S/SS - Lower the index -0.50 & run Pro ladder

[Mike Carr]

For the hell of it, I went and looked up the Indexes as of May 7, 1990. I think this shows the current 2008 Indexes are, indeed, soft.

SS/A 9.80
SS/B 10.00
SS/C 10.25
SS/D 10.35
SS/E 10.45
SS/F 10.55
SS/G 10.65
SS/H 10.70
SS/I 10.75
SS/J 11.00
SS/K 11.20
SS/L 11.40
SS/M 11.70
SS/N 12.05
SS/O 12.30
SS/P 12.60

SS/AA 9.85
SS/BA 9.95
SS/CA 10.15
SS/DA 10.30
SS/EA 10.45
SS/FA 10.55
SS/GA 10.65
SS/HA 10.75
SS/IA 10.85
SS/JA 11.10
SS/KA 11.35
SS/LA 11.65
SS/MA 11.95
SS/NA 12.25
SS/OA 12.50
SS/PA 12.75

GT/A 10.10
GT/B 10.20
GT/C 10.30
GT/D 10.45
GT/E 10.60
GT/F 10.70
GT/G 10.85
GT/H 10.95
GT/I 11.05
GT/J 11.15
GT/K 11.25
GT/L 11.40
GT/M 11.50

GT/AA 10.25
GT/BA 10.35
GT/CA 10.50
GT/DA 10.60
GT/EA 10.75
GT/FA 10.90
GT/GA 11.10
GT/HA 11.15
GT/IA 11.30
GT/JA 11.45
GT/KA 11.55
GT/LA 11.65
GT/MA 11.75

SS/AS 9.75
SS/BS 9.85
SS/CS 10.30
SS/AM 9.40
SS/BM 9.60
SS/CM 9.80
SS/DM 10.00
SS/EM 10.20
SS/FM 10.60
SS/GM 10.60

A/S 11.09
B/S 11.29
C/S 11.47
D/S 11.62
E/S 11.76
F/S 11.90
G/S 12.00
H/S 12.09
I/S 12.28
J/S 12.43
K/S 12.67
L/S 12.81
M/S 12.95
N/S 13.05
O/S 13.19
P/S 13.47
Q/S 13.76
R/S 14.05
T/S 14.48
U/S 14.77
V/S 15.39
W/S 15.96

A/SA 11.17
B/SA 11.37
C/SA 11.51
D/SA 11.66
E/SA 11.80
F/SA 11.95
G/SA 12.10
H/SA 12.24
I/SA 12.38
J/SA 12.53
K/SA 12.73
L/SA 12.82
M/SA 12.96
N/SA 13.11
O/SA 13.26
P/SA 13.54
Q/SA 13.89
R/SA 14.13
T/SA 14.67
U/SA 14.96
V/SA 15.71
W/SA 16.80

These were the Class Indexes from eighteen years ago. Since then, with all the aftermarket this, replacement that, and other rule changes allowing the cars to be much quicker than they were back then, most of the Indexes are at least a tenth (or more) SLOWER with all the new rules. And you still think the Indexes are not soft in 2008?

BTW, here are the current-day Indexes, for comparison.
http://www.nhra.com/stats/indexes_ss.html
http://www.nhra.com/stats/indexes_stk.html

[Mike Carr]

Originally Posted by 1664SSJA

So I think some kind of change should be made on the other end. I don't have a suggestion as to WHAT kind of change, but you guys know better than me.

I agree, there isn't an easy answer to what many perceive to be a problem. If you lower the Indexes, say, two tenths across the board (five tenths is to much, IMO) and leave the triggers (-1.15 twice for a look and -1.40 for automatic), then that plays into the fast guys/girls hands...allowing them to run flat out with no, or reduced, penalties. If you lower the Indexes two tenths, and reduce the triggers to -.95 and -1.20, then you still have the same problem that some currently do not like, which is being unable to run flat out in Class Eliminations, or heads-up runs, without a potential penalty of HP adjustments. I don't think it is the intention of some (at least not me) to chase the little guys/girls out. I'm just pointing out the fact that in the past two decades, we have received a multitude of rule changes to allow us to go faster, and yet the Indexes are Slower than before the new rules (and not all rules have been for the better...the -.50 rule for bye runs to win class, Class Winners not automatically placed in the field, but that is another story in itself). Even if the indexes were reduced two tenths, it would only affect a small, minority population of Stock and Super Stock cars.

(I'm not professing to have the answer to the problem...just tossing some opinions out there.)

[bsa633]

Originally Posted by 1664SSJA

Mike,

I do think the indexes are soft, and that you should be able to build something in your garage that will run them, or under, no problem.
The thing is that if we want the classes to continue to grow, we need to have it so that people can do just that thing If they don't have a big budget; be able to build their own car, on a budget, in their garage, that can run, say .5 under. Then they are in, and from there they can build on what they have and go faster, and participate in a different way; ie: going faster.

Why would it be bad to have to work a little harder to run the index(or under)than it is now? nothing is keeping them from coming to a race and learn if they have trouble run the indexes...most of us has come from not running the index and worked our way up...kinda what makes it fun...to easy to be in the "bracket race" on sunday and have a chance....I just think it looks stupid to run 1.3 sec or more under the index..but thats just me.

[Mark Yacavone]

Mark , Of course, not with all combinations. I'm talking about cars that are underfactored to begin with.

Example 1, 78 400 Firebird. We ran 11.80's on a 13 flat index , 10 years ago @ 260 hp . Those cars have been hit several times ,but now run in the low elevens @ 280 plus hp .Without the AHFS, they'd still be in L/SA.

Example 2, There was a V/Stock car in an IHRA final recently, right around the index.
I know of atleast one turbo combo that has already been 1.80 under ( of course, not at an NHRA event)

Some of you guys are missing the point. I don't care if it's 1.80 under or 2.20 under. it's still ridiculous

No index reductions and no HP hits? How long before you just call this Bracket Two or maybe Affirmative Action Eliminator ?

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by 1664SSJA

Ok................... manipulating the system

The current racing system in Stock and Super Stock, as it stands, does not require or encourage you to run wide open 100% of the time. There's NOTHING about a low qualifying position that pays, except the possibility of #1 getting a bye. Only class eliminations and the occasional heads up run require you to run wide open, and even then you might not have to, depending on your competition. So, no, not running wide open is not even manipulating the system. Neither is moving to the most advantageous class.

[Alan Roehrich]

Just because you can BUY HP doesn't mean you automatically go fast. I know some smart people who've run fast in the past who were NOT real fast in a new (to them) combination despite having a high HP big $$$ engine.

I'm not saying money isn't a factor. I'm not even saying big money store bought engines aren't a factor. I'm saying they're not the all conquering factor people are making them out to be.