Re: New AHFS
 

You have some valid points. NHRA brought some of this upon themselves when they overruled tech inspectors that were doing their jobs, not punishing the violators and some of the freedoms they allowed to take place.

Re: New AHFS
 

I think they should have added the same addendum that Comp has then which is "if limited to 1 qualifying run it is automatic mineshaft." That way a shortened event can not hurt if you have a one time fast run.

Re: New AHFS
 

NHRA appears to be doing the right thing here. The AHFS is under constant pressure from all sides and for the most part it had been neutered by dollars and special interests. They say that the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Very tired of reading about "hard work and money spent on these cars" while the slow racers are a bunch of lazy folks who don't want to work on or spend money on their cars. This sport is meant to be open and fair to all racers and these simple rule changes have taken a good step in the right direction. Next, I would hope that NHRA considers and addresses Mr. Nees concerns.
George

Re: New AHFS
 

Step in the right direction? It turned a performance class into bracket racing! Yes, the sport is fair; if you cannot go race in Stock or Super Stock, there is Super Street, Super Gas and bracket racing.
Explain what do you mean by "special interests"?

There is a big difference between lazy folks and those that do not want to work on their cars. I can tell you that guys like Billy Ness, Mark Yacavone, Steve Wann, Barry Parker, Gary Parker and many others, although their cars are what is not considered high dollar, work hard on their combinations.

There will always be a disparity on what a racer spends and it is applicable to all classes, not only Stock or Super Stock. It is also based on the class and the car you want to run. The reality is that if you want to run in the higher classes, then you have to spend the money. If you want to be competitive, then follow Billy Ness, Mark and others on some cars that are competitive and nobody has built probably because they do not have the coolness of a Camaro or Mustang.

Re: New AHFS
 

George, This sport IMO IS as fair as it's going to be, but lets be honest those who spend more time in the garage and at the track will be more successful in this sport. AND there's always someone who will outspend the other guys. The problem with the AHFS in part is due to the overlooked "performance enhanced" parts on the cars that are a true violation of rules. NHRA legal stocker engines should not cost this much money! Then, in most cases we wouldn't be running -1.5+ under the indexes.

Re: New AHFS
 

Maybe someone can clear this up for me. When the first qualifying pass starts at Pomona in Stock Eliminator will they be using 660',1000' and 1/4 mile for their information for the new AHFS data?? Or will they still be using the old method and only using 660' 1000' if a review is needed??

Re: New AHFS
 

Wow you guys are all a bunch of negitive Nancy's typing on your key boards like chicken little running around yelling the sky is falling. You all complain about the AHFS not working, when NHRA makes a change to make it work better to get underfactor combo's inline(which they created when they factor new cars) or they created with a stroke of a key board like the ford 302. which happened years ago and most of those combo's can still run -1.50 under. If it were not for Mike Graham the 302 would still be a -2.00 under combo. The change to the AHFS will only affect a very small percentage of the cars that race in stock. So all you Karen's can bash me now.

Re: New AHFS
 

How I interpreted it was the 660/1000ft would only come into play
in the case of a review. I think that is reasonable to make it harder
to sandbag the system.

Re: New AHFS
 

In the past I thought the system worked ok, some cars got competitive again. Their are a few that got gifts without any runs, I wonder how that happened, the AHFS was in place.

Re: New AHFS
 

Watch this

https://www.classracingtoday.com/

Re: New AHFS
 

As long as there has been Stock and Super Stock there has always been combo's that are underrated. This has not changed in the last 50 years. In Division One if you look at a Lucas Oil race that has about 100 cars how many are under factored? My guess would be 4 or 5. Most of these are the newer ones that only have other new cars in their class. So, we make a rule change that could possibly affect a large part of the field because of only 4 or 5 percent of the cars. Why? Also helping to kill what I always thought was a performance-based class. If you race a class that is not that populated, and the odds are great that you will not see a heads up run this will probably not have much of an effect on you. Unless you have someone that races your combo that is into the performance. But for those of us that race combo's that have several cars in our class and have a good chance of racing someone heads up in the eliminator it could have a big effect on us. James Boyce, I don't get your post. I looked your name up and the first race that came up you qualified with a run of 1.176 under in L/SA this year. Are you saying you had it on kill for qualifying? Is your car underrated? Billy my car gets to use parts that NHRA approved (not me). This is the year 2021 and I for one don't want to go back to where an A car runs mid 11"s. But if we did, I still would have one of the faster ones. It has nothing to do with the parts. I care about the performance side of Stock and stay awake nights trying to come up with ways of making my car go faster. So, what really makes a combo underrated? Is it how fast it goes? How about if you take a car from a bone yard. Don't build the engine or trany to the NHRA rules of today. PLay with the tune up, gears, convertors and ect. Now you run .5 under. I would have to say that the combo is underacted. Just no one cared enough to build one using today's rules. BP

Re: New AHFS
 

So James I went back and looked at the Qualifing Sheet at the Sept Divisonal at Boise. 37 Cars in Stock. 13 of the cars were more than 1 under. You were # 3. The 18th qualifer was more than .950 under so even with the recent changes to the Mineshaft rule it's still going to happen.
It could be time to adjust the indexes as NHRA did several years ago.


Steve Teeter STK/SS 620

Re: New AHFS
 

Barry, we're all "playing a game". Do you feel that your combo should still be rated at 375 HP even after admitting that you can build one without using a single "stock" part?
I don't feel like any of my combos should be burdened with an index hit just because I was smart enough to build one. We're all "playing a game". If you don't like "playing a game" in the style that you're "playing" it then please feel free to "play" it the way that I do. Don't admonish me for "playing" it differently than you do.
I've never requested a HP reduction on any of my combos although they have gotten reductions from other Racers requests. I won't "play" that part of the "game". When I start on a combo, I know what I'm getting into and what I have to work with. Did you not do the same?
We're all "playing a game". Some choose to do it differently than others.

Re: New AHFS
 

Billy I wasn't trying to admonish you. My point was what makes a combo underrated? Is it just a number and what is that number under what weather conditions? We all have been playing the game for several years. I'm tired of doing it. Extra oil, extra weight, timing backed off, short shifting and ect. Now with this new rule we have to play it even more. I'd love to be able to go back to the way it was years ago where you ran your car close to how fast it could go. We could argue about the parts I'm able to use but that should be in a different post. I also never asked for a HP change to any combo I've run nor any aftermarket parts. I really didn't want the car I have. Never been a fan of the 70 Camaro's but at 20 grand the price was too good to pass up. I believe most combo's on kill that have been worked on under great weather conditions can run 1.20 plus under.

Re: New AHFS
 

While I'm on a roll Barry, would you build your combo using ALL of the Original "Stock" parts today? And just what rules have changed? What has changed is the NHRA's acceptance of "aftermarket and replacement" parts for certain combos. Combos like yours BUT not ALL combos. I've got 4 combos in my garage at this time and there isn't a single "aftermarket and replacement" part approved for ANY of them. The rules have changed allowing nothing other than simple pieces that aren't worth a thing, not like heads, intakes and carbs. I'm basically working with what was available when A cars were running mid elevens. We're all "playing a game" but the rules change for some and not for others. Right now, the rules have changed (AHFS) and you don't like the changes so you want to lower the indexes. I don't like all of the "aftermarket and replacement" parts that you and others have gotten.

Re: New AHFS
 

Billy this isn't what this thread is about. I would be more than happy to address your issues with aftermarket parts that NHRA allows in Stock eliminator today. Just start a new thread. BP

Re: New AHFS
 

Barry, I didn't bring up the replacement parts, you did.
You then brought up my underfactored combo that doesn't have any replacement parts and then the subject of lowering the indexes came up. Not by you.

Re: New AHFS
 

Billy, I don't wish to get into this with you in this thread. It doesn't belong here. Thats why I asked you twice now to start a new one. So please if you wish to go down this road start a new thread and leave this one about NHRA's latest rule change to the AHFS

Re: New AHFS
 

Steve if we adjust the indexs that affects everyone, doesnt fix underrated combo's. Steve do you think my car is under rated for a fox body mustang since you owned one years ago?

Barry I see you ran more than -1.00 under 3 times this last year. Do you consider your car under rated? Yes i went -1.17 under at Boise and am damm pround of it, was not on kill did my normal routine warm up, no ice, my normal tune up and weight. I dont think my car is under rated. Look at other foxbody mustangs only a few others are fast.

Let me see if i can explain this to you with this example then you tell me what you think.
So a 70 camaro looks like it can A,B,C. You are running A. So when a 2015 camaro get some more HP and cant run B anymore they will be in A with you.
Can you run with one of these?
Do you think it is an under rated combo?
Would you go to B to stay away from them?

Barry I am very much like you, I am always thinking of new ways to make my car go faster. I work on my stuff to make it fast. I run the test day before the divisional race and put more runs on it that day than I do the rest of the weekend. Most test days I have plans on what to test and usually make over 10 runs that day.

Re: New AHFS
 

James you should be proud of that run. It's a he## of a pass. No, I don't think you should get HP. Just wanted to point out to you that a lot of cars under good conditions can run close to or faster than 1.20. Take a look at the 1970 402/375 hp Nova. Now rated at 415. Just because of a heads up run in good air. Should the car be rated 15 HP more than the 1970 Camaro. This change is going to make it easier for any combo in a popular class to get HP not just the underrated ones. The 2015 Camaro's are faster than my car. There are a lot of A/SA cars in Div one. If I catch a few of them during the year I could end up getting HP long before the 2015 Camaro's putting me even further behind. BP

Re: New AHFS
 

This would not be mine shaft. First car on the bottom half of the ladder would be #20.

Re: New AHFS
 

With 37 cars why would it not be # 19 that has to be .950 or higher?

Steve Teeter STK/SS 620

Re: New AHFS
 

Because it's half plus 1. Half would be 18.5 and you know NHRA always rounds up lol. So 19 plus 1 is 20

Re: New AHFS
 

So here are the facts 3 divisional and 4 National events last year that were Mineshaft

None of them would be considered Mineshaft under the new .950 under rule

Re: New AHFS
 

I just spoke with Lonnie about this. I'm not sure how things will play out, but I can say that his heart is in the right place.

Re: New AHFS
 

Daren, I also believe Lonnie's heart is in the right place. He seems to be a performance guy. Unfortunately, the ones that made the changes trying to bring the small percent of combo's that are underrated in line. Will have more of an effect on several combo's that don't need any more HP added. Especially those classes that have a large number of cars in them. (more chance of a heads up run) For those that think it can't happen to them take a look as I pointed out to the 1970 Nova 402/375 HP. One heads up run at a real fast track and now they are carrying over 100 pounds more. At Indy in 2019, 95 cars were 1 second under during qualifying in Stock. Indy has to be at least .20 slow compared to mine shaft weather. So, all those combo's are now even more subject to getting HP. I like racing Stock because It was a class that if you worked harder, tested more parts and maybe had more experience in making a car go fast you might have an advantage on your competition. Isn't that what a performance base class is supposed to be?

Billy, I wasn't trying to pick on your car or the way you want to race. Your car belongs in Stock just as much as mine. I was trying to make a point that a combo doesn't have to be running 1.20 under to have a favorable HP rating.
There are SIXTY plus pages of non-stock parts that NHRA has now allowed. I had nothing to do with any of them. And by the way both my heads and intake on my car have GM part numbers. Yes, I get because GM stopped making them that Edelbrock now makes them for GM. These are not the only parts that the car manufactures have outsourced. I have had nothing to do with how Stock has evolved from the sixties till now. I don't agree with all of the changes, but I would rather race the Stock we currently have now compared to what we had in the 60's and 70's. BP

Re: New AHFS
 

My suggestion to all is to reach out to the NHRA with your thoughts. There are other changes being discussed.

As a side note, the change in the mineshaft rule was proposed by our representatives....

Re: New AHFS
 

Gump, I have the utmost respect for you, and I think Lonnie is the best
thing to happen to NHRA in a long time, I am hearing a familiar theme.
That theme is that the Stock/Super Stock council asked for the change.
In the past, when we have asked our division reps if this was factual, we
have been told that "No, we did not put that request forward." I am not
suggesting that this happened in regard to the AHFS change, but I
think it is incumbent on us to check on this with our respective reps, and
establish a system with each Division, where we are sent a copy of the
requests that are being put forward, so we can discuss the ramifications
of these changes, and then vote on them. That way we will not be blind sided by a surprise change. In a perfect transparent world, we should find
the year end rule changes boring, as we would be more up to speed
as to what ALL division reps are asking for, and which ones WE had agreed to.

J.R.

Re: New AHFS
 

I agree about Lonnie. He is probably one of few people in charge that I feel like he would actually listen to what you have to say and take consideration in whatever matter it may be. I’m really unsure as to why our representatives would suggest that. I feel like a majority of input from people who are active racers would be better. How about polls that could also be considered with other factors?

Re: New AHFS
 

Jimmy I would hope that our Reps didn't suggest this. But as we know the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Are there more complaints about combo's that are underrated? Not sure if a poll would help. Not long ago there was a poll about not having the AHFS in place for Indy. The poll was overwhelmingly to have Indy without the AHFS in place. Both with current racers and members. Did our Reps look at it? My friend that races Stock suggested to Dave Mohn at the Cecil County Divisional that we at least have Indy every other year without the AHFS. Dave did say if he received enough email about it, he would consider supporting it. My same friend had recently called California about another issue but suggested the same thing about Indy. He said the person was in favor of no AHFS at Indy and that he was into the performance end of Stock. Not sure if it was Lonnie he was talking to.

Re: New AHFS
 

Barry do you remember at Cecil what Kent Hanley our rep asked in the staging lanes?

Re: New AHFS
 

Billy Nees
The distributor hold down is about the only "Stock" piece.

Re: New AHFS
 

He asked me if we should lower the indexes? Not sure what all answered. I did hear several tell him to leave it alone. Don't think asking racers at one race especially Cecil County is the way to do it. This is not a knock-on Ken but I would rather they send an email to current racers with a questioner about several of the topics currently being talked about. I've never written a letter to anyone from NHRA nor one of our reps. After being involved with Stock for over 45 years I'm overdue. If anyone has the emails for all of the Stock/ Super Stock reps along with Lonnie's could you post them. Thanks Barry

Re: New AHFS
 

Glen you guys have been around for a long time. Your cars are always fast. And you do a bunch of work for Stockers. What's your thoughts on the new rule? BP

Re: New AHFS
 

Adger, you are wrong my hold down is an aftermarket one. If you read my post #66 I explained that I wasn't trying to pick on Billy, his car or how he chooses to race. Just making a point about what makes a car underrated. You don't have to be able to run 1 under to have a HP rating that's soft. Also, you could order my car in 1970 from Chevy. My heads and intake are listed in the GM parts book. The carb I use most of the time is a EH 3310 that originally came on a 1966 Chevelle. Thats more than I can say about a lot of the cars now allowed in Stock along with the 60 plus pages of aftermarket parts they let us use. NHRA has not let me make any rules or change what is now allowed in Stock. If they let you rewrite the rules and the allowed parts for Stock just let me know if you make changes to my combo. Until then I'll build my cars according to what is allowed by them. Sorry if your unhappy about it but I'm glad they made changes to keep up with the times. BP

Re: New AHFS
 

Yes Barry I think everyone currently racing stock and superstock should have a vote on what a proposed rule change might be.

Re: New AHFS
 

Yes Barry we are old.... lol. I don't think the change is going to effect the smart racers. Would be nice to have one national event to run our cars all out without getting penalized for hard work and time and money.

Re: New AHFS
 

Ken H having to ask us in the lanes at Cecil tells you all you need to know.
They (meaning NHRA.... not our SRAC Reps) were itching to something.... anything.... to be able to say.... to the complainers.... that "something" was done.

Re: New AHFS
 

Mr. Parker,

My comment was addressed to Billy and was an inside joke He and I have about my SS combination. It a V-6 combination that can run in 4 SS classes. SS/GM, SS/DS , SS/BX and SS/CX I have set records and even killed an index. My combination has been called everything from bogus to a Queer Car. Yes, the distributor hold down is the only "Stock" piece on my engine. You don't owe me any apology and I sure don't owe you anything since your "battle" wasn't even on my radar. After your comment to me I went back and read all the posts on this thread. I'm not upset about any combination that fits NHRA rules or about their AHFS system and any changes they make. We are playing in The NHRA sandbox and abide by their rules and regulations.
IMHO if you would chill a little your response to my comment to Billy Nees would not have warranted your response to me. Please Get a grip. This is suppose to be a hobby and fun for us and sure isn't something that makes or breaks one's life.
Adger Smith

Re: New AHFS
 

[QUOTE=Adger Smith;654452]Mr. Parker,

My comment was addressed to Billy and was an inside joke He and I have about my SS combination. It a V-6 combination that can run in 4 SS classes. SS/GM, SS/DS , SS/BX and SS/CX I have set records and even killed an index. My combination has been called everything from bogus to a Queer Car. Yes, the distributor hold down is the only "Stock" piece on my engine. You don't owe me any apology and I sure don't owe you anything since your "battle" wasn't even on my radar. After your comment to me I went back and read all the posts on this thread. I'm not upset about any combination that fits NHRA rules or about their AHFS system and any changes they make. We are playing in The NHRA sandbox and abide by their rules and regulations.


IMHO if you would chill a little your response to my comment to Billy Nees would not have warranted your response to me. Please Get a grip. This is suppose to be a hobby and fun for us and sure isn't something that makes or breaks one's life.
Adger Smith[/QUOTE

Adger I do apologize. I thought your comment was directed about my car. I know this is supposed to be fun, but I'm also very passionate about my car and racing. Part of the fun for me has always been to try and make my cars go faster than the others in my class. I have worked hard at it and don't want to see the hard work and money spent wasted because of a rule change. I now race in A/SA which you know is a popular class. If I'm lucky and go some rounds there is a good chance I'll have a heads up run or two at every eliminator. I also like to put a big effort in when we run class at events. This new rule will make it easier to get HP on cars that enjoy the performance side and run a class that is populated with several cars. Like others have said just play the game. A lot of us already do. And I'll have too even more. I was hoping somebody from NHRA would see the number of cars that play the game and have a better solution to the problem. This rule change has made it worse.