How the factory "Package" cars may save Stock

[Chris "drooze" Wertman]

And people are resitant to this idea ? Or the NHRA is ?

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Rich, This is exactly why it should be class winners only in the Eliminator.

For the variety,...and the balance.

[Jeff Teuton]

Bailey, you better lighten up on that stuff. You know how you wake up and wonder where you been.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by drooze

And people are resitant to this idea ? Or the NHRA is ?

Both. Many racers would rather run 10's and lose class and still run the eliminator.
Can't really blame them ,when the entry fee is more than you can win for class.
Now we keep hearing from NHRA; too many classes , too many class byes, when they have actually created the situation.

[Chris "drooze" Wertman]

Hmmm.....makes horse sense to me.

I dont care what it is, as long as I know in advance ..... being new I dont really have a position on the rules....I just have to follow them, Im sure later I will form opinions on things like this.

I can see both sides (sort of) I like stiffer competition, so winning Class before you were allowed to run Eliminator makes Sense to me.....

But....well I really would be lying if I said I had an opinion...

Things are the way they are, we didnt plant or seed or plan the field were just there to sow it to the extent we can.

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Both. Many racers would rather run 10's and lose class and still run the eliminator.
Can't really blame them ,when the entry fee is more than you can win for class.
Now we keep hearing from NHRA; too many classes , too many class byes, when they have actually created the situation.

[Harry 6674]

Some of you have mentioned that there should be no factory built race cars in stock. Do any of you remember seeing the warning plaques in the jockey box on max wedge cars? Wasn't it something about straight line contests only with no warranty. Kinda sounds like a race car to me. In my opinion the DPs and SCJs are built using more oem parts than the fast cars in their classes. Factory cranks, rods,pistons,heads are mostly long gone in a 9 second 396 Camaro. It'll all work out when people start stepping up their game. Class winners only would speed up that process.

[Rich Biebel]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Rich, This is exactly why it should be class winners only in the Eliminator.

For the variety,...and the balance.

Mark, I agree with you on this one. I don't run Stock any longer but for me if they ran it like we did in the '60's is the only way I would look at the class with the respect many think it deserves......No way that will happen and it is a good thing for those that race it.....

Class runoffs, TEARDOWNS with teeth, and class winners go into eliminations and run off their records......Final round counts toward a new record........Somehow we did it like that 40 years ago and races were completed........No it is not an ideal way to race but it really is the way it was and you know it's true.......

That was the way it was before it became index-dial-under bracket racing-sandbagging-run your car in "bracket mode" racing......

Somehow I just don't think Stock was supposed to be about guys spending $100+K.........Old car- new car...makes no sense to me......but hey it's just my opinion and means nothing.....I'm old......thats my excuse for this.....LOL

This Drooze dude's posts are making me dizzy..........

[JMatt]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

You quoted me. It would be a logical conclusion that you were addressing something I said. However, it is now obvious that logic is not your strong suit. I read the whole thread. Several times. The point of the thread, according to the title ("How the factory "Package" cars may save Stock") and the original poster, is that somehow the new cars will save Stock. The fact that you wandered off on some sort of tangent bemoaning people gaming the AHFS, after posting some other nonsense, is your problem, not mine.

Apparently, nothing is your strong suit. Not reading comprehension, not logic, not intellect, nothing.

In post 13 you were the first to mention the AHFS.
In post 21 you first complained about the cars being underfactored.
In post 24 you complained that Drooze wouldn't be "respecting" other racers if he actually raced all 1320 feet instead of bagging it in 1000 feet.
In post 43 someone else complained about Drooze actually showing up at Pomona and RACING his car and getting HP added (an AHFS issue). Again chastizing him for not being "respectful" of cheaters who bag races at 1,000 feet. And "signing" his post on behalf of 98 DP owners (who apparently all want to cheat.)
In post 52 someone actually pointed out that AFHS won't work without people running their cars all out.
In post 65 you complained about the HP rating on the new cars (an AHFS issue).
So in post 70 I point out the two-faced arguments going on.
In post 78 you continue whining about HP factors (AHFS issue).
In post 83 I reply to you, pointing out the sum total of the above posts (because I can read).
Then in post 85 you complain that I brought up the AHFS and you hadn't said anything about it. Apparently Alzheimer's is also an issue you face.
In post 101 I suggested you re-read the thread.
So finally in post 104, after claiming you did rear the thread, multiple times, it's evident you simply cannot read, or cannot follow your own logic.

Why don't you try again?

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Indyracer

Apparently, nothing is your strong suit. Not reading comprehension, not logic, not intellect, nothing.

In post 13 you were the first to mention the AHFS.
In post 21 you first complained about the cars being underfactored.
In post 24 you complained that Drooze wouldn't be "respecting" other racers if he actually raced all 1320 feet instead of bagging it in 1000 feet.
In post 43 someone else complained about Drooze actually showing up at Pomona and RACING his car and getting HP added (an AHFS issue). Again chastizing him for not being "respectful" of cheaters who bag races at 1,000 feet. And "signing" his post on behalf of 98 DP owners (who apparently all want to cheat.)
In post 52 someone actually pointed out that AFHS won't work without people running their cars all out.
In post 65 you complained about the HP rating on the new cars (an AHFS issue).
So in post 70 I point out the two-faced arguments going on.
In post 78 you continue whining about HP factors (AHFS issue).
In post 83 I reply to you, pointing out the sum total of the above posts (because I can read).
Then in post 85 you complain that I brought up the AHFS and you hadn't said anything about it. Apparently Alzheimer's is also an issue you face.
In post 101 I suggested you re-read the thread.
So finally in post 104, after claiming you did rear the thread, multiple times, it's evident you simply cannot read, or cannot follow your own logic.

Why don't you try again?

I'd venture to say Alan is considering this whole deal from a whole lot of perspectives, on may different levels. I'm guessing you just don't get.

[Eric Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Chad Rhodes

I'd venture to say Alan is considering this whole deal from a whole lot of perspectives, on may different levels. I'm guessing you just don't get.

These two might be the future........no, he doesn't look like he will lift, and she can cut a mean light.....waiting till they turn 16.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Indyracer

Apparently, nothing is your strong suit. Not reading comprehension, not logic, not intellect, nothing.

In post 13 you were the first to mention the AHFS.
In post 21 you first complained about the cars being underfactored.
In post 24 you complained that Drooze wouldn't be "respecting" other racers if he actually raced all 1320 feet instead of bagging it in 1000 feet.
In post 43 someone else complained about Drooze actually showing up at Pomona and RACING his car and getting HP added (an AHFS issue). Again chastizing him for not being "respectful" of cheaters who bag races at 1,000 feet. And "signing" his post on behalf of 98 DP owners (who apparently all want to cheat.)
In post 52 someone actually pointed out that AFHS won't work without people running their cars all out.
In post 65 you complained about the HP rating on the new cars (an AHFS issue).
So in post 70 I point out the two-faced arguments going on.
In post 78 you continue whining about HP factors (AHFS issue).
In post 83 I reply to you, pointing out the sum total of the above posts (because I can read).
Then in post 85 you complain that I brought up the AHFS and you hadn't said anything about it. Apparently Alzheimer's is also an issue you face.
In post 101 I suggested you re-read the thread.
So finally in post 104, after claiming you did rear the thread, multiple times, it's evident you simply cannot read, or cannot follow your own logic.

Why don't you try again?

Let me explain this a little more clearly for you.

Read post 13 carefully. The point is that the AHFS was altered to protect the new cars. A gift from NHRA to go along with absurd HP factors on cars that, for the first near 40 years of Stock would have been put in Super Stock where they belong.

In post 21, you actually grasped a concept without being lead to it like a 6 year old. Congratulations. Well, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. But we'll give you credit for it anyway.

Read post 24 again. I never mentioned drooze racing to 1000 or racing to 1320. The point there was he was racing a car that didn't belong in Stock, that the veterans he claimed to respect could not compete with unless they bought one too.

Post 43 doesn't have a damned thing to do with me. Nice try though. But you just couldn't stretch far enough to reach it.

Post 52, again, has nothing at all to do with me. Keep reaching.

Read post 65 again. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with the AHFS, it has to do with how poorly NHRA factored the cars to begin with. More to the point, it was actually an illustration of how incorrect the post I quoted was in trying to equate these new cars to anything else in the history of Stock.

Read post 78 again. The HP factors are just a small part of the greater issue. The fact that you are making a weak attempt to make that the point of the entire post does not make it so. You choose to only address what you want to address out of the first paragraph of a three paragraph post. How typical of a person who doesn't have a decent position to debate from. But then, I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

Read post 85 again. It was a reply to you quoting me from post 83, when I said nothing about the AHFS in the post you quoted, and then going of on a tangent about people gaming the AHFS, something I had not previously brought up.

Read post 104 again. Clearly, I once again addressed the fact that you quoted me, then drifted off to gaming the AHFS again, which once again, is not something I discussed until you brought it up, and did it while quoting a post I made that did not even mention the AHFS.

You are merely addressing one issue here, the fact that people game the AHFS. The subject of the thread was not "people are gaming the AHFS". The subject of the thread is "How the factory "Package" cars may save Stock". And in that first post that you like to quote, post 13, I clearly illustrated how NHRA made gaming the AHFS a moot point, by altering the AHFS to allow a one and a half tenth extra cushion, after lowering the indexes 3 tenths. At that point, your whole argument point, that people game the AHFS, a point that I never argued to begin with, became moot.

The fact that you cannot follow simple logic, and must repeatedly revert to one single side issue in a vain attempt to "win" an argument from an untenable position is extremely obvious. And you claim I have Alzheimer's? I may have forgotten a few things in 46 years or so, but I'm sure I've forgotten more than you could possibly grasp on the subject at hand.