"2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

there ya go, Mr Lee...

i'd be all for the worse redlight deal ..
seems fair but at the moment, i ain't racin'...

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

OK - I'll go 1st................

I'd like to see the rules opened up so that a traditional RWD SS'er (like mine) would be permitted to apply the same allowances as the FWD conversion cars.
Specifically
eliminate factory the K-member - replace with tube
eliminate factory control arms - replace with fabricated tube
eliminate the upper control arm and use a strut that mounts in the factory upper shock location
rod ends instead of factory ball joints etc...
firewall ? - pobably does not apply. room to fit engine not a problem.
I doub't it would make the car any faster but I think it would be safer
I think it would make the car able to hook consistently without the big wheelstands (also safer)

BTW - I don't care about the cost - It would be an option

anyone who wants to continue to race with factory parts would still be allowed

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

X2
Rich

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

x3 on that one angelo. what's legal for one car, should be legal for everyone.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

I agree with Angelo. Also how about the the rest of the rest of the things they are doing to the new Comp, sorry I meant SS/GT cars? Long steering columns, relocated pedals & driver's seats to move weight back. The rule book says they can't but they go right though tech with no problems. That helps hook with less body rotation/wheel stands.

Glad I don't have to race those things heads up.

Btw, word is no titanium valves for SS in 2011.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Good ! Now just think, only 12 months to go...

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Thanks for the support! I must say I wasn't expecting that.

I don't view the FWD cars as necessarily having any tremendous performance advantage if at all..... no gripe there.... and that is not the basis of my request. Without those allowances - I believe the FWD cars would be at a tremendous disadvantage.. if able to be competative at all.
I do see it as an advantage in other ways... mainly safety and in some ways easier to work on. Being able to have room for fenderwell headers and more room around them to maximize pipe lengths, get them on and off, and access to the plugs is something I have to say I envy about them. The fact that they leave more room in the trailer is not an issue.

Reality dictates that progress is inevitable. In order for newer cars to get into the game allowances to construction have to be made.

Alowances for traditional cars would make them much safer - and in some ways easier to work on.

I sent this in to NHRA last year - they weren't ready for this much change - I will try again this winter

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Angelo: could not agree more, the front suspension rule is the only thing keeping me from racing. My car is set up for NMRA and tubular K-Members and lower control arms are allowed. Every year I ask, and get told maybe, keep looking... My only hope is to step up and try racing Comp.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

I think you are right on. These changes should be allowed.
Another thing I would like to see is the minimum weight for modified cars reduced to 2800 pounds. The FWD conversion cars have to add a lot of weight to get to 3000 pounds with a standard trans.
Ashton 4373

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Interesting statement...

If the rules are the same in SS as the GT class, why shouldn't they race heads up? Maybe NHRA will will make the rules the same and combine classes. Sponsors would be happy. Less classes to pay.

Be careful what you wish for.

______________________________

Andy Stone 1102 A/S 1112 SS/C

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

My 2012 proposal (or better yet... 2011) is.....

drop the AFHS "trigger review" from current -1.00 to -0.80
drop AFHS "auto hp" to -1.00 (same as 2009- old -1.30)

change AFHS review period to every 3 months (with 6 months of data)
+++ AFHS- use rolling 6 moths of data (drop 3 months add new 3 months)

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

That could work.
But tear all cars the get the instant hit down.
I wish they would use corrected altitude. And use all tracks even the altitude ones.
It is totally unfair that someone can go to a altitude track and run 1.5 under and not even get looked at.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Andy, read the rule book. Those things I mentioned are supposed to be the same. Guys with a 4 or 5 year old fwd conversion GT car, built by the rule book are at a disadvantage. If they are going to allow that stuff they should change the rule book.

I agree with Tom and Art about the triggers & altitude tracks. I don't see the 3.25% cap as valid. Should be a % based on the % they ran under the trigger. Should not take so long to correct the really bogus combos.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

imagine cars like Stinnet, Morehead and Leblanc. All running "big" RWD cars in the GT classes vs the jellybeans. And remarkably, Shaun Leblanc's 8.97 still hasn't been beat (and gone through teardown).

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Don't forget 1000'ers.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

I wouldn't mind seeing a proposal to allow an engine that came OEM with fuel injection only, to be able to replace that system with an OEM or aftermarket accepted carburation system. Then I could save my future laptop for stuff like this only....

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

only if we get to weld bungs on the carbureted intakes and go the other way

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Allow deep staging in Stock!

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Get the sb2 heads out of ss/cm -ss/dm and the aurora blocks cant recall a single production vehicle with sbc and a 8.2 -8.5 inch deck

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

How about buy backs till the semi finals.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

How about going to three years on Driver Restraint - make it the same as the Chassis Inspection.....

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

NHRA already took your money. They don't want to keep you around any longer than they have to.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

They'll figure out how to get their hands in the pot .

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

x2

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Sounds good to me.

And Ed's buy-backs. :D

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

even though I would love to see a buy back -
it would take 5 days instead of three to complete a points race in Div-1.... maybe 6

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

Ang I was being just a bit sarcastic with the buyback post.I do think that your safety improvement posts have a lot of merit though.

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

A corvette is classified as a "2 door coupe", therefore not allowed to run SS modified stock classes. However, everything from trucks to front wheel conversions are allowed. I would like to see the rule changed to read like modified only w/ the engine restrictions that are applied to modified stock. Basically, the only car they aren't allowing to run this class is a Corvette. Along the lines of modified classes, it's time to change the "no rack/pinion" rule for older cars. This is a safety issue, can you imagine running a '57 chevy @ 160 mph w/ 1957 technology under the frontend! When NHRA/IHRA allowed the frontwheel drive conversions/comp cars to run rampent w/ the rules they should have allowed the older modified cars the same advantages. Just my .02

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

I actually meant to include something like this in my original post - very good point !

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

How about NOT change anything for 2 years....

and use that time to gather information and come up a comprehensive PLAN to address all of the areas that require change and only change what was needed....

NAW that will never work.......

Re: "2012 and beyond rule proposals"
 

I believe that there are alot of good points brought up on this topic, some may work, some may not, of course you can't please everybody all the time. And who knows what the sanctioning bodies are thinking of. But, it is all for naught. None of this will matter in 2012.

I saw the movie, and we are all in big trouble.

Ron Ortiz
U/SA soon to be leaving