Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Cour
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?