|
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: chewelah wa
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]()
SEAN does spending my hard earned money on new heads from the sorensons bros. count as performance parts ??
__________________
larry dowty 6388 SS |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
The coin always have 2 sides,what will drive some away might attract others..these classes could become more popular amongs racers in other categorys...good or bad..... I think it's a good move..but are a little afraid that those who has been good protecting there combos may have a good headstart that will be good for a couple of years if "the powers" dont get it right with the HPchanges before this new numbers comes into effect...well..if they do!
Last edited by bsa633; 12-14-2009 at 03:02 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 458
Likes: 170
Liked 124 Times in 39 Posts
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times in 2 Posts
|
![]()
Bryan,
Did you just call me crazy? Was it crazy = good or just crazy = nuts. Everybody who runs Stock or Super Stock is probably a little of both. Merry Christmas, hope to see you guys again before so long. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
VIP Member
|
![]()
While I think most, if not everyone, can agree that the Indexes are soft, I don't know if an across-the-board three tenths is fair either. 9.30 SS/AM is already a fairly stiff Index. So is 9.60 for a SS/AH. Neither class, in normal air (not couting super condition races like Boise, Atco, Dutch Classic, etc) wouldn't even come close to seeing a top 10 qualifying spot. It would take time and effort (maybe and probably too much time and effort on NHRA's part) to analyze all the classes, see which classes have been qualifying near the top the most, and adjust from there. Meaning, for example, take the 10 or whatever classes that, on average, take the majority of the top 10-20 qualifying spots (just as an example, B/SA, C/SA, J/SA, etc), and adjust them three tenths. Maybe adjust some classes .25, some classes .20, etc. The only exception(s) would be one "odd" car in a class. Meaning, if it was me, in a rare, one-of-a-kind combination car that qualifies #1 several times in, say, R/SA, just hit me with HP, as I would not be an indication that R/SA, as a whole class, is soft, if no other R/SA's anywhere qualified in the top 10 at any race. Or, if one class is at the top a lot, but most or all the cars in that class run the same combination (just as an example, 396/375 Camaro in B, 305 GM in K/SA, etc). If all the cars in the top spots, in that "fast" class, are the same engine and few or no other combinations in that class are near the top, adjust that single engine, rather then penalizing the whole class that may have combinations that can not qualify near the top. Again though, it would be a lot of work to do all that. Billy, this might have been where you were going with your "selective Index change".
There are just so many what-if's with adjusting Indexes and triggers, and so many differing opinions (as have been stated already in this thread) on what NHRA will/should do. If you were to lower the Indexes and leave the -1.15 and -1.40 triggers in place, the soft combos can run even more rampant with less fear of getting hit, as what was -1.40 before would be -1.60 under the old Index (if they reduce the Indexes two tenths), and cars can run just as fast, or faster than before with no penalty. The good side is, it could encourage more all-out racing in Class and less sandbagging. If you lower the Indexes and triggers equally (Indexes down two tenths, and triggers to -.95 and -1.20), then you have the same problem as now, sandbagging and manipulating the the AHFS. I'm not one to question or complain about a problem or perceived problem unless I have an opinion or answer on how to fix it, but I don't really see any glaring, obvious fix to this problem, if it is indeed a problem at all, that would be the most fair to the majority of racers.
__________________
Mike Carr, Tri-State S/SS Association President Looking for 2015 S/SS Race Sponsors Contact me if interested buffdaddy_1302@hotmail.com (724) 510-5912 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,494
Likes: 3,596
Liked 7,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS I'm not spending 100K to win 2K |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,060
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
- Re: Stockers running -.80 under in Super Stock.... so factor those combinations properly! I ran a Stocker in Super Stock in 2008 that happens to be a bloody fast Stocker, and it typically ran -.15 under in SS. Not -.80 under. Refer to the broad brush, above. - Re: moving indexes even more... .80? Why not whack them 1.40? Then it'll be just like Comp. Congratulations. Or is it only okay to move the indexes just far enough so that a given individual can run under anywhere, and it's only those lazy SOB's that are slower than "that" guy that need to "work harder"? - As King Ed mentioned earlier, if they whack .30 across the board, you'll have to run what is currently -.80 under just to "earn" a Class trophy on a single, and presumably to set a Record that's currently at Minimum as well. - Plus anything Toby said. ![]()
__________________
Michael Beard - NHRA/IHRA 3216 S/SS |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|