Lets Root Cause the Detriment of Class Racing

[Mark Yacavone]

" Combine sticks and automatics"

"Eliminate half pound breaks"

I can think of as many problems with this as there are advantages.

For the advocates of these, what do you hope to accomplish, and what do you do about the inherent problems they create? ...and believe me there are many when you study the details.

[Jim Caughlin]

So if you combine stick and auto, do you use the index that is the fast of the two or the slower? Also, if you're going to do that, what about the weight deduct for autos in the Modified classes? Same question there, do you use the indexes as is or do you recalculate for the lighter auto weights?

[Brian Oakes]

Alot of good points here, Mike and Billy, but i would like too add to this , but WHY nothing will happen they made the new rule for next year already, and they will not change a thing, you cannot fix STUPID and i think if you do not have a car in computation , stay OUT of this subject.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Brian Oakes

Alot of good points here, Mike and Billy, but i would like too add to this , but WHY nothing will happen they made the new rule for next year already, and they will not change a thing, you cannot fix STUPID and i think if you do not have a car in computation , stay OUT of this subject.

I guess I didn't make any good points and not actively in computation at Nationals and divisionals but I do race local combo races now as do a lot of others. We run the exact same rules horsepower classification whatever and we do have heads up runs so what happens on the national stage also affects us so we are here t o o.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Brian Oakes

Alot of good points here, Mike and Billy, but i would like too add to this , but WHY nothing will happen they made the new rule for next year already, and they will not change a thing, you cannot fix STUPID and i think if you do not have a car in computation , stay OUT of this subject.

Boy Quack, I HOPE that you're not talking about me!

[Ryan Horensky]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Boy Quack, I HOPE that you're not talking about me!

He definitely isn’t Billy. I would suspect he’s talking about some people who post on here with their vision of how stock and super stock should be, but are not active participants of either class.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

" Combine sticks and automatics"

"Eliminate half pound breaks"

I can think of as many problems with this as there are advantages.

For the advocates of these, what do you hope to accomplish, and what do you do about the inherent problems they create? ...and believe me there are many when you study the details.

What these folks that advocate the above changes are hoping to do is return the class back to being a performance based class. Another step in that direction would be qualified fields at National Events. Making Stock a more performance based class would spread the sheer joy of demonstrating performance that we love at Indy, to all National events. Adding these elements would also address problems associated with the AFHS relatively quickly, with so many more racers having to show what they got more frequently.

It would be interesting to see a poll among active stock/SS racers on if these ideas have broad support. There are certainly downsides to consider.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by DG

What these folks that advocate the above changes are hoping to do is return the class back to being a performance based class. Another step in that direction would be qualified fields at National Events. Making Stock a more performance based class would spread the sheer joy of demonstrating performance that we love at Indy, to all National events. Adding these elements would also address problems associated with the AFHS relatively quickly, with so many more racers having to show what they got more frequently.

It would be interesting to see a poll among active stock/SS racers on if these ideas have broad support. There are certainly downsides to consider.

Darin, Actually that was a leading question for the sake of discussion here.
Some folks just like to toss out these ideas without thinking through the ramifications of them.
Let's try this :
Starting in March, 202X, NHRA combines sticks with automatics.
A guy with a SS/L car can go 8 under. Another guy with a SS/LA can go 9 under.
Going by the automatic index, the stick car can now go a second under.
The auto guy isn't going to like that one bit.What does he do? He tries to get the stick guy to hit the 1 sec. under trigger. Even if he does force a hit twice, he's got at least part of the year to live with getting outrun, heads up.
Someone might say..Easy . NHRA has to put some hp in the stick combo.
The stick guy has to add a bunch of weight, or move up a class ...Neither which sounds too appealing to him.
Too bad, someone might say. This is all in the interest of creating more heads up runs.

BTW..Does anyone think that NHRA is going to follow up on leveling all these combined classes, expeditiously?

Think this stuff through, guys ..You just might end up being stung by what you wish for.

[Mike Volkman]

It's a mess. So many angles and opinions and no mater what is done someone is going to be angry. And then we can't understand why NHRA doesn't know what direction to take. Shoot - you can't even say something on this board, brainstorming without getting a call or two .

Probably most would agree that we want more heads up racing.

Probably most would agree that the way out combos - relative to their particular stock or s/stock class (and maybe not in regards to the whole eliminator) need railed back to a point within xx of the others. (The guys at the 90-1.10 mark are the ones I personally think need a break.)

Probably most would agree that when it is railed in, NHRA or the system doesn't kill the combo. It also needs grass roots knowledge of combo/class to determine if hp should be given at all. example: Take 2 cars in G/SA - heads up both go 1.05 under and are within .02 of each other and with the whole group there is only .1 difference - why bother them?

We know from past experience that a 1 strike hit isn't good for several reasons. Mineshaft, heads up, etc.

Two with averaging doesn't get us anywhere if there are many cars with combo.

What if 3 strikes against combo gets it with human oversight based on facts and not opinions. Wish there were a way that we could help NHRA with decisions and no bias from outside. There's a bunch of smart racers, someone has to have an answer.

One last thing for the night. We need to be careful poking the bear. There has never been any outright hint that they don't want or need stk/ss. It's just the opposite but sometimes there's poor execution. In reality, the aggravation we cause and never let them win would have caused me to eliminate the source. What I'm saying is they don't need us. Kevin P calculated the $$ once. They don't get much. We need them. I hear a lot about partnership and customers and not being treated well. I agree and sometimes it makes you wonder. But here is the bottom line. If they said tomorrow. We're done next year w stk/ss (like what has been done with the trucks and look at pro stock) we all would have a pile of iron. We need them and all these other organizations that come and go don't have jack Jones (The coveted Wally) and the racers - you and I who love class racing and struting like a peacock after winning.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by SDS Inc

What I'm saying is they don't need us.

I've gotta call B.S. on this one! Take S/SS out of the equation on a Divisional level and there would be a vast majority of tracks losing loads of money at Div. and N.O. races instead of possibly making a few bucks. I don't know about what would happen out west but take out the S/SS stuff and there soon would be no LODRS east of the Mississippi.

Ya know, 156 Stockers on a Thursday had to make SOMEBODY a few bucks! (don't always believe in the company line)