Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
you know,,,before some of you go off on NHRA on some "not thought out" ideas like lowering indexes .50 and running off of records, and a 64 quaified field,,,,you might want to be carefull what you ask for,,,,it just might happen,,,,,you have to remember that alot of racers dont build their parts in the backyard anymore and race "Store Bought stockers" ,,, have very DEEP pockets to go VERY FAST,,,,so while one might be sitting 1.00 under now,,,if it becomes a "who can go the quickest" might find themselves outside looking in
I know of a few guys that would love the idea of running off the record,,,,isnt that right Mark Y (LOL) ........ that mustang of your would look killer on the front cover of the National Dragster!!!! |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Just a little to add to this. When they allowed all natural SS cars to move to the top of a class eliminating the 200LB maximum weight removal rule the HP factors that were in place were no longer valid. Next came the rule where natural SS cars could move up a class this again messed up all the HP factors.
They should have administered the AHFS without all the other changes listd above. I don't believe these things were accounted for when they did these changes. For instance with my 67 NOVA. When the 327 275/295 got hit to 299 anyone that could move their car to SS/GA from the natural HA/IA were not hurt as bad as the guys that were stuck say in SS/IA. If the car is in SS/GA and triggers the hit, the lower class cars are hurt exponentally more then the SS/GA car that originally caused caused the HP hit. I know this works across the board for all combos. I don't think the AHFS takes this in to account. In fact I know it doesn't! I have to believe the Ol' Guy that created the factoring system (forgot his name) took this in to account by having the maximum weight removal to go to the top of natural class and not being allowed to move up in class. Anyone care to expound on this.............. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
1) If NHRA insists to limit fields, limit the field but not the entrants.If 200 racers want to qualify for 75 positions, let 'em fight for it.
2) Lower all indexes .500. 3) AHFS trigger set to "review" at 1.00 under index. 4) Maximum ballast 100#. 5) Combine FI cars with carb cars first, later combine stick and auto. 6) All runs @ National events count. 7) As stated by Evan Smith previously, points for accomplishments. I'm trying to figure out how all of these changes would affect a current Stock Eliminator racer that currently runs one second under the index? 1) NHRA has limited the fields because of time constraints and lack of pit space.There is not going to be 200 cars permitted anyways.If they were to qualify 64 cars,one second under (the current index) probably doesn't qualify. 2) Lowering the index a half second for somebody that is one second under means that now they are "only a half second under"........So what? 3)Triggering the AHFS to 1.00 under (which would be 1.5 under the OLD index) means that a particular combination has a half second advantage over the car that is currently one second under before giving any horsepower would be considered. 4)Maximum ballast?There are MANY ways to slow a car down.What does a maximum ballast rule accomplish? 5) Combine classes and have more heads up.How is the one second under car (current index) going to beat or even have a chance against a car that can run 1.5 under ?(current index)Every tenth of a second equates to around 20 horsepower.How do you work on your combo in Stock Eliminator to pick up 100 horsepower? 6) All runs at National events count...So what? Class eliminations have turned into a bracket race.Once the faster car has caught up to the slower car,he starts braking to keep from going too fast.None of the runs will ever show the true potential of a Fast car unless they get a one second reaction time and decide to run it all out. 7) Points for accomplishments? How about points for tearing down your engine and BONUS points for pulling a piston.Proving your accomplishments should be worth more than just running fast.How about a teardown commitee of racers that could make the decision instead of a tech guy that has his hands tied? To me,if your car can run one second under your currrent index,you have done a fine job.How do any of these proposals benefit that car/driver? |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Len,
I have sent you a ton of letters over this issue and you have continued to defend the changes. And as you know we are not talking about minor changes. They are both dramatic and hurtful to the racers. I'll just pull out one for all of us to discuss and then we can move forward through the other serious changes that have been slipped into the ahfs without prior publication or notice to the racers. In the most recent version under the paragraph Body Style and Engine Type - the fourth sentence states. "In some instances, however, more than one body style will trigger a review." This sentence is not in the orginal version that the racers helped to develop. And this sentence isn't just about Novas and Camaros. Under Wesley and Skelly this sentence is combining the following body styles. Camaro, Chev II, Chevelle, Corvette, Century, Regal, Cutlas, Omega, Phoenix, Ventura, Firebird, LeMans, Skylark. Soup to nuts! This was not the intent of the original ahfs! Never before has this grouping of vehicles been considered for reviews and not one person at nhra notified any of the racers that this grouping existed. Only after the review period was over did we find out about this bazaar combination of cars. The most recent version contains many unannounced changes from the original version. As you know, after all my letters to you and many others at nhra, including Peter Clifford, this is not a minor change. The fact that nhra may from time to time slip in a "minor" change to the ahfs does not mean that it has given the racers a fair notice that these changes have been added. Like most motor sports organizations, nhra has had a history of publishing all changes in advance of implemtation but that has not been the case with the ahfs. Why? |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
It's been noted that a number of performance-related concessions have been made over the years, superceded parts, this, and that. I don't feel that an AHFS hit is an attempt to "slow racers down" as much as it is to get cars classified correctly. Since cars have made performance gains through various concessions, why *shouldn't* they have their horsepower adjusted? HP ratings are supposed to reflect a combinations potential. More potential, more horsepower. Once a car is correctly classified and factored, y'all can go aas fast as you want!
>> 3) AHFS trigger set to "review" at 1.00 under index. Is it better to have an imperfect AHFS system, or the pre-AHFS factoring by committee? >> 4) Maximum ballast 100#. How about if your race weight exceeds the minimum weight for the next heavier class, you *must* claim that class? ie., if you're running in B/SA at C/SA weight, you must claim C/SA for that event. 5) Combine FI cars with carb cars first, later combine stick and auto. Many folks like to claim S/SS as performance eliminators, that is until you start combining classes to come up with more heads-up runs... If two classes have the same index, why would they not be considered the same class? They just need letter designations for indexes, not combinations. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
NORWALK, Ohio - Final order after 3 rounds of qualifying in Stock Eliminator at the NHRA POWERade Drag Racing Series, Inaugural Summit Racing Equipment NHRA Nationals:
Psn--Num--Class-Driver, Home Town, Machine-----------------ET---Index---(+/-) 1 1788 H/SA Bruce Noland, Leesburg VA, '73 Camaro 11.214 12.45 -1.236 2 3656 D/FIA Bruce Witherspoon, Lansing MI, '90 Corvette11.192 12.30 -1.108 3 1499 B/SA Jim Boudreau, Tewksburry MA, '69 Camaro 10.454 11.55 -1.096 4 2808 B/FIA Bobby Warren, Clinton NC, '98 Firebird 10.629 11.70 -1.071 5 1044 A/SA John Shaul, Fultonham NY, '64 Fury 10.264 11.30 -1.036 6 1656 A/SA Kenneth Miele, Egg Harbor Twp NJ, '67 Shel 10.282 11.30 -1.018 7 3200 K/SA Tim Lowe, Macy IN, '72 Skylark 11.951 12.95 -0.999 8 1056 C/S Todd Bednaz, Terryville CT, '68 Camaro 10.656 11.65 -0.994 9 1021 J/SA Gene Monahan, Brockton MA, '86 Firebird 11.757 12.75 -0.993 10 751 D/S Ben Wenzel Sr., Freeland MI, '67 Camaro 10.823 11.80 -0.977 Regardless of what the published rules for AHFS are,here is a situation that looks like it warrants horsepower.The number one qualifier was well over a tenth of a second faster than the number two qualifier,and over a quarter of a second faster than the number ten qualifier.I'm sure he worked real hard on his combination,but he could have still been number one qualifier by running 1.13 under and slowed it down a tenth.What we don't know is if the numbers 2-10 qualifiers were in bracket mode?On paper though,it looks like horsepower is warranted. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Quote:
Michael, my responses are in bold text. Tgriffith, Your "wish what your asking for" statement is accurate. As I stated, under this idea I would only be .29 under with present conditions of my SS/H AMX. The problem I constantly see here on this forum is everybody wants what is best for themselves. If I could not make a show because of this, so be it. I'll work harder. Could be successful, could be a failure. But I firmly believe that if performance is not king in this class (S & SS), then it will die. Note: these idea's are not just mine. They are an accumulation of many other's I am in contact with. They just don't want to get torn apart by the lions (or kitties, whichever they may be)! |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Bruce,
The statement you are refering to has been in the AHFS write-up since its origin, as post on the NHRA website on 1/31/2003 under "AHFS explained". It can be accessed in the NHRA website archives for everyone to see. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
NHRA has done many thing's to make the Bracket Racers happy. Most all local racing is for them, they invented Super Street, Super Gas, Super Comp, Top Sportsman, Top Dragster and changed much of Stock and Super Stock for them. I don't think they will be happy until they have all of Stock and Super Stock and performance will be gone.
NHRA would you please leave Stock and Super Stock some what a performance based class, it's the only place I have to race. Thanks |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Jeremy,
Have you ever raced at an event where you took your shoe polish and predicted what your car will run? If so,you have BRACKET RACED! Also,I believe you race a 340 engine.I apologize if that is not correct.Years ago,those cars didn't run very fast at all.In the last few years,everyone of them seems to be well into the 10 second zone. How did they pick up all of this et? I'm thinking the heads are not Stock for one thing.Another is that the replacement piston that is accepted is not really made to the same specifications as the Stock Piston.This allows the combination to take full advantage of the "new cam rules" from years ago. Clearly,these items have helped improve the performance of the 340 cars among other things.The whole point of this thread has been discussing AHFS.The horsepower needs to be adjusted on the 340 because of these improvements.Thanks. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Speedracer,
You can not attempt to asess HP on "situations." That is why we have rules. nhra can't have an established system of rules and then say oh what the heck this guy looks like he should have gone slower than that so we are going to go outside of the system and give him a whack. It is that kind of old school thinking that allows nhra to get over on us. It is nhra's job to enforce the rules fairly and that includes giving advance notice of any changes to those rules. When you think about it, that is their only real obligation to us. Well, rules and a safe place to race. I'll leave it at that. Michael, You keep coming over an butting into nhra business but I guess you have your points. Just because you have noted that it has been mentioned before about all of the power improvements allowed by nhra does not dilute the impact of those improvements. And yes nhra is trying to put the horse back in the barn after firing it up with high dollar feed. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
NHRA Stock and Super Stock Horsepower Factoring System
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/22/2000 As the 2000 season comes to a conclusion, final data input has been completed for NHRA's new Automatic Horsepower Factoring System for Stock and Super Stock categories. Prior to its implementation, racers are asked to review the proposed new system as outlined below and provide feedback. The system is based on actual run data from qualifying at NHRA national events. The data-based format will provide the ability to automatically calculate average performances for any class and/or engine combination in Stock and Super Stock. The system will begin building the 2001 database at the AutoZone Winternationals in February with the first automatic adjustments going into effect in late May. "As many racers are aware, there are a few combinations and indexes that are currently so far out of line, we will make some adjustments prior to the start of the new season," said Len Imbrogno, Director of Sportsman Racing. NHRA tech officials are currently preparing the list of those to be adjusted and will publish the list the first week in December for racers to review. Details of the new system are as follows. 1. Horsepower increases/decreases and index increases/decreases will be automatic. 2. Only National Event Final Qualifying sheets will be counted for horsepower adjustments. All other national event runs, as well as divisional and national open runs, will not be included. 3. Runs of 1.25 seconds or more under their respective index, as well as runs .25-second or less under their index, will trigger an evaluation. (The use of 1.25 under for both Stock and Super Stock is the result of both eliminator brackets having the same overall averages. Also, the 1.25 number may appear liberal to some racers, however, it is a starting point from which a change is possible once the system is in operation). 4. Upon evaluation, the database of qualifying runs will be used to calculate class average, and engine family average. If the class average or engine family average is faster than 1.00 second under index, or slower than .50-second under the index, a change will be initiated. 5. The horsepower adjustment will be based on a stepped percentage of horsepower as follows: INCREASES REDUCTIONS MODIFIEDS 1.25 - 1.34 under = 1.25% .50 - .41 under = 1.25% 1.25 -1.34 under = .05 sec index 1.35 - 1.44 under = 2.25% .40 - .31 under = 2.25% 1.35 -1.44 under = .10 sec index 1.45 or greater = 3.25% .30 or less = 3.25% 1.45 or greater = .15 sec index All adjustments are rounded UP to the nearest full horsepower, even if the fractional portion is below .5 horsepower. For example, 2.15 horsepower becomes 3 horsepower. The quickest run is used to determine the adjustment percentage. 6. In cases where an adjustment renders a particular vehicle ineligible for the Eliminator, exceptions will be granted to permit the vehicle to carry extra weight. A hypothetical example: Certain model Camaros, with a 460-horsepower 454, will be unable to make GT/AA if any horsepower is added to the engine, because of the rule that states that no more than 250 pounds can be added to the original shipping weight in SS/GT. In this instance, NHRA would permit the vehicle to carry more weight in order to remain in competition. 7. Even though adjustment is automatic, adjustments will only become effective three times per year: May 21, August 6 and January 1. For instance, if a Stock engine records a run quicker than 1.25 under at the Mac Tools Gatornationals (March 15-18 in Gainesville, Fla.), the adjustment will not become effective until May 21, the Monday after the Matco Tools Spring SuperNationals in Englishtown, N.J. 8. Adjustments will be effective for the specific car model being evaluated. For instance, if a 220 horsepower/283 receives an adjustment because of runs made in a Malibu, it will only get horsepower in the Malibu, not the Impala. 9. Horsepower reductions for vehicles that do not have a run on the database will still be handled through written requests. Requests will be reviewed and any reductions will be effective on the same three dates as automatic adjustments. Requests must be received no later than 30 days prior to a review date, otherwise they get bumped to the next review date. Any questions or comments should be directed to Jim Skelly via email at JSkelly@nhra.com, via fax at 626-914-7551, or in writing to Jim Skelly, NHRA, PO Box 5555, Glendora, CA 91740-0950. Racers are encouraged to give their input. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Im not against stock racing being a performance based class,,,,it SHOULD BE,,,but all Im stating is that there need to be some realistic way to make nearly everyone happy,,,,,its is true, there are not enough heads up runs,,,,,,,,,it is true, with all the additions in the last few years, the indexes are a little soft and the AHFS dont work like it was intended
Im not sure what is triggering this change,,,I did a limit research,,and I dont see any slow S/SS running .10 under winning any money no matter what you change ,unless they outlaw every class but one,,,,this class will alway be a bracket class,,,it doesnt matter if I change my dial in or they set it for me in the tower,,,it alway will be bracket racing In our sport,,,(bracket style racing),,,MONEY ruins it,,,,,so be carefull,,,,,I see it easier to beat the good bracket racer then the guy that has you covered by .30,,,,,,,,and that seems what this wanted change is all about,,,,,,keeping the bracket racers out...dont make it so expensive that ordinary Joe cant afford to do it I have an idea,,,,,maybe it souds stupid at first but think about it before you reply what about throwing the AHFS out the window,,,,,,,no points or money for where you qualify,,,,,,dump that money into class run off wins...maybe give a few points for winning class and only have a HP review every 3 years...right now..there is absolutley NO REASON for one to go quicker,,other than bragging rights,,,,and at least with a 3 year review and more money and points for winning class,,,,it would be some incentive to go quicker without the imediate worry of having to throw an extra 100 pounds in the car,,,,,,, |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Here is the 2003 version that states all runs count. Am I reading this wrong or did it change again after this clarification?
Beginning in 2003, as a result of racer input, the AHFS will now be based on the fastest run by competitors in qualifying and in class and final eliminations. This says Automatic Horsepower Factoring System explained 1/31/2003 Entering the 2003 Lucas Oil Drag Racing Series season, one of the more significant issues being discussed among NHRA Stock and Super Stock racers is NHRA's Automatic Horsepower Factoring System (AHFS). The AHFS was designed to mathematically evaluate horsepower ratings of Stock and Super Stock cars objectively based on actual on-track performance. By far, the NHRA technical department and the Stock/Super Stock Horsepower Committee receive more calls and e-mails about horsepower-related issues than any other. Since its inception in 2001, the AHFS program had been based on actual run data compiled from final qualifying at NHRA national events. Beginning in 2003, as a result of racer input, the AHFS will now be based on the fastest run by competitors in qualifying and in class and final eliminations. During the NHRA Lucas Oil Drag Racing Series season, horsepower reviews are done in three periods: national events 1 through 7, 8 through 15, and 16 through 23. Each period is compiled individually; data is not cumulative. After every national event, final qualifying and eliminations data is sent to NHRA's information technology department, where a central database is maintained. A copy of the run data is then forwarded to the Stock/Super Stock Horsepower Committee for review. The committee must then analyze the run data and note any runs of 1.15 seconds or more under the index, therefore triggering an automatic review. The following elements are then applied in evaluating possible horsepower adjustments for cars that run 1.15 seconds 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 qualifying 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 average in 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. The screening phase of the horsepower review is a rather laborious operation and must be done manually because no program exists that can differentiate and/or recognize a specific combination from the varying possible classes, engines, and body styles. As one Stock racer noted, it took six hours to gather the data required for him to personally review his specific combination. To more clearly illustrate how the AHFS program affects a given combination, the following is an evaluation in Stock for the 305-cubic-inch, 215/241-horsepower, fuel-injected Camaro during races 16 through 23 in 2002: Two K/SA Camaros running this combination ran 1.214- and 1.187- second under the index, triggering a review by the committee. As per the procedure outlined above, the overall engine family average is analyzed first. Upon reviewing the engine family average made by the 305/215/241 FI combination, 10 runs had been recorded by Camaros (2 in K/SA and 8 in L/SA) with a total engine average of .945-second under. Because the overall engine average did not hit the required 1.00 under, the combination did not warrant a horsepower adjustment. The next step, per the procedure outlined above, is a class/engine review. The class of the car that actually triggered the review was K/SA. The class review revealed that K/SA had a class/engine average for the combination in question of 1.201-second under, therefore surpassing the 1.00-second-under requirement and signaling a horsepower adjustment for all 305/215/241 FI Camaros. An important element to note and one most often misunderstood by racers is that although a K/SA Camaro affected the change, the L/SA 305/215/241 FI Camaros that run this combination also received a horsepower adjustment. The reason is that a specific combination can run in more than one class based on NHRA rules; therefore, all cars with the specific engine combination and body style will be affected. Once the need for an adjustment is determined, the Stock/Super Stock Horsepower Committee must determine how much horsepower needs to be implemented. The committee has devised a sliding-scale formula based on a percentage of horsepower rather than a set amount. As noted by NHRA Stock/Super Stock horsepower analyst Curt LaShure, "If you take an H/FS car with a horsepower weight break of 27.5 pounds per horsepower versus A/SA at 8 pounds per horsepower and gave each only five horsepower, A/SA would get a bargain." Horsepower percentage adjustments or index changes are as follows: Under Index Increase Index Change 1.150-1.299 1.25% -.05 1.300-1.399 2.25% -.10 1.400-1.499 3.25% -.15 1.500 or greater 3.25% -.15 (immediate change) Adjustments are rounded up to the nearest full horsepower even if the fraction is below 0.5 horsepower. As an example, 2.15 horsepower is rounded to 3 horsepower. The quickest run for the combination being reviewed is used to determine the adjustment percentage. In 2002, the Stock/Super Stock Horsepower Committee began reviewing runs of 1.50-second or more under the index as soon as such runs were made. Runs at divisional events and National Opens are included in the 1.50-second-or-more-under analysis. This was done to better react to any out-of-line indexes or under-horsepower combinations. Therefore, at all such events, a 3.25 percent horsepower adjustment or index reduction will be initiated immediately. The decision to adjust horsepower or to reduce the index will be at the discretion of the Stock/Super Stock Horsepower Committee. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
The first "final" version of the AHFS was put on the nhra site on 12/11/2000. nhra changed the1.15 under rule to national events only after polling all the racers with a majority saying they did not want the -1.15 number to be used at open and division races.
In the version listed above the ahfs is implemented for the the first round of class. The first round of class is always our last round of qualifing. It does not state all runs will be evaluated at national events. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Jeremy writes:
>> NHRA has done many thing's to make the Bracket Racers happy. (...) I don't think they will be happy until they have all of Stock and Super Stock and performance will be gone. I'm a bracket racer, and I supported the notions of combining categories, whether it be sticks & autos, full pound weight breaks, or whatnot. Most of the dissenting opinions about that came from "real" class racers! I'm never been one of the really fast guys, so it would hurt me as much as anyone else, but I understand some of the bonuses that could come from fewer classes and more heads-up runs... and like many people are talking about, more heads-up runs likely contributes to a more effective AHFS. Bruce writes: >>You keep coming over an butting into nhra business but I guess you have your points. Thanks, I think. Opinions either make sense, or they don't. I think people forget that I am partners on an NHRA-legal Super Stocker, and own an NHRA-legal FWD car, which I will hopefully have back on track next year. Many people seem to forget that I have raced NHRA, and I'm also the one that started NHRA.com along with Phil Burgess, and the one that started the NHRA Division 1 website. Tidbit of trvia: Len Imbrogno used to race, and he used to work for IHRA. There's a wide range of experience. I choose not to regularly compete somewhere and regularly complain about it. That's not just sanctioning bodies. There's a local track that has an awesome facility, but they run an incredibly slow program, and their announcer didn't inform & entertain. My gf refuses to go to that track with me anymore. I made some simple suggestions as to how they could dramatically speed up the program, draw (and keep) more spectators. Nothing changed, so instead of complaining, I just took my business elsewhere. I do have a vested interest in ALL of class racing, and when NHRA's program suits me, I will actively support it. Suggestions and constructive criticism are far different from saying, "This sucks!" I appreciate that many folks have expressed opinions here and offered suggestions. Even if we don't all agree with one another, people are thinking and trying to be helpful. Bruce writes: >> Just because you have noted that it has been mentioned before about all of the power improvements allowed by nhra does not dilute the impact of those improvements. And yes nhra is trying to put the horse back in the barn after firing it up with high dollar feed. I agree. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Don't want to get involved with Bruce and Lens bickering or dhould I say discussion. I'm just trying to make sense of this whole HP AHFS thing and the constant clarifications/changes. I took the liberty to cut and paste three different versions that I could locate in the archives and have been published by NHRA Tech Dept. as officialy "explained."
This is the current version taken from the NHRA website today: A few things I noticed: 1. The counting of ALL CLASS runs has been deleted or "Clarified" from this version. 2. There is no mention of altitude runs in any of the versions. Shouldn't they be converted to sea level and used for averaging too? I'm not sure if this would be good or bad 3. Seems like "Family of car type" has broadened to include any car with same engine and trans. I'm not sure if this was the original intent of the AHFS. Automatic Horsepower Factoring System (AHFS) explained -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The AHFS is used to review and evaluate runs in Stock and Super Stock for possible horsepower adjustments. The review is conducted twice per racing season. The two reviews are compiled individually so the data is not cumulative. Runs included in the AHFS database are limited to final qualifying runs (Q data) and final elimination runs (E data) at NHRA national events only. (At events where class eliminations are run, rounds beyond the first round of class are not included in the AHFS database. Only the first round of class is part of qualifying and therefore is part of the "Q" database.) The "Q" data and "E" data files are the official data gathered by the NHRA timing system and processed through the NHRA Information Technology department. NHRA "Q" data and "E" data are the only data files used for the AHFS. The first review period includes data from national events 1 through 12 and the second period includes runs from events 13 through 23. The following procedure is used in reviewing run data: Final qualifying 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 run" 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 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 the review, the adjustment would be for all transmission types. If either the engine family average or the class/engine average are found to be faster than 1.00-second under, a change will be initiated. To more clearly illustrate how the AHFS program affects a given combination, the following is a hypothetical evaluation in Stock class for a 305-cubic-inch, 215 factory rated horsepower, fuel-injected Camaro during a review period: Two K/SA Camaros running this combination ran 1.214- and 1.187- second under the index, triggering a review by the committee. As per the procedure outlined above, the overall engine average is analyzed first. Upon reviewing the engine average made by the 305/215/241 FI combination, 10 runs had been recorded (2 in K/SA and 8 in L/SA) with a total engine average of .945-second under. Because the overall engine average did not hit the required 1.00 under, the combination did not warrant a horsepower adjustment based on overall engine average. The next step, per the procedure outlined above, is a class/engine review. The class of the car that actually triggered the review was K/SA. The class review revealed that K/SA had a class/engine average for the combination in question of 1.201-second under, therefore surpassing the 1.00-second-under requirement and signaling a horsepower adjustment for all 305/215/241 FI Camaros. An important element to note and one most often misunderstood by racers is that although a K/SA Camaro affected the change, the L/SA 305/215/241 FI Camaros that run this combination also received a horsepower adjustment. The reason is that a specific combination can run in more than one class based on NHRA rules; therefore, all cars with the specific engine combination, transmission and body style will be affected. Once the need for an adjustment is determined, the following sliding-scale formula, based on a percentage of horsepower, is used to calculate the horsepower increase: Under Index Horsepower Increase Index Change 1.150-1.299 1.25% -.05 1.300-1.399 2.25% -.10 1.400-or greater 3.25% -.15 (immediate change) Adjustments are rounded up to the nearest full horsepower even if the fraction is below 0.5 horsepower. As an example, 2.15 horsepower is rounded to 3 horsepower. The quickest run, by the combination being reviewed, is used to determine the adjustment percentage. Runs of 1.40 or more under the index will be reviewed and adjusted as soon as such runs were made. Runs at divisional events and National Opens are included in the 1.40-second-or-more-under analysis. This is done to better react to any out-of-line indexes or under-horsepowered combinations. Therefore, at all such events, a 3.25 percent horsepower adjustment or index reduction will be initiated immediately. The decision to adjust horsepower or to reduce the index will be at the discretion of the NHRA Tech Department. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Rich,
You're doing a good job. You are trying to add to the discussion and I appreciate that. Can you please cut'n paste the most recent version of the AHFS from the Lucas Site. That way we can make a comparsion of the different versions of the ahfs. One other very important point - we have been unable to locate Wesley's grouping of combinations on any nhra site until he released the adjustments July 10, 2007. That is a huge problem for us because we never know what combinations he will add or delete from these groups between review periods. We really have to sort this mess out and stop this got' ya rule making business. Whether it is intended or not that is the net affect. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Rich,
Man you are fast with these damn machines. You posted the most current version of the ahfs while I was plunking along on my last post. Thanks. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
The words "final qualification runs" and "final elimination runs" do not mean that actual final run in each case does it?
Pardon me for being a stickler for the wording. It does not say all elimination runs or all qualification runs. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
R. Pinoski,
Yes, you are reading it wrong. Your example of the 1/31/2003 AHFS is not at all correct. What you posted on this wedsite is not what appears on the NHRA website. For some reason, you missed an entire paragraph which fits in above the "class average" paragraph and reads as follows: 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. Bruce, enough is enough. The basic format of the AHFS has not changed since its inception. You are more than welcome to your opinion and I will respect that. I am very sorry that you continue to feel ill-treated because of a horsepower adjustment you received, as a result of your not paying attention to the issue. As I stated previously on this thread, next week at the PRI show, key NHRA tech personnel will have a meeting to finalize a revised AHFS for racers to see. The new AHFS will most likely have changes to it, therefore, continuing this conversation is a moot point. The tech department will post the revised AHFS after the PRI meeting, on the NHRA website, for all racers to review. Hope to see some of you at the PRI show. Thank you for your past support and emails, and, thank you for racing NHRA. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
1.15 under will seem ridiculously soft in another 3 to 5 years. When AHFS started gathering stats in 2001, it was relatively rare. This is the real problem with a fixed and apparently arbitrary benchmark.
It wasn't that long ago that only the top 10 or 15 cars qualified at 1.00 under or more. This year, I distinctly remember running .99 under at a divisional somewhere, and finding myself below 50th in a full field. If the trigger point is too low, it discourages performance, too high it it doesn't correct HP. The trigger point needs to move along with the racers' capabilities. A statistical average, median, or bell-curve will fix this. The more runs that are included, the better it will work. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
edit.
Len, I know it is getting a little warm for you in here, but you failed to answer one one very simple question. When did nhra give advance notice that it was going to group such a large number of dissimilar vehicles together for reviews? The ahfs makes a point of connecting the Firebird and Camaro but it is not believable for us to think that Corvettes, Omegas, Appolos, Cutlas and Chevelles should be connected for reviews. This list includes everything from wagons to Corvettes. Doesn't it make sense that nhra should list the vehicle combinations for the racers instead of offering generic statement. Please tell us when you published that information? edit, Len, I missed your earlier post about the 2003 ahfs. This statement at issue has not been in the ahfs since it's origin.To clarify your statement, I believe you meant that the statement's origin was from 2003. My issues are not with the 2003 version. My issues are with the latest version which actually uses that statement to justify the huge number of dissimilar combinations that are now grouped together. And of course nhra never bothered to tell us they were going to group these combinations. I think you need to answer that question. You can attempt to make me look like the bad guy for pressing you for an answer but in the end it's your responsibility to get answers for our questions. We all know you have failed to answer a very simple question. Also, the current ahfs may resemble the original but that is about it. It sure functions in a different manner. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Ok not 100% - good
Since I am up waiting on football I am going to give you my opinion. Now admittedly you will figure I am wrong but here goes. I thought NHRA was all about (in stock) hp to weight. I do not know when we decide the same engine in a different car should have less hp. It is ridiculous. I have raced the Chevelle with the same combo I have in the Camaro. You know what the engine did not tell me it deserved more hp in the new combo. The AHFS can not be perfect, it needs and deserves change. Any system should undergo regular changes from its initial format in order to accept input and reality adjustments as times, equipment and technology improve. The system must improve overtime. As to whether NHRA is a democracy, I would say it is not, it is a rule establishment organization focused on safety. When will some thing like this be addressed - The Mopar combo in my class that has 40 more cubic inches and weighs an astonishing 400 pounds less. Both are 4 barrels. No chance in class or heads up. Either gigantic difference (40 cubic inches or 400 pounds) would be enough. The best game in town is avoiding the AHFS hit. "Take care of your HP (AHFS)" is a comon phrase by most who are at the top of the performance curve. But like it use to be in the old west - there is always a faster gun. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
All my opinions are for stock. Count all runs at divisional and national events. Use 1.15 under as trigger. Award points for class rounds won, 10pts. per round, 5 bonus points for class win @ indy. Qualifying points for top 16. Maximum 100lbs. over minimum weight. National opens will not count. If car goes 1.25 under automatic teardown [.1 grace] at nationals and divisionals. If 1.25 under car fails run not counted for AHFS. IF SPEED AND ET. DO NOT MATCH NO TICKET AT THE ET.BOOTH DURING QUALIFING AND CLASS ELIMINATIONS.
Larry |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Here are the links from the NHRA website. Let me know what I miss quoted.
http://www.nhra.com/wklynews/2000new...er/112202.html http://www.nhra.com/2003/sportsman/n...ry/013101.html Here is a proposed change: http://www.nhra.com/2003/sportsman/n...st/081702.html Here is the audit of the guides announcement. http://www.nhra.com/content/sportsma...9836&zoneid=85 Finally here is the current AHFS as posted on the NHRA site. http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/ahfs.html Just to add to this.....There should be a links page on CLASS RACER to all of the changes as they are posted on the NHRA site. I know if I miss a day of reading on numerous sites "working on my car" I might miss a crucial rule "clarif-interpretation-change" that might effect all of us racers. For ex....The accepted crankshaft clarification statement which is way different from what the rule book reads. This one really through me for a loop. I realized I was Waaaay out of the loop when I read this! http://www.nhra.com/content/sportsma...9848&zoneid=85 Have a great off season........... GO HAWAII WARRIORS |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
RPinoski,
http://www.nhra.com/2003/sportsman/n...ry/013101.html The missing letters after sportsman/ are news/january/ Not n...y. For some reason this website is not allowing the correct address to print. Perhaps the "moderator" can explain why. The article is entitiled "AUTOMATIC HORSEPOWER FACTORING SYSTEM EXPLAINED. Re-read it because it is just as I said it was. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
i think tony curcio's last post is right on. the ahfs has to somehow allow for cars to get faster over the years.
|
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Len,
Its the way the software was written for this type of message board so your URL's become hyperlinks. Anytime you have either http:// or www, the vB code will not always show the full address, but the link will be correct. If you need to let others know the full URL, just leave out the http:// or www. Example: nhra.com/2003/sportsman/news/january/013101.html People can just copy and paste the URL, most browsers will automatically add the http:// or www, and the site will open. |
Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races
Good one Larry!!
|
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
|
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. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.