Consolidating Classes

[junior barns]

Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN

Dosent matter....If it wont run with an automatic then put a stick in it. Most dont use the clutch anyway. The engine is just an air pump. In time with cam changes and tunning the ones that wont work well with an automatic will work. If its a small engine then allow a wt. break for the lower classes. How else ar ya going to get these new combos hit by the AHFS before we all die of old age? One lb breaks would help and being allowed to run the natural class only would go a long way in helping to bring back some sposors. The status que isnt working. So what is the answer?

I like this idea!!!!!

[Alan Roehrich]

Here's a very quick rough draft:

AA 7.0 to 7.99 10.6
A 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
B 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
C 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
D 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
E 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
F 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
G 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
H 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
I 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
J 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
K 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
L 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
M 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
N 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
O 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
P 25.00 and higher 16.3


Automatic indexes would be 0.05 higher.


To merge the FWD cars, you'd use a weight offset to get them to a class where they're at a similar index. For example, the rule might read, " FWD cars run in a class 3.0 pounds heavier than their published factor". Instead of the wide weight breaks currently in FWD, you'd narrow them up.



For example, a A/FS FWD car that factors at 13.0 would be given a 3.0 offset, to make it a 16.0 factor. That would make it an I car with a 13.6 index, dropping their index 0.25 (almost all the indexes for the consolidated classes stay the same or get lower). You could either continue to run stick and auto together with a weight break, or separate them.

Counting separate classes for stick and automatic, you'd only have 32 classes, as opposed to the current number of around 45-50.

[Wayne Kerr]

Alan,
That is an excellent proposal, nicely done.
But while you are at it, can't you slide the letters up and eliminate AA?

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

[Dick Butler]

Always an interesting discussion. similar results. Many still satisfied as is...No interest in change even if it would be good for S and SS. I would be interested in WHY people care one way or the other. That would be enlightening.
Want no change, WHY? you still take the same car, still race bracket style 90% of races.
Still have same cars to race with class plus some more to make it more fun when allowed.
Answers?

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Dick Butler

Always an interesting discussion. similar results. Many still satisfied as is...No interest in change even if it would be good for S and SS. I would be interested in WHY people care one way or the other. That would be enlightening.
Want no change, WHY? you still take the same car, still race bracket style 90% of races.
Still have same cars to race with class plus some more to make it more fun when allowed.
Answers?

Answers? Half the people would not have to do anything and continue to have fun while the other half would have work to do which would limit their fun factor.

Consolidating classes would be fine for the people who are already on the full pound break. Example...A/SA, C/SA, E/SA, G/SA, etc. What about the people who are in B/SA, D/SA, F/SA, etc? There is a lot more to do than just adding or removing weight to fit a full pound break if you are looking at running heads up against already proven combinations in a class.

Maybe that is why there is not an overwelming interest in change even if those who are agenda driven THINK it would be good for S or SS. You want something good for S or SS. Try this agenda...LEAVE THE CLASSES ALONE.

PS> Looks like a majority in the poll kinda feel the same way. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha

[Billy Nees]

Alan, I suggested the same 3 lb. deal to Len (NHRA) when they combined and eliminated the FWD classes years ago. It didn't seem to matter to them that at the time I either was involved with or owned 6 FWD cars. I was just flat ignored!

[Ed Wright]

Give the Mustangs & DPs 100 hp and let's race under last years rules.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Alan, I suggested the same 3 lb. deal to Len (NHRA) when they combined and eliminated the FWD classes years ago. It didn't seem to matter to them that at the time I either was involved with or owned 6 FWD cars. I was just flat ignored!

If you suggested it, that tells me I'm not terribly far off base.

[Michael Beard]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Alan, I suggested the same 3 lb. deal to Len (NHRA) when they combined and eliminated the FWD classes years ago.

Funny, I came to the same 3 lb. conclusion as you and Alan when I was tumbling the numbers around the other day.

I used to build FWD transmissions for a living, so I know what's in them. The Chryslers, for example, do have a "ring and pinion" of sorts.

I've got the transfer gear, etc from Mopar that comes out to a 3.73 final drive. I was always told that that was the best ratio that could be done for my transaxle without cutting the case, which I was told was illegal. Is all or part of that not true? You have my attention! This car's dying for some gear & tire!

Answers? Half the people would not have to do anything and continue to have fun while the other half would have work to do which would limit their fun factor.

I thought people kept telling us we need to work harder! (like nobody ever moves classes now...)

Consolidating classes would be fine for the people who are already on the full pound break. Example...A/SA, C/SA, E/SA, G/SA, etc. What about the people who are in B/SA, D/SA, F/SA, etc? There is a lot more to do than just adding or removing weight to fit a full pound break if you are looking at running heads up against already proven combinations in a class.

So how is it that people move up or down one from their natural class now?

Guess the majority's opinion is that this is a performance eliminator... as long as I have my own class, set up just the way I want it.

It's no skin off my back if nothing changes... I do enjoy the mental gymnastics involved in the discussion, if nothing else. I'm just a bracket racer that thought Class Racers might appreciate the possibility of a few more heads-up runs (sure wouldn't benefit *me*, so it can hardly be labeled as "an agenda"!), more competition in Class, and less classes to boost potential sponsor involvement and payouts. I thought the long-term advantages would outweigh the short-term speedbump. Big picture. -=shrug=-

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr

Alan,
That is an excellent proposal, nicely done.
But while you are at it, can't you slide the letters up and eliminate AA?

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

Sure I could. I did that 2 years or so ago, in a hurry, to show how it could be done. I just pulled an old Word document I had saved of it and posted it.

Not that it makes any real difference, other than the fastest class being called "A" instead of "AA", and the slowest being called "Q" instead of "P".

There is however a serious problem with that old quick and dirty rough draft. It's brought on by the "new" cars. If you allow the new cars to run at 7.0, they'll likely be fast enough to pose a safety problem on a 9" tire. Yes, I know, there are a lot of "10.5 Outlaw" cars out there running real fast. The difference is, it is rare for them to have a race without a crash of some sort, where it's fairly rare to see cars in Stock crash. Also, the speeds would far exceed the current safety equipment standards for Stock (which are really set for a 9.90 or so ET at 130MPH). You just can't safely run 8.90 at 150 on 9" slicks, with stock seats, relatively stock suspension, and a cage that cannot even extend through the firewall.


A 7.0 to 7.99 10.7
B 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
C 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
D 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
E 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
F 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
G 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
H 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
I 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
J 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
K 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
L 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
M 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
N 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
O 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
P 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
Q 25.00 and higher 16.3