Wondering what stock racers think

[Brian Fink]

The issue that Gary is raising is one that deserves consideration .
Let's face it ,stockers are going faster and , other than the AHFS
( which sometimes works and sometimes is circumvented ) there are no current answers .
To those that are against the proposal , I understand your concerns. However , keeping the " old " indexes did not help IHRA ( although there were other issues ). Larry's thought is valid and is another problem for another thread and Billy , as always , is on target with his " gaming the system " comment .
Granted , 3 tenths as dictated last time , would be hard to swallow for many racers but 1 tenth would only help what I see as a growing concern .

[James Perrone]

Stop the Indy nonsense
If you 120. Under You Get The Horsepower
It’s the only race that would fix some of theSOFT combos

[nhramnl]

I have never understood the logic behind lowering indexes. As others have said, it eliminates the poor guys who don't have a lot of money, but want to experience the pride of making their low-buck stuff capable of running the index, and therefore, able to compete. So a guy runs 1.10 under; who cares? If somebody else runs 1.11 under, he qualifies below him. It has always seemed to me like NHRA has deemed 1.0 second under to be some kind of arbitrary "threshold". The only remotely justifiable argument for lower indexes is that it "keeps out the riff-raff", and I consider that to be nothing more than arrogance on the part of the racers who feel that way. Indexes will NEVER eliminate sandbagging.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Gary Parker

I am just wondering how stock racers feel about lowering the indexes. We have been given many upgrades yet the indexes stay the same. There are many that can run a second under and have to detune at races. The AHFS was designed for new cars and under rated combos. It does not take into the fact of people who work hard , test and spend lots of money to make their car go fast. So what do the people who race stock ... 1 or 2 tenths. Most everyone can run that far under. .. Thanks.
Gary Parker

Gary, Probably won't sell an index reduction at the present time. Some of the IHRA guys want to cross over. 4-5 tenths would be a big hit for some.
How about this? Raise the hp hit threshold on more tenth...Then STOP, STOP, STOP the loosening of Stock tech rules. Racers will always find the 'trick of the week" anyway. They don't need any more help from NHRA.
Oh, I just noticed you addressed Stock racers..Oh well.

[Gary Parker]

The only remotely justifiable argument for lower indexes is that it "keeps out the riff-raff", and I consider that to be nothing more than arrogance on the part of the racers who feel that way. Indexes will NEVER eliminate sandbagging.

Really...I saved 3 years to have my engine fixed so I could go back out and race. I started with a camaro that ran 4 to 5 under .worked my *** off testing on a very limited budget to make my car faster. We are a performance based class. If you knew me you would know I would like as many people at the races as possible. It has been said that lowering them would keep people away. I know personally I am not going to some because I triggered it once by .005 when the air got real good overnight at Epping. Now if I had a heads up run from another fast car in the class it could happen again. what do I get for all my hard work is horsepower. I also never mentioned 3 tenths, I do agree that is too much. And yes it would be wonderful if we had someone like Famer to have a better handle on factors. Traction problems really have to do with your dial. would not matter the index. I am wondering how many stockers are out there that can not run a tenth under. It does not always cost money to pick a car up. But it helps. Trust me I have one of the smallest budgets there is. I hope the riff raft come race with us. All are welcome by me

[tstickff]

This is a terrible idea in my opinion, funny how all the "fast" guys are just willing to give up a couple tenths for the good of the system. I dont think you thinking of the guys that on a good day are 4-5 under, but out having fun anyway. Stock eliminator is supposed to be an entry level class. How about the guys that think they are so fast, go run your car out at a national or divisional and get the H.P that your combo really needs anyway? if you want to slow your combo down and get H.P thats on you.Dont make the slower guys suffer for it.

[Billy Nees]

Another issue that should be looked at regarding lowering the indexes is that the liberalizing of the rules definitely helps the high HP combos much more than it does the lower HP combos. Solid lifters and roller rockers did absolutely nothing for my stuff.
And before someone goes saying that "the AHFS will take care of that", it doesn't. The AHFS does a much better job of putting HP on combos that are going too fast than it does giving HP BACK to combos that aren't.
The AHFS needs to be "tweaked" to work at a faster rate and compensate for the "throttle-stop" Racers.

[nhramnl]

Originally Posted by Gary Parker

The only remotely justifiable argument for lower indexes is that it "keeps out the riff-raff", and I consider that to be nothing more than arrogance on the part of the racers who feel that way. Indexes will NEVER eliminate sandbagging.

Really...I saved 3 years to have my engine fixed so I could go back out and race. I started with a camaro that ran 4 to 5 under .worked my *** off testing on a very limited budget to make my car faster. We are a performance based class. If you knew me you would know I would like as many people at the races as possible. It has been said that lowering them would keep people away. I know personally I am not going to some because I triggered it once by .005 when the air got real good overnight at Epping. Now if I had a heads up run from another fast car in the class it could happen again. what do I get for all my hard work is horsepower. I also never mentioned 3 tenths, I do agree that is too much. And yes it would be wonderful if we had someone like Famer to have a better handle on factors. Traction problems really have to do with your dial. would not matter the index. I am wondering how many stockers are out there that can not run a tenth under. It does not always cost money to pick a car up. But it helps. Trust me I have one of the smallest budgets there is. I hope the riff raft come race with us. All are welcome by me

You missed my point, but that might be my fault. I was not in any way saying that I agreed with the "riff-raff" logic. I completely disagree with it. But it is a reality that we have to contend with. Like you, I have a very limited budget and in the past have resorted to things like used and factory rebuilt parts (think rebuilt roller lifters). What I was trying to say is that a lot of "checkbook racers" think that because they can go 1.25 under (often with a car they know nothing about), they don't need to think about the poor guy who's spending every dime he can afford to run a tenth under the index. They qualify well, not because they work hard and understand the theory behind what they're doing, but because they can just buy whatever they need to do so. Again, I don't see how lowering the index does anything but hurt the guys who use brains and sweat to make their car fast enough to run the index.

[Eric Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Gary Parker

The only remotely justifiable argument for lower indexes is that it "keeps out the riff-raff", and I consider that to be nothing more than arrogance on the part of the racers who feel that way. Indexes will NEVER eliminate sandbagging.

Really...I saved 3 years to have my engine fixed so I could go back out and race. I started with a camaro that ran 4 to 5 under .worked my *** off testing on a very limited budget to make my car faster. We are a performance based class. If you knew me you would know I would like as many people at the races as possible. It has been said that lowering them would keep people away. I know personally I am not going to some because I triggered it once by .005 when the air got real good overnight at Epping. Now if I had a heads up run from another fast car in the class it could happen again. what do I get for all my hard work is horsepower. I also never mentioned 3 tenths, I do agree that is too much. And yes it would be wonderful if we had someone like Famer to have a better handle on factors. Traction problems really have to do with your dial. would not matter the index. I am wondering how many stockers are out there that can not run a tenth under. It does not always cost money to pick a car up. But it helps. Trust me I have one of the smallest budgets there is. I hope the riff raft come race with us. All are welcome by me

For all to come and enjoy, split the difference: Add .15 to the indexes to help out the lower budget and cross overs.......change AHFS hit to 1.50 under that's .15 more than current, change the review to 2 1.25 unders, with ahfs average going up to 1.05 for change from .85.

HP reduction could use some serious help. Its pretty rough as is.

There, I think I like it, at least I like it more than the current AHFS formulas.

Eric

[Dave Ficacci]

Originally Posted by Gary Parker

I am just wondering how stock racers feel about lowering the indexes. We have been given many upgrades yet the indexes stay the same. There are many that can run a second under and have to detune at races. The AHFS was designed for new cars and under rated combos. It does not take into the fact of people who work hard , test and spend lots of money to make their car go fast. So what do the people who race stock ... 1 or 2 tenths. Most everyone can run that far under. .. Thanks.
Gary Parker

I agree with a 1 tenth reduction and leaving the AHFS triggers right where they are.