Stock and the late models, a solution.

Pistol Pete · 10-12-2010, 07:57 PM

Ken

If you look at my post from page 4 "just a thought for stock elim." I combined the sticks
with the automatics & brought the class count down to 34 from 51 classes.
Most index's ( stick & auto ) are .05 or a tenth of a second different.

I agree to going with your new Late Model class, but disagree to a crate motor class.

Less classes would mean more heads-up runs, which would be cool for racers & fans i think.

If you wanted to add a couple of classes i would like to see Top & JR. Stock come back
to the eliminator.

Robert Swartz · 10-12-2010, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

Ken

I agree to going with your new Late Model class, but disagree to a crate motor class.

Less classes would mean more heads-up runs, which would be cool for racers & fans i think.

Why the objection to crate motors? They have specifications just like any other engine. They could easily be blended into the class structure, just force anyone running a crate motor to declare it as such. That way, real simple, I go to the teardown barn, the tech inspectors know what spec sheet they need to pull.

Lew Silverman · 10-12-2010, 09:24 PM

Your proposal makes a lot of sense, Ken, but it still puts the OEM in the drivers seat (pun intended!) to publish a realistic HP figure to establish a baseline. Until that happens, nothing is going to change the inequities we now have. I have always had a problem with how the Classification Guide is put together. The factory decides what model/engine combination is listed. There are whole years that no models are published. Why? If the OEM builds it, I should be able to race it! That would make more combination's available, and the engines would not need to be rated differently in two very similar body styles. What class would a CTS-V station wagon fit in?

This problem isn't going away anytime soon, sad to say! But as long as we can suggest alternatives, there's still hope!!

Lew

"Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one else is looking!"

10-12-2010, 07:57 PM	#1
Pistol Pete VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Punta Gorda Isles, Fl. Posts: 1,636 Likes: 3,457 Liked 810 Times in 213 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. Ken If you look at my post from page 4 "just a thought for stock elim." I combined the sticks with the automatics & brought the class count down to 34 from 51 classes. Most index's ( stick & auto ) are .05 or a tenth of a second different. I agree to going with your new Late Model class, but disagree to a crate motor class. Less classes would mean more heads-up runs, which would be cool for racers & fans i think. If you wanted to add a couple of classes i would like to see Top & JR. Stock come back to the eliminator.

10-12-2010, 09:24 PM	#3
Lew Silverman VIP Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Newport News, VA Posts: 1,435 Likes: 371 Liked 129 Times in 59 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. Your proposal makes a lot of sense, Ken, but it still puts the OEM in the drivers seat (pun intended!) to publish a realistic HP figure to establish a baseline. Until that happens, nothing is going to change the inequities we now have. I have always had a problem with how the Classification Guide is put together. The factory decides what model/engine combination is listed. There are whole years that no models are published. Why? If the OEM builds it, I should be able to race it! That would make more combination's available, and the engines would not need to be rated differently in two very similar body styles. What class would a CTS-V station wagon fit in? This problem isn't going away anytime soon, sad to say! But as long as we can suggest alternatives, there's still hope!! Lew "Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one else is looking!" __________________ Lew Silverman #2070 "The Wagon Master" N/SA