for model that could go a long ways towards helping the situation.

I might suggest that it be taken one rather huge step forward and insist for the future of the sport that more automakers products be added to the classification guide.

This would require more tech involvement and new knowledge, but the under 40 crowd isn't that driven to buy a camaro, challenger or stang.

Adding the performance cars from Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, Mini, Mitsubitsi, Nissan etc could go a long ways towards gathering interest of the future crowd.

There are more than a few rear wheel drive cars in there that would make very interesting race cars. And a late model FWD car could be down right cheap to do if the HP factor wasn't too onerous.

Just my two cents as I reflect on the good the bad and the ugly of the situation.

I think that stock/superstock is the best car show on earth, but in that lies the problem.....car shows are often antiques and I would wager that 70% of stock/superstock cars are indeed older than 1985.

Eric Merryfield

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Apply correct HP ratings to the new cars.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Ken, I asked this question in another thread with no reply. You were at the Grove, did nhra have the so called meeting where they said they were going to ask racers to sit in on this subject ? (as per Bobby Bennett article) No one has said weather it happened or not. If nhra wants to showboat the new cars they need to be called FX so they dont confuse the people watching any more than they are. 4 or 5 classes more will not make a difference and as fast as they are it will show up in hp increases faster by making them run each other. If its not done there will be more cars for sale and people sitting out next year,

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

I like some of the ideas here, putting the new cars in their own class seems cool so the factories can advertise this new cars. As for the person that said about the under 40 crowd not wanting a Camaro, Mustang or Challenger. As I member under 40 I would love a Challenger and think the new muscle cars a sweet, the problem is there really isnt a foreign company competing with them other than the 370z. I dont think NHRA listens to the racers, the fans and sponsors maybe the only ones to get Glendora to listen. More heads up stock and super stock racing would be great for everybody. I do enjoy bracket on the big level, but I would like to see the Challengers and Mustangs just fight it out and see who is better isnt that what these cars were for in the first place. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

FX is the logical class designation. Let them race in stock and show case them in a separate eliminator at National events. With all the buzz around these cars, I can’t understand why NHRA hasn’t seized the opportunity to showcase these cars. Factory Top Stock. Pro Stock the way it was meant to be.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

I agree with Jim Carter---100%!!!!! They should be classed F/X or L/M or whatever you want, but they are not stockers!!!!!!

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Late Model Factory Experimentals..... title seems to fit the description. :)

Ken: You are on the right track tho for sure by putting these new and exciting cars in their own class !

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

What you propose is to create a new class within the class, with looser rules, and that moves even further from the original spirit of the class than the new "never sold for street use" cars that are one of the biggest problems we have now.

"Any automatic transmission" and "any custom piston, so long as it measures correct", as well as "no natural class, pick the one you want". Sounds a lot like some sort of modified class, or something of that ilk. If you have to write special rules for it to get into Stock Eliminator, it does not need to be in Stock Eliminator, period. Leave the class intact, with the original intent and spirit of the rules, it's time to stop diluting Stock Eliminator.

Why not simply add a set of F/X classes, say starting at 7.0 pounds per HP, with 1 pound increments, up to 11.0 strictly for cars that the factories submit, but were never sold as street legal production cars?

The real production cars are not likely to be a problem, and few if any are likely to be raced, given their shipping weight, and the reluctance of the factories to even put them in the guide.

I don't think we need or want 5.0 or 6.0 classes in Stock Eliminator. The 9" tire rule, along with the suspension rules, neither of which need to be changed, do not really allow for cars with that power to weight ratio to be raced safely and consistently. Yes, I know some of the "outlaw" series guys do it. I also know they seem to wreck a lot of cars. I know most of us would prefer to not get caught up in someone else's wreck when they roll one of those cars up in a ball because the tires and suspension simply cannot cope with the power to weight ratio.

Why do we not need crate motor classes in Stock Eliminator? Because, if you really want to race in Stock Eliminator, you can find a combination that you can find parts for. For crying out loud, there are cars in the guide from 1960 to the current 2010 models that are legal for Stock Eliminator. That's 50 years worth of combinations. There are tons of superceded parts already accepted, and more every year. We already have so many classes that it is not uncommon for an 80 plus car field to run an entire race and never have a single heads up race. We do not need another dozen classes, especially if we now need to add a set of FX classes for the new factory race cars.

I can get behind merging a considerable number of classes in Stock Eliminator. While it would likely prevent a lot of cars from moving around, we could change the weight breaks to 1 pound increments starting at 7.0 pounds per HP for AA, and going all the way through 22.0 pounds per HP. That would allow room to add a few FX classes, say from 7.0 pounds per HP to 11.0 pounds per HP. If NHRA really wanted to do something, they could even roll the FWD cars in there somewhere, they can be properly factored to fit in a regular Stock Eliminator class.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

So far, I think that Alan is making the most sense on how to "fix" Stock.

I really don't think that the class is broken. I just think that it needs some kind of adjustment for the new cars that are coming out.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Ok Ken , I will go with Jimmy C. Why should the tail wag the dog ? Why try making the class fit the car . This class racing has been around a long time and why should they rewrite the rules to fit these cars as they DO NOT fit the intent or the RULES of the class. Leave the class alone. I am all for late models in stock but ones you buy from the dealer with a VIN and factory warranty.-John

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

I like x-stocker's idea. Factory Top Stock.

Or even at divisional races, put them in that class: Factory Top Stock, sticks & auto's combined.

Or Factory Stock.



Pistol Pete
1374 Stock

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Alan as usual you are right on the money. FX classes is where these new cars belong. I think the new cars are cool and they add to stock eliminator but only if they are in their own classes. Combining sticks and automatics may be more of a problem than many people think. A lot of combinations have different hp ratings and perform very differently. For example a 327 Chevy in stock with a stick is probably .12 to .15 better than a powerglide, where a 455 Buick or 454 Chevy may be better with an automatic. If these new cars were just put in FX classes and everything else was left alone it would suit me. Also the blower cars need to be in their own class maybe AA/FX. As far as adding 6 or 7 FX classes, what difference does it make? Nobody pays for class anymore any way.
Kenny, I am really proud of you for changing your thinking on these new cars. If something isn't done by next year I think you are going to see a lot of old time racers park their stuff.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

My vote is with Jimmie Carter--stock is not broke so quit trying to fix it--put the new cars in there own class--and that goes for super stock also-it aint broke so dont change it--food for thought-who is going to want one of these new fords or chryslers in a couple of years when they weigh 6000 lbs because they tried to put them in stock--they need a class that allows them to be run at the mfg weight and see how fast they will run ,instead of chokeing them into stock or super stock--who knows some day I might want to race one --something tells me that the car counts will keep on shrinking if someone with NHRA does not make a good decision-- my plans for raceing next year will depend on what NHRA does on this topic--thats my 2 cents worth--Emmett

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

I will preface this post by saying that I am a fan of both early and late-model muscle and both sides have great points. But new cars are here to stay and if rated equally there is no problem.

With that said, in order for Stock to continue, and be something more than a nostalgia class, we need new cars—but there is a big problem that is not often discussed. The vast majority of the '60-70s muscle cars, which makes up a larger portion of our class, were rated far differently than today's cars (gross vs net). In addition, new cars are more efficient and make more power for their displacement (especially in OE trim), so there is not as much performance to be gained and therefore, it is not fair to rate old and new cars the same.

I've drag tested virtually every new American performance car since the mid-'90s and some early muscle, too. Most stock big-block muscle cars such as a 428 CJ Mustang and a 396/375 Camaro basically run high 13s at just over 100 mph. Any one of these cars suffer from inefficient front engine dress, crappy exhaust systems, and would make about 100 hp less than the factory rating at the wheels. But in Stocker trim, they can make 200-or-more hp than the factory rating! That is a huge swing, upwards of 300hp over what a stock muscle car can make at the wheels once you eliminate the front dress, and build a Class-legal engine. This is not the case for most new cars. As the new 412hp Mustang makes about 360-370 at the wheels, or, about 100 more than a typical 400hp muscle car from the '60s, yet with about 100 less cubes.

A '66 427 Fairlane I tested ran 13.3/105 on 7-inch tires, CJ Mustang ran 13.8, '71 Boss 351 ran 13.6 and a 396/375 Camaro ran 13.7, all over 100 mph. Any of these cars would probably 12s with open headers, gear swap and slicks, but can run 9s in Stocker trim.

The 2011 Mustang GT, rated at 412 hp ran 12.6/112 on stock tires and at 3,800 lbs, about the same weight as the Fairlane. This is a 427 vs a 302 (both naturally aspirated) at the same weight. My point is that there is not going to be nearly as much left in the 302, but we expect it to compete with the 427 under the same NHRA hp/engine rule system. You can make the same comparison with the new Camaro; A 426hp rating from the factory, which would have to compete with a 427 Camaro (again 376 vs 427 cubes, both rated about 425). In race "built Stocker" trim there is no way a new vehicle can compete using the OE ratings so what is the factory to do if it wants to have cars out there running? Answer, it builds specialty cars with reduced hp ratings.

So what is the answer?

It has been suggested that NHRA use a chassis dyno, but this will not work because loose converters and today's clutches won't produce accurate numbers, at least enough to compare the cars for the purpose of evaluating hp. Most stick stockers would burn up the clutch on a dyno (I know I've wasted a few), and any two different converters can produce varied results, even behind the same engine. Fail!

My suggestion is to devise a hp system that allows the mass of new production cars to compete and to have NHRA monitor and police this (yes, I'm dreaming). As amazing as the standard-production Challengers, Camaros and Mustangs are, there are none being raced in the regular-production trim in NHRA Stock. That is the sad part to me, but who in their right mind would race a new 302 rated at 412, or a Camaro rated at 426?

Imagine if by 1971 no one had built a '69 Camaro or 428 Mustang? Unthinkable. I think the specialty cars are great and deserve to race, but I would also like to see the regular models being raced, and this will only happen if NHRA can devise a system to rate them more equally.

As for the current CJ and DP cars, most of those guys just want to go fast, so let them run in a special class for new cars, but also let other Stockers compete if they want to do battle. I love the factory cars, but having the best cars in the country be outrun by a half-second makes no sense. BTW, I'm all for combining stick and auto, realistically, it would be a wash across the board (better efficiency with the stick vs radials and ultra-light autos). More heads-up competition, but not over the top.

Evan

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

And the amazing thing about that is, my stock, daily driven '95 LT-1 automatic Camaro ran a best of 13.881 at Quaker City, 99.83 mph at Dragway 42, granted with a wider profile street tire. Best 60' was 1.98.

My opinion about the new cars, the quickest, easiest fix is to create FX-classes. I echo the sentiments of many--the new cars are cool, and if they bring new cars, drivers, fans, manufacturer interest, media attention, etc to our sport, that is a good thing. It just isn't good/fair to have them dominate at the expense of the old iron. If the performance levels of the new cars eventually equal out, then you can re-combine them, as was done with the FI cars/classes.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

My Thoughts

I don't want any new classes with one exception. Many new cars have a blower or turbo, these cars need to be in their own class. I don't believe it will ever be possible to factor these cars to run with non pressurized cars. Make a 7,8,and 9 lb blown/turbo class, combine sticks and autos together. If you are truly looking toward the future, this will help as all manufacturers have or will have these cars .

Non pressurized(normally aspirated) cars should stay as is or eliminate a few classes. We just need the new cars to be factored better to begin with. Now that there are a host of underfactored cars, 2 things should happen.

1. review and raise some factors soon
2. Make the factoring system in place more aggressive


two last points ,,,,

I personally think our cars are plenty fast now, I would hate to see any wt breaks lower than 7 lbs/hp.

We don't need purpose built factory cars that are not made for street use originally. Stop accepting them now. I know the ones already accepted are here to stay, but enough of it.There are plenty of good performance cars out there that would fit right in with this category

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

How many posts have been devoted to the new cars? All the factory cars from the 60's have found their way into the "PROPER" class (more or less). I imagine that there were some GM and Ford racers that were pissed when Chrysler brought out their factory cars. Thank God that the BIG 3 have not decided to build smart cars. This a great opportunity to get the BIG3 and NHRA/IHRA to start posting $ for winning class. Higher payout by the BIG 3 for using their models and parts. More racers come out. More spectators come out. More cars are sold. And the saga continues. Crate motors are a great idea. Easing up on some of the blueprint specs/replacement parts is good too.If it gets easier to run S/SS, how about divisinals with just S/SS with 300 car counts. All done in 2 days.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

I have agreed all along that the new cars need new classes. I had hoped that would happen before we even tracked our car. I also agree that the blown/huffercharged cars should be in their own class(es).

And although it may surprise some, we new car owners are not horned devils who came out of under earth solely to wreck drag racing and stock classes. We are just like you were at some point when you bought a car to go racing. You picked something that looked good, or met your interest for some other reason, possibly even because it had some "advantage." I bought my car for no other reason than wanting a piece of history, and my first love was always drag racing, which I missed over much of my life due to being a responsible husband and father, so now at this point in my life, what better than being able to live a dream? I had no idea that the car would have an advantage. But it does. So because of that, am I supposed to just sell it? I don't think that is a good solution either.

Rule changes are the only thing that will make anything better.

I don't completely agree on a lot of the "proposed" changes, and admit to a personal bias. But I do certainly agree that something is needed.

Then it is simply a question of what form the changes should take. If the form it takes, is something that drives the new cars into the garage permanently which seems to be the intent of some of the more radical suggestions, then that hardly seems very fair either. And to those who say that can't happen, look back to history. It has, it could, and if some have their way, it will happen again.

As for those who argue that we just need to "fix the factors", I suggest that in fairness, and to make sure that the playing field is as level as possible, then the hp factors on ALL cars should be previewed and "fixed". If the older cars are not that out of line, the review shouldn't hurt them as much as it does the newer cars.

A new group/set of classes, seems to be the most practical approach. I don't understand why us having a few new classes would upset anyone else's applecart, but it apparently does.

David
The New Hemi Guy

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Well said, David. I won't speak for the CJ cars, but I'll say this regarding the DP Challengers: These cars, especially the motors, pretty much have to be completely taken apart, re-done, and more often than not, re-done a few more times to make them anywhere close to race ready, let alone competitively race ready. They are FAR from a race-ready car when purchased from Mopar. It's taking MUCH
more work AND money by the buyers of these cars to bring out their potential...There surely is a place for the great new American Muscle...Re-class them, similar to what they've done w/the "H" Mopars, or whatever.....NHRA's holding this bag and it's up to them to straighten THEIR MESS out....some people here are putting the hate on the people who've bought and are racing these CJ and DP cars and it's surely not right.........put the squeeze on NHRA---where it belongs. Just my opinion of what's happened in Stock Eliminator this season....

Warren Lederer. WJ

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

ken offers a solution, maybe not perfect but he offers a solution... most just bitch.

my idea is a A/B/C - FX classes that run outside of stock eliminator, heads up, finals on sunday ... when the cars get say 5 years old then they join us now that we have a good HP / POTENTIAL input from 5 years of heads ups !!!

i think it adds excitement to nhra, oem and the fans are exposed to the old win on sunday sell on monday mantra ?

jack

and to those no heads up racers... find a bracket race !

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Taking the chance of getting yelled at by Ken, there is an awesome place for these cars to race. It's called NHRA Unleashed. For those of you who don't know, Unleashed is NHRA's answer to the NMRA/NMCA and is mainly heads-up racing directed towards the young crowd. Blowers, turbos, 2-feet tall intakes, and decent crowds in their 20's and 30's. This is actually the perfect place for these cars.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

Hey Mike I don't agree, NHRA unleashed is an okay idea but you want them same people at NHRA events. If you find a honest way to get the new cars in stock and maybe the foreign makes also you will get those same 20-30 year olds in the stands to watch the sportsman racers. If we can pull the factories in and more spectators it will raise the purse for everybody and maybe some of them may become racers themselves.

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

doubt it!!

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

The other night I was having cold ones and burning wood on the camp fire after installing the transmission, shifter and drive shaft in the new DP Challenger. I said to Gary what if when a car ran 1.25 under they automatically are out of the eliminator and are bumped into a run off the index heads up category for that race? This would deal with all out of line cars that happen to get discovered "PT Cruiser". They would run for their own Wally and maybe a money prize. You would see what these cars could run.
This is just a idea and It could be fun.
Dan Wilson

Re: Stock and the late models, a solution.
 

My thoughts

Computer controlled cars in their own class.

Carbuerated cars in their own class.

Combine sticks and autos within each class.

Five year limit on engine spec. changes.

Remove non factory size cranks and rods from blueprint spec.

Twenty year old cars or older get Edelbrock heads.

No throttle by wire.
If the factories can fool NHRA on the initial HP. ratings of the engines, it would be no problem to fool NHRA on the capabilities of the computer. With throttle by wire several functions are available in real time : traction control, track position, adjusting E.T. for the perfect run, delay, and a host of other capabilites. No throttle by wire, the temptation is just too inviting!