Stock and the late models, a solution.

Daran Summerton · 10-12-2010, 10:27 PM

The easy fix is no heads up in the eliminator. If folks wish to spend $150,000 on a cupcake for $200 and a trophy for class well then God bless em. I'm not bashing but FI classes were deleted a couple years ago and class win payout remains unchanged. Hence, the poor car counts. I'm for combining sticks and autos with a drastic purse adjustment. Adding classes has already failed in the past. Division 2 is looking dismal and there doesn't appear to be any incentive to get racers excited about next year. When there is only 25 Stockers in the lanes the new cars really don't bother most unless you have a heads up. I think purse should be adjusted before classes are.

MikeFicacci · 10-13-2010, 12:11 AM

No matter what ends up happening or not happening with the new cars, I think the worst potential outcome would be to do away with heads-up racing. As much as getting smacked by a half second by a "new car" sucks, the heads-up race is really what separates us from the rest of the "bracket" world.

Think about it. Doing away with heads up racing basically means doing away with fuel check, scales, cylinder head rules, rotating assembly weights, matching engine/body, factory interiors, factory-style suspensions, etc.

I think the horsepower factors on the new cars is crap just like most people and someone running .5 to 1 second faster than the crowd with a piece that is brand new is crap. Saying that though, I would rather get smacked by these new cars for the next 100 years than to do away with heads up racing with the strict rules that we live by. If that happens, I'm out and I'm sure a large percentage of people would be also.

Jimi B · 10-13-2010, 01:21 AM

Or just factor the cars properly...

I like some of the new ideas, but I also like the idea of the newer cars vs older cars...

Don Himes · 10-13-2010, 12:34 PM

I agree with Jim Carter---100%!!!!! They should be classed F/X or L/M or whatever you want, but they are not stockers!!!!!!

ALMACK · 10-13-2010, 12:55 PM

Late Model Factory Experimentals..... title seems to fit the description.

Ken: You are on the right track tho for sure by putting these new and exciting cars in their own class !

Pistol Pete · 10-13-2010, 04:26 PM

I like x-stocker's idea. Factory Top Stock.

Or even at divisional races, put them in that class: Factory Top Stock, sticks & auto's combined.

Or Factory Stock.

Pistol Pete
1374 Stock

Alan Roehrich · 10-13-2010, 01:40 PM

What you propose is to create a new class within the class, with looser rules, and that moves even further from the original spirit of the class than the new "never sold for street use" cars that are one of the biggest problems we have now.

"Any automatic transmission" and "any custom piston, so long as it measures correct", as well as "no natural class, pick the one you want". Sounds a lot like some sort of modified class, or something of that ilk. If you have to write special rules for it to get into Stock Eliminator, it does not need to be in Stock Eliminator, period. Leave the class intact, with the original intent and spirit of the rules, it's time to stop diluting Stock Eliminator.

Why not simply add a set of F/X classes, say starting at 7.0 pounds per HP, with 1 pound increments, up to 11.0 strictly for cars that the factories submit, but were never sold as street legal production cars?

The real production cars are not likely to be a problem, and few if any are likely to be raced, given their shipping weight, and the reluctance of the factories to even put them in the guide.

I don't think we need or want 5.0 or 6.0 classes in Stock Eliminator. The 9" tire rule, along with the suspension rules, neither of which need to be changed, do not really allow for cars with that power to weight ratio to be raced safely and consistently. Yes, I know some of the "outlaw" series guys do it. I also know they seem to wreck a lot of cars. I know most of us would prefer to not get caught up in someone else's wreck when they roll one of those cars up in a ball because the tires and suspension simply cannot cope with the power to weight ratio.

Why do we not need crate motor classes in Stock Eliminator? Because, if you really want to race in Stock Eliminator, you can find a combination that you can find parts for. For crying out loud, there are cars in the guide from 1960 to the current 2010 models that are legal for Stock Eliminator. That's 50 years worth of combinations. There are tons of superceded parts already accepted, and more every year. We already have so many classes that it is not uncommon for an 80 plus car field to run an entire race and never have a single heads up race. We do not need another dozen classes, especially if we now need to add a set of FX classes for the new factory race cars.

I can get behind merging a considerable number of classes in Stock Eliminator. While it would likely prevent a lot of cars from moving around, we could change the weight breaks to 1 pound increments starting at 7.0 pounds per HP for AA, and going all the way through 22.0 pounds per HP. That would allow room to add a few FX classes, say from 7.0 pounds per HP to 11.0 pounds per HP. If NHRA really wanted to do something, they could even roll the FWD cars in there somewhere, they can be properly factored to fit in a regular Stock Eliminator class.

Ken Miele · 10-13-2010, 03:27 PM

This is the last time I will ask members to post suggestions for the future of Stock.

Any post that does not offer suggestions and is not relevant to this topic will be removed.

Mike, your post was removed because it is not relevant to this thread.

Finespline, your post was also removed. If you want to post your opinion on why the CJ's and DP's don't belong in stock, please start your own thread.

Alan, thanks for your suggestions. I am not set in stone with the ideas I proposed. These are just some ideas that NHRA may want to look at.

GUMP · 10-13-2010, 03:57 PM

So far, I think that Alan is making the most sense on how to "fix" Stock.

I really don't think that the class is broken. I just think that it needs some kind of adjustment for the new cars that are coming out.

Greg Hill · 10-13-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

What you propose is to create a new class within the class, with looser rules, and that moves even further from the original spirit of the class than the new "never sold for street use" cars that are one of the biggest problems we have now.

"Any automatic transmission" and "any custom piston, so long as it measures correct", as well as "no natural class, pick the one you want". Sounds a lot like some sort of modified class, or something of that ilk. If you have to write special rules for it to get into Stock Eliminator, it does not need to be in Stock Eliminator, period. Leave the class intact, with the original intent and spirit of the rules, it's time to stop diluting Stock Eliminator.

Why not simply add a set of F/X classes, say starting at 7.0 pounds per HP, with 1 pound increments, up to 11.0 strictly for cars that the factories submit, but were never sold as street legal production cars?

The real production cars are not likely to be a problem, and few if any are likely to be raced, given their shipping weight, and the reluctance of the factories to even put them in the guide.

I don't think we need or want 5.0 or 6.0 classes in Stock Eliminator. The 9" tire rule, along with the suspension rules, neither of which need to be changed, do not really allow for cars with that power to weight ratio to be raced safely and consistently. Yes, I know some of the "outlaw" series guys do it. I also know they seem to wreck a lot of cars. I know most of us would prefer to not get caught up in someone else's wreck when they roll one of those cars up in a ball because the tires and suspension simply cannot cope with the power to weight ratio.

Why do we not need crate motor classes in Stock Eliminator? Because, if you really want to race in Stock Eliminator, you can find a combination that you can find parts for. For crying out loud, there are cars in the guide from 1960 to the current 2010 models that are legal for Stock Eliminator. That's 50 years worth of combinations. There are tons of superceded parts already accepted, and more every year. We already have so many classes that it is not uncommon for an 80 plus car field to run an entire race and never have a single heads up race. We do not need another dozen classes, especially if we now need to add a set of FX classes for the new factory race cars.

I can get behind merging a considerable number of classes in Stock Eliminator. While it would likely prevent a lot of cars from moving around, we could change the weight breaks to 1 pound increments starting at 7.0 pounds per HP for AA, and going all the way through 22.0 pounds per HP. That would allow room to add a few FX classes, say from 7.0 pounds per HP to 11.0 pounds per HP. If NHRA really wanted to do something, they could even roll the FWD cars in there somewhere, they can be properly factored to fit in a regular Stock Eliminator class.

Alan as usual you are right on the money. FX classes is where these new cars belong. I think the new cars are cool and they add to stock eliminator but only if they are in their own classes. Combining sticks and automatics may be more of a problem than many people think. A lot of combinations have different hp ratings and perform very differently. For example a 327 Chevy in stock with a stick is probably .12 to .15 better than a powerglide, where a 455 Buick or 454 Chevy may be better with an automatic. If these new cars were just put in FX classes and everything else was left alone it would suit me. Also the blower cars need to be in their own class maybe AA/FX. As far as adding 6 or 7 FX classes, what difference does it make? Nobody pays for class anymore any way.
Kenny, I am really proud of you for changing your thinking on these new cars. If something isn't done by next year I think you are going to see a lot of old time racers park their stuff.

10-12-2010, 10:27 PM	#1
Daran Summerton Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Las Vegas nv Posts: 600 Likes: 18 Liked 66 Times in 37 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. The easy fix is no heads up in the eliminator. If folks wish to spend $150,000 on a cupcake for $200 and a trophy for class well then God bless em. I'm not bashing but FI classes were deleted a couple years ago and class win payout remains unchanged. Hence, the poor car counts. I'm for combining sticks and autos with a drastic purse adjustment. Adding classes has already failed in the past. Division 2 is looking dismal and there doesn't appear to be any incentive to get racers excited about next year. When there is only 25 Stockers in the lanes the new cars really don't bother most unless you have a heads up. I think purse should be adjusted before classes are. __________________ 72 cutlass

10-13-2010, 12:11 AM	#2
MikeFicacci Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 242 Likes: 1 Liked 19 Times in 2 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. No matter what ends up happening or not happening with the new cars, I think the worst potential outcome would be to do away with heads-up racing. As much as getting smacked by a half second by a "new car" sucks, the heads-up race is really what separates us from the rest of the "bracket" world. Think about it. Doing away with heads up racing basically means doing away with fuel check, scales, cylinder head rules, rotating assembly weights, matching engine/body, factory interiors, factory-style suspensions, etc. I think the horsepower factors on the new cars is crap just like most people and someone running .5 to 1 second faster than the crowd with a piece that is brand new is crap. Saying that though, I would rather get smacked by these new cars for the next 100 years than to do away with heads up racing with the strict rules that we live by. If that happens, I'm out and I'm sure a large percentage of people would be also. __________________ Mike Ficacci Stk 1010

10-13-2010, 01:21 AM	#3
Jimi B Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Cincinnati Posts: 226 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. Or just factor the cars properly... I like some of the new ideas, but I also like the idea of the newer cars vs older cars...

10-13-2010, 12:34 PM	#4
Don Himes Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Port Charlotte, Fla. Posts: 160 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. I agree with Jim Carter---100%!!!!! They should be classed F/X or L/M or whatever you want, but they are not stockers!!!!!! __________________ Don Himes 2075

10-13-2010, 12:55 PM	#5
ALMACK VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Bardstown, KY Posts: 1,937 Likes: 131 Liked 369 Times in 127 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. Late Model Factory Experimentals..... title seems to fit the description. Ken: You are on the right track tho for sure by putting these new and exciting cars in their own class ! __________________ Alan Mackin Stock 3777/ SS 3377 P/SA & SS/PA Fox Thunderbird I/PS '95 Mustang GT Last edited by ALMACK; 10-13-2010 at 12:57 PM.

10-13-2010, 04:26 PM	#6
Pistol Pete VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Punta Gorda Isles, Fl. Posts: 1,628 Likes: 3,414 Liked 795 Times in 210 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. I like x-stocker's idea. Factory Top Stock. Or even at divisional races, put them in that class: Factory Top Stock, sticks & auto's combined. Or Factory Stock. Pistol Pete 1374 Stock

10-13-2010, 01:40 PM	#7
Alan Roehrich Veteran Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Murfreesboro TN Posts: 5,118 Likes: 1,573 Liked 1,836 Times in 417 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. What you propose is to create a new class within the class, with looser rules, and that moves even further from the original spirit of the class than the new "never sold for street use" cars that are one of the biggest problems we have now. "Any automatic transmission" and "any custom piston, so long as it measures correct", as well as "no natural class, pick the one you want". Sounds a lot like some sort of modified class, or something of that ilk. If you have to write special rules for it to get into Stock Eliminator, it does not need to be in Stock Eliminator, period. Leave the class intact, with the original intent and spirit of the rules, it's time to stop diluting Stock Eliminator. Why not simply add a set of F/X classes, say starting at 7.0 pounds per HP, with 1 pound increments, up to 11.0 strictly for cars that the factories submit, but were never sold as street legal production cars? The real production cars are not likely to be a problem, and few if any are likely to be raced, given their shipping weight, and the reluctance of the factories to even put them in the guide. I don't think we need or want 5.0 or 6.0 classes in Stock Eliminator. The 9" tire rule, along with the suspension rules, neither of which need to be changed, do not really allow for cars with that power to weight ratio to be raced safely and consistently. Yes, I know some of the "outlaw" series guys do it. I also know they seem to wreck a lot of cars. I know most of us would prefer to not get caught up in someone else's wreck when they roll one of those cars up in a ball because the tires and suspension simply cannot cope with the power to weight ratio. Why do we not need crate motor classes in Stock Eliminator? Because, if you really want to race in Stock Eliminator, you can find a combination that you can find parts for. For crying out loud, there are cars in the guide from 1960 to the current 2010 models that are legal for Stock Eliminator. That's 50 years worth of combinations. There are tons of superceded parts already accepted, and more every year. We already have so many classes that it is not uncommon for an 80 plus car field to run an entire race and never have a single heads up race. We do not need another dozen classes, especially if we now need to add a set of FX classes for the new factory race cars. I can get behind merging a considerable number of classes in Stock Eliminator. While it would likely prevent a lot of cars from moving around, we could change the weight breaks to 1 pound increments starting at 7.0 pounds per HP for AA, and going all the way through 22.0 pounds per HP. That would allow room to add a few FX classes, say from 7.0 pounds per HP to 11.0 pounds per HP. If NHRA really wanted to do something, they could even roll the FWD cars in there somewhere, they can be properly factored to fit in a regular Stock Eliminator class. __________________ Alan Roehrich 212A G/S

10-13-2010, 03:27 PM	#8
Ken Miele Live Reporter Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 4,862 Likes: 461 Liked 16,562 Times in 1,523 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. This is the last time I will ask members to post suggestions for the future of Stock. Any post that does not offer suggestions and is not relevant to this topic will be removed. Mike, your post was removed because it is not relevant to this thread. Finespline, your post was also removed. If you want to post your opinion on why the CJ's and DP's don't belong in stock, please start your own thread. Alan, thanks for your suggestions. I am not set in stone with the ideas I proposed. These are just some ideas that NHRA may want to look at.

10-13-2010, 03:57 PM	#9
GUMP VIP Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 1,823 Likes: 2,169 Liked 2,354 Times in 554 Posts	Re: Stock and the late models, a solution. So far, I think that Alan is making the most sense on how to "fix" Stock. I really don't think that the class is broken. I just think that it needs some kind of adjustment for the new cars that are coming out.