Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

Andy's Dad
<<As to whether NHRA is a democracy, I would say not......

"The best argument against a democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

Winston Churchill

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

nhra is not in any way shape or form a democracy when they can slam the door on any attempted communications. Most people who have emailed the nhra staff in Glendora over the ahfs adjustments never get a return communication.

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

Oh come on -

NHRA is a lot better at listening to what we are saying - if for no other reason than they read these threads. Being able to react to all of the varied agendas is difficult - even a slight change will meet with lots of negative reaction.

In the "old days" they never announced anything before it was the rule and they did not care what the racers wanted at all.

Those people and days are gone for the most part.

It is an imperfect world we live in

Back to football.

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

I'm all for it as it is similar to what I proposed. However, if you want "all runs" to count (Divisional included), there needs to be the possibility of a tear down. For example, you wouldn't want to receive HP in your class because some yahoo showed up at a divisional one day with a pop-up piston 440 or maybe even a 500 crate motor shortblock!

The reasons I said lower index .500 and make the AHFS start @ 1.00 is to basically make the AHFS a non issue. But throw all the heads up runs I proposed into the mix and the AHFS may be necessary. Especially if the 1.15 under players of today are really 1.50+ under players. If your not, then the AHFS would not be an issue.
You will see WOT racing under my proposal.

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

Funny how some of these threads keep on chugging along.

I was a bit surprised yesterday when Len jumped in on one of his posts and attemped to put an end to the discussion about the ahfs. He has been trying to portray me as a guy who wasn't paying attention to the ahfs notices and got pissed when I got HP. Well, I very rarely take on a selfish cause and generally pick causes that affect the most people; like the ahfs. He is wrong on that point.

But I thought, who the hell does this guy think he is? The ahfs is a moot point my ***. This site doesn't belong to him or nhra. So I decided to do a little checking on the information that he has been attempting to pass off here and found a couple of interesting unannounced/unpublished changes to the ahfs and that the two notices that he told us about were really about the same subject and only one was a call for racer feedback. hmm...

So I spent the whole afternoon and evening working through 83 months of nhra archives and found just that one request for feedback and it is over 4 years old while, at the same time, the ahfs was taking on a few unannounced nips and tucks.

Len describes the changes to the ahfs as minor and that the basic format has not changed. Well the reality is that the original ahfs resembles an Impala while the current ahfs resembles a Humvee. Apparently there is no such thing as a minor change to the ahfs.

I'm just an old guy from Virginia working my way through the archives and I may have missed something. I invite any of you to double check the archives to verify my results. Also Len has the whole nhra computer thing going on and he may find something that I haven't and I invite him to provide any additional information that he may have.

Also, I found the following paragraph from the original ahfs to be very revealing.

"This has been a project that will prove well worth the effort," said Len Imbrogno, director of sportsman racing and member tracks. "Once everyone gets comfortable with how the
data is analyzed and automatic changes are calculated, the racers will pretty much control their own destiny in terms of horsepower and index changes."

I will post more on this subject tomorrow. My eyes are a little bleary after looking at a computer screen for eight hours.

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

Still working on the material. I have four legal pages of notes and trying to abbreviate for this site. The latest version of the ahfs contains the most changes and takes up most of the space. I'm working with three versions and wanted to do a side, by side, by side comparison but with limited space that is out of the question. Thanks.

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

shows that the system is a total failure?? lowering the indexes accomplish the same thing?whats the point to run 2 sec. under the index in another 10 years?well it makes it easier to bracket race ofcourse..a higer trigger point probably never will be needed but if a future lowering of the indexes would show that..fine...the body speficic hp changes is really the biggest problem with AHFS,,NHRA has let it go to insanity...dont know if theres a way to go back?... going back to the old eng specific hp changes could make this peekaboo...hide and seek..well almost all games we see ..go away..

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

bruce... spend your time where it might do some good

the AHFS cannot work in any form... it only reports data we can manipulate, and has no ability to offer any insight in to a combo's potential... ive said it since day one ... wont work...
just pisses people off and hits combos at random... (see greg hills post)

i admire your voracity but im sure your christmas lights need to be put up or your car needs some attention...trying to prove that NHRA is stupid is not productive > We all know it & they wont ever admit it !

jack mccarthy

merry ho ho's bruce

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

The Captain has finally spoken. I have wondered how long it was going to take.

Mike Galuk
JOE COOL RACING
Stock-2080

Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
 

I managed to reduce this post by eliminating all notes and including only relevant sections from three different AHFS versions as found on the nhra site.Those versions are dated 12/11/2000,1/31/2003 and the current 2007 version. To start I'll post the recap of the 2000 version as found on the nhra site and then post the screening and review sections from the 2003 and 2007 versions.

AHFS - 2000, aka The combination specific AHFS, bb1990

To recap the system as described in issue 47 of the National Dragster: Only national event final qualifing data is included in the database. Any run of 1.15 seconds or more under index, or .25- second or less under index, automatically triggers a flag for analysis. Engine combination averages and class averages are then computed and analyzed to determine if any change is warranted. If the engine family or class average is 1.00-second or more under index an increase is initiated. If the engine family or class average is .50-second or less under index a decrease is initated. The amount of change is calculated on a stepped percentage basis. Adjustments will be effective for the specific car or body style being evaluated.

AHFS - 2003, Skipping obvious language and going straight to review provisions, bb1999

The following elements are then applied in evaluating possible horsepower adjustments for cars that run 1.15 or more under the index:

Any run of 1.15 seconds or more under the index at NHRA national events triggers an automatic review. Upon reviewing the data, the committee looks at the engine average and class/engine averages where the combination is available. If the engine family average or the class/engine average is found to be faster than 1.00-second under, a change will be initiated.

In reviewing runs of 1.15 seconds or more under the index, the database of all qualifing runs for the engine combination being reviewed are put through three screenings in search of an engine/class average faster than 1.00-second under, These reviews include the following:

ENGINE FAMILY AVERAGE for the specific engine combination being reviewed. All cars, regardless of class, running the particular engine combination being reviewed are included in this screening.

CLASS AVERAGEin the class utilizing the specific engine being analyzed. The class/engine average of the specific combination in the class that triggered the review is studied.

BODY STYLE of the engine combination being reviewed. Adjustments are only in effect for the specific car model being evaluated. However, in many instances the body style is classified by the OEM auto manufacturers' definition of "platform;" i.e., the Camaro and Firebird body are both based on the same platform and therefore considered the same with regard to body-style classification. In some instances, more than one body style will trigger a review.

AHFS AMMENDMENT - 2004
1.) Review periods reduced to two times a year.
2.) Any -.50 or less not considered
3.) Two runs of -1.15 or more to trigger a review
4.) Automatic hit reduced from -1.50 to -1.40

AHFS - 2007, Skipping obvious language and going straight to review provisions, bb2007

Final qualifing and elimination runs of 1.15 seconds or more, under the index, at NHRA national events will trigger an automatic review. (The combination must make at least two runs of 1.15 or quicker before a review is triggered to prevent a "one time fast" from triggering the system.) In reviewing runs of 1.15 or more under the index, the database of runs for the engine combination being reviewed are put through three screenings as listed below. The screenings will look for an overall engine family average or class/engine average faster than 1.00-second under. Runs of .50 and slower are not included in calculating the engine or class/engine averages:

ENGINE FAMILY AVERAGE: The overall engine average for all cars, regardless of class, running the particular engine combination being reviewed are included in this screening.

CLASS/ENGINE AVERAGE WHERE ENGINE IS RUN: The class/engine average of the car running the specific combination in the class that triggered the review is studied.

BODY STYLE AND TRANSMISSION TYPE: Also considered in the above two screening processes are the body style of the engine combination being reviewed and transmission type. Adjustments are only in effect for the specific car model being evaluated. The body style are generally classified by the OEM auto manufacturers' definition of "platform",i.e., the Camaro and Firebird body are both based on the same platform and therefore considered the same with regard to body-style classification. In some instances, however, more than one body-style will trigger a review. With regards to transmission type, if the class average triggers the review, the adjustment would be for classes with the type of transmission triggering the change. However, if an engine family average triggers a review, the adjustment would be for all transmission types.

The changes to the last paragraph in both 2003 and 2007 enabled Wesley and Skelly to lump the following dissimilar cars together during the 2007 racing season: Camaro, Chev II, Chevelle, Corvette, Century, Regal, Cutlas, Omega, Phoenix, Ventura, Firebird, Lemans, Skylark. I'm told this includes wagons too. These new groupings, no matter the OEM, should receive advance publication as well.

I've tried to copy the original AHFS information exactly as written, including typos.

Some of the new AHFS language is clarification stuff but the 2003 and 2007 versions clearly contain major system changing language. This language should have been published in advance before being used against the racers. 100% of us polled agree that nhra should publish it's rules prior to implematation and I guess we trust them to do the right thing.

Len has been working on the AHFS for more than seven years. He has described the changes to the AHFS as minor when in fact they are major changes.

Len and friends are supposedly at PRI this week and cooking up a new and improved AHFS for us. I hope this time we'll read it closely and be more persistent when questioning Len.