New rules for 2010?

[Sean Cour]

Originally Posted by Mark Faul

Sean, I think you mean if you were a dumba$$ like me! With no regards to the value of a dollar! LOL

Mark-

You have done almost everything, within your means. You're just a junky. Just when you think you're going to go back home, you win one, then two.

I, for one, am envious. You do an outstanding job for doing it on your own.

Sean

[Sean Kennedy]

Originally Posted by sean cour

mark-

you have done almost everything, within your means. You're just a junky. Just when you think you're going to go back home, you win one, then two.

I, for one, am envious. You do an outstanding job for doing it on your own.

Sean

+1

[Doug Blackley]

Instead of messing with the indexes, just raise the triggers. This will accomplish the same thing as lowering but not effect those who aren't as fast.

[Sean Cour]

Originally Posted by Doug Blackley

Instead of messing with the indexes, just raise the triggers. This will accomplish the same thing as lowering but not effect those who aren't as fast.

The reason (at least, my opinion) is to level out some of the ridiculousness. Don't you think the indexes are weak when a LT-1 stocker can run .80 under the superstock indexes? (just an example)

A stocker, if purpose built for stock, should struggle to run the superstock index in mediocre air. Obviously, there will be some combos that will perform better, and some worse. But it's a start.

With all of the "enhancements" over the last twenty years, most stockers should be able to run .75 under the current index system. Where in the rule book does it state, " I class race, it is my right, that I should be under the index?

[Doug Blackley]

Sean, I was intending that by only raising the trigger will not effect anyone on the lower end but still give the fast guys a chance to show their work off. My thought is to have to least adverse effect and just adjusting the trigger will do that.

[Sean Cour]

Twice, out of twelve teardowns. I understand what you're saying Ed, but if NHRA isn't going to enforce the rules that are written, and/or hand out performance gains. Then the indexes need to be adjusted.

Pretty simple to understand.

[Sean Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Sean Cour

Then the indexes need to be adjusted.

Why not adjust super stock indexes? Or BOTH classes? If it's good for the goose....

[Sean Cour]

Originally Posted by Sean Kennedy

Why not adjust super stock indexes? Or BOTH classes? If it's good for the goose....

Adjust away. What's with the paranoia? If you can't run the index, do like Ed says "cheat!" lol!

[Sean Cour]

Ed-

Well, I'm not saying that they will do it. But for Superstock, it's ridiculous when a "stocker" can run .80 under. That's what I'm trying to say.

Sean

[Michael Beard]

Kennedy writes: Personally though, I would rather see the current rules at hand enforced rather than changing the indexes. If people were more likely to get bounced for dirty heads I don't think you would see people going quite as fast.

Pandora's Box, unfortunately... not only the "grey area" (?) stuff, but also the loosening of rules over the years, superceded parts, etc... it's not that Stockers are that amazing to run under Super Stock indexes, it's that they've become so much more like Super Stockers!

Blackley writes: Instead of messing with the indexes, just raise the triggers. This will accomplish the same thing as lowering but not effect those who aren't as fast.

I've advocated numerous times, and always been summarily ignored: We have *years* of data on the books already. Run all the figures based on a -1.000 trigger and factor EVERYBODY once right now, and then you'd hardly have to touch anything for years! Simply factoring cars properly would get rid of a lot of issues with crazy -1.40 under runs, 1000' racing, and on and on.

Cour writes: Don't you think the indexes are weak when a LT-1 stocker can run .80 under the superstock indexes? (just an example)

Precisely that: Just an example, and one that does not translate across the board. The Mirada I was driving in Super Stock last year is among the best Stockers in the country, yet it only ran .15-.20 under the Super Stock index. Stock and Super Stock really are two different animals, and shouldn't readily be compared. Some Super Stock combinations are extremely difficult to make run that far under.


My opinion is that by combining a large number of classes (weight breaks, trans?) and thus generating a much higher probability of having a heads-up race, you incentivize those "bottom feeder" -.50 under cars some are so concerned with to "work on their cars" or "spend money" (whichever you subscribe to)... as opposed to simply legislating them into doing so.