|
![]() |
#20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nineveh, Indiana
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
I think the real dilemma here. If you use the 1.40 under to factor a given combination. Granted, say one person builds this car and it's a killer. IF it's a one off combination, that's not really an issue, other than someone else might try to put one together and it may not come close to duplicating the time. On the other hand, how does this equate to older established combinations, where there are potentially dozens of cars. All running at different levels of the index. You factor that combination, you take care of the fast cars but you also just legislated a number of people out the class or force them to join the ranks of the high dollar money racers to bring their combo in line. If a car bombs the index, suggestions have been, add weight, move THAT car up a class, keep the dial ins, go back to running off national records. Maybe this is another thought, use the index to determine qualifyiing, if class is not contested. If class is contested," it's heads up, run what brung, hope you brung enough", hate using the Pinks line but it fits. Then run the eliminator off the national record, you kill the record, automatic teardown for legality, you own a new record as well as a Wally. This would force everyone to run their combos all out. You find out who's got a strong car and who doesn't real fast. As many have said, you'll never get rid of the sandbaggers or the soft combinations.
__________________
Robert Swartz - Swartz & Lane 66 Chevy II Pro 95 Achieva EF/SA, 78 Mustang II U/SA (work in progress) #354 stock |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|