to all 85-92 efi racers

[Mike Carr]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

"... the problem of having two or three percent of the cars at national events (turbocharged cars) nailing down over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots, as has been the case annually, for the last four years."

15-20 percent is perceived to be a "problem"? If the statistic were that turbo cars (or any particular type of car/combination) were qualifying #1 at sixty-percent or more of the races, that I could see. But 15-20%? What if there were a statistic that read "1966 Chevy Nova 327/275 F/SA cars qualified #1 at twenty-nine percent of the time" during that same stretch? Would you still have the same objections towards those cars? Or, like Art had stated, quite a few #1 qualifiers may have had something not 100% legal on there cars. So what's the point. I would have a stronger objection to a Stocker qualifying #1 with an illegal camshaft or cylinder heads two-percent of the time than I would to a turbocharged Stocker producing more boost than factory specs (which, by the way, is permitted in Stock Eliminator rules) 15-20% of the time.

B.D.

[bill dedman]

Mike,

It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy.

If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't

The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure.

If that is illogical, show me why.

Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparitively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing.

As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is.

Thanks for your comments, Mike!

[bill dedman]

Mike,

It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy.

If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't

The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure.

If that is illogical, show me why.

Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparatively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing.

As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is. I just thought it was something that needed to be looked at.

Thanks for your comments, Mike!