Sticks & Autos Together (Class)

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Mike Carr

There is already an Eliminator where clutchless transmissions and transbrakes are permitted. It's called Super Stock. If you want those concessions, move to S/S. Sticks and autos are only combined in very few classes (and the auto's get 5% or 250 pound (whichever is greater) in the S/S Modified and GT Truck classes, and FWD Stock classes are a 100 pound advantage), so the whole argument of sticks vs auto's in the same class is pretty moot.

I still haven't seen a definitive answer to my question early on, about Classes where sticks and auto's can run together, I would guess your trans type would determine which Class Combo Race you would run.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike,
I didn't make it clear, obviously, and I should have, that I have no dog in this hunt.

I run a Bracket car, not a Class race car, but as a long-time fan and supporter of Sportsman racing, I try to keep tabs on what is happening and of course, I have opinions about how things are handled as regards new rules and regulations.

I am not a proponent of combining the sticks and automatics, but I don't see it as a bad thing, either.

But, if it IS going to be done, there are some issues involving how the rules are written that I think would be worth discussing.

That is what I thought I was doing when I advocated giving Trans Brakes to the automatic cars (or, lockup converters) IF the stick and automatic cars should end up combined in one class and IF it included the legalization of clutchless shifting.

Nowhere did I advocate either of those modifications EXCEPT as a result of NHRA's combining the two types of cars. That may never happen. But, if it does, I believe those two ideas might be worth talking about, regardless of their legality in S/S.

Maybe it's a lousy idea.... might well be. As you pointed out, if that's your bag, build a Super Stocker; good advice! Like I said, it's immaterial to me, personally, whether it becomes a new legal mod or not; I just thougtht it was worthy of discussion.

Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to explain my position more effectively, next time.

Thanks for your interest.