GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show

Harry 6674 · 12-03-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 69Cobra

Todd you've got me thinking... Tell me what would be the consequences for the older car in this scenario. Older car can run -1.00 under at legal weight and say its possible older car could remove enough weight to pick up say .30 for example only lets say that older car is entered in D but can get to B weight. So now illegally the older car can run -1.3 under against a new underrated combo. Older car knows that it has a heads up run with this new car in the next round. Now older car make new car run at least 1.3 under as long as older car has is even or better on the tree. Older car goes down and dumps new car to run the as suspected -1.00 under. New car goes 1.3x under and get hp on Tuesday... Older car doesn't get the win light so drives by scales and goes home. Tell me what consequences old car gets in this scenario if any? Old car knew before going to the staging lanes that he was not going to win a green light race. The only down side I see is if the new car red lights and old car has to go to the scales. Now what?

Simple solution. If the new car redlights just drive across the center line. No scale.

Ed Wright · 12-03-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry 6674

Simple solution. If the new car redlights just drive across the center line. No scale.

:-)

K Stubbs · 12-03-2012, 07:34 PM

They should make all class racing, starting 2013, heads up off the current indexes....With the AHFS in affect. This would not take too many races to "correct" some of the HP ratings, and look at the fun it would be.

ALMACK · 12-03-2012, 07:48 PM

I say all the 2008 and newer supercars that do not have a VIN should run in FX.

Ed Wright · 12-03-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K Stubbs

They should make all class racing, starting 2013, heads up off the current indexes....With the AHFS in affect. This would not take too many races to "correct" some of the HP ratings, and look at the fun it would be.

That would iron things out faster. LOL
Sounds like fun.
Personally, I would go for that.

Alan Roehrich · 12-03-2012, 08:35 PM

It's amusing. The guys with new cars, who make up around 5-10% of the class, want to force the guys with older cars, who make up most of the rest of the class, to buy a bunch of new high dollar parts, and spend a bunch more money to take weight out, which would require even more new rules.

Why is it that the vast majority, say 90% of the class, should have to make massive and expensive adjustments in order to accommodate the other 10% or less?

The solution is to put the new under factored factory race cars where they always went for the previous 40 years or so. In their own classes, or in Super Stock.

In order to make a 69 Chevrolet 427/425 L-72 even remotely competitive with a new 2012 LSx 427/425, you'd need a new set of heads, a new 1050 cfm carburetor, a new single plane intake to match the heads, and a new roller cam, lifters, and springs. Then you'd need a new set of headers, a new converter, and maybe a new rear gear. So, the guys with old cars should have to buy $15K worth of new parts, and effectively move to what amounts to a Super Stock engine program, in order to again be competitive, because NHRA has allowed the factory race cars in the class knowing full well what would happen?

Jeff, you want to give us 5%? Seriously? That makes my L-72 427/425 rated at 404HP. So in A/SA, I take off 168 pounds, or less than 2 tenths. And that is supposed to make us even remotely competitive with a combination rated exactly the same that has at least 150HP more than we can ever hope to make? That's a complete joke, and you know it. We'd still be 3-5 tenths behind, at best.

By the way, Jeff, I never said that the guys running the Mopar and Ford programs, Dale Aldo and Jesse Kershaw, ever publicly gloated over Chevrolet not having a competitive car for 4 years (2008-2012). What I said was, and you know it to be true, that this board was filled completely with people who were all too happy to sing the praises of NHRA for allowing this absurd situation to come about, specifically because Chevrolet did not have a factory car at the time. They were elated that the bogus factory race cars, that did not belong in Stock, were able to dominate the traditional legitimate Chevrolet combinations.

Jeff Lee · 12-03-2012, 09:06 PM

I remember when NHRA published a new rule that superseded the old "factory produced in numbers greater than 500" (or something like that) with; "Factory cars of 50 or less subject to NHRA approval" (again, words to that affect).
I remember wondering "why would they do that?" I'm guessing it was around 1992 (anybody know?) because the answer seemed to be that Pontiac wanted LT-1 Firehawks in the game.

Bruce Noland · 12-03-2012, 09:47 PM

1993 nhra rule book. "All cars in stock classes must be factory-production assembled, showroom available and in the hands of the general public."

1994 nhra rulebook. "All cars in stock classes must be factgory-production assembled, showroom available and in the hands of the general public. A minimum 500 units of a particular body style must be produced."

In 1997 or earlier the nhra rule book added the following paragraph and remained the same through 2007. "O.E.M. may apply for inclusion of any special production runs into the official nhra stock car classification guide. Special run must include a minimum of 50 units of an already accepted body style, need not be showroom available. Applications evaluated on an individual basis. Acceptance will not imply precedent."

NBD MGT · 12-03-2012, 09:56 PM

It's pretty safe to say all Stocker combinations make a LOT more HP than they are rated at and its my understanding that NHRA adds HP if a combination runs too far under the index.

So, is it a bogus HP rating issue or is the irritation because CJ/DP/COPO can be bought over the counter & doesn't require a racer to tear down a donor car & build it up from scratch?

In either case the cars will probably have a ton of modifications and/or trick parts & money spent on them so I'm not entirely sure how it's different from one vs. the other once they're ready to race.

How many of the newer cars hold class records compared to older cars? I think this mostly pertains to A/Stock and lower since AAA, AA, BB, and CC seem to be made for the newer cars with higher HP but maybe I'm mistaken.

I guess I'm just not sure what the actual problem is since most of the new cars run in AAA to CC and the remaining classes seem to be filled with cars from the muscle car era that hold records in almost all of those classes.

In the past, were there certain combinations that dominated classes & left other racers to feel like everything was good until that combination came along & ruined it for everyone?

12-03-2012, 07:34 PM	#3
K Stubbs Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Benton, Arkansas Posts: 402 Likes: 0 Liked 20 Times in 3 Posts	Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show They should make all class racing, starting 2013, heads up off the current indexes....With the AHFS in affect. This would not take too many races to "correct" some of the HP ratings, and look at the fun it would be.

12-03-2012, 07:48 PM	#4
ALMACK VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Bardstown, KY Posts: 1,941 Likes: 132 Liked 372 Times in 130 Posts	Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show I say all the 2008 and newer supercars that do not have a VIN should run in FX. __________________ Alan Mackin Stock 3777/ SS 3377 P/SA & SS/PA Fox Thunderbird I/PS '95 Mustang GT

12-03-2012, 08:35 PM	#6
Alan Roehrich Veteran Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Murfreesboro TN Posts: 5,123 Likes: 1,580 Liked 1,873 Times in 422 Posts	Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show It's amusing. The guys with new cars, who make up around 5-10% of the class, want to force the guys with older cars, who make up most of the rest of the class, to buy a bunch of new high dollar parts, and spend a bunch more money to take weight out, which would require even more new rules. Why is it that the vast majority, say 90% of the class, should have to make massive and expensive adjustments in order to accommodate the other 10% or less? The solution is to put the new under factored factory race cars where they always went for the previous 40 years or so. In their own classes, or in Super Stock. In order to make a 69 Chevrolet 427/425 L-72 even remotely competitive with a new 2012 LSx 427/425, you'd need a new set of heads, a new 1050 cfm carburetor, a new single plane intake to match the heads, and a new roller cam, lifters, and springs. Then you'd need a new set of headers, a new converter, and maybe a new rear gear. So, the guys with old cars should have to buy $15K worth of new parts, and effectively move to what amounts to a Super Stock engine program, in order to again be competitive, because NHRA has allowed the factory race cars in the class knowing full well what would happen? Jeff, you want to give us 5%? Seriously? That makes my L-72 427/425 rated at 404HP. So in A/SA, I take off 168 pounds, or less than 2 tenths. And that is supposed to make us even remotely competitive with a combination rated exactly the same that has at least 150HP more than we can ever hope to make? That's a complete joke, and you know it. We'd still be 3-5 tenths behind, at best. By the way, Jeff, I never said that the guys running the Mopar and Ford programs, Dale Aldo and Jesse Kershaw, ever publicly gloated over Chevrolet not having a competitive car for 4 years (2008-2012). What I said was, and you know it to be true, that this board was filled completely with people who were all too happy to sing the praises of NHRA for allowing this absurd situation to come about, specifically because Chevrolet did not have a factory car at the time. They were elated that the bogus factory race cars, that did not belong in Stock, were able to dominate the traditional legitimate Chevrolet combinations. __________________ Alan Roehrich 212A G/S

12-03-2012, 09:06 PM	#7
Jeff Lee VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Anthem, Arizona Posts: 2,766 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show I remember when NHRA published a new rule that superseded the old "factory produced in numbers greater than 500" (or something like that) with; "Factory cars of 50 or less subject to NHRA approval" (again, words to that affect). I remember wondering "why would they do that?" I'm guessing it was around 1992 (anybody know?) because the answer seemed to be that Pontiac wanted LT-1 Firehawks in the game. __________________ Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX

12-03-2012, 09:47 PM	#8
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show 1993 nhra rule book. "All cars in stock classes must be factory-production assembled, showroom available and in the hands of the general public." 1994 nhra rulebook. "All cars in stock classes must be factgory-production assembled, showroom available and in the hands of the general public. A minimum 500 units of a particular body style must be produced." In 1997 or earlier the nhra rule book added the following paragraph and remained the same through 2007. "O.E.M. may apply for inclusion of any special production runs into the official nhra stock car classification guide. Special run must include a minimum of 50 units of an already accepted body style, need not be showroom available. Applications evaluated on an individual basis. Acceptance will not imply precedent." __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK

12-03-2012, 09:56 PM	#9
NBD MGT Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 8 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: GM Releases 2013 bogus HP ratings at PRI show It's pretty safe to say all Stocker combinations make a LOT more HP than they are rated at and its my understanding that NHRA adds HP if a combination runs too far under the index. So, is it a bogus HP rating issue or is the irritation because CJ/DP/COPO can be bought over the counter & doesn't require a racer to tear down a donor car & build it up from scratch? In either case the cars will probably have a ton of modifications and/or trick parts & money spent on them so I'm not entirely sure how it's different from one vs. the other once they're ready to race. How many of the newer cars hold class records compared to older cars? I think this mostly pertains to A/Stock and lower since AAA, AA, BB, and CC seem to be made for the newer cars with higher HP but maybe I'm mistaken. I guess I'm just not sure what the actual problem is since most of the new cars run in AAA to CC and the remaining classes seem to be filled with cars from the muscle car era that hold records in almost all of those classes. In the past, were there certain combinations that dominated classes & left other racers to feel like everything was good until that combination came along & ruined it for everyone?