2011 Stock/Super Stock Rule Changes

Jack McCarthy · 10-31-2010, 09:54 PM

jack matayas... you do remember i had the rule changed to allow 3 speed automatics in 1957 - 1961 full size chevys due to the 3 speed turboglide ... only high HP 348s and 6 cylinders cannot use the 3 speed.

jack mccarthy

why the stupid valve spring rule ?

Ed Fernandez · 10-31-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack McCarthy

jack matayas... you do remember i had the rule changed to allow 3 speed automatics in 1957 - 1961 full size chevys due to the 3 speed turboglide ... only high HP 348s and 6 cylinders cannot use the 3 speed.

jack mccarthy

why the stupid valve spring rule ?

Speaking of valve springs what's the open/closed specs on the various CJ and DP springs?Seems like someone said once on here that if you limited the open pressure specs then all the exotic stuff you see now would be useless and more parity would result.
If you limit the older combos and the factory specs on the new cars are somewhere near the front end coil spring #s on my car,then you hurt the older combos even more than they are now.Can someone explain this in a rational manner?

bill dedman · 11-01-2010, 03:27 AM

Ed,

In reference to your comment, "Why does everybody want to keep changing the rules?"

Keep changing the rules? KEEP CHANGING THE RULES???
This rule is FORTY SEVEN YEARS OLD!!! Has never been changed!

At the time it was instituted, there was a similar rule: "First car to 'break out' loses."

I don't know if you were racing back then, but I was.

They (NHRA) figured out how to fix that situation very quickly, and did. They probably would have fixed the first red light rule at the same time, but did not have the necessary software, yet, so they buried it . Over the years, people got used to it. I know I did. It took several hours of thinking about it (after having it explained to me by a guy who was a lot smarter than I am) for me to "get it." That's how buried in tradition, I was, But even ~I~ eventually "got it."

They had buried it by never trying to change the "so-simple-a-cave-man-can -understand-it" FIRST RED LIGHT LOSES in a handicapped race, even though the software to alleviate this obviously unfair situation has been around for years. Why? NHRA is run by a bunch of .....well, lets just say that unless it's going to benefit them, monetarily, they simply have no interest in doing it... It wasn't always that way, but it's been that way for a while.

Would you like to RETURN to the original "First Car to Break Out" system, and keep it, on the same basis that you think this red light business can continue to be swept under the carpet, under the the idiotic rationale of "That's the way it's always been???"

No.... I wouldn't think so. It's the same situation, you know... same concept.

Then, let me get this straight: you want to keep the "worst breakout loses" rule, but defy logic by NOT changing to a worst red light rule...

Explain the logic of that one for the folks, if you will, please. I know you will..... oh yes, you will!!!! It will be an explanation devoid of logic because there's only one way you operate in a scenario like this; kill the messenger! Personal attacks, snide comments about the person who disagrees with you and anything pejorative or derogatory that you think will supplant logic and an overview of sportsmanship or fairness, but that's your way of fighting the issue, if there's "no way out."

And, there's not....

I'm waiting.

Bunkster · 11-01-2010, 07:23 AM

Why is it that the following is considered unfair or nonsensical?

Everyone shall have an equal opportunity to red light.

As the starting line system is a basic fundamental, EVERYONE must take a shot at the tree.

No one shall ever deprived of an opportunity to red light.

Or, wouldn't this make as much sense as the current situation:

The LAST car to red light shall always be the loser. If you are always the LAST car to leave and find this unfair, then simply learn how to drive and don't redlight. Or, build a slower car.

Chad Rhodes · 11-01-2010, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunkster

Why is it that the following is considered unfair or nonsensical?

Everyone shall have an equal opportunity to red light.

As the starting line system is a basic fundamental, EVERYONE must take a shot at the tree.

No one shall ever deprived of an opportunity to red light.

Or, wouldn't this make as much sense as the current situation:

The LAST car to red light shall always be the loser. If you are always the LAST car to leave and find this unfair, then simply learn how to drive and don't redlight. Or, build a slower car.

you're right bunkster, that's fair. go get some a few bracket series, some local tracks, maybe the summit series to switch over and do it your way. If you can do that (i doubt you cna get one track to participate) and it is successfull then we'll talk about stock and superstock. Stock and superstock have enough controversy and differing opinions right now, there is no good reason to change the fundamentals of how the starting line works.

I'd love to see some data on how many races that rule would have affected. Problem is that a lot of fast cars, when giving a big enough spot will just leave when they see their opponents red light, that would skew the numbers.

John Kelley · 11-05-2010, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad Rhodes

Problem is that a lot of fast cars, when giving a big enough spot will just leave when they see their opponents red light, that would skew the numbers.

WHOA.......if that made it right NOBODY would see any redlight until BOTH cars had left the starting line !!!

bill dedman · 11-05-2010, 10:15 PM

Yet another post from someone who would ridicule the new rule proposal, but with NO logical reason not to change to it. Just more verbiage, changing the subject and offering distraction.

Take two asprin and call me in the morning, Ed...

Ed Fernandez · 11-01-2010, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Ed,

In reference to your comment, "Why does everybody want to keep changing the rules?"

Keep changing the rules? KEEP CHANGING THE RULES???
This rule is FORTY SEVEN YEARS OLD!!! Has never been changed!

At the time it was instituted, there was a similar rule: "First car to 'break out' loses."

I don't know if you were racing back then, but I was.

They (NHRA) figured out how to fix that situation very quickly, and did. They probably would have fixed the first red light rule at the same time, but did not have the necessary software, yet, so they buried it . Over the years, people got used to it. I know I did. It took several hours of thinking about it (after having it explained to me by a guy who was a lot smarter than I am) for me to "get it." That's how buried in tradition, I was, But even ~I~ eventually "got it."

They had buried it by never trying to change the "so-simple-a-cave-man-can -understand-it" FIRST RED LIGHT LOSES in a handicapped race, even though the software to alleviate this obviously unfair situation has been around for years. Why? NHRA is run by a bunch of .....well, lets just say that unless it's going to benefit them, monetarily, they simply have no interest in doing it... It wasn't always that way, but it's been that way for a while.

Would you like to RETURN to the original "First Car to Break Out" system, and keep it, on the same basis that you think this red light business can continue to be swept under the carpet, under the the idiotic rationale of "That's the way it's always been???"

No.... I wouldn't think so. It's the same situation, you know... same concept.

Then, let me get this straight: you want to keep the "worst breakout loses" rule, but defy logic by NOT changing to a worst red light rule...

Explain the logic of that one for the folks, if you will, please. I know you will..... oh yes, you will!!!! It will be an explanation devoid of logic because there's only one way you operate in a scenario like this; kill the messenger! Personal attacks, snide comments about the person who disagrees with you and anything pejorative or derogatory that you think will supplant logic and an overview of sportsmanship or fairness, but that's your way of fighting the issue, if there's "no way out."

And, there's not....

I'm waiting.

I see they let you out of the asylum again hey Dedman?
Plain and simple,you don't race S/SS now.Except for a few key board racers the system seems to work very well
I can't believe you actually gave this subject hours of thought.Must have put a real strain on your old tired brain.
I have no problem with the red light rule as is and I never will.I also think the breakout rule is correct as written.
So Bill,go back to your bracket racing friends and tell them just how stupid and stubborn those S/SS racers are for not changing the rules to your liking.And do as Chad suggested.Get your local track to implement them in your bracket program.
From a kinder and gentler Ed F.

Alan Roehrich · 11-01-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

a kinder and gentler Ed F.

Say it ain't so.

TGould · 11-01-2010, 03:25 PM

Jeremy, I remember your Dad runnning the "57" at Phoenix City in the early 60's but I don't recall if it was a 4 spd.???.

10-31-2010, 09:54 PM	#1
Jack McCarthy VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: lyndon ky. ... louisville area Posts: 1,327 Likes: 30 Liked 511 Times in 122 Posts	Re: 2011 Stock/Super Stock Rule Changes jack matayas... you do remember i had the rule changed to allow 3 speed automatics in 1957 - 1961 full size chevys due to the 3 speed turboglide ... only high HP 348s and 6 cylinders cannot use the 3 speed. jack mccarthy why the stupid valve spring rule ? __________________ Jack McCarthy 3609 STK "the Captain"

11-01-2010, 03:27 AM	#3
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: 2011 Stock/Super Stock Rule Changes Ed, In reference to your comment, "Why does everybody want to keep changing the rules?" Keep changing the rules? KEEP CHANGING THE RULES??? This rule is FORTY SEVEN YEARS OLD!!! Has never been changed! At the time it was instituted, there was a similar rule: "First car to 'break out' loses." I don't know if you were racing back then, but I was. They (NHRA) figured out how to fix that situation very quickly, and did. They probably would have fixed the first red light rule at the same time, but did not have the necessary software, yet, so they buried it . Over the years, people got used to it. I know I did. It took several hours of thinking about it (after having it explained to me by a guy who was a lot smarter than I am) for me to "get it." That's how buried in tradition, I was, But even ~I~ eventually "got it." They had buried it by never trying to change the "so-simple-a-cave-man-can -understand-it" FIRST RED LIGHT LOSES in a handicapped race, even though the software to alleviate this obviously unfair situation has been around for years. Why? NHRA is run by a bunch of .....well, lets just say that unless it's going to benefit them, monetarily, they simply have no interest in doing it... It wasn't always that way, but it's been that way for a while. Would you like to RETURN to the original "First Car to Break Out" system, and keep it, on the same basis that you think this red light business can continue to be swept under the carpet, under the the idiotic rationale of "That's the way it's always been???" No.... I wouldn't think so. It's the same situation, you know... same concept. Then, let me get this straight: you want to keep the "worst breakout loses" rule, but defy logic by NOT changing to a worst red light rule... Explain the logic of that one for the folks, if you will, please. I know you will..... oh yes, you will!!!! It will be an explanation devoid of logic because there's only one way you operate in a scenario like this; kill the messenger! Personal attacks, snide comments about the person who disagrees with you and anything pejorative or derogatory that you think will supplant logic and an overview of sportsmanship or fairness, but that's your way of fighting the issue, if there's "no way out." And, there's not.... I'm waiting. __________________ Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 11-01-2010 at 03:41 AM.

11-01-2010, 07:23 AM	#4
Bunkster Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 307 Likes: 0 Liked 43 Times in 10 Posts	Re: 2011 Stock/Super Stock Rule Changes Why is it that the following is considered unfair or nonsensical? Everyone shall have an equal opportunity to red light. As the starting line system is a basic fundamental, EVERYONE must take a shot at the tree. No one shall ever deprived of an opportunity to red light. Or, wouldn't this make as much sense as the current situation: The LAST car to red light shall always be the loser. If you are always the LAST car to leave and find this unfair, then simply learn how to drive and don't redlight. Or, build a slower car.

11-05-2010, 10:15 PM	#7
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: 2011 Stock/Super Stock Rule Changes Yet another post from someone who would ridicule the new rule proposal, but with NO logical reason not to change to it. Just more verbiage, changing the subject and offering distraction. Take two asprin and call me in the morning, Ed... __________________ Bill

11-01-2010, 03:25 PM	#10
TGould Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Beaufort,SC Posts: 145 Likes: 19 Liked 32 Times in 6 Posts	Re: 2011 Stock/Super Stock Rule Changes Jeremy, I remember your Dad runnning the "57" at Phoenix City in the early 60's but I don't recall if it was a 4 spd.???.