FGT indexes

J DeForrest · 12-22-2016, 01:38 AM

My .02

The .25 offset from natural FSS is too strong to begin with. Example - FSS/G is an 8# class, the index is 10.25. FGT/A in 2016 is an 8# class. Its index is 10.00. I realize there is some aerodynamic advantage to a smaller car, but I challenge anybody to take that same engine and weight combo to whatever body they wish, and gain .25 of a second.

So, the new 2017 FGT indexes keep the 8# class at the same index at the .25 offset, but then take it to something that I cannot relate to common sense at all. The worst example is FGT/A - it is a 6# class now posted at an 8.8 index. The exact same engine specs in a "natural" FSS/C car (6# class also) has an index of 9.65. I believe if you took that same engine and weight combo and put it into a dragster chassis, there is no way you could pick up the .85 of the difference in index.

While I do not agree, nor can mathematically justify the .25 offset, I believe it is a complete misinterpretation of the capability of the different bodies to think more can be achieved by just changing bodies.

The FGT/A to C is the major problem in the index's posted, but that's assuming that in the FGT/D on down classes you can pickup .25 going from a COPO body to a 3rd gen camaro body with the engine and weight staying the same.

Just my thoughts... And I am completely aware that the tech guys get paid squat for what they do, and put up with us racers as a bonus. And now in 2017 it seems like there may be less guys...

nhramnl · 12-22-2016, 09:09 AM

I agree, Jason. This problem has been evolving (and getting worse) for quite some time now. I think the root of the problem lies in NHRA's attempts to please everybody (though many would argue that they don't care about Sportsman racers). They've tried, over the years, to artificially "level the playing field", by creating things like multiple, almost body style-related indexes (e.g. FWD versus non-FWD). This "everybody deserves to have a fair chance to win" reasoning is noble, but very impractical. The reality of racing (at least from what I've observed) is that some combinations (i.e. car and engine) never have any sort of competitive edge, and others simply lose their competitive edge over time. If the trend continues, there will be 1,000 classes within Super Stock, and your Cavalier will fit into "Red Cavaliers with Nice Graphics and an LS-Family Engine Super Stock/ Automatic". You'll be the only guy in the class, but it'll be "fair".

SS3718 · 12-22-2016, 02:01 PM

I'll start by saying my opinion is likely bias because I run in FGT. The whole concept of FGT doesn't make sense to me. They've created 14 new classes for probably 5-8 cars that run these classes across the country! Then, when they did it, we all lost anywhere from .10-.25 on our indexes and not to mention the classes combined sticks and autos.

I'm sure some will argue that the HP factors are the reason for FGT. However, if you look at last years US Nationals, there were a lot of fast traditional GT cars at the top of the qualifying sheet!

Off my soap box...I agree the indexes are messed up! They were from the beginning and even more so for the new 2017 classes!

Jeff Teuton · 12-22-2016, 02:23 PM

I agree with all of you. When this was announced, I fought to the end not to add 23 new classes in SS. I know the Div 2 Srac guy has been trying to get Mark Nowicki hit for years and I think he got Glen Gray and Bruce's ears. And I was in one of the lower SS or GT classes and got hit .25 index, had a conversation with them, they agreed to look at it, and the next morning it was in the book. Now you know the "Rest of the Story". I am now back in SS. There are 109 SS classes I think. That is too many.

Ed Wright · 12-22-2016, 04:18 PM

You guys can't run under the indexes? Qualifying is the only place it makes any difference, and that doesn't pay anything, so what does it matter? You dial under. Who can't run more that .25 under?

SS3718 · 12-22-2016, 05:15 PM

Ed, we just want to qualify .95 under with you every race! What's wrong with that? Maybe Trump can help us out!

Ed Wright · 12-22-2016, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS3718

Ed, we just want to qualify .95 under with you every race! What's wrong with that? Maybe Trump can help us out!

I'm usually more like .75 under, but what difference does it make?

Jeff Teuton · 12-22-2016, 08:14 PM

Now Ed, you know and I know that playing the sheet is a cultural sport. You can qualify where you want when you want, so you do a job I suppose on where you want to be. And sometime you run to the front or try to run to the front (circa 2016 Hillery) and you just can't get there.

SS3718 · 12-22-2016, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

I'm usually more like .75 under, but what difference does it make?

You sure about that?

Noble -.949
Gilliam -.915
Tulsa -.704
Ennis -.904
Baytown -.996

Like I said before, we all want to be like Ed. Not to mention, you're always heavy, you run 14 quarts of oil, and you never make a good run!

nickh · 12-22-2016, 09:32 PM

Lmao

Quote:

Originally Posted by ss3718

you sure about that?

Noble -.949
gilliam -.915
tulsa -.704
ennis -.904
baytown -.996

like i said before, we all want to be like ed. Not to mention, you're always heavy, you run 14 quarts of oil, and you never make a good run!

12-22-2016, 01:38 AM	#1
J DeForrest Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ramsey, MN Posts: 112 Likes: 87 Liked 74 Times in 18 Posts	FGT indexes My .02 The .25 offset from natural FSS is too strong to begin with. Example - FSS/G is an 8# class, the index is 10.25. FGT/A in 2016 is an 8# class. Its index is 10.00. I realize there is some aerodynamic advantage to a smaller car, but I challenge anybody to take that same engine and weight combo to whatever body they wish, and gain .25 of a second. So, the new 2017 FGT indexes keep the 8# class at the same index at the .25 offset, but then take it to something that I cannot relate to common sense at all. The worst example is FGT/A - it is a 6# class now posted at an 8.8 index. The exact same engine specs in a "natural" FSS/C car (6# class also) has an index of 9.65. I believe if you took that same engine and weight combo and put it into a dragster chassis, there is no way you could pick up the .85 of the difference in index. While I do not agree, nor can mathematically justify the .25 offset, I believe it is a complete misinterpretation of the capability of the different bodies to think more can be achieved by just changing bodies. The FGT/A to C is the major problem in the index's posted, but that's assuming that in the FGT/D on down classes you can pickup .25 going from a COPO body to a 3rd gen camaro body with the engine and weight staying the same. Just my thoughts... And I am completely aware that the tech guys get paid squat for what they do, and put up with us racers as a bonus. And now in 2017 it seems like there may be less guys... __________________ superstock5150@gmail.com

12-22-2016, 09:09 AM	#2
nhramnl Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 504 Likes: 7 Liked 352 Times in 82 Posts	Re: FGT indexes I agree, Jason. This problem has been evolving (and getting worse) for quite some time now. I think the root of the problem lies in NHRA's attempts to please everybody (though many would argue that they don't care about Sportsman racers). They've tried, over the years, to artificially "level the playing field", by creating things like multiple, almost body style-related indexes (e.g. FWD versus non-FWD). This "everybody deserves to have a fair chance to win" reasoning is noble, but very impractical. The reality of racing (at least from what I've observed) is that some combinations (i.e. car and engine) never have any sort of competitive edge, and others simply lose their competitive edge over time. If the trend continues, there will be 1,000 classes within Super Stock, and your Cavalier will fit into "Red Cavaliers with Nice Graphics and an LS-Family Engine Super Stock/ Automatic". You'll be the only guy in the class, but it'll be "fair".

12-22-2016, 02:01 PM	#3
SS3718 Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 128 Likes: 5 Liked 28 Times in 14 Posts	Re: FGT indexes I'll start by saying my opinion is likely bias because I run in FGT. The whole concept of FGT doesn't make sense to me. They've created 14 new classes for probably 5-8 cars that run these classes across the country! Then, when they did it, we all lost anywhere from .10-.25 on our indexes and not to mention the classes combined sticks and autos. I'm sure some will argue that the HP factors are the reason for FGT. However, if you look at last years US Nationals, there were a lot of fast traditional GT cars at the top of the qualifying sheet! Off my soap box...I agree the indexes are messed up! They were from the beginning and even more so for the new 2017 classes! Last edited by SS3718; 12-22-2016 at 02:04 PM.

12-22-2016, 02:23 PM	#4
Jeff Teuton VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Houma, LA Posts: 2,717 Likes: 2 Liked 326 Times in 50 Posts	Re: FGT indexes I agree with all of you. When this was announced, I fought to the end not to add 23 new classes in SS. I know the Div 2 Srac guy has been trying to get Mark Nowicki hit for years and I think he got Glen Gray and Bruce's ears. And I was in one of the lower SS or GT classes and got hit .25 index, had a conversation with them, they agreed to look at it, and the next morning it was in the book. Now you know the "Rest of the Story". I am now back in SS. There are 109 SS classes I think. That is too many. __________________ Jeff Teuton 4022 STK

12-22-2016, 04:18 PM	#5
Ed Wright Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sand Springs, OK Posts: 8,132 Likes: 896 Liked 389 Times in 168 Posts	Re: FGT indexes You guys can't run under the indexes? Qualifying is the only place it makes any difference, and that doesn't pay anything, so what does it matter? You dial under. Who can't run more that .25 under? __________________ Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA

12-22-2016, 05:15 PM	#6
SS3718 Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 128 Likes: 5 Liked 28 Times in 14 Posts	Re: FGT indexes Ed, we just want to qualify .95 under with you every race! What's wrong with that? Maybe Trump can help us out!

12-22-2016, 08:14 PM	#8
Jeff Teuton VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Houma, LA Posts: 2,717 Likes: 2 Liked 326 Times in 50 Posts	Re: FGT indexes Now Ed, you know and I know that playing the sheet is a cultural sport. You can qualify where you want when you want, so you do a job I suppose on where you want to be. And sometime you run to the front or try to run to the front (circa 2016 Hillery) and you just can't get there. __________________ Jeff Teuton 4022 STK