We need a new "instant" trigger!

[Michael Beard]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

Isn't that where the scales come in?The guys that run their cars 3-400# heavy aren't looking to get air under the car.

Seems pretty simple to me.... weight stickers should note the class minimum AND the class MAXIMUM (ie., min weight for the next heavier class.) If your car weighs enough for the next heavier class, you should have to run it in that class.

Next problem...?

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Michael Beard

Seems pretty simple to me.... weight stickers should note the class minimum AND the class MAXIMUM (ie., min weight for the next heavier class.) If your car weighs enough for the next heavier class, you should have to run it in that class.

Next problem...?

Y'all are missing the point. Bob Shaw built that car, knowing it was going to be real heavy for "U". He can't run V anyway.It's a V8 .
I'm sure he doesn't have a weight box either. What do you want to tell him? He can't race?
If the car is 400 heavy with no ballast , the hp % is irrelevant, or atleast off the charts.

[Blingmaster]

Guys It is quite simple do your homework like Bob has done follow through with an untried combo willing to take the disappointment if it doesn't go 2 seconds under and race. I made the statement at Gainesville divisional race I believed I saw more 69 camaros running in stock than GM produced in 1969. Neil Smedley and myself talked about that Shaw combo before Shaw brought it out. There are a couple more combo's out there better than the caddy. Just do not feel like building one....Realize that if Bob had to run off current national record he would only be 7tenths under...7tenths under current index would not get you into Indy.....

[Dave Ribeiro]

Billy.... I think your ideas are good, but it aeems like we are trying to solve all the problems at once...

1) No-HP or factoring til the engine has passed teardown... No- exceptions !!!!!!

2) Forget about factored tracks ... You will never win that one...

3) Let's try and change the things we can , stop worrying about the 3-4 single car
combo's.... You are always going to have those problems....

4) I think Yac's idea about 4 times a year review is a good idea...

5) This might be the time to look at combining stick / auto's at one or two opens
and see how it works...?

6) Terry 's idea of lowering the index is also a good one ... I thought that was
already voted on, how come it never happened ....?

* I am sure there will be many ideas, maybe our reps can chime in if they still
have a Job... ?

We have to start somewhere, who knows in a couple of years it might work... Take little steps first , then improve as you go.... We do need a good shot in the arm in our sport, or we won't have to worry about racing at all .......

Last but not least, make sure we all support our Regional Sportsman Racing Groups,
they are our best option for the FUTURE.......... Just something to think about ?

[Michael Beard]

What does lowering the index have to do with anything? If you lower all the indexes by ONE SECOND, then the -1.40 under cars are still .040 faster than the -1.00 under cars. If you don't change the 1.15/1.40 triggers then all you've done is guaranteed that no car will ever be re-factored. If you *do* change the triggers by the same amount, then you haven't really changed anything. It's a barometer. The calibration is irrelevant.

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Y'all are missing the point. Bob Shaw built that car, knowing it was going to be real heavy for "U". He can't run V anyway.It's a V8 .
I'm sure he doesn't have a weight box either. What do you want to tell him? He can't race?
If the car is 400 heavy with no ballast , the hp % is irrelevant, or atleast off the charts.

If that's the case then if Tech can verify that the car is that heavy without ballast then I dont see a problem with an exclusion for that combo.I dont think many cars fit into that scenario.That would also be a good time to try and put a more realistic HP # on that combo.

Ed F.