Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Its almost that time of year when the NHRA committees will be getting together to see if any rule changes are needed for 2014.

If you have any rule change suggestions for Stock or S/S send them to Bruce Bachelder by July 15th.

bbachelder@nhra.com

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Thank you, Travis!

Is there an standard format that the requests need to be submitted in, or will an e-Mail outlining the request suffice?

Lew

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

An e-mail to Bruce will work.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

What rule will bring parity to the old carb cars and the 2008- up cars in Stock? Even the people that have the new cars know the playing field is nowhere level !!!!!! No one enjoys being the sacrificial lamb.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Nhra wanted new cars--they have them now--racers we have never heard of are racing--because of new cars--besides they all spent a ton to get them-someday it MIGHT equal out-Maybe ;)

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

That's for sure!

Bill Lamb

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Allow the FSC classes at all events?

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Travis NHRA needs to put all fuelinfected cars back in there own class! at least E to A the old carb cars don't have a chance up against these cars that have bogus HP ratings.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Folks, Travis simply made a "public service announcement" about the deadline to petition for rule changes. He did us all a favor by reminding us to make our opinions known to NHRA "in writing" before the deadline. Let's not turn this thread into anything else. It is one thing to ask Travis how to go about getting a rule change. It's another to go off on a tangent about the rules.

While I do have a real problem with the severely under factored factory race cars that belong in their own class, let's just keep that, and other complaints, out of this thread. Let it stand as the "public service announcement" that it is.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

I have just submitted this request to NHRA Tech.

If anyone else wishes to jump on this wagon, feel free to do so. The more the merrier!!!

bbachelder@nhra.com



Re: Rule Amendment Seat Belt expiry

I wish to petition N.H.R.A. to amend the seat belt expiration rule from the current two (2) year interval to a new three (3)year expiration interval.

This amendment would apply to vehicles with an elapsed time of 8.5 seconds and slower, and a miles per hour of 150 and slower.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

add: "with no visible damages"

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Belts, What great idea ,could only hope they would ok that

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Great idea, Peter. But, why not 5 years? Three really will be very little help.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Is this hard for some to understand--NHRA wants new cars--new fans-younger ect=ect. They can relate to new cars--NO way are the powers to be going to make it fair--Nascar has always told drivers- we don't need you BUT you need us-maybe nhra feels the same--just saying :)

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Going in ablazing may not be the best way to start. A 50% increase in usage may be a bit easier to get at first.?

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Try to stay on topic eh!

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

LOL with your request. Do you have any documentation to back up your request? Without some data it probably won't get anywhere. If you deal with the Tech Dept. you must be a lawyer or be able to act like one.
Maybe someone on this forum can provide data if you can't.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

NHRA will do nothing about seat belts...The two year deal is strictly SFI. Do you think NHRA will lay it on the line and risk being liable when they can deflect any issue to SFI?

SFI on the other hand has been presented a webbing by a major manufacturer who would have backed a five year period of their product, and SFI said... Follow the money more time between replacement means less money for the manufacturers...and who makes up SFI.

From iphone

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

If it sounded like that I was attacking Travis nothing could be further from the truth. Travis is always a stand up guy who loves the sport as much as we do. What I was doing was asking the question what rule, rules, or suggestion we as racers could come up with to make competing with the new cars (2008-up) fair.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Before accepting the submitted hp ratings for these new cars, they should send them out to several race engine builders asking if they are in the ball park. Nobody knowledgable about engines would accept most of them. If they were rated correctly there would be no problem.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Ed,

Most are correctly factored for 1,000 ft. The trouble starts when they run to 1320.

Dennis Breeden

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

I think everyone should stay on topic and address your issues to Bruce as Travis said. Bruce is a very methodic person and will analyze and share all of the concerns and talk with all members of the committee. Bruce used to race and knows the problems. He can't solve everything but will give an HONEST attempt for all concerned.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

lol

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Larry, by no means was I saying you of all people, or anyone else, for that matter, was attacking Travis. We've all been good friends far too long for that.

My post was merely meant to be a nudge to keep the thread about Travis' reminder to us, rather than have it go off in another direction.

As far as a rule for racers to suggest to make it fair, let's just say that's better off with a thread of its own, which will not be pretty, they've all turned ugly since those cars were put in the guide.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Do you think the belt manufactures would keep the same price to re-cert or just ad more for having a longer cert? What would we gain?

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

How about changing the ahfs so that it reviews after the 6th 12th 18th and final event... That will speed up the process

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

I like this idea.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Good idea on AHFS. I think atleast 3 review periods would be good but 4 may even be better.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

I agree. Four would be even better.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

originally it was 3 times, but later changed to 2. I have proposed for the umpthteen time to make it a system of averages and quit mixing a dynamic eliminator with static numbers. Not a good match. We shall see.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Jeff, please explain. What is the dynamic eliminator? The requirement of a .350 or faster run before including it in the average?

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

You know Jeff and his big words.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

my suggestion sent to Bruce; Bruce; I'm sure you will be getting a lot of requests for refactoring some of the older cars to make them more competitive with the newer ones but nhra really needs to look into refactoring the most famous racecar of all. those 1955-57 chevs. if nhra could refactor these cars fan interest would increase-young people would get an honest look into the history of the sport and maybe some of us owners would come back to the nhra with our cars instead of bracket racing them!

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Two things. The dymanic eliminators are stock and super stock; always changing because the cars, smart tuners, new parts, etc keep them changing all the time. I think that is a given. The static numbers 1.20 under, 1.00 trigger, .350 under (as mentioned) and all the stationary stuff just doesn't work with changing numbers. A system tied to eliminator averages and engine averages with instant looks when a trigger is hit, then the system applies. You know 1.00 under at Gainesville early in the year, and 1.00 at Indy are not the same. An average would move with the time of year. Have as many adjustment periods as you like; 2,3,4. The same data is collected anyway. It would work better, and just reverse the system to take hp off at a faster rate than is currently available, which takes entirely too long and is too limited. Second thing, since I got a new car, I have petitioned NHRA to reduce the hp on the old cars accross the board. My starting point was older than 2008 5% accross the board (its just an excel program) and maybe only 2% for the LS1. Spoke to tech this weekend and in a frank conversation, 5% might not be enough. So it's all out there. I didn't just dream this stuff up. It's been out there. The current system took the politics out of the program, refine it without politics again and it would be much better. I think that is 3 cents worth. I ain't through. Now there are some glitches that happen, like one or two in the nation; I have a provision for that. Over the many years since myself and Wesley studied this (1999), it has provided for everything and is more gentle and user friendly than the current AHFS. When the current system was proposed by NHRA, I accepted it because it was better than what was out there and it at least functions, but not as well as an average system could. I think I would do away with the body family thing. I don't think the data will support this; an engine on a dyno don't know which car it is going in. Maybe a few rare exceptions, but not many. Anyway, I am now up to 5 cents and that all I got for now, but I got a lot more. Maybe some more. I also proposed for NHRA to sublet the data responsibility to Nitro Joe and friends. A small fee to offset the cost, maybe an additional buck per entry, and some sort of fee to the world famous Nitro and company for current information (which is always current) for details. And I got to go somewhere, and we up to a dime now.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Very Interesting, Jeff. It's obivious that you have put much thought into this concept. It's probably not perfect( nothing is) but at least it begins the process to improve.

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

From September 2012 discussion on ClassRacer with Andrew Hill's response (to which I agree with):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lee
Want more participation at NHRA events with the "older / traditional" Stock Eliminator cars?

Want to see a qualifying sheet that is not top heavy with late model factory drag cars that leave you with no desire to participate?

Don't want the expense of having a new "crate Engine" class and making your old 350 / 255 Chevy obsolete and having to buy a 383 Vortec engine trying to keep up with the new factory Super Cars?

Do you want to give the new cars a run for their money?

Drum roll.......reduce the HP of ALL 1992 and OLDER vehicles in the class guide BY FIVE PERCENT! No index changes, just an across the board 5%
reduction in HP. For EVERYBODY. This is not complicated. Take 5% off.

Why 1992? Because the LT1 started in 1993. They had their gift already.

I don't care if your combo just had 20 HP taken off last month for whatever reason. Bam! Take another 5% off the weight. Index stays the same.
I don't care that you built your car with the heaviest parts you could find and you can't make the new minimum. You have 3 classes you can run in. Pick one.

AHFS trigger? I don't know. I'm thinking it should remain the same. But I'd sure like the trigger to be based on the 1/8th mile ET.

Thank you. Let the arrows fly.

Andrew Hill response:
Well that makes sense, just get even more people playing the AHFS game! It would make 1000x more sense to add 5% to all post 1992 combinations, it accomplishes the same thing, but doesn't create a bunch of 1.30 under cars from 1.10 under cars.
__________________
3207 D/SA

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Jeff, since it would effect fewer cars possibly having to change classes or weights, would it not be simpler to add 5% to all the newer cars? It's pretty obvious they are the problem, not everybody else. Right?

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Easy Ed, 5% is way too much for the new cars. I could see maybe 4.5 or 4.75 but 5%? Your killin' me!

Dennis Breeden

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Ed, you didn't read the entire post.
I posted my thoughts and Andrew Hill said the same thing you are saying. As you can see, I agreed with Andrew (and you).

Re: Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests
 

Combine sticks and autos. I am submitting this to NHRA. I know with 110% certainty it will be shot down of course....
(from an old post but I'm confident the percentages wouldn't be any different today as 1 year ago).

According to Nitro Joe's Stats (from 6/13/12 issue)

Stock / Stick racers: 115
Stock / Auto racers: 836
(RWD classes counted)
Only 13.76% of NHRA racers are Stock / Stick RWD

Super Stock / Stick racers in SS/A through SS/O: 29
Super Stock / Auto in SS/AA through SS/PA racers: 221
Only 13.12% of NHRA racers are Super Stock / Stick RWD

Super Stock / Stick racers in GT/A through GT/M: 31
Super Stock / Auto racers in GT/AA through GT/MA: 260
Only 11.92% of NHRA racers are Super Stock GT / Stick RWD

RWD classes that differentiate between transmissions counted; i.e., not showing SS/AH or Modified. I also didn't show SS/AAA or SSA/A or the truck classes because I don't even know what transmissions are allowed in these classes.

Also realize these numbers are higher because many racers, both stick & auto bounce up or down a class.

Bottom line, less than 14% of all Stock or Super Stock racers use a manual transmission.