The big difference in a crash of two cars with one travelling at a lap time even 2 seconds slower is going to be the safety equipment. Im sure it would be difficult to crash the two cars and tell which one was the slower of the two. My issue is not with the Super but rather the enduros, as the enduros are rather fast for the levely of safety they are required.
I see no need for any changes in the Supers at all in regards to going faster, safety could be a wee bit better but it's all about tolerable risk. Is the track and drivers at a risk level they are comfortable with?

Inthestands...I don't see how any of the changes in the rules are going to increase the speed of the Superstocks. I think the tires are the barrier to any substantial increase in speed and there are no rules for increased width of the tires. The Enduros best times are in the 23.3 range with the Superstock in the 21.5 range. If you look at the set up of the cars for the two divisions you wouldn't think the Enduros would be less than 2 seconds behind the Superstocks. I don't think there is any need to go backwards with the development of the cars. And like Jim said it's great that you voice your opinion and that we keep Trevor amused...

I thought I was commenting on the post reguarding high end safety equipment not this years rules changes. Might have been easier I I had of said add slow the cars to the list.
BTW - I predict some supers will get into the 20's this year. Not a far stretch from 21.0's this past year.

20 sec laps..I second that Fromthestands.....rear disc brakes???..we wanted that yrs ago!..lol.....when I drove the cascar latemodel type car in the early 2000's,we were running in the mid 20's,and street stocks were in the low 22's....
  if the one thing i learned over my yrs is that faster times=more money= less car counts........

But why do you say that the cars should be slowed down? To say that you need to provide details of what your concerns are and what grounds you have for those concerns and your qualifications.

At the risk of sounding obvious, might it be that slower moving objects (cars) hit immovable objects (walls) at slower speeds than faster moving objects. Ergo, slower cars crash less hard than faster cars, reducing the risk of severe injury. Its a pretty sound theory.

The only thing is, does slowing the cars down by a second a lap really make that much of a difference? I'd guess probably not that big of a difference.

Oh, and my qualifications are a basic understanding of the physics of moving objects, haha

...so much hostility around here these days haha

That is an obvious solution if there was an issue with speed but I havn't heard of any concerns from anyone who's on the track or managing it. In other words the concerns Inthesands has are not relevant.

That is an obvious solution if there was an issue with speed but I havn't heard of any concerns from anyone who's on the track or managing it. In other words the concerns Inthesands has are not relevant.

I'm not really sure they are concerns. I'm just trying to say: If you want implement or look at implementing the safety devices listed above, then you have to concider a reduction in speed amongst them. We can't keep making improvements in the performance of the cars without concidering the impact of speed on saftey of the drivers.  It will get to a point were the "tolerable risk" (great term Jim) will have every division mandated with all the latest and greatest safety equipment. That will shortly be followed by insurance underwriters demanding prohibitive changes to the track, track surface, walls, emergency equipment and proceedures. That will be closely followed by a closed front gate.

It's obvious there's a point it needs to be concidered. Just look at the enduro division. Not too many cars survive those big impacts anymore, the damage is almost always terminal, for the current race anyway. That wasn't always the case.

Believe it or not, a few years back, it was suggested that the change from radials to Hoosiers was the start of the snowball.

well Fromthestands I'm still waiting on what your qualifications are since your not dealing with anything that has happened so until then your concerns are just a waste of time because without qualifications your just making uneducated suppositions....it sounds like your a member of CARS and if your not you should be...I'm sure they could find a way to benefit from your "expertise"