The Future Of Stock

[House of Darts]

Stock Eliminator keeps changing. Cars go faster. Cars get more expensive. Costs more money to race with little payback.Turn S SS to NMCA? NHRA with higher round payouts and or car win payouts? More contingencies with cash not merchandise? New President and maybe some help.... You can declare yourself as a gambler and deduct you losses. This is an actual federal law. Change the tax code to allow racers, must race X amount of races per year to qualify, and the racer get to deduct from gross income 50% of their yearly race expenditures. Low payouts, contingencies, etc are problems of the past. With SEMA figures, the auto racing industries contribute big dollars to the economy. Now, massage the rules to allow substitution of parts and you have opened the door to new blood. Clear up the crazy rules. One day tech and qualifying. One day eliminations. Many problems solved.

[brent flynn]

GT Stock would be ok, as long as it would allow me to run my 400/327 combo in my '62 Catalina... I'd be all about that...

[Ed Carpenter]

Quotas are down to what 60 cars per event now. Why do anything you won't be able to get into a race anyway. I thought when Clifford came in he was going to do all this great stuff for the sportsman? He hasn't done anything. Hell we don't even have to tech before going down the track. Who would have thought that would ever happen?

[ALMACK]

I would think that GT/Stock would be the last final desperate step to take if Stock gets to the point that a 64 car field cannot be met on a regular basis at national events. Not a problem right now, but I would say GT/STK might be something to look into 5 years from now.

The immediate problem I see right now are the OBD II cars (1996 and newer) listed in the NHRA Classification guide. There are a bunch of 1996 and newer cars in great condition for sale ( at a very reasonable price) that would make great Stock Eliminator entries if the factored horsepower was not so high. Racers are afraid to build these newer cars because they do not feel they will be competitive. So, they do not get built.
Plus, the build cost is much less than a 60'-70's car which are increasingly hard to find at a decent price.

I did some research last year and found that not one single 1996 and newer Ford ( traditional Stocker) entry was given horsepower in the last 13 years. So it's not like racers are building new "traditional" Stockers right now and are going out blasting their index.

Solution:___If NHRA would give all 1996 and newer models currently listed in the classification guide (that have not ran at least 1 tenth under index ) a 15-20 % reduction on the factored h.p. then that would attract more racers that are fans of these late model vehicles to get out there and build a newer model Stocker.

That's the area that needs attention, IMO

[Mark Yacavone]

I know this is Evan's opinion and not NHRAs at the moment, and I thank him for addressing an obvious problem, but not the way to go..in my opinion.
Bringing in more non-stock Stockers, and even stealing another IHRA class, which we talked about right here about a month ago, won't fix the problem NHRA created.
Want more classes? They're already here. There are plenty of classes that aren't represented at most nationals.
Here's how you bring them out:
100 entries at all events running class.
64 car field. Class winners , plus low ET qualifiers. No combo class.
Build the right car, and you might get in the eliminator with a .30 under piece...for a while, anyway. That will lower the cost for a few.
For?
Against?
Why?

[Mark Yacavone]

I thought I might add this.
Closest class race from Phoenix- 600 miles round trip.
65 quota..Takes 5 gp's to get in.
5 gp's , round trip, 3300 miles.
Want to fix a bad system? Good place to start.

[ALMACK]

And crate motors in NHRA Stock would absolutely be the last desperate step to increase entries, IMO.

[Dwight Southerland]

I have been following this with interest. There are two issues that are evident. First, whether you like it or not, heads up runs are a critical part of the value and attraction for Stock Eliminator. It is missing in just about every other sportsman eliminator definition, yet it is core to the idea of all forms of racing. The majority of race fans and participants find head to head competition much more exciting than handicap breakout racing, and it is easier to sell and understand. Secondly, while it seems that the common opinion is that NHRA makes a bunch of money from Stock eliminator participation, if you talk to them they state the opposite. We do not have hard facts to support either position. It would seem that if Stock Eliminator were such a cash cow, NHRA would put more effort into supporting it. But the evidence seems to point to a different reality. I think it is time to have the facts come out into the open and see what the real situation is. A healthy Stock Eliminator program will be better served with cooperation from both sides in this "association".

In reference to the first point, combining stick and automatics as well as eliminating half pound breaks will help create more heads up races. I know that will rub the wrong way because it threatens some protected corners that racers have found and will erode some racers' little fiefdoms they have built, but it will vastly increase the percentage of heads up runs.

In regard to the second point, trust from both sides in large quantities is the commodity that will be required to make it work.

[Dave Gantz]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

I have been following this with interest. There are two issues that are evident. First, whether you like it or not, heads up runs are a critical part of the value and attraction for Stock Eliminator. It is missing in just about every other sportsman eliminator definition, yet it is core to the idea of all forms of racing. The majority of race fans and participants find head to head competition much more exciting than handicap breakout racing, and it is easier to sell and understand. Secondly, while it seems that the common opinion is that NHRA makes a bunch of money from Stock eliminator participation, if you talk to them they state the opposite. We do not have hard facts to support either position. It would seem that if Stock Eliminator were such a cash cow, NHRA would put more effort into supporting it. But the evidence seems to point to a different reality. I think it is time to have the facts come out into the open and see what the real situation is. A healthy Stock Eliminator program will be better served with cooperation from both sides in this "association".

In reference to the first point, combining stick and automatics as well as eliminating half pound breaks will help create more heads up races. I know that will rub the wrong way because it threatens some protected corners that racers have found and will erode some racers' little fiefdoms they have built, but it will vastly increase the percentage of heads up runs.

In regard to the second point, trust from both sides in large quantities is the commodity that will be required to make it work.

I'm thinking that you have to be over 50 to even appreciate a heads up run. What percentage of NHRA's audience cares about a 428CJ vs. 440 6BBL (or whatever) race when they don't even know what they are?

[Coleydog]

Im thinking most on here are underestimating the spectators at these races. At the national meets I'd say 90% could tell you all about the brand of cars they like, while at a divisional, 100% know cars. The ones that haven't a clue are just tag alongs to the person who does. I hoping Stock/SS last a long time, this is what I go to watch, the rest can go jump. It doesn't take much brains to tell who wins or looses and I personally like seeing a fast car chase down the slower car and try to get the win. Like a Cheeta trying to catch an Impala, sometimes he does and sometimes he don't.
Mike