New rules for 2010?

[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 stuff, but also the loosening of rules over the years, superceded parts, etc...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.

[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 Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Michael Beard

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 stuff, but also the loosening of rules over the years, superceded parts, etc...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!



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.



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.

Excellent points as always, Michael.

Although I disagree on the raising the trigger. I feel like that just benefits the people who bend the rules (i'll put it more diplomatically this time).

I 100% agree with your idea of moving the trigger to 1.00 and factoring EVERYBODY at once. That would work well. But it seems like the vast majority of class racers don't think they should get h.p. no matter how fast they run. And in the interest of disclosure, it would benefit me as well. Only a few people are running the 300hp 350 (290 hp factor). And I don't think any of them run under a second. So naturally, I support this!

[Jim Storms]

I think we need "Gaynors" thoughts on all this?

[Nitro Joe Jackson]

Hey Michael, i know someone that has the numbers from 93 till now, lol

Rules, wow where do you start and where do you leave off.
like what was said on earlier Stock & SS was made for performance classes and lot of hard work has went into a lot of these cars to be as fast as they are. But mainly these days i would say don't rock the boat to hard cause you never know what the next act behind the stage is.

[Jim Bailey]

I would like to see a rule for "PURPOSE BUILT RACECARS". aka, Cobra Jet Mustangs, Drag Pac Challengers, Shelby Mustangs, Nascar Hemis, and any other "Stock Eliminator" car that has never been, or ever will be street legal.... I'd like to see these cars legal in AA/Stock only...period. If you wanna step up and try to run in this big d$ck club, Knock yourself out. But don't let these cars ruin any of the lower classes.

[bill dedman]

Jim, As I see it, the problem is in no way the cars themselves; they don't have 40/60 front-to-rear weight distribution, vastly superior aerodynamics or much of anything you can't do to a '69 Camaro (which I only use as an example, because they can run a variety of classes from AA, down.)

The problem is, getting the people at NHRA to put a workable, realistic, FACTOR on them, and they won't be any more of a threat than any other Stocker with a factor that has proven reasonable.

IF NHRA will factor them realistically, so they can't totally dominate, I think all the problems relating to these anomalies will go away.

If NHRA refuses to do that, then what you're proposing would surely be better than what we have, now.

[GUMP]

I think that Mr Beard has the right idea. Less classes. More heads-up runs during eliminations would force class racers to run hard or lose.

I'm one of those guys who loves to read old (60's) magazines. It seems to me that, back then, Stock Eliminator used to be the place to be. What happened with all you old guys?

I'm so glad that Jim brought up the "New Cars". Jim, what else would you like to see? It's 2009 and the factories are building stocker combinations, why shouldn't they be superior to anything built 40 years ago?

[Phillip marvetz]

[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............

[Sean Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Phillip marvetz

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............

Thanks for being so complimentary Phil.....

Ed and Phil, you guys need to learn how to use the QUOTE function.

It looked like there were going to be more G and H cars, so I can F. I'm so far down the latter it's not like it makes a difference whether I run .1 under or .30 under. So mathematical odds of getting a heads up would be less.

It turned out not to really matter, there were 2 cars faster than me in all three classes. But none the less, basic math Phil. The less cars in your class the less chance of a heads up.

The 'good' heads were not legal. As in blatantly not legal. The person who Steve Kelly had rebuild the motor did some grinding in the ports..... So they are junk for stock eliminator. The car ran good with them, we went .6 under with that setup, so believe me I'd love to use them.