New rules for 2010?

[Michael Beard]

Kennedy writes: 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.

Pandora's Box, unfortunately... not only the "grey area" (?) stuff, but also the loosening of rules over the years, superceded parts, etc... it's not that Stockers are that amazing to run under Super Stock indexes, it's that they've become so much more like Super Stockers!

Blackley writes: Instead of messing with the indexes, just raise the triggers. This will accomplish the same thing as lowering but not effect those who aren't as fast.

I've advocated numerous times, and always been summarily ignored: We have *years* of data on the books already. Run all the figures based on a -1.000 trigger and factor EVERYBODY once right now, and then you'd hardly have to touch anything for years! Simply factoring cars properly would get rid of a lot of issues with crazy -1.40 under runs, 1000' racing, and on and on.

Cour writes: Don't you think the indexes are weak when a LT-1 stocker can run .80 under the superstock indexes? (just an example)

Precisely that: Just an example, and one that does not translate across the board. The Mirada I was driving in Super Stock last year is among the best Stockers in the country, yet it only ran .15-.20 under the Super Stock index. Stock and Super Stock really are two different animals, and shouldn't readily be compared. Some Super Stock combinations are extremely difficult to make run that far under.


My opinion is that by combining a large number of classes (weight breaks, trans?) and thus generating a much higher probability of having a heads-up race, you incentivize those "bottom feeder" -.50 under cars some are so concerned with to "work on their cars" or "spend money" (whichever you subscribe to)... as opposed to simply legislating them into doing so.