CLASS RACER FORUM - View Single Post - 4 speeds for 55-56 chevrolet superstockers

Chuck Norton · 12-23-2007, 01:43 PM

Dick,

Can't say that I disagree. (How'd you like the way the Forum software edited the word "ins***uting?" I didn't type it that way.) Anyway, our form of racing presents an interesting conundrum to rules makers and enforcers. It's the variety of classes and cars that have made it great for everyone for years and ultimately caused the explosion of participation over the last fifteen years. At the same time, the proliferation of participation and the inclination of racers to seek every advantage in an extremely compe***ive arena has created a need for highly-trained and perceptive enforcers. Those guys are rare and are rarer still if they are willing to work for minimal compensation under horrendous conditions. Compare the costs incurred by NASCAR to maintain their technical services division to that of NHRA. I don't have the numbers but I suspect that there is a significant disparity between the two.

Is it out of control? I'd say "complicated and evolving" might be more accurate. Is it unworkable? Perhaps it's not worth the effort but, in my opinion, to replace it with a "spec system" in the sense that I understand that term would probably drive out the little guys within a couple of years. Money would trump ingenuity. A good example of what happens to Super Stockers over time when you homogenize the rules and requirements and then let money drive a system of heads-up racing is called Pro Stock. Homogenization of the rules is a slippery slope. Once you start, the end is predictable. What makes Stock and Super Stock great is the variety of people and combinations. The fact that Billy Nees can whip up on Bobby DeArmond or vice-versa is why I get up and go to the shop every day. I really look forward to seeing the combinations that come rolling out of Mark Yacavone's and Neil Smedley's shops.

Does the system need some refinement? In my opinion, there are some rough spots. Is it worth trashing what we have just to clean up the rough spots? Once again, in my opinion, as long as the participation is at current levels and new blood keeps flowing in to fill the holes left by those of us who are gathering at the "Rainbow Bridge," it's worth working to save. A few soft horsepower ratings don't ruin the day for me. A few "interesting" combinations are just that, interesting. A few imaginative additions to the parts list don't spell the end of relevance to what I've been doing for longer than the guy in the other lane has been out of diapers. I remember the same things going on in 1964 and we survived it. Heads up racing is fun but it is not the way to keep the entry lists full.

Happy Holidays,

c

12-23-2007, 01:43 PM	#28
Chuck Norton Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Covina, CA Posts: 474 Likes: 112 Liked 89 Times in 19 Posts	Re: 4 speeds for 55-56 chevrolet superstockers Dick, Can't say that I disagree. (How'd you like the way the Forum software edited the word "ins*uting?" I didn't type it that way.) Anyway, our form of racing presents an interesting conundrum to rules makers and enforcers. It's the variety of classes and cars that have made it great for everyone for years and ultimately caused the explosion of participation over the last fifteen years. At the same time, the proliferation of participation and the inclination of racers to seek every advantage in an extremely compe*ive arena has created a need for highly-trained and perceptive enforcers. Those guys are rare and are rarer still if they are willing to work for minimal compensation under horrendous conditions. Compare the costs incurred by NASCAR to maintain their technical services division to that of NHRA. I don't have the numbers but I suspect that there is a significant disparity between the two. Is it out of control? I'd say "complicated and evolving" might be more accurate. Is it unworkable? Perhaps it's not worth the effort but, in my opinion, to replace it with a "spec system" in the sense that I understand that term would probably drive out the little guys within a couple of years. Money would trump ingenuity. A good example of what happens to Super Stockers over time when you homogenize the rules and requirements and then let money drive a system of heads-up racing is called Pro Stock. Homogenization of the rules is a slippery slope. Once you start, the end is predictable. What makes Stock and Super Stock great is the variety of people and combinations. The fact that Billy Nees can whip up on Bobby DeArmond or vice-versa is why I get up and go to the shop every day. I really look forward to seeing the combinations that come rolling out of Mark Yacavone's and Neil Smedley's shops. Does the system need some refinement? In my opinion, there are some rough spots. Is it worth trashing what we have just to clean up the rough spots? Once again, in my opinion, as long as the participation is at current levels and new blood keeps flowing in to fill the holes left by those of us who are gathering at the "Rainbow Bridge," it's worth working to save. A few soft horsepower ratings don't ruin the day for me. A few "interesting" combinations are just that, interesting. A few imaginative additions to the parts list don't spell the end of relevance to what I've been doing for longer than the guy in the other lane has been out of diapers. I remember the same things going on in 1964 and we survived it. Heads up racing is fun but it is not the way to keep the entry lists full. Happy Holidays, c