HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-24-2010, 06:46 PM   #31
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,118
Likes: 1,576
Liked 1,837 Times in 417 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Here's a very quick rough draft:

AA 7.0 to 7.99 10.6
A 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
B 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
C 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
D 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
E 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
F 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
G 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
H 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
I 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
J 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
K 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
L 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
M 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
N 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
O 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
P 25.00 and higher 16.3


Automatic indexes would be 0.05 higher.


To merge the FWD cars, you'd use a weight offset to get them to a class where they're at a similar index. For example, the rule might read, " FWD cars run in a class 3.0 pounds heavier than their published factor". Instead of the wide weight breaks currently in FWD, you'd narrow them up.



For example, a A/FS FWD car that factors at 13.0 would be given a 3.0 offset, to make it a 16.0 factor. That would make it an I car with a 13.6 index, dropping their index 0.25 (almost all the indexes for the consolidated classes stay the same or get lower). You could either continue to run stick and auto together with a weight break, or separate them.

Counting separate classes for stick and automatic, you'd only have 32 classes, as opposed to the current number of around 45-50.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S

Last edited by Alan Roehrich; 11-24-2010 at 06:49 PM.
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 06:50 PM   #32
Wayne Kerr
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Out to Lunch
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
Liked 26 Times in 11 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Alan,
That is an excellent proposal, nicely done.
But while you are at it, can't you slide the letters up and eliminate AA?

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr
Wayne Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 06:57 PM   #33
Dick Butler
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Richmond Indiana
Posts: 1,196
Likes: 5
Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Always an interesting discussion. similar results. Many still satisfied as is...No interest in change even if it would be good for S and SS. I would be interested in WHY people care one way or the other. That would be enlightening.
Want no change, WHY? you still take the same car, still race bracket style 90% of races.
Still have same cars to race with class plus some more to make it more fun when allowed.
Answers?
Dick Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 06:59 PM   #34
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,118
Likes: 1,576
Liked 1,837 Times in 417 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen S Quirion View Post
Alan, I guess a little more free schoolin' is in order. I built my own gears many years ago to give myself a 4.14 ratio, and I hate to even mention it because you should already know but there is no differential in these like a RWD. so it is not quite as simple as making a ring and pinion. That would be childs play. Strut valving done long ago and yes they are valved opposite of a RWD. I built the car for the challenges and I'm pretty clever, no need to suggest that I don't understand how it's done. You'd be quite a ways off base.
I don't think you'll be "schooling" me any time soon. I never suggested you do not know how to do it. I used to build FWD transmissions for a living, so I know what's in them. The Chryslers, for example, do have a "ring and pinion" of sorts. And yes, I know how the finals of the GM stuff work. They ALL have a differential, Owen, or they'd never go around a corner (there's your "free schooling", a little bonus just for you). They started life as street cars, if the front was locked, you couldn't drive it. It's not as simple, in a way. But the flip side is you could actually not only change ratios, but also go to a straight cut gear set to cut down on end loading. It's easier to find someone with a shaper to make sets of spur gears than it is to find someone with the machinery capable of a hypoid ring and pinion.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 07:07 PM   #35
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,118
Likes: 1,576
Liked 1,837 Times in 417 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr View Post
Alan,
That is an excellent proposal, nicely done.
But while you are at it, can't you slide the letters up and eliminate AA?

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr
Sure I could. I did that 2 years or so ago, in a hurry, to show how it could be done. I just pulled an old Word document I had saved of it and posted it.

Not that it makes any real difference, other than the fastest class being called "A" instead of "AA", and the slowest being called "Q" instead of "P".

There is however a serious problem with that old quick and dirty rough draft. It's brought on by the "new" cars. If you allow the new cars to run at 7.0, they'll likely be fast enough to pose a safety problem on a 9" tire. Yes, I know, there are a lot of "10.5 Outlaw" cars out there running real fast. The difference is, it is rare for them to have a race without a crash of some sort, where it's fairly rare to see cars in Stock crash. Also, the speeds would far exceed the current safety equipment standards for Stock (which are really set for a 9.90 or so ET at 130MPH). You just can't safely run 8.90 at 150 on 9" slicks, with stock seats, relatively stock suspension, and a cage that cannot even extend through the firewall.


A 7.0 to 7.99 10.7
B 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
C 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
D 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
E 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
F 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
G 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
H 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
I 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
J 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
K 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
L 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
M 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
N 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
O 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
P 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
Q 25.00 and higher 16.3
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S

Last edited by Alan Roehrich; 11-24-2010 at 07:09 PM.
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 07:37 PM   #36
X-TECH MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
Cool Re: Consolidating Classes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich View Post
Sure I could. I did that 2 years or so ago, in a hurry, to show how it could be done. I just pulled an old Word document I had saved of it and posted it.

Not that it makes any real difference, other than the fastest class being called "A" instead of "AA", and the slowest being called "Q" instead of "P".

There is however a serious problem with that old quick and dirty rough draft. It's brought on by the "new" cars. If you allow the new cars to run at 7.0, they'll likely be fast enough to pose a safety problem on a 9" tire. Yes, I know, there are a lot of "10.5 Outlaw" cars out there running real fast. The difference is, it is rare for them to have a race without a crash of some sort, where it's fairly rare to see cars in Stock crash. Also, the speeds would far exceed the current safety equipment standards for Stock (which are really set for a 9.90 or so ET at 130MPH). You just can't safely run 8.90 at 150 on 9" slicks, with stock seats, relatively stock suspension, and a cage that cannot even extend through the firewall.


A 7.0 to 7.99 10.7
B 8.0 to 8.99 11.0
C 9.0 to 9.99 11.5
D 10.0 to 10.99 11.8
E 11.0 to 11.99 12.2
F 12.0 to 12.99 12.4
G 13.0 to 13.99 12.8
H 14.0 to 14.99 13.1
I 15.0 to 15.99 13.4
J 16.0 to 16.99 13.6
K 17.0 to 17.99 13.9
L 18.0 to 18.99 14.2
M 19.0 to 19.99 14.6
N 20.0 to 21.99 14.9
O 22.0 to 23.99 15.4
P 24.0 to 24.99 15.9
Q 25.00 and higher 16.3
If thats the case then the new junk needs to be in S/S anyway.
X-TECH MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 07:42 PM   #37
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,118
Likes: 1,576
Liked 1,837 Times in 417 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN View Post
If thats the case then the new junk needs to be in S/S anyway.
That won't happen any more quickly than any adjustments to the AHFS will solve the problems.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 07:49 PM   #38
Jason
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Butler View Post
Always an interesting discussion. similar results. Many still satisfied as is...No interest in change even if it would be good for S and SS. I would be interested in WHY people care one way or the other. That would be enlightening.
Want no change, WHY? you still take the same car, still race bracket style 90% of races.
Still have same cars to race with class plus some more to make it more fun when allowed.
Answers?
Answers? Half the people would not have to do anything and continue to have fun while the other half would have work to do which would limit their fun factor.

Consolidating classes would be fine for the people who are already on the full pound break. Example...A/SA, C/SA, E/SA, G/SA, etc. What about the people who are in B/SA, D/SA, F/SA, etc? There is a lot more to do than just adding or removing weight to fit a full pound break if you are looking at running heads up against already proven combinations in a class.

Maybe that is why there is not an overwelming interest in change even if those who are agenda driven THINK it would be good for S or SS. You want something good for S or SS. Try this agenda...LEAVE THE CLASSES ALONE.

PS> Looks like a majority in the poll kinda feel the same way. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha
Jason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 08:00 PM   #39
Billy Nees
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 3,600
Liked 7,779 Times in 1,742 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Alan, I suggested the same 3 lb. deal to Len (NHRA) when they combined and eliminated the FWD classes years ago. It didn't seem to matter to them that at the time I either was involved with or owned 6 FWD cars. I was just flat ignored!
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS

I'm not spending 100K to win 2K
Billy Nees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 08:19 PM   #40
Ed Wright
Veteran Member
 
Ed Wright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sand Springs, OK
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 896
Liked 390 Times in 170 Posts
Default Re: Consolidating Classes

Give the Mustangs & DPs 100 hp and let's race under last years rules.
__________________
Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA
Ed Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.