new indexes

[Michael Beard]

>> count me in for at least .20 tenths off (more is better about .50 works for me)

Let's take 1.00 off of all the indexes and return class racing to the true performance eliminator it is supposed to be.

[bsa633]

Originally Posted by Michael Beard

>> count me in for at least .20 tenths off (more is better about .50 works for me)
Let's take 1.00 off of all the indexes and return class racing to the true performance eliminator it is supposed to be.

yeah...and every run under the index is an AHFS violation...or we could race like the superclasses of the index..

[Bruce Noland]

Michael,

I'm sure the index changes are for NHRA only.

Jack,

Len is mostly out of the loop on everything - it's only when he has to come out and defend some of NHRA's issues that he is told what to say.

[Mike Carr]

A two tenths reduction is a good start. May still be a little soft.

I found an National Dragster from the Keystone Nat'ls back in the 90's, and no one ran a second under, in good air, in either Stock or Super Stock. A -.95 under run was considered pretty good. Now, take Indy from 2004. 2200' of air, and the last Stocker to get in on time was -1.051. Granted, everyone was on kill, since it was the 50th, but the Indexes are still in sore need of lowering. Since the last Index adjustment (which was UP two tenths), look at all we've been allowed to do (rule changes, replacement parts, etc). Like Jack has said before, it's not a right to run the Index. When you see cars with about five grand Or less) in them running seven (or more) tenths under, with no trick parts and an accurate (not under-rated HP rating), something seems amiss?

[Michael Beard]

>> look at all we've been allowed to do (rule changes, replacement parts, etc).

You said a mouthful there!

>> When you see cars with about five grand Or less) in them running seven (or more) tenths under, with no trick parts and an accurate (not under-rated HP rating), something seems amiss?

I don't think the pits are overflowing with these cars. Can you name 10 that are not FWD or turbo cars?

You could knock .70 off the indexes, and it wouldn't change Indy qualifying. The indexes are all relative. What does knocking .20 or .50 or .70 off the indexes accomplish exactly? #1 qualifiers will still be #1 qualifiers, #50 qualifiers will still be #50 qualifiers. Sounds too country club to me. Why don't you just place a minimum on the cars? Every entry must have at least $20,000 invested in the race car (or should we make it a $250,000 minimum, and include tow vehicles and trailers?). Any car not meeting the minimum investment would have to pay the difference between the minimum and the car's value, once per year. Any cash taken in would be redistributed into the points fund at year's end.

Yes, the above is all completely and utterly ridiculous. So why do some people want to change the indexes when it will have absolutely no effect on them? (Presuming that if the indexes were changed, that the AHFS triggers would change accordingly)

People want to talk about the class being a performance eliminator, and then argue about AHFS, combining carb & EFI, combining sticks and autos, and combining weight breaks.

$.02,

[TGould]

It's up on the NHRA site now. All registered NHRA S/SS drivers are invited to vote.

[Mike Carr]

[QUOTE=Michael Beard;43488 What does knocking .20 or .50 or .70 off the indexes accomplish exactly? [/QUOTE]

Simple. It helps bring back some performance to two eliminators that were founded as "performance based".

[mikev]

Anyone considered they may be doing it to keep stockers from entering a national event (or division race) and running super/stock? A few could still do it, but not as many. Going to look now at another post and see which national events are running stock and/or super stock.

[tgriffith]

..

[Myron Piatek]

Originally Posted by Mike Carr

Simple. It helps bring back some performance to two eliminators that were founded as "performance based".

Sorry Mike, but I can't see how it brings back some performance. All it does is force people who can afford to, or barely afford to, spend even more money to go faster and effectively eliminates a lot of potential future racers who can't. Like everyone says, top qualifiers would still be at the top! It seems that many people who want to class race start out with what they can afford and try to at least make the index. Then, as time and resources allow, make their combo faster. But at least they can participate, support the class, buy stuff from contingency sponsors, and enjoy the opportunity to mix it up with the racers they always read about. True, some people may just be content to make the index. But that's a very small percentage. Most want to run faster.

The "performance" is showcased in class eliminations and through those who can afford to show what they got at the top of the qualifying sheet. If someone can afford to feed their ego, fine. But not at the expense of new, less affuent racers or difficult combos that they happen to have. I'm not saying to make it easy to race class, like a bracket race where anyone can run. The indexes do set a minimum, which isn't always easy to achieve, especially for a newbie. Raise the bar too high and you decrease participation, reduce contingency parts sales and give the sanctioning bodies another excuse to consider combining Stock & SS. Putting too much emphasis on "performance" simply makes things more expensive and brings the ones with the deepest pockets to the top, like heads-up classes. Driver "performance" has to be a big part of the equation in the sportsman classes, which is why indexes and dial-ins have helped Stock and SS survive.