HP on Monday?

[JP1738]

Originally Posted by j gardiner

It wouldn?t make sense to go back to the original hp ratings. There is already been 50+ years of evolution. Why would we go backwards to end back up at the same point again.

Ideally to give combos that have been factored out of existence a chance to come back. And for the complete and utter chaos it would bring in the meantime. It would be glorious. mfrs out here running 2 seconds under for a race or two just because they suddenly could. It'd be wild. No it's not gonna happen, but good lord would it be something to behold

[Paul Precht]

[QUOTE=JP1738;710174]Ideally to give combos that have been factored out of existence a chance to come back. And for the complete and utter chaos it would bring in the meantime. It would be glorious. mfrs out here running 2 seconds under for a race or two just because they suddenly could. It'd be wild. No it's not gonna happen, but good lord would it be something to behold[/Q
A lot of combos that were factored too high to ever be raced finally got reduced in the 90s and early 2Ks. It would be fun to run GT with the 72 engine HP ratings, and of course N/SA 72 340 Dusters going 10.60s.

[Dan Bennett]

A lot of thoughful replies; some I agree with and some I don't. But in my mind, none of them matter since the NHRA has made it clear they want to avoid teardowns at any price. If a racer really wanted to have an unfair advantage right now, they could easily do it if they knew there was almost no chance they'd be checked.

Won't get into the "in my day" thing, but that's something I would never do nor 99% of the racers I've met through the years. I have the strong impression that standard has changed.

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by JP1738

...mfrs out here running 2 seconds under for a race or two just because they suddenly could.

Which is how this thread got started....

There have always been soft combinations. The factories have always worked it. In some cases combinations were overlooked for whatever reason. In others, people just hadn't been keeping up with the rule changes. Either way, sometimes, you have "oops moments". You also have those guys that are "FINALLY COOL" and just cant keep it in their pants....

[j gardiner]

This is the reason why they shouldn?t lower the indexes.3, because racers will build engines based on the current tech. We are already pretty much allowed Super Stock engines in stock and comp engines in super stock. The only thing to keep racers from pushing the boundaries is getting hp. If not we will be dropping indexes every other year.

[GTX JOHN]

I was fortunately enough to get to the Final Four cars at
the Winternationals last year. I would not have been able
to go to race and have been able to compete if the indexes
were 3 tenths faster. Many times the Wagon was less than
3 tenths under the index.

Some racers just like a particular combo or car
(Perhaps it is what they already have) and run it
it although it is poor combo against the index the.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Rick J

An index at 330ft., 660ft., 1000ft., 1320ft. takes care of that.

Actually , it does not. Different combinations run better at different parts of the track, even in the same class, with a similar 1320 ET.

[j gardiner]

But none of them run 6.40?s in the 1/8 and 10.50?s in the 1/4 at less mph in the 1/4 than the1/8.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by j gardiner

But none of them run 6.40?s in the 1/8 and 10.50?s in the 1/4 at less mph in the 1/4 than the1/8.

Well, of course. But you're not going to be able to generate a set of parameters that will fairly apply "incremental indexes".

[Frank Castros]

A few question for the historians in the audience.

What year were the Stock Eliminator indexes last reviewed and lowered?

What was the average qualifying number under the index at that time?

I'll have more questions after acquirring this data.