Quote:
Originally Posted by CBS
We had the opportunity to go faster and we did....as you guys can see...its just as easy to lose going fast...
|
Agreed. But, I'm also not naive enough to think that you (or anyone else) built their car to go faster simply for the sheer thrill of going faster at the finish line. I may be ignorant, but I'm not that ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBS
why change the rules....
|
Cost is the big issue with me. Why am I building a car to go faster and faster even though it doesn't run a quicker ET? Going faster doesn't make the ride any more fun. Leaving the starting line under wide open throttle? Now that's fun.
Does it make me more competitive? Yes, and does that make racing more fun? Yes. But there's no real sense of speed as you approach the finish line as you're not looking at your surroundings, you're looking at the car in the lane next to you! I haven't had a sense of speed in my car since 1988, when I first drove it. Once you get some seat time, you QUICKLY become used to the speed aspect of it.
And I know that's true for you too, because you wouldn't be as good as you are if this wasn't true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBS
the fan thing won't be an issue...unless we start blowing up on fire....
|
At national events, I generally agree. I can't believe I watch people leave the stands when Pro Stock comes up, but many do. But, that said, we have the opportunity to put on a show that's much closer to Pro Stock than we do now, especially most cars in S/G. For God's sake, most of you guys can run only about a second slower than Pro Stock cars. But, you'd never know it watching the cars leave the starting line, or even in the first couple hundred feet. And by then, everyone's in second gear, and watching the car go down the track is about as interesting as watching a street car.
We could definitely generate more fan interest in our classes than we do now though by removing electronically controlled throttle stops. But, we'd never pack the stands like the fuel cars do. That said, I realize that none of us are doing this because of fan interest. But, if we ever want our payout to increase significantly (even at our local tracks), we have to face the fact that this is entertainment, and if we're not entertaining (which we're currently not), then nobody is going to pay to watch, and none of that money is ever going to funnel down to us. In other words, if we don't make our classes more entertaining to watch, we're ALWAYS going to need to be a self-funded operation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBS
if you enjoy this type of racing...which we do....you certainly feel like stepping up your car a little at a time...to make it more fun to drive...if nobody showed up...then maybe a rule change would be in order.....
|
This is my point exactly. My car is getting faster, but this is not translating to more fun in the car. I'm just spending more money. I had more fun driving my car when I was racing at WOT the entire length of the track. I just wasn't having fun with the competition aspect of it because it was darn near impossible to win a race that way. So, I've sacrificed the ride to be competitive, and made my car boring to watch at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBS
The 2 guys in Div 3 that fought for the All Stars berth....both have slower cars(sorry guys).....and have run that way for years....and have no intention of going faster.....(the mopar one is probably not capable lol).....
|
How slow is "slower"? I'm guessing these aren't 9.90 @ 135 mph cars. I'm guessing they're 9.90 @ 150 mph cars, which would be considered "slower" in this day and age. But, if their cars can run over 150 mph, then they are more than capable of running S/C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBS
so I don't think the speed is an issue......until we bring up the Mike Manners thing that occurred at Norwalk....the track was good so he didn't have a problem...but to run as hard as he was seemed dangerous.....it was... entertaining.....and he was surpisingly close for running 201 in super gas with a promod and 217 in s/c with an TAD...but...wow....
|
Why? Why should he be discriminated against because he can run 200+ mph? Seriously, where do you draw the line between what's acceptable for a speed in these classes and what's not? Why is 9.90 @ 170 mph acceptable when that person can be closing in on somebody running 9.90 @ 135 mph? Is it just because the majority of S/G cars now run 9.90 @ 160 mph, and that 40 mph difference would be construed as dangerous? Why hasn't the people running 170 mph been construed as dangerous to those running 140 mph?
Mark my words...unless something is done, the speeds will continue to climb, and in 10 years time the average S/G car will be running 9.90 @ 170 mph (with a smattering of guys in the 180 - 190 mph range). Silly....but hey, I know all the motor builders love us...