new indexes

Michael Beard · 10-10-2007, 01:28 PM

>> look at all we've been allowed to do (rule changes, replacement parts, etc).

You said a mouthful there!

>> When you see cars with about five grand Or less) in them running seven (or more) tenths under, with no trick parts and an accurate (not under-rated HP rating), something seems amiss?

I don't think the pits are overflowing with these cars. Can you name 10 that are not FWD or turbo cars?

You could knock .70 off the indexes, and it wouldn't change Indy qualifying. The indexes are all relative. What does knocking .20 or .50 or .70 off the indexes accomplish exactly? #1 qualifiers will still be #1 qualifiers, #50 qualifiers will still be #50 qualifiers. Sounds too country club to me. Why don't you just place a minimum on the cars? Every entry must have at least $20,000 invested in the race car (or should we make it a $250,000 minimum, and include tow vehicles and trailers?). Any car not meeting the minimum investment would have to pay the difference between the minimum and the car's value, once per year. Any cash taken in would be redistributed into the points fund at year's end.

Yes, the above is all completely and utterly ridiculous. So why do some people want to change the indexes when it will have absolutely no effect on them? (Presuming that if the indexes were changed, that the AHFS triggers would change accordingly)

People want to talk about the class being a performance eliminator, and then argue about AHFS, combining carb & EFI, combining sticks and autos, and combining weight breaks.

$.02,

10-10-2007, 01:28 PM	#9
Michael Beard VIP Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 4,060 Likes: 0 Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts	Re: new indexes >> look at all we've been allowed to do (rule changes, replacement parts, etc). You said a mouthful there! >> When you see cars with about five grand Or less) in them running seven (or more) tenths under, with no trick parts and an accurate (not under-rated HP rating), something seems amiss? I don't think the pits are overflowing with these cars. Can you name 10 that are not FWD or turbo cars? You could knock .70 off the indexes, and it wouldn't change Indy qualifying. The indexes are all relative. What does knocking .20 or .50 or .70 off the indexes accomplish exactly? #1 qualifiers will still be #1 qualifiers, #50 qualifiers will still be #50 qualifiers. Sounds too country club to me. Why don't you just place a minimum on the cars? Every entry must have at least $20,000 invested in the race car (or should we make it a $250,000 minimum, and include tow vehicles and trailers?). Any car not meeting the minimum investment would have to pay the difference between the minimum and the car's value, once per year. Any cash taken in would be redistributed into the points fund at year's end. Yes, the above is all completely and utterly ridiculous. So why do some people want to change the indexes when it will have absolutely no effect on them? (Presuming that if the indexes were changed, that the AHFS triggers would change accordingly) People want to talk about the class being a performance eliminator, and then argue about AHFS, combining carb & EFI, combining sticks and autos, and combining weight breaks. $.02, __________________ Michael Beard - NHRA/IHRA 3216 S/SS