Black Tuesday? - Page 5

12-13-2009, 11:14 PM

It would be nice to be able to set records on the east coast in good air without hitting the 1.40 mark, or having to worry about showing up at a national event and not being able to race for class or trying to get the pole and a first round bye, because you don't want HP. But there is the other side of the guy that has no money that wants to race with us but now can't run the index. It's a delicate matter. I would rather the AFHS trigger change and leave the index's alone.

Mark Yacavone · 12-13-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7423

I agree Toby, it would drive me away.

Come on , Charlie
You ran .27 under at Pomona.

Take a look at this page, post 5027.
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/s...stock&page=252

170 S/S'ers trying to get into 31 spots. I'm sure there were a few future World Champions on the DNQ list that day. They didn't quit.

I ran the 1978 Orlando points meet ,in June of that year. The only two cars that ran under the index that weekend were myself and the runner-up ,in the final round. Those other guys didn't quit. Woodro Josey was one of them.

I can remember driving to Gainesville (1000 miles) and being second alternate in a 32 car field. I didn't quit then, either.

If you drop out now , you're never going to get that Wally, that doesn't ever go to quitters.

Toby Lang · 12-13-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Good reasons:

I must have heard this one a hundred times..whenever someone brings up doing away with heads up runs in eliminations : "It's supposed to be a performance based eliminator"

Think about this. A guy can go to Indy and be 180th qualifier (dead last) @ .06 under. He's a full second away from the slowest qualifier.
That same guy can go to the very next National event and win it.

Something's wrong with this picture.

I guess I fail to follow your logic. Let's say they do lower the indexes by 3 tenths. Then next year at Indy somebody qualifies 140th (dead last) at -0.06. Then he goes to the very next national event and wins it. What's changed? (Besides the fields being smaller.) Would you want to lower the indexes another 3 tenths???

-Toby

Mark Yacavone · 12-13-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby Lang

I guess I fail to follow your logic. Let's say they do lower the indexes by 3 tenths. Then next year at Indy somebody qualifies 140th (dead last) at -0.06. Then he goes to the very next national event and wins it. What's changed? (Besides the fields being smaller.) Would you want to lower the indexes another 3 tenths???

-Toby

Toby, You know I usually want to do what's best for the sport, but you're asking ME that question? LOL

Toby Lang · 12-13-2009, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Cour

Yes, it actually does sound like a good business decision. Put some pressure on the racers that don't participate as highly as the others in the purchasing of performance parts. Isn't that a big carrot in why you race, Toby, the contingency payouts?

Yes, I'm sure after the indexes are lowered the contingency payouts will go up immediately. They might even give us $500 for a win sticker and $300 for a runner up sticker. :rolls eyes:

-Toby

Sean Cour · 12-13-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby Lang

Yes, I'm sure after the indexes are lowered the contingency payouts will go up immediately. They might even give us $500 for a win sticker and $300 for a runner up sticker. :rolls eyes:

-Toby

Now you're starting to understand the logic. I, for one, am just happy with a win. If I raced for the money, I wouldn't race.

Toby Lang · 12-13-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Broaddus

Heck with all the new rules changes maybe they should think about lowering them .8. That would make it interesting. Certainly see more ice in the lanes and cut out a bunch of sandbaggers. Oh yea one more thing. If you don't run the index you don't qualify.

Why stop at .8? Why don't we just lower them 1.2 seconds?

-Toby

Ron Ortiz · 12-13-2009, 11:58 PM

Bottom line, lowering the indexes only benefit the people that can run way under either due to them being underfactored or illegal. Adjusting the trigger will offset the factoring in a positive manner. Personally, I do not understand why all you fast guys are not petitioning for an elimination of the trigger. Then it would be fun again.

Do you actually think that the contincency payouts are directly related to the lowering of the indexes, give me a break, they are related to NHRA's percentage cut.

Ron Ortiz
U/SA

Bryan Broaddus · 12-14-2009, 12:03 AM

My comments are only in regard to Super Stock.

Just think it is crazy to have cars running 1.4 and more under the index. Why do we have an index if they are that far from what we are able to run. I don't think there should be such a difference between the index and the car's actual ET potential.

Why do we need the index to be so soft? New racers joining the class? How many new racers have you seen that don't run well under the current numbers? Not many. Most of the new guys come in with top notch equipment and kick all our butts. Dad puts them in a modified car and it is off to the races. No worry about running the number there. If anything it is some of the seasoned racers who chose to run where they are because they can without any detriment. Actually it can be an advantage since you don't have to push your equipment. Not a bad idea but it gets back to the bracket racing thing. No incentive to go fast.

GTX JOHN · 12-14-2009, 12:54 AM

In 2009 we attended several Div. 7 and Div 6 races where there was only around 20 or less in both stock and superstock including our 2 or 3 cars! In Medford I believe out of around 20 stocker there were 4 or 5 less than or around .3 under! The first three years my kids and I raced , I was never .3 under or more. Neither of my kids cars were ever either! Not everybody comes from a rich family or has a rich experienced racer for a dad. Some people pick a car to race because that is what they own and can afford not because of where it hits on HP factor. There are plenty of classes for the rich and elite..... why make stock/superstock fall in that group! If the indexs were much faster we would of never have persisted long enough to stay in stock!!
If attendance falls even another 20 or 25%... I don't think there will be stock or superstock in another 4 or 5 years! Then what is everybody going to do with their $20,000 Engines/$7,000 Transmissions... put them in Sportsman Bracket Cars?

12-13-2009, 11:14 PM	#41
Todd Hoven Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Black Tuesday? It would be nice to be able to set records on the east coast in good air without hitting the 1.40 mark, or having to worry about showing up at a national event and not being able to race for class or trying to get the pole and a first round bye, because you don't want HP. But there is the other side of the guy that has no money that wants to race with us but now can't run the index. It's a delicate matter. I would rather the AFHS trigger change and leave the index's alone.

12-13-2009, 11:58 PM	#48
Ron Ortiz Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Englewood, Florida Posts: 989 Likes: 35 Liked 317 Times in 103 Posts	Re: Black Tuesday? Bottom line, lowering the indexes only benefit the people that can run way under either due to them being underfactored or illegal. Adjusting the trigger will offset the factoring in a positive manner. Personally, I do not understand why all you fast guys are not petitioning for an elimination of the trigger. Then it would be fun again. Do you actually think that the contincency payouts are directly related to the lowering of the indexes, give me a break, they are related to NHRA's percentage cut. Ron Ortiz U/SA __________________ Ron Ortiz 2102 STK

12-14-2009, 12:03 AM	#49
Bryan Broaddus Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 104 Likes: 2 Liked 18 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Black Tuesday? My comments are only in regard to Super Stock. Just think it is crazy to have cars running 1.4 and more under the index. Why do we have an index if they are that far from what we are able to run. I don't think there should be such a difference between the index and the car's actual ET potential. Why do we need the index to be so soft? New racers joining the class? How many new racers have you seen that don't run well under the current numbers? Not many. Most of the new guys come in with top notch equipment and kick all our butts. Dad puts them in a modified car and it is off to the races. No worry about running the number there. If anything it is some of the seasoned racers who chose to run where they are because they can without any detriment. Actually it can be an advantage since you don't have to push your equipment. Not a bad idea but it gets back to the bracket racing thing. No incentive to go fast. __________________ Bryan Broaddus 7568 STK ,SS

12-14-2009, 12:54 AM	#50
GTX JOHN VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Boulder City, Nevada 89005 Posts: 2,732 Likes: 2,798 Liked 2,479 Times in 697 Posts	Re: Black Tuesday? In 2009 we attended several Div. 7 and Div 6 races where there was only around 20 or less in both stock and superstock including our 2 or 3 cars! In Medford I believe out of around 20 stocker there were 4 or 5 less than or around .3 under! The first three years my kids and I raced , I was never .3 under or more. Neither of my kids cars were ever either! Not everybody comes from a rich family or has a rich experienced racer for a dad. Some people pick a car to race because that is what they own and can afford not because of where it hits on HP factor. There are plenty of classes for the rich and elite..... why make stock/superstock fall in that group! If the indexs were much faster we would of never have persisted long enough to stay in stock!! If attendance falls even another 20 or 25%... I don't think there will be stock or superstock in another 4 or 5 years! Then what is everybody going to do with their $20,000 Engines/$7,000 Transmissions... put them in Sportsman Bracket Cars?