New rules for 2010?

GTX JOHN · 09-22-2009, 01:18 PM

If you dropped .5 off the index the bottom 1/3 of the car at Bakersfield would not been able to compete. Neither of my kids would have ever built a stocker if the index was faster. A lot of us that race simply can't afford to build a $30,000. stocker , but we still love to race! It is the hoursepower factors and their quirks that make a lot of the reason why! Example: My .7 under stocker is at 314 HP in Super Stock it is 283 HP therefor it runs .4 to .5 under with no changes

i

Dick Butler · 09-22-2009, 01:54 PM

Changing the index excessively would be hard on some people. It would be better to make a tighter AHFS first to tighten up the HP problems. Like a run of 1.00 under gets hp.in the AM. Suddenly everyone with normal cars are competitive again. People do not have to start over with the latest "weak" factor car to win classes or appear on the Qualifying sheet. and they begin to LOVE it again.(I am TOO conservative on class racing because I have watched it be watered down and devalued too long.)Since I am not currently racing I would not suggest these things only comment on them.

X-TECH MAN · 09-22-2009, 01:56 PM

You can not make anyone or everyone happy no matter what comes about. You will always have the "HAVES and the HAVE NOTS" in racing of any kind.

bill dedman · 09-22-2009, 02:01 PM

What you say is very true, Terry, but IF NHRA was interested, and worked at it, they could do a few things to minimize the difference (in the "haves" and the "have not"s.)

I think HP at 1.00 under is the best idea I've heard, along with publishing the e.t.'s at 1,000 ft.

X-TECH MAN · 09-22-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill dedman

What you say is very true, Terry, but IF NHRA was interested, and worked at it, they could do a few things to minimize the difference (in the "haves" and the "have not"s.)

I think HP at 1.00 under is the best idea I've heard, along with publishing the e.t.'s at 1,000 ft.

Thats a mighty BIG IF !

Sean Cour · 09-22-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTX JOHN

If you dropped .5 off the index the bottom 1/3 of the car at Bakersfield would not been able to compete. Neither of my kids would have ever built a stocker if the index was faster. A lot of us that race simply can't afford to build a $30,000. stocker , but we still love to race! It is the hoursepower factors and their quirks that make a lot of the reason why! Example: My .7 under stocker is at 314 HP in Super Stock it is 283 HP therefor it runs .4 to .5 under with no changes

i

GTX JOHN-

Stock eliminator wasn't supposed to be easy. You have to work on your combo. Being smart is as much of a reason for being fast as having a lot of money. Most, usually don't give credit for a racer working smart, it's always how much money they spent. You answered one of my questions I was eluding too. Why should a Stocker be able to qualify for Superstock?

Maybe, just reduce the Superstock indexes .50?

Sean Kennedy · 09-22-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour

GTX JOHN-

Stock eliminator wasn't supposed to be easy. You have to work on your combo. Being smart is as much of a reason for being fast as having a lot of money. Most, usually don't give credit for a racer working smart, it's always how much money they spent. You answered one of my questions I was eluding too. Why should a Stocker be able to qualify for Superstock?

Maybe, just reduce the Superstock indexes .50?

Sean,

Wouldn't you agree that the reason why most stockers run that far under the super stock index is because of the loosening of the rules and the amount of people who run heads that are actually ported?

Sean Cour · 09-22-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Kennedy

Sean,

Wouldn't you agree that the reason why most stockers run that far under the super stock index is because of the loosening of the rules and the amount of people who run heads that are actually ported?

Too agree, or not. That should have nothing to do with all of the performance gimmees that have been dealt down to the racer over the years. If NHRA is going to change rules, or allow things that shouldn't be allowed, then knock .50 off the indexes. Pretty simple!

Sean Kennedy · 09-22-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour

Too agree, or not. That should have nothing to do with all of the performance gimmees that have been dealt down to the racer over the years. If NHRA is going to change rules, or allow things that shouldn't be allowed, then knock .50 off the indexes. Pretty simple!

Fair enough. But it does hurt a lot of people.

But following that same line of logic... if we are going to allow head porting in stock (let's be honest, it is allowed regardless of what the rules say) why not just kill the class and make everyone run super stock?

How about ... if you lift at 1000 and still run 1.20 or more under your index you get an automatic HP hit? That'll never happen, because it's the fast guys that get hurt.

I like the idea of automatic AHFS at 1.00 under, but it'll never happen. And even if it did, all those fast guys will still lift early... they just lift at half track instead of 1000ft.

Is there a way we can do this without screwing over the slow guys? Or are we just not welcome in stock? I have been told that before...... But I don't think you feel that way.

It's not because I'm not trying. Last year when we brought out the new motor it was .05 over the index. The last time I ran in stock, at the national event, it was going .30 under. It just didn't show... I was running in F, and can't get the car below G weight.

And not just the slow guys, it makes it harder for anyone to get into the class and get their feet wet. That is actually a concern to me because fields are shrinking not growing. I'm afraid by the time I have the dollars and experience to build something fast I won't have very many guys left to race against. I just feel like we need to be keeping this an entry level class. I know I'm probably the only one, but I'd be in favor of having a few import classes so we could get some new blood into the class. I don't want to watch the impending slow death of stock eliminator, but it's pretty much what is happening right before our eyes.

And isn't this a change? I thought in that other thread everyone was against changing anything.

Phillip marvetz · 09-22-2009, 10:59 PM

[QUOTE=Sean Kennedy;142085]Fair enough. But it does hurt a lot of people.

But following that same line of logic... if we are going to allow head porting in stock (let's be honest, it is allowed regardless of what the rules say) why not just kill the class and make everyone run super stock?

How about ... if you lift at 1000 and still run 1.20 or more under your index you get an automatic HP hit? That'll never happen, because it's the fast guys that get hurt.

I like the idea of automatic AHFS at 1.00 under, but it'll never happen. And even if it did, all those fast guys will still lift early... they just lift at half track instead of 1000ft.

Is there a way we can do this without screwing over the slow guys? Or are we just not welcome in stock? I have been told that before...... But I don't think you feel that way.

It's not because I'm not trying. Last year when we brought out the new motor it was .05 over the index. The last time I ran in stock, at the national event, it was going .30 under. It just didn't show... I was running in F, and can't get the car below G weight.

And not just the slow guys, it makes it harder for anyone to get into the class and get their feet wet. That is actually a concern to me because fields are shrinking not growing. I'm afraid by the time I have the dollars and experience to build something fast I won't have very many guys left to race against. I just feel like we need to be keeping this an entry level class. I know I'm probably the only one, but I'd be in favor of having a few import classes so we could get some new blood into the class. I don't want to watch the impending slow death of stock eliminator, but it's pretty much what is happening right before our eyes.

So Sean, now who's paranoid? Don't worry little buddy by the time you have enough money to go racing again you'll be to old to cut a light anyway. And why the hell would you run F if you can't even make the lower end of G weight? Maybe you need to put those good heads back on............

09-22-2009, 01:18 PM	#1
GTX JOHN VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Boulder City, Nevada 89005 Posts: 2,736 Likes: 2,808 Liked 2,488 Times in 698 Posts	Re: New rules for 2010? If you dropped .5 off the index the bottom 1/3 of the car at Bakersfield would not been able to compete. Neither of my kids would have ever built a stocker if the index was faster. A lot of us that race simply can't afford to build a $30,000. stocker , but we still love to race! It is the hoursepower factors and their quirks that make a lot of the reason why! Example: My .7 under stocker is at 314 HP in Super Stock it is 283 HP therefor it runs .4 to .5 under with no changes i

09-22-2009, 01:54 PM	#2
Dick Butler VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Indiana Posts: 1,196 Likes: 5 Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts	Re: New rules for 2010? Changing the index excessively would be hard on some people. It would be better to make a tighter AHFS first to tighten up the HP problems. Like a run of 1.00 under gets hp.in the AM. Suddenly everyone with normal cars are competitive again. People do not have to start over with the latest "weak" factor car to win classes or appear on the Qualifying sheet. and they begin to LOVE it again.(I am TOO conservative on class racing because I have watched it be watered down and devalued too long.)Since I am not currently racing I would not suggest these things only comment on them.

09-22-2009, 01:56 PM	#3
X-TECH MAN Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lake Placid, Florida Posts: 3,203 Likes: 1,047 Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts	Re: New rules for 2010? You can not make anyone or everyone happy no matter what comes about. You will always have the "HAVES and the HAVE NOTS" in racing of any kind. Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 09-22-2009 at 02:03 PM.

09-22-2009, 02:01 PM	#4
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: New rules for 2010? What you say is very true, Terry, but IF NHRA was interested, and worked at it, they could do a few things to minimize the difference (in the "haves" and the "have not"s.) I think HP at 1.00 under is the best idea I've heard, along with publishing the e.t.'s at 1,000 ft. __________________ Bill

09-22-2009, 10:59 PM	#10
Phillip marvetz Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Lynden ,WA Posts: 820 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: New rules for 2010? [QUOTE=Sean Kennedy;142085]Fair enough. But it does hurt a lot of people. But following that same line of logic... if we are going to allow head porting in stock (let's be honest, it is allowed regardless of what the rules say) why not just kill the class and make everyone run super stock? How about ... if you lift at 1000 and still run 1.20 or more under your index you get an automatic HP hit? That'll never happen, because it's the fast guys that get hurt. I like the idea of automatic AHFS at 1.00 under, but it'll never happen. And even if it did, all those fast guys will still lift early... they just lift at half track instead of 1000ft. Is there a way we can do this without screwing over the slow guys? Or are we just not welcome in stock? I have been told that before...... But I don't think you feel that way. It's not because I'm not trying. Last year when we brought out the new motor it was .05 over the index. The last time I ran in stock, at the national event, it was going .30 under. It just didn't show... I was running in F, and can't get the car below G weight. And not just the slow guys, it makes it harder for anyone to get into the class and get their feet wet. That is actually a concern to me because fields are shrinking not growing. I'm afraid by the time I have the dollars and experience to build something fast I won't have very many guys left to race against. I just feel like we need to be keeping this an entry level class. I know I'm probably the only one, but I'd be in favor of having a few import classes so we could get some new blood into the class. I don't want to watch the impending slow death of stock eliminator, but it's pretty much what is happening right before our eyes. So Sean, now who's paranoid? Don't worry little buddy by the time you have enough money to go racing again you'll be to old to cut a light anyway. And why the hell would you run F if you can't even make the lower end of G weight? Maybe you need to put those good heads back on............