"2012 and beyond rule proposals"

[Stick Racing]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

I agree with Angelo. Also how about the the rest of the rest of the things they are doing to the new Comp, sorry I meant SS/GT cars? Long steering columns, relocated pedals & driver's seats to move weight back. The rule book says they can't but they go right though tech with no problems. That helps hook with less body rotation/wheel stands.

Glad I don't have to race those things heads up.

Btw, word is no titanium valves for SS in 2011.

Interesting statement...

If the rules are the same in SS as the GT class, why shouldn't they race heads up? Maybe NHRA will will make the rules the same and combine classes. Sponsors would be happy. Less classes to pay.

Be careful what you wish for.

______________________________

Andy Stone 1102 A/S 1112 SS/C

[thomas sheehan]

My 2012 proposal (or better yet... 2011) is.....

drop the AFHS "trigger review" from current -1.00 to -0.80
drop AFHS "auto hp" to -1.00 (same as 2009- old -1.30)

change AFHS review period to every 3 months (with 6 months of data)
+++ AFHS- use rolling 6 moths of data (drop 3 months add new 3 months)

[art leong]

Originally Posted by thomas sheehan

My 2012 proposal (or better yet... 2011) is.....

drop the AFHS "trigger review" from current -1.00 to -0.80
drop AFHS "auto hp" to -1.00 (same as 2009- old -1.30)

change AFHS review period to every 3 months (with 6 months of data)
+++ AFHS- use rolling 6 moths of data (drop 3 months add new 3 months)

That could work.
But tear all cars the get the instant hit down.
I wish they would use corrected altitude. And use all tracks even the altitude ones.
It is totally unfair that someone can go to a altitude track and run 1.5 under and not even get looked at.

[Ed Wright]

Andy, read the rule book. Those things I mentioned are supposed to be the same. Guys with a 4 or 5 year old fwd conversion GT car, built by the rule book are at a disadvantage. If they are going to allow that stuff they should change the rule book.

I agree with Tom and Art about the triggers & altitude tracks. I don't see the 3.25% cap as valid. Should be a % based on the % they ran under the trigger. Should not take so long to correct the really bogus combos.

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Andy, read the rule book. Those things I mentioned are supposed to be the same. Guys with a 4 or 5 year old fwd conversion GT car, built by the rule book are at a disadvantage. If they are going to allow that stuff they should change the rule book.

I agree with Tom and Art about the triggers & altitude tracks. I don't see the 3.25% cap as valid. Should be a % based on the % they ran under the trigger. Should not take so long to correct the really bogus combos.

imagine cars like Stinnet, Morehead and Leblanc. All running "big" RWD cars in the GT classes vs the jellybeans. And remarkably, Shaun Leblanc's 8.97 still hasn't been beat (and gone through teardown).

[Ed Fernandez]

Don't forget 1000'ers.

[GarysZ24]

I wouldn't mind seeing a proposal to allow an engine that came OEM with fuel injection only, to be able to replace that system with an OEM or aftermarket accepted carburation system. Then I could save my future laptop for stuff like this only....

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by GarysZ24

I wouldn't mind seeing a proposal to allow an engine that came OEM with fuel injection only, to be able to replace that system with an OEM or aftermarket accepted carburation system. Then I could save my future laptop for stuff like this only....

only if we get to weld bungs on the carbureted intakes and go the other way

[Tim Ellis]

Allow deep staging in Stock!