Factory Showdown at INDY

[C and W Racing]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

Our site would be called: legitimatecomplaintsagainstarrogantoldmen.com

Move on? I'm sure that is what you would like to happen, since it appears you have gotten your way. But it isn't going to happen. Be prepared to hear about it for a long time.

Bruce, how did I get my way? First off, I am a long way away from being anywhere close to the fast guys. Second, at the et we are at, there are a lot of the older cars that are faster than I am. So enlighten me. Like I said, the fast guy's have invested a lot of time and money. Or is that what really bothers you, maybe you have the time, but not the money, to be as fast as you want to be. Or were you once king, and now you're not? How many heads up have you been a part of lately with the new cars? Like has been said by many, they for the most part are in there own class. There may still be a few in the lower classes, but not many. This thread was supposed to be about them running in their own class.
Chuck

[Andrew Hill]

Originally Posted by C and W Racing

Bruce, how did I get my way? First off, I am a long way away from being anywhere close to the fast guys. Second, at the et we are at, there are a lot of the older cars that are faster than I am. So enlighten me. Like I said, the fast guy's have invested a lot of time and money. Or is that what really bothers you, maybe you have the time, but not the money, to be as fast as you want to be. Or were you once king, and now you're not? How many heads up have you been a part of lately with the new cars? Like has been said by many, they for the most part are in there own class. There may still be a few in the lower classes, but not many. This thread was supposed to be about them running in their own class.
Chuck

Time and money are not the problem when comparing new cars and old cars, physics is the problem. No matter how much time or money I spend on my car, or anyone spends on their pre-2008 car, it will not be as fast as the new cars that are given equal treatment.

[C and W Racing]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hill

Time and money are not the problem when comparing new cars and old cars, physics is the problem. No matter how much time or money I spend on my car, or anyone spends on their pre-2008 car, it will not be as fast as the new cars that are given equal treatment.

I stated that way earlier in this thread. The advancements are way more than the power under the hood. Thats why I also stated earlier, that if one person chooses one combo and someone else chooses a differant combo, don't bitch about their choice when everyone has a choice when they build what they like. The argument about it took 40 years of development for my camaro to be where it is took hard work and now with the new cars you don't need 40 years of blood sweat and tears holds no argument with me either. If I or anyone else were to start building a 1969 camaro today, would we use 1969 technoligy or 2012? Should I not be able to use what has been figured out by people a lot smarter than me? Or am I supposed to start from scratch and figure it out all on my own?
Chuck

[Andrew Hill]

Originally Posted by C and W Racing

I stated that way earlier in this thread. The advancements are way more than the power under the hood. Thats why I also stated earlier, that if one person chooses one combo and someone else chooses a differant combo, don't bitch about their choice when everyone has a choice when they build what they like. The argument about it took 40 years of development for my camaro to be where it is took hard work and now with the new cars you don't need 40 years of blood sweat and tears holds no argument with me either. If I or anyone else were to start building a 1969 camaro today, would we use 1969 technoligy or 2012? Should I not be able to use what has been figured out by people a lot smarter than me? Or am I supposed to start from scratch and figure it out all on my own?
Chuck

So my car will not run with the new cars, no matter what, but they have factors equal or less than mine? 2012 302 CJ, 2010 5.9 DP, 2010 352 CJ, all equal or less than me. How does that make sense?

I have no problem with these cars in their own classes, which are basically what AAA, AA, and BB are, but there are still new cars that are insanely under factored in classes with old cars.

[Andrew Hill]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

That's funny...what about this from the Jegs SportsNat's last fall?!?!

Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET---Speed-----Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT----ET---Speed
3207 Andrew Hill -----------------------------------------------------3611 Jimmy Ronzello
C3 ****WINNER**** 0.081 10.539 116.48 ------------------0.091 10.649 112.11
D/SA Index: 11.55 (+/-): -1.011 ----------------------------------D/SA Index: 11.55 (+/-): -0.901
Prior rounds:
C2 0.034 10.645 105.13 ------------------------------------------(R Lyn Shipp ) 0.005 10.625 120.19
C1 (P Boster ) 0.026 10.643 109.40 ---------------------------(B Plourd ) 0.087 10.640 125.24
Qualified: #21 10.643 109.40 -------------------------------------#20 10.640 125.24
Andrew Hill's MOV: 0.1203 seconds (approximately 20 feet).

That felt damn good!!! And note that I said, "given equal treatment." I was almost .2 quicker to 60 ft than the mustang on that run, he set the mph record 1 mph faster than I've ever been that weekend. That car will be multiple tenths quicker than me when it gets the converter it needs

[Bruce Noland]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

That's funny...what about this from the Jegs SportsNat's last fall?!?!

Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET---Speed-----Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT----ET---Speed
3207 Andrew Hill -----------------------------------------------------3611 Jimmy Ronzello
C3 ****WINNER**** 0.081 10.539 116.48 ------------------0.091 10.649 112.11
D/SA Index: 11.55 (+/-): -1.011 ----------------------------------D/SA Index: 11.55 (+/-): -0.901
Prior rounds:
C2 0.034 10.645 105.13 ------------------------------------------(R Lyn Shipp ) 0.005 10.625 120.19
C1 (P Boster ) 0.026 10.643 109.40 ---------------------------(B Plourd ) 0.087 10.640 125.24
Qualified: #21 10.643 109.40 -------------------------------------#20 10.640 125.24
Andrew Hill's MOV: 0.1203 seconds (approximately 20 feet).

Not to take anything away from Andrew's accomplishment but Jimmy was at that race to deliver this car to a new owner. Andrew did one hell of a job driving for that class win, which included long delays and funky weather.

[C and W Racing]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

That's funny...what about this from the Jegs SportsNat's last fall?!?!

Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT-----ET---Speed-----Car#-Driver(Opp'nt)-RT----ET---Speed
3207 Andrew Hill -----------------------------------------------------3611 Jimmy Ronzello
C3 ****WINNER**** 0.081 10.539 116.48 ------------------0.091 10.649 112.11
D/SA Index: 11.55 (+/-): -1.011 ----------------------------------D/SA Index: 11.55 (+/-): -0.901
Prior rounds:
C2 0.034 10.645 105.13 ------------------------------------------(R Lyn Shipp ) 0.005 10.625 120.19
C1 (P Boster ) 0.026 10.643 109.40 ---------------------------(B Plourd ) 0.087 10.640 125.24
Qualified: #21 10.643 109.40 -------------------------------------#20 10.640 125.24
Andrew Hill's MOV: 0.1203 seconds (approximately 20 feet).

Great job on your win Andrew.
with people saying the old cars can't compeate with the new cars, what does this look like?
I see two cars that qualified .003 apart, what I also see is the new car ran it right out the back and the old car lifted or hit the brakes at some point.
How else do you explain the sudden increase of 7 mph on the run against each other?
Chuck

[Andrew Hill]

Originally Posted by C and W Racing

Great job on your win Andrew.
with people saying the old cars can't compeate with the new cars, what does this look like?
I see two cars that qualified .003 apart, what I also see is the new car ran it right out the back and the old car lifted or hit the brakes at some point.
How else do you explain the sudden increase of 7 mph on the run against each other?
Chuck

Look at my response on page 12, that was the first race for that car. As far as the qualifying times are concerned, I was up against the #1 qualifier in D/SA first round, he was up against #5, it seems that I had my car on kill and he did not, there's no reason to run 1.00 under if it's not necessary to win.

[C and W Racing]

I see now where they have changed the index to 9.90. What is the purpose of the index anyway? If its a heads up type formate, or is it because they only want people that can run at least 9.90 or quicker to even get into the showdown? Or do you have to be able to run x amount under the index to get into the showdown?
Chuck

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hill

Look at my response on page 12, that was the first race for that car. As far as the qualifying times are concerned, I was up against the #1 qualifier in D/SA first round, he was up against #5, it seems that I had my car on kill and he did not, there's no reason to run 1.00 under if it's not necessary to win.

I have to ask you how you feel about the 1970 Camaro 350 ci 360 HP combination? In 1970 it was given a 10 HP gift over the Corvette (in regards to the classification). In the early 2000's it was given an even bigger gift by the NHRA when it was reduced to 325 HP. You seem to run at the front in D/SA with that combination, so that is why I ask.

(My thoughts are that you picked a good combination from the guide and ran with it.)