Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock - Page 3

Mark Yacavone · 10-26-2021, 03:14 PM

I wouldn't have a problem with -.85.
Good idea...I'm surprised NHRA adopted it.
I suppose having AHFS at Indy is okay too. It's going to be mineshaft anyway.
Having 2-3 cars that run 1.5- 2.0 under there just showcases what a p. poor job they did at factoring them in the first place.

Frank Castros · 10-26-2021, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Castros

Or let it fly and suspend AHFS for 2 years and let the chips fall where they may.

No one liked or commented on this post, why not? Let's see what the high flyers have and make the adjustment in 2024 either with refactoring and or index reduction. I believe that a majority of those who race in Stock Eliminator are spending time, money and the liberal interpretation of the already flawed rule book. Let it sort itself out by exposing the cheaters, under factored and sand baggers to unlimited performance.
What you say?

Billy Nees · 10-26-2021, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Castros

No one liked or commented on this post, why not? Let's see what the high flyers have and make the adjustment in 2024 either with refactoring and or index reduction. I believe that a majority of those who race in Stock Eliminator are spending time, money and the liberal interpretation of the already flawed rule book. Let it sort itself out by exposing the cheaters, under factored and sand baggers to unlimited performance.
What you say?

Sooooo when 2 more years of damage have been done and the "cheaters, under factored and sandbaggers" have been exposed, what then? Retroactively factor, fine and ban them? Strip them of their winnings and repatriate the beaten?
IMHO, it has almost gotten to the point where it all needs to be torn down like in '73 or '74!

Frank Castros · 10-26-2021, 08:17 PM

That's the point, it's up to Lonnie and his team(?) to sort the intel from there and make sense of it.

Frank Castros · 10-26-2021, 08:20 PM

Mr. Grimm, tear down this wall. (and be a hero like Ronald Reagan)

Todd Hoven · 10-27-2021, 06:21 AM

I believe it was 1972 when they went back to pure stock rules. Street tires, exhaust, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Sooooo when 2 more years of damage have been done and the "cheaters, under factored and sandbaggers" have been exposed, what then? Retroactively factor, fine and ban them? Strip them of their winnings and repatriate the beaten?
IMHO, it has almost gotten to the point where it all needs to be torn down like in '73 or '74!

GUMP · 10-27-2021, 08:40 AM

I don't see how this would fix anything. I actually think it gives more opportunity to lower the average.

Under the current system, I would like to see the 1.2 trigger raised at mineshaft races.

Billy Nees · 10-27-2021, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Hoven

I believe it was 1972 when they went back to pure stock rules. Street tires, exhaust, etc.

Wellllll, upon further review, maybe not that far back but the mid-90s would be nice.

jimi · 10-29-2021, 05:36 PM

"it has almost gotten to the point where it all needs to be torn down like in '73 or '74!"

im all for that !!!!!

B Parker · 10-30-2021, 08:51 PM

So if they are considering .95 under why not just do away with mine shaft conditions all together. Why not just do away with Stock being a performance class. No more heads up. No more class run offs. Lets make it an even playing field for those that don't have a clue, or are just to lazy to work on your car to make it faster. It's not just about spending money on your car. It's so much easier just to complain about those that are faster than you and hope NHRA hits them with HP. Got to love the HP welfare system. With AHFS in effect at Indy this year. How many stockers went 1.20. All it did was make many that love the performance side of stock stay away. And those that still went that could run 1.20 under played the game. How many along with me stay awake at night thinking of ways to make your car faster. I'm glad to have someone like Jim Boudreau in my class that is faster than me. He pushes me to want to make my car faster than him. It just sucks that you could get punished with HP for making your car faster in a class that has been performance based. BP

10-26-2021, 03:14 PM	#21
Mark Yacavone Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Miles From Nowhere Posts: 7,418 Likes: 2,582 Liked 4,453 Times in 1,694 Posts	Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock I wouldn't have a problem with -.85. Good idea...I'm surprised NHRA adopted it. I suppose having AHFS at Indy is okay too. It's going to be mineshaft anyway. Having 2-3 cars that run 1.5- 2.0 under there just showcases what a p. poor job they did at factoring them in the first place. __________________ We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for..... Will Rogers

10-26-2021, 08:17 PM	#24
Frank Castros VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Lowcountry. Posts: 2,641 Likes: 2,154 Liked 2,082 Times in 769 Posts	Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock That's the point, it's up to Lonnie and his team(?) to sort the intel from there and make sense of it.

10-26-2021, 08:20 PM	#25
Frank Castros VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Lowcountry. Posts: 2,641 Likes: 2,154 Liked 2,082 Times in 769 Posts	Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock Mr. Grimm, tear down this wall. (and be a hero like Ronald Reagan)

10-27-2021, 08:40 AM	#27
GUMP VIP Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 1,665 Likes: 1,709 Liked 1,732 Times in 418 Posts	Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock I don't see how this would fix anything. I actually think it gives more opportunity to lower the average. Under the current system, I would like to see the 1.2 trigger raised at mineshaft races.

10-29-2021, 05:36 PM	#29
jimi Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: usa Posts: 239 Likes: 7 Liked 21 Times in 8 Posts	Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock "it has almost gotten to the point where it all needs to be torn down like in '73 or '74!" im all for that !!!!!

10-30-2021, 08:51 PM	#30
B Parker Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 835 Likes: 921 Liked 2,314 Times in 455 Posts	Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock So if they are considering .95 under why not just do away with mine shaft conditions all together. Why not just do away with Stock being a performance class. No more heads up. No more class run offs. Lets make it an even playing field for those that don't have a clue, or are just to lazy to work on your car to make it faster. It's not just about spending money on your car. It's so much easier just to complain about those that are faster than you and hope NHRA hits them with HP. Got to love the HP welfare system. With AHFS in effect at Indy this year. How many stockers went 1.20. All it did was make many that love the performance side of stock stay away. And those that still went that could run 1.20 under played the game. How many along with me stay awake at night thinking of ways to make your car faster. I'm glad to have someone like Jim Boudreau in my class that is faster than me. He pushes me to want to make my car faster than him. It just sucks that you could get punished with HP for making your car faster in a class that has been performance based. BP