I need to apologize!!

[Larry Hill]

If a combo has two runs if 1.20 under it will take 20 runs of .800 under to bring the average to .836 under. So all is not lost maybe just a few heads up races.

[4543]

Robin Lawrence said THIS!!!

There will always be racers to work harder, spend more money and or time to be fast.

So True!

Mike McMahan 2543 G/SA

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by 4543

Robin Lawrence said THIS!!!

There will always be racers to work harder, spend more money and or time to be fast.

Mike McMahan 2543 G/SA

only to "have" to slow their stuff down and complain about it.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Robin Lawrence

With the value of some of the older cars it might be more cost effective to change combinations. Robin

This should be going on much more often than it does.

[Dave Reuland]

Originally Posted by Frank Castros

Lower the indexes.

NHRA did lower the indexes back in the early 90's, I believe, by 2 or 3 tenths. But many complaints reversed that decision as I recall. I talked to several stock racers this weekend in Pheonix and lowering the indexes was a very popular answer to this whole problem. The slowest car in stock was -35 under the index. That would have left him with a .15 second cushion. As a racer, I always enjoyed watching qualifying. Not anymore, almost every car was running 70 to 90 under. That ruined watching qualifying for me. It's not 1977 when I started in Stock. Even my old home built car will run -50 under the index. Times change, so should the indexes.

[rboyle]

Lowering the indexes across the board does absolutely nothing. It changes the numeric values is all that does. A soft combo is still a soft combo but instead of it being a -1.30+ capable car it becomes a -1.00 second car as number 1 Qualifier at Indy let's say.
That is why NHRA uses the AHFS which is flawed obviously but has it's merits. It's the manipulation of it that makes it ineffective.
Lowering the indexes across the board just puts the number at a different value across the same board.
It's like cutting a foot off the top of your blanket and sewing it on the bottom and thinking you shortened your blanket.

[Rory McNeil]

Originally Posted by Dave Reuland

NHRA did lower the indexes back in the early 90's, I believe, by 2 or 3 tenths. But many complaints reversed that decision as I recall. I talked to several stock racers this weekend in Pheonix and lowering the indexes was a very popular answer to this whole problem. The slowest car in stock was -35 under the index. That would have left him with a .15 second cushion. As a racer, I always enjoyed watching qualifying. Not anymore, almost every car was running 70 to 90 under. That ruined watching qualifying for me. It's not 1977 when I started in Stock. Even my old home built car will run -50 under the index. Times change, so should the indexes.

NHRA did drop the Stock indexs down 3 tenths in 2009 or 2010, the fast guys were still the fast guys, the slow guys were still the slow guys, the only thing that was really effected was the slowest guys at the bottom of the qualifying sheet. If they couldn`t run at least the new index, some opened their wallets and "stepped up", but many just threw in the towel, and either quit or went bracket racing. Not really sure how making the fields even smaller, by discouraging the low buck, or guys that want to do everything themselves, or guys that like running a considered "un competitive" combo, because they like that car or engine, really is a benefit to the future of class racing. Seems some guys are complaining about dwindling car counts, not really sure than kicking to "bottom feeders" in the crotch is going to help in that department. Not everybody has the budget to buy a new COPO, or Cobra Jet, or even the budget for a $15,000 + pro built engine. And some guys, just like tinkering with what they have. Yes, aftermarket heads, intakes, carbs, lightweight brakes, seats, $6000 "trick" transmissions have allowed some guys to pick up their pace considerably, but not all combinations have the whizzy engine "enhancements" available to them, and others may not want to alter their cars to that extent. I have never seen Casey Miles Z/28, but I think it is great that guys like him are still out there racing, with an old school car.

[Larry Hill]

I would enjoy the reinstatement of the qualifying points with a twist. The twist would be ten qualifying points equals a grade point. It would be great to have the qualifying points included in the points chase. That will make some interesting runs later in the year.

This is about performance

[DG]

Originally Posted by Larry Hill

I would enjoy the reinstatement of the qualifying points with a twist. The twist would be ten qualifying points equals a grade point. It would be great to have the qualifying points included in the points chase. That will make some interesting runs later in the year.

This is about performance

Agree, there needs to be more incentives to go fast for the AHFS to work. The way it is currently, NHRA has incentivized .70 under runs. Bobby Fazio had a nice list of such incentives. The SRAC should take up consideration of a performance incentive program that if widely supported by currently active racers, should be recommended to NHRA.

[jmcarter]

Believe Qualifying #1-5 should be recognized (either as average highest position based on 5-8 races or even at the individual race) with awards ($) but not count toward the points chase. In that scenario is it likely that D'Agnolo wouldn’t be carrying the Number 1 on his car? Probably. Would D'Agnolo, Kevin Helms or Jody Lang need to change classes and acquire or build the best combo in order to prove they worthiness to wear #1? Would hate to see the deepest pockets have an advantage over the best drivers.