New rules for 2010?

[Dick Butler]

Anyone considering campaigning for combined classes and less classes? Just satisfied as is?

[Michael Beard]

I'm not campaigning for anything, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see full-pound weight breaks and combine sticks and autos. (This, coming from one of those "&^#$! bracket racers who just want to infiltrate Stock without having to worry about heads-up racing." Not.)

[Sean Cour]

Originally Posted by Michael Beard

I'm not campaigning for anything, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see full-pound weight breaks and combine sticks and autos. (This, coming from one of those "&^#$! bracket racers who just want to infiltrate Stock without having to worry about heads-up racing." Not.)

I like you, Michael.

I think that would be awsome. Also, chop .50 off the indexes. Stockers shouldn't be able to run .80 under the Superstock indexes.

[GTX JOHN]

If you dropped .5 off the index the bottom 1/3 of the car at Bakersfield would not been able to compete. Neither of my kids would have ever built a stocker if the index was faster. A lot of us that race simply can't afford to build a $30,000. stocker , but we still love to race! It is the hoursepower factors and their quirks that make a lot of the reason why! Example: My .7 under stocker is at 314 HP in Super Stock it is 283 HP therefor it runs .4 to .5 under with no changes

i

[Dick Butler]

Changing the index excessively would be hard on some people. It would be better to make a tighter AHFS first to tighten up the HP problems. Like a run of 1.00 under gets hp.in the AM. Suddenly everyone with normal cars are competitive again. People do not have to start over with the latest "weak" factor car to win classes or appear on the Qualifying sheet. and they begin to LOVE it again.(I am TOO conservative on class racing because I have watched it be watered down and devalued too long.)Since I am not currently racing I would not suggest these things only comment on them.

[X-TECH MAN]

You can not make anyone or everyone happy no matter what comes about. You will always have the "HAVES and the HAVE NOTS" in racing of any kind.

[bill dedman]

What you say is very true, Terry, but IF NHRA was interested, and worked at it, they could do a few things to minimize the difference (in the "haves" and the "have not"s.)

I think HP at 1.00 under is the best idea I've heard, along with publishing the e.t.'s at 1,000 ft.

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

What you say is very true, Terry, but IF NHRA was interested, and worked at it, they could do a few things to minimize the difference (in the "haves" and the "have not"s.)

I think HP at 1.00 under is the best idea I've heard, along with publishing the e.t.'s at 1,000 ft.

Thats a mighty BIG IF !

[Sean Cour]

Originally Posted by GTX JOHN

If you dropped .5 off the index the bottom 1/3 of the car at Bakersfield would not been able to compete. Neither of my kids would have ever built a stocker if the index was faster. A lot of us that race simply can't afford to build a $30,000. stocker , but we still love to race! It is the hoursepower factors and their quirks that make a lot of the reason why! Example: My .7 under stocker is at 314 HP in Super Stock it is 283 HP therefor it runs .4 to .5 under with no changes

i

GTX JOHN-

Stock eliminator wasn't supposed to be easy. You have to work on your combo. Being smart is as much of a reason for being fast as having a lot of money. Most, usually don't give credit for a racer working smart, it's always how much money they spent. You answered one of my questions I was eluding too. Why should a Stocker be able to qualify for Superstock?

Maybe, just reduce the Superstock indexes .50?

[Sean Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Sean Cour

GTX JOHN-

Stock eliminator wasn't supposed to be easy. You have to work on your combo. Being smart is as much of a reason for being fast as having a lot of money. Most, usually don't give credit for a racer working smart, it's always how much money they spent. You answered one of my questions I was eluding too. Why should a Stocker be able to qualify for Superstock?

Maybe, just reduce the Superstock indexes .50?

Sean,

Wouldn't you agree that the reason why most stockers run that far under the super stock index is because of the loosening of the rules and the amount of people who run heads that are actually ported?