|
|
View Poll Results: Opinions on consolidating classes | |||
Combine Sticks and Automatics |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
33 | 14.73% |
Spread Weight Breaks (i.e., .5 for upper classes, .75 for some, then to 1.00 lb breaks) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
22 | 9.82% |
Both of the above |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
36 | 16.07% |
LEAVE IT ALONE! |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
133 | 59.38% |
Voters: 224. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#21 |
Veteran Member
|
![]()
This FWD thing is really getting old! I was involved in the revamp several years ago when NHRA wanted to eliminate FWD altogether. They went from 16 classes to 4 (then 5 now 6 as of Jan.) and combined sticks with autos. Also shared with RWD in the .3 index reduction.They have paid the price! Leave them alone! RWD classes have not suffered at all (except for the index reduction). In fact more classes have been added since then. Leave FWD alone!!! Jim
__________________
Jim Wahl....NHRA #2239 S/SS - IHRA # 8 Stock, D2 Stock Champion (forever I guess) 2019 Baby Gators Stock Champion 2009 NHRA D2 National Open Stock Champion 1982 NHRA D2 West Palm Beach LDRS SS Runner Up Past President, Southern Stock / Super Stock Association. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 384
Likes: 101
Liked 419 Times in 85 Posts
|
![]()
I cant agree with Mark more. Class winners only. You will see plenty "quality" lower class cars then. If we keep asking for changes we will be bracket one and two.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,115
Likes: 1,572
Liked 1,829 Times in 414 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Cam changes will not change rod/stroke ratio, bore/stroke ratio, or other factors, and make them equal. It just simply won't work. You cannot, for example, make a 302 Ford work as well in front of a C4 as you can in front of a 4 speed. You cannot make that happen with a cam change. And you cannot just go sticking additional weight breaks in for various combinations everywhere. Exactly how complex and convoluted do you want to make this? I thought the idea was to make fewer classes, fewer weight breaks, and more heads up races. Add 100 pounds for one engine, in one car, with a manual transmission, or take 100 pounds off of a different engine in a different car, with an automatic, just to try to make engines that don't work well with an automatic somewhat competitive? You cannot possibly be serious. If it won't run with an automatic, put a stick in it? So, now it's okay to just pencil a guys combination dead? Excuse me, isn't that what we're trying to prevent? And you're NEVER going to make the AHFS get all the new stuff in line. NEVER. They'll make however many new combinations every year they feel they need to. They never even have to build the cars or the engines, just sell the parts. If you think the new AHFS and changing weight breaks will stop that, well, you're going to be really disappointed.
__________________
Alan Roehrich 212A G/S |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,115
Likes: 1,572
Liked 1,829 Times in 414 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
They CAN be fairly and correctly merged into the other classes. Math works the same regardless of which end you put the slicks on. The argument that FWD cannot be merged into the lower classes of Stock holds no more water than the argument that you can't buy cams, rings, pistons, and converters for them. None. Both of those arguments hold less water than a screen door on a submarine. There is established average ET data for the FWD cars just like there is for RWD cars. Therefore they can be properly factored. No, the laws of math and physics apply to FWD cars too, they can race in classes with RWD cars.
__________________
Alan Roehrich 212A G/S |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Captiol District of New York
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
BF/S 1985 Grand Am 3.0 V6 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,115
Likes: 1,572
Liked 1,829 Times in 414 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Again, there is data out there to quantify the average FWD ET just like there is for the RWD cars. If you can quantify an average ET, you can calculate a weight break to put a car in the class it belongs in. It still does not matter what end the slicks are on. You can change the HP rating, or you can use a factor to multiply or divide whatever number you need to use in order to calculate the weight break. I don't need a physics refresher, Owen, I know all about weight transfer. The exact same laws of physics apply, they just don't work in favor of the FWD cars, I never said they did, you just assumed I did. You can get springs, struts, shocks, or anything else like that made, just like the RWD cars do. The people that make parts for RWD cars will make them for your FWD car, your money spends just exactly like ours does. They can buy the same gas and groceries with your money they can with anyone elses. you can use shock valving and spring rates to slow or prevent weight transfer just like the RWD cars can use it to improve weight transfer.
__________________
Alan Roehrich 212A G/S |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Captiol District of New York
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
BF/S 1985 Grand Am 3.0 V6 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 541
Likes: 11
Liked 20 Times in 14 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|