Consolidating Classes
 

Opinions on consolidating classes...? (see poll)

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Didn't see consolidating fwd with rwd?

Just kidding.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Enough with the pushing for changes. Hasn't there been enough done to Stock over the past few years? Seems like some won't be satisfied until S and SS become strictly Bracket 1 and Bracket 2. Stock and Super Stock were perfectly fine save for a few little tweaks and some of the most recent changes aren't exactly beneficial to their future.
It's almost like some have forgotten what these classes stand for and how they're supposed to challenge each competitor to gain as much performance as possible within the rules already established. Instead we get "indexes are too soft", "you fast guys must be cheating" cuz instead of working on your own stuff you're on the computer pushing for changes and bashing those that do work on theirs or you got caught cheating so now NHRA must change the rules to allow you to keep those expense yet illegal parts.
Just leave things alone!

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

How about "both of the above" and stopping at 16lbs/FHP? I personally would like for this to happen but then the U/SA mafia would probably put a contract out on me. TT

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Hey Michael,this poll is for IHRA correct?You do most of your racing for that organization.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Tom, How about instead, go down to about 24 lbs per,V-8's allowed, and then make it class winners only in the eliminator?
You 'll see those lower classes fill up in a hurry then...

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Ed - Why are you "just kidding"? If you're going to discuss consolidation, combining FWD and RWD should definitely be on the table. (BTW, my vote was to leave it alone).

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Combine sticks and autos I ..

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

both of the above (stick / auto & spread the weight breaks)

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Just me but I think they should all be 1lb weight classes........

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Didn't think it was worth getting that detailed in a general poll. NHRA FWD classes have already been consolidated amongst themselves with both wider weight breaks and combining sticks and autos. I wouldn't have a problem with combining FWD and RWD classes if there were enough lower classes and there was a way to give them a weight break that put them with an index that made sense. I don't know of a simple way to do that though.

1) Nobody's "pushing" anything. It's a question.
2) I would agree there's been *too* many changes, many of which have generated unintended problems themselves.
3) How would having less classes (presumably ending up with more heads up runs) make it more like bracket racing? It's exactly the opposite.

Why? (Just curious as to your reasoning)

No, it's not. It's for benchracing, where you do most of your racing. http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/signsandflags7.gif Sorry, that one was hanging over the plate. :D Still love ya, Ed!

The topic gets brought up for time to time in various forms. I just don't remember seeing a poll covering it. It is the silly season, after all. We need something else to b*tch about. :cool:

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

What I can't stand are those who bicker over "soft indexes" or "too many classes" after they've hit their performance plateau. Or they bitch that they need "better valve springs" or "allow roller rockers" blah blah blah. The rest of us in the meantime are just trying to get around the performance curve with what we've got within the exisiting rules and class structure. For those who feel things are "too soft" or need more relaxed rules my advice is go buy a couple "For Sale" signs and move on to another more expensive project like a S/S or Comp car, and leave Stock alone. Just my $.02

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

lol

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

'Cause Michael has one. Just ribbing him a little.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

If FWD cars were to be absorbed into RWD classes, you wouldn't be able to do it stricltly on a weight break basis, for the following reason.

-AF/S, 13.00-15.99 pound weight break. 13.85 Index, 12.95 Nat'l Record.
13 pounds is K/SA, with an Index of 12.65
-BF/S 16.00-17.49 pound weight break. 14.65 Index, 13.67 run at Indy
16 pounds is P/SA, with an Index of 13.45
-CF/S 17.49-18.99 pound weight break. 15.15 Index, 14.17 Nat'l Record
17.49 pounds falls into Q/SA, with an Index of 13.80
-DF/S 19.00-24.99 pound weight break. Index 15.60. 14.66 at Indy 2009
19 pounds is T/SA, with an Index of 14.40
-EF/S 25.00-more pound weight break. 17.45 Index, best runs in the 16.30's
W/S is the lowest class, 24 pound weight break, 16.65 Index

With the exception of EF/S, not one FWD record is even close to the corresponding RWD weight class Index. IF there were consolidated, I would be in favor of adding FWD cars into RWD classes with similar Indexes. So DF/S would be added into V/SA instead of T, and so on with the other classes.

Adjusting weight breaks for all classes (either .75 or 1 pound classes) would be easiest. Not sure how some classes would work where the stick and auto are rated differently, then NHRA would have to get into weight breaks for the autos (or sticks, in some classes), and would be a bih hassle. IF 1 pound classes were made, I'd think a rule of one class only should be written, so a car wouldn't have to try and adjust 800 pounds or more, in the upper classes, to make the currrently-legal three class rule. Natural B/SA (8.50) can run A (8.00) and C (9.00). If the new classes were, say:

A/S - 7.00
B/S - 8.00
C/S - 9.00 etc etc
Then a car could only run it's natural class, and eliminate the need for removing/adding rediculous amounts of weight to change classes. Same with Super Stock as well.

Just my opinions. Personally, I'd prefer it be left alone for a while, and if I HAD to vote, I would go with the altered (3/4 to 1 pound) weight breaks.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Stick and automatics should be rated the same. Its the same friggin' engine.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

I agree.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

I disagree. Some engines simply work much better with a stick than they do an automatic. Some engines work well either way. Considering the wide variation of bore/stroke ratios, rod/stroke ratios, carburetor sizes, and cylinder head CSA's, just to name a few factors, to say that all engines work equally well with sticks and automatics is simply a generalization that cannot be true, nor can it be supported.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Mike, In order to put the FWD's in the other RWD classes properly they would need to drop the HP ratings appropriately. That way the weight breaks would be correct. All the FWD cars would move down some classes to the appropriate indexes.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Owen, that would probably work. My shipping weight is 3,444, and the NHRA and factory rating is 170, so I'm a natural U/SA (20 pounds), with a 14.85 Index. I'd only need 13 hp taken off (down to 157), to make V at 22 pounds.

Hope all is well up in NY.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

This FWD thing is really getting old! I was involved in the revamp several years ago when NHRA wanted to eliminate FWD altogether. They went from 16 classes to 4 (then 5 now 6 as of Jan.) and combined sticks with autos. Also shared with RWD in the .3 index reduction.They have paid the price! Leave them alone! RWD classes have not suffered at all (except for the index reduction). In fact more classes have been added since then. Leave FWD alone!!! Jim

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Dosent matter....If it wont run with an automatic then put a stick in it. Most dont use the clutch anyway. The engine is just an air pump. In time with cam changes and tunning the ones that wont work well with an automatic will work. If its a small engine then allow a wt. break for the lower classes. How else ar ya going to get these new combos hit by the AHFS before we all die of old age? One lb breaks would help and being allowed to run the natural class only would go a long way in helping to bring back some sposors. The status que isnt working. So what is the answer?

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

I cant agree with Mark more. Class winners only. You will see plenty "quality" lower class cars then. If we keep asking for changes we will be bracket one and two.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

X 2 Agreed ! That would help the AHFS do its job and make winning class mean something again.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

One pound weight breaks is entirely different from saying engines work the same regardless of the transmission. One pound weight breaks are fine, they're a good idea. Arbitrarily deciding to factor engines the same, regardless of the transmission is another thing entirely.

Cam changes will not change rod/stroke ratio, bore/stroke ratio, or other factors, and make them equal. It just simply won't work. You cannot, for example, make a 302 Ford work as well in front of a C4 as you can in front of a 4 speed. You cannot make that happen with a cam change.

And you cannot just go sticking additional weight breaks in for various combinations everywhere. Exactly how complex and convoluted do you want to make this? I thought the idea was to make fewer classes, fewer weight breaks, and more heads up races. Add 100 pounds for one engine, in one car, with a manual transmission, or take 100 pounds off of a different engine in a different car, with an automatic, just to try to make engines that don't work well with an automatic somewhat competitive? You cannot possibly be serious.

If it won't run with an automatic, put a stick in it? So, now it's okay to just pencil a guys combination dead? Excuse me, isn't that what we're trying to prevent?

And you're NEVER going to make the AHFS get all the new stuff in line. NEVER. They'll make however many new combinations every year they feel they need to. They never even have to build the cars or the engines, just sell the parts. If you think the new AHFS and changing weight breaks will stop that, well, you're going to be really disappointed.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Jim,
They CAN be fairly and correctly merged into the other classes. Math works the same regardless of which end you put the slicks on. The argument that FWD cannot be merged into the lower classes of Stock holds no more water than the argument that you can't buy cams, rings, pistons, and converters for them. None. Both of those arguments hold less water than a screen door on a submarine.

There is established average ET data for the FWD cars just like there is for RWD cars. Therefore they can be properly factored.

No, the laws of math and physics apply to FWD cars too, they can race in classes with RWD cars.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Alan, You are kind of right and kind of wrong. You make a good point with the availability of cams, converters, etc... but just in case I've missed something for the last few years, where would I find let's say a set of 4.88, 5.00, or 5.13 gears because I would like a nice set. That would allow me to run a slick with a decent contact patch instead of the tiny little 20 inch tall M/T's that I have to run today in order to mask the fact that I can't get a little bit of gear. Maybe you never thought about why all of the FWD cars run the small tires, now you know. The other thing you need is a little physics refresher, yes the math works but the physics don't. You see, all cars whether FWD or RWD react the same way under acceleration, the reaction causes the front end to rise, thus helping the RWD gain traction with the big gear and the big tire. The FWD is just the opposite and very challenging to correct within the rules. I won't even get in to Fuel Cell placement and Battery relocation advantages. So, yes they could be merged but it would need to be done at the HP level, believe me.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

I never said anything about gears. But, I'm guessing when you need gears no one makes, you get people together and have them made, like the RWD guys do, the 4.75 and 5.00 gears for 12 bolt Chevy, or 5.57 for Dana 60, for example. Go find yourself a sharp transmission guy, and someone with a gear shaper, and change the ratios in your transmission. Someone will make lower gear sets for you.

Again, there is data out there to quantify the average FWD ET just like there is for the RWD cars. If you can quantify an average ET, you can calculate a weight break to put a car in the class it belongs in. It still does not matter what end the slicks are on. You can change the HP rating, or you can use a factor to multiply or divide whatever number you need to use in order to calculate the weight break.

I don't need a physics refresher, Owen, I know all about weight transfer. The exact same laws of physics apply, they just don't work in favor of the FWD cars, I never said they did, you just assumed I did. You can get springs, struts, shocks, or anything else like that made, just like the RWD cars do. The people that make parts for RWD cars will make them for your FWD car, your money spends just exactly like ours does. They can buy the same gas and groceries with your money they can with anyone elses. you can use shock valving and spring rates to slow or prevent weight transfer just like the RWD cars can use it to improve weight transfer.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Alan, I guess a little more free schoolin' is in order. I built my own gears many years ago to give myself a 4.14 ratio, and I hate to even mention it because you should already know but there is no differential in these like a RWD. so it is not quite as simple as making a ring and pinion. That would be childs play. Strut valving done long ago and yes they are valved opposite of a RWD. I built the car for the challenges and I'm pretty clever, no need to suggest that I don't understand how it's done. You'd be quite a ways off base.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

I like this idea!!!!!

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Here's a very quick rough draft:

AA 7.0 to 7.99 10.6
A 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
B 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
C 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
D 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
E 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
F 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
G 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
H 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
I 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
J 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
K 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
L 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
M 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
N 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
O 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
P 25.00 and higher 16.3


Automatic indexes would be 0.05 higher.


To merge the FWD cars, you'd use a weight offset to get them to a class where they're at a similar index. For example, the rule might read, " FWD cars run in a class 3.0 pounds heavier than their published factor". Instead of the wide weight breaks currently in FWD, you'd narrow them up.



For example, a A/FS FWD car that factors at 13.0 would be given a 3.0 offset, to make it a 16.0 factor. That would make it an I car with a 13.6 index, dropping their index 0.25 (almost all the indexes for the consolidated classes stay the same or get lower). You could either continue to run stick and auto together with a weight break, or separate them.

Counting separate classes for stick and automatic, you'd only have 32 classes, as opposed to the current number of around 45-50.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Alan,
That is an excellent proposal, nicely done.
But while you are at it, can't you slide the letters up and eliminate AA?

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Always an interesting discussion. similar results. Many still satisfied as is...No interest in change even if it would be good for S and SS. I would be interested in WHY people care one way or the other. That would be enlightening.
Want no change, WHY? you still take the same car, still race bracket style 90% of races.
Still have same cars to race with class plus some more to make it more fun when allowed.
Answers?

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

I don't think you'll be "schooling" me any time soon. I never suggested you do not know how to do it. I used to build FWD transmissions for a living, so I know what's in them. The Chryslers, for example, do have a "ring and pinion" of sorts. And yes, I know how the finals of the GM stuff work. They ALL have a differential, Owen, or they'd never go around a corner (there's your "free schooling", a little bonus just for you). They started life as street cars, if the front was locked, you couldn't drive it. It's not as simple, in a way. But the flip side is you could actually not only change ratios, but also go to a straight cut gear set to cut down on end loading. It's easier to find someone with a shaper to make sets of spur gears than it is to find someone with the machinery capable of a hypoid ring and pinion.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Sure I could. I did that 2 years or so ago, in a hurry, to show how it could be done. I just pulled an old Word document I had saved of it and posted it.

Not that it makes any real difference, other than the fastest class being called "A" instead of "AA", and the slowest being called "Q" instead of "P".

There is however a serious problem with that old quick and dirty rough draft. It's brought on by the "new" cars. If you allow the new cars to run at 7.0, they'll likely be fast enough to pose a safety problem on a 9" tire. Yes, I know, there are a lot of "10.5 Outlaw" cars out there running real fast. The difference is, it is rare for them to have a race without a crash of some sort, where it's fairly rare to see cars in Stock crash. Also, the speeds would far exceed the current safety equipment standards for Stock (which are really set for a 9.90 or so ET at 130MPH). You just can't safely run 8.90 at 150 on 9" slicks, with stock seats, relatively stock suspension, and a cage that cannot even extend through the firewall.


A 7.0 to 7.99 10.7
B 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
C 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
D 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
E 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
F 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
G 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
H 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
I 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
J 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
K 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
L 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
M 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
N 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
O 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
P 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
Q 25.00 and higher 16.3

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

If thats the case then the new junk needs to be in S/S anyway.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

That won't happen any more quickly than any adjustments to the AHFS will solve the problems.

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Answers? Half the people would not have to do anything and continue to have fun while the other half would have work to do which would limit their fun factor.

Consolidating classes would be fine for the people who are already on the full pound break. Example...A/SA, C/SA, E/SA, G/SA, etc. What about the people who are in B/SA, D/SA, F/SA, etc? There is a lot more to do than just adding or removing weight to fit a full pound break if you are looking at running heads up against already proven combinations in a class.

Maybe that is why there is not an overwelming interest in change even if those who are agenda driven THINK it would be good for S or SS. You want something good for S or SS. Try this agenda...LEAVE THE CLASSES ALONE.

PS> Looks like a majority in the poll kinda feel the same way. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Alan, I suggested the same 3 lb. deal to Len (NHRA) when they combined and eliminated the FWD classes years ago. It didn't seem to matter to them that at the time I either was involved with or owned 6 FWD cars. I was just flat ignored!

Re: Consolidating Classes
 

Give the Mustangs & DPs 100 hp :D and let's race under last years rules.