[Joseph Teuton]

Guys yall are taking this all wrong.

All I was trying to get accross is that the old cars have won more races than the newer cars. If I'm not mistaken we all go to the races to "win" and have a good time. It seems that you dont need a "new" or the "fastest" in the class car to win.

Michael you are 100% correct that "The idea that anyone with $100,000 invested in their car over a lifetime can or should scrap their car to purchase a new $100,000 car, or to scrap it and build only M/SA and slower cars is absolutely ridiculous." I never brought up a dollar amount because money should not be the reason a car or driver wins, I simply stated that with the time and r&r that yall have put into yall's cars most likley equals the amount that was put in our cars at the time of purchase. You even stated that " I did. It's the only way I could afford getting into Super Stock, and I did it specifically *because* it was ridiculously underfactored." So we can pick an choose the cars we want to drive on this same factor? Everyone in racing wants as much advactage as they can get. We all know there will be a time when the combonation we are running will be no more good. This is why they have a whole bunch of other classes to race to make sure you stay away from the cars you dont want to run untill you get the combo you are looking for. That hasnt changed since NHRA was developed.

Yall have yall's opinion, we have ours. Back to the Title of the post...
I have 2 people that has posted they were out ran by a new car in the last 5 years. Im not saying this doesnt happen..... all im saying is does it happen enough for yall to keep bringing this up over and over again?

Underfactored cars does not equal better cars. Aren't we all just looking for the BEST race car? I may have this all wrong, I've been told this before. Hope all have a great Friday! The parades start tonight here in Houma,La!!