|
|
![]() |
#1 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anthem, Arizona
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
And Greg Hilll said it best with his reminder of NHRA's mission: "The association establishes rules that govern competition including rules and standards that are designed to enhance safety in the sport as well as promote fair competition." "Fair competition" in the eyes of your detractors would be classifying vehicles that race in the sport equally amongst those they compete with. For nearly 50 years, the Stock Eliminator class has been entirely inclusive of factory assembly line produced vehicles (some vehicles have received the benefit of off-sight development & / or reconstruction, i.e., the 1969-1970 Boss 429 as one example) yet all shared one commonality; they were street legal vehicles produced and distributed for public usage on public roadways. The DP Challenger defines the exact opposite intent of Stock Eliminator for the prior 50 years. Stock Eliminator has always been for those seeking a challenge. I would define the typical owner / racer as one who can take equipment deemed a hindrance by most performance enthusiasts and turn it into a performance standout. Recognition is brought about by several methods which include winning races, winning class, claiming #1 qualifier positions and setting national records. All the while against others who followed the same set of rules and had the same expectations for rule engagement and enforcement. These "old guys that need to go out to the pasture" attitude is disrespectful for not only those racers you quibble about, but the institution they have been a part of for 50 years. Given the funds (and desire), many of these guys could take the same Challenger and set the bar so much higher your head would spin. And I have to wonder out loud. What is it that kept your team (prior to Keith Lynch) out of Stock Eliminator in years prior to the DP Challenger concept?
__________________
Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
|
![]()
So would the only cars that go into A/FX be the CJ and DP cars? Would the criteria for A/FX include any other cars? And with all the griping about the CJ and DP cars plus the many threats to quit racing that have been made, is it possible that there maybe some new rules on the horizon that could wind up affecting everyone in Stock?
Remember the old saying..."Be careful what you ask for, it just might come true." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
|
![]()
I believe that after reading a lot of posts over the last few months that a lot of you just dont have a clue about stock and super stock rules or racing in general. You are either life time spectators or bracket racers that just post to stir up s##t. What is it that you dont understand about putting these cars into a seperate class until the HP factors catch up to real world reality. It dosent matter what the class is called or what is plastered across the windshield. The current stock rules wont change for the old cars or the new cars. Most likely the new class' will have a lower index to run off of because of the lopsided performance advantage they now have. The stock rules are screwed up enough as it is so what could change? Just what the class designation is called running at the same wt. break as they run now in 2010 for 2011 dosent matter. If the AHFS or any new way of factoring these cars ends up factoring these new cars and more weight is needed than the car can be allowed to carry over the factory shipping weight (remember THAT rule?) to stay and run in stock elim. at 7.5 lbs per HP then they get a free ride to Super Stock at one of the 6.0 thru 7.0 class wt. breaks. NHRA wont tell you what thier plan is until they are ready so its all just BS until it happens. .
Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 10-17-2010 at 05:29 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 560
Likes: 45
Liked 52 Times in 17 Posts
|
![]()
Wouldn't the F/X class designation be Super Stock only and not Stock?????????
__________________
Bernie Cunningham 7053 STK |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NOO JOISEY nexta NOO YAWK
Posts: 5,879
Likes: 38
Liked 100 Times in 45 Posts
|
![]()
You're playing with words.NHRA can use the designation for any class they want.All they need to do is WANT to do it.
__________________
Former NHRA #1945 Former IHRA #1945 T/SA |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 560
Likes: 45
Liked 52 Times in 17 Posts
|
![]()
OK Ed, not sure what ya mean there, but, the CJ's need more tire width for when they're finally able/allowed to 'turn the wick up' cause right now they can smoke 'em to the 1000'. Wouldn't that be considered or do ya reckon the F/X class would allow this if it is a stock class, I hope NOT !!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Bernie Cunningham 7053 STK |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NOO JOISEY nexta NOO YAWK
Posts: 5,879
Likes: 38
Liked 100 Times in 45 Posts
|
![]()
I see what you were driving at Bernie.
__________________
Former NHRA #1945 Former IHRA #1945 T/SA |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|