Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Yes, it has to average -.850 or more to receive a hit.

"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. 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 .845-second under. Because the overall engine average did not hit the required 0.850 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 0.850-second-under requirement and signaling a horsepower adjustment for all 305/215/241 FI Camaros."

So just because a combination is "flagged" for review, does not mean it will actually receive horsepower.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

What about the reduction? What did you get for the answer to the example listed? Is it me or is it a bit off?

Thanks

Eric

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Thanks Mike, that is how I understood it.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

The AHFS is not out to get guys who work hard to be fast. They just happen to be caught up in the process. The AHFS is after combinations that for whatever reason have snuck in under the radar and are capable of running so fast it drastically effects all of Stock and S/S.

In the old days long before the AHFS was introduced, a combination that ran too quick was refactored by an individual in power. Later a committee took over the responsibility. These were pretty good systems but in rare cases human nature would allow personal factors to sneak in and effect the outcome. That is why the AHFS came into play.

As long as heads up runs and class eliminations at some events are a part of these eliminators, there has to be a way to control runaway combinations. Unfortunately those who seek to prove they can squeeze every ounce of power out of a correctly factored combo and go faster than their peers, then they will be penalized for their hard work. Stock and S/S may be performance based but for the masses it has to be controlled performance. Otherwise it would become an ever shrinking game where very few will eventually be able to play.

With all the issues (and sometimes dilemmas) that Stock and S/S present to sanctioning bodies, if it were not for the huge number of participants these eliminators continue to produce, they would probably have been gone long ago. Maybe it's time for a few individuals to quit trying to change every aspect of Stock and S/S to suit their own agendas and let the masses (read as the silent majority) continue to race.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

YOU do know what a Camel is??? It's a horse designed by committee!!!

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

I guess any valve spring, any valve job, etc, etc,etc,etc,etc,ported heads,etc, any brakes, any etc that enhance performance makes Stock and SS very dynamic eliminators, combined with static numbers, AHFS, makes for a math guys nightmare. It's kinda like taking a really good pie and moving it off the counter and onto a short table, and then getting mad at my dog Lucky for eating the pie that he couldn't reach before. But if you leave the pie on the counter, and Lucky, being the smart Beagle he is works out , looses weight, and developes the ability to jump on the counter, should you still be mad if he gets the pie. Now you know how the AHFS works. But then I am probably not wise enough to discuss this thing anyway.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Jeff, that's hilarious..................so how many times have you told your wife "honey, the dog ate the pie...............i swear"

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

I guess the only other thing is 'Do I beat Lucky?' for eating the pie, or give him a much loved ear scratching for working so hard. I guess the answer is 1.20 under or .850 under average for all his jumps. And nobody including me ever beats Lucky. You gotta admit it's pretty close. Of course Travis the Tech Guy will have to see what kind of pie it was, what size was the plate, just how much did Lucky eat, homeade or store bought. I just couldn't pass that Travis.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

See, that's where you screwed up. At Bowling Green, you should have had Travis at your trailer feeding him, but you had us and the Hills down there instead, and left Travis and Redman out. :D

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Does anyone else have an opinion on the AA/SA index of 10.60?

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

well i know it was set way low on purpose to avoid the AHFS, but 10.60 is a bit low. Maybe 10.75, or 10.80

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Travis I disagree with you about the "old days" If it wasn't for Darwin Doll we would have been factored with our Challenger combo. Not at all because we were going fast. But because we were winning to much. And by factoring us they thought they would have ruined our shot at the WR Grace Cup.
So much for the "good old days".

Also ran the final round in Seattle 3 times till we lost. Travis do you remember that? Or are you one of those that don't believe we landed on the moon?

And if NHRA did a proper teardown you would be hard pressed to spend more money to go faster.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

It was set at 10.90 when the class was formed to allow the cars to run a little harder before the trigger. Len Imbrogno called or emailed most of the people who were asking for the AA class to be formed and asked them what the index should be. Those of us who were contacted tried to reach everyone who was not contacted, but I'm sure some people were missed, unfortunately. For example, I did not have Craig's contact information at the time, whether anyone else asked him, I do not know. The general consensus of the majority was the 10.90 index, and Len gave us exactly what we asked for.

None of that was considered when they lowered the indexes and changes the triggers for the AHFS. At 10.90, you'd have had to run a 9.500 to get 3.25%, under the original indexes and AHFS. That was just about ideal, because the records were initially set in the 9.6-9.7 zone, before the new cars were introduced. We knew all along it would make it very hard to qualify at Indy, because most people couldn't run fast enough in 3500-4000 feet of air.

Then they arbitrarily lowered it to 10.60 when they lowered all the other indexes. Maybe they should have lowered it a little, to 10.80, but not 10.60 by any stretch.

They will not change the index though, because it gives the new cars so much more room to run. At 10.60, you need to run a 9.3500 to get 3.25%. That's probably why the AA index was lowered to begin with, although I can also see where whoever made the decision to lower the indexes either didn't look or didn't care.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Alan,

That's exactly why the AA index was originally set at 10.90 but there were no other combinations that could run 9.30's.

Mark,

You may be missing my point relative to the AA index. The only combination (so far) that can run 9.60 in the heat is a blown car so the AHFS will never ever help the carburetor cars in the class and the blown cars will never get hit because there just isn't any reason to run any faster.

If I were smart, I'd push the Corvette into the corner and prepare the CJ for 2011 but that still doesn't fix the problem plus I'm not that smart.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

At the time, there were no cars that could run in the 9.5's without mineshaft air. Which was exactly the point.

Now there are plenty of cars that can run 9.2 at 2500 feet or more.

If you were smart, you'd sell all that stuff and get richer quicker. And then you'd be bored silly. So stay stupid with the rest of us and we'll see you next February.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Alan,

I'm afraid the stupidity is starting to wear off.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Craig

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Yea right, it's a permanent disorder. Just like the rest of us

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Go out in the shop, take the lid off the fuel cell and take a light sniff. Take a breather out of the valve cover and take a light sniff. Take a good sniff of the left rear slick, then sit in the driver's seat, put one hand on the wheel, one on the shifter, and close your eyes. Get out, have a cold beer, and ignore your bank account balance.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

And yeah, I figure we'll see you next year. Even if we have to stop off on the way through, load your stuff, and drag you out to the truck.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

What is this doing on the second page??

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Make automatic 1.10 or 1.15 and put Travis in charge.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Travis. Then why doesn't it state that in this section of the system? Isn't GT part of Super Stock? Wasn't GT created to save SS?? Shouldn't the same rules apply? The ONLY difference from GT to Super Stock is the years of the car and combo must match in SS? Am I right or wrong?

If I'm right, your earlier statement makes no sense! The rule should be enforced for the whole class or not at all!

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

I'll see if I can answer your questions one at a time.

<Then why doesn't it state that in this section of the system?>
It does. In the introduction of SECTION 10B - SUPER STOCK/GT the rulebook states..."Cars will be classified by using the shipping weight of the body divided by the horsepower or performance rating of the engine used." I do not read anywhere that the GT engine horsepower rating is different when used in a FWD as opposed to a RWD car. If you would like to submit that rule change for 2012, a letter must be received by the S/SS Committee asking for that change no later than the end of July 2011.

<Isn't GT part of SS?>
Yes

<Wasn't GT created to save SS?>
No. GT was created because in the early '80's it looked like the V8 engine was no longer going to be produced and NHRA saw a way to still have new models running each year by using the old tried and true V8s. NHRA knew the older SS cars would be raced for a long time to come.

<Shouldn't the same rules apply?>
They cannot. FWD conversions are not allowed in regular SS.

<The ONLY difference from GT to SS is the years of the car and combo (I guess you mean engine) must match in SS. Am I right or wrong?>
That is a partially correct statement. There are other differences in GT and SS especially concerning FWD cars.

<If I'm right, you're earlier statement makes no sense!>
It's a free country. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Personally my opinion is it makes complete sense.

<The rule should be enforced for the whole class or not at all!>
The whole class (actually the eliminator) consists of SS, SS/GT, GT/Truck, Modified Stock, Modified Truck, Modified, and SS/MX.

Now since that's all out of the way, until the time that the rule gets changed, GT horsepowers will remain the same for FWD conversions as they are for RWD cars. With all that is going on right now with Stock and SS, figuring horsepowers different for FWD and RWD cars in GT does not look likely anytime soon.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Travis quoted, "I do not read anywhere that the GT engine horsepower rating is different when used in a FWD as opposed to a RWD car. If you would like to submit that rule change for 2012, a letter must be received by the S/SS Committee asking for that change no later than the end of July 2011."

Myself, as well as many other racers have submitted these requests numerous times, with nothing being done! We are constantly told that the data is there to support the argument, but no changes are made! How many letters/emails must we send before this is even looked into? It is very frustrating!

Could you please explain to me why this "platform" rule only applies to Stock and Regular SS? That is what I do not understand and why I said that since GT is part of SS that the ahfs rules need to apply to ALL SS classes. And, you are right, all classes include the modified classes and truck classes! But the trucks would be a different "platform" than an F Body!! And modified "horsepower" only affects that class, unlike combos run in many different SS and GT classes.

If the "platform" rule is in the AHFS, then it should be enforced as written! Not as how it is interpreted differently by tech officials!!

No offense to you Travis! I applaud you for coming on here and discussing the issue!

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Bryan, You also stated that the AHFS applies to all SS classes. That it does, it just does not break down the difference between FWD and RWD classes in GT as the rules currently stand.

If you and others have submitted in writing to the S/SS Committee that you would like to see a rule change where GT horsepowers are rated differently for FWD and RWD cars, and no changes are made, it looks like they do not want to change the current way horsepowers are set for GT.

Personally I have never heard any S/SS Commitee member talk about this issue and we discuss a lot of things at the races. But then I am not on the committee and they do not fill me in on each and every thing that goes on.

What does your own DD say about it? He is on the S/SS Committee.

BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone reading this thread.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Ok, Brian
Let's play pick the platform for GT. Let's use the new popular LS1 engine in both platforms.
Platform #1 1969 Corvette which was listed as an L-88
Platform #2 1969 Camaro which was listed as a ZL-1
Which platform is the best?
Which fits the class the best?
What are the advantages, if any?

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

No brainer....CORVETTE....10% engine set back, shorter wheelbase and a Corvette is just a little more aero dynamic and neater looking (my opinion).....LOL. No rust except maybe the frame. More expensive to buy, build and a little harder to work on. Sorry Brian....I couldnt resist jumping in there.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Mike F. Just for information there were over 630 runs in Stock over 1.10 under and I think over 300 in Super Stock. In Stock, the old cars outnumbered the new car about 6 to 1 if I remember my numbers, and almost all the runs in Super Stock were not the new cars. That was in all formats; National, Points, & National Opens thru Pomona. One to go this weekend.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

OK Adger, so if the Corvette triggers horsepower, should the Camaro get it too??? Should a truck running GT/TA also get the hp the Corvette triggered??? Should the Cobalt running GT/AA get the hp too??? The answer should be NO! As it currently stands, according to Travis, they would all get hp added to their combo.

But if that happens in SS, only the Corvette would get the hp! My argument is if the "platforms" can be separated in regular SS for hp it can also be done in GT!!! Get it?

As far as fitting classes, what class? I guess the lighter car would fit the faster class and the heavier car would fit the slower class better! When you're talking GT, it's all about horsepower of the combo and shipping weight of the car. So, I'm sure you already knew your answer before you asked the question, right??

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Bryan,
LOL!
You have a PM
You are dead on and dead right about the aero difference in the Corvette Vs Truck and why one shouldn't suffer because of another. The problem is numbers or stats don't know the difference when everything with the same GT engine is considered equal. They aren't equal.
The other problem is the AHFS is set up with the assumption that anything that is fast is not factored correctly with HP or Index. It has no way of allowing someone that works hard is dedicated to performance to show his ability. It is designed to further mediocrity.
It just takes the performance factor out of a class that was developed on performance.
We are being handed a blow that bracket racers don't even have to deal with. They can go as fast as they want and dial what they want without being penalized.
How about Bracket 1 for SS and Bracket 2 for Stock and you can't dial or run more than 1 second under the index? I never thought I would live long enough to be able to see bracket racing become a performance based class. (at least in TD and TS going fast means you get to qualify) Sorry, I got mad and off the subject.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

So you are saying that in 2010 there were over 630 runs in Stock and 300 in SS that were under by 1.10 or more but did not cause an automatic hit because the number had been lowered to 1.25 under. Since .3 was removed from the indexes, those 930 ET's that the cars ran would have been the same as 1.40 under in the previous year.

Checking data for 2008 I find only 5 runs in Stock and 4 runs in S/S that hit the automatic hit number of 1.40 under the index. For 2009 there were 6 runs in Stock and 8 runs in S/S that committed the same 1.40 under automatic hit. Something does not compute here.

Using Nitro Joe's Stats, I find that for 2010 there were 47 stockers and 21 S/Sers that ran more than 1.10 under the index. To reach the 630 run data under 1.10, each of these 47 stockers would have had to do that on average of13 times. In S/S each of the 21 cars would have had to do it 14 times.

Also in 2010 there were 12 runs in Stock that were more than 1.25 under causing an automatic hit. Of those 12 runs, 10 fell into the new car group. For S/S there was only 1 automatic hit and it was a new car.

630 runs for Stock and 300 for S/S...???????

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions and ??????? expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions and ???????.)

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Thanks for all your work, Travis.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Oh my gosh Travis ...the silence is deafening ....LMAO. JB

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

I'm a little confused myself. 630 Stock eliminator runs 1.10 under? If that is in fact a true statement and you have sat there and counted........? How many of the 630 were new cars?

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Adger....don't forget the "DELAY BOX" being used in T/S & T/D. Almost like the trans brake buttons used in S/S.....LOL.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

628 ?

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Here's the runs I can find in Stock for 2010 that are 1.10 or more under.

At LODRS events runs under 1.10 were 25 new and 14 old.

At National events there were 95 new and 14 old.

(As a side note, at Indy 65 runs were made by new cars at 1.10 or more under while old cars made 14 runs under.)

Since National Opens are not always listed I can only guess that the remaining 482 Stock runs of 1.10 or more under happened at those events and had to be by old cars. That means the 482 runs would account for the 6 to 1 ratio of old cars vs new cars.

While I cannot guarantee 100% accuracy in my figures, I do believe I am not very far off, except maybe for the National Opens. But then that could be the reason for the automatic hit at 1.20 under instead of 1.10 under.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions and figuring expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions and figuring.)

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Travis, your numbers are more in line with what one would expect based on what I have seen at the races.

Thanks for the research.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

[QUOTE=Travis Miller;224457]Here's the runs I can find in Stock for 2010 that are 1.10 or more under.

At LODRS events runs under 1.10 were 25 new and 14 old.

At National events there were 95 new and 14 old.

(As a side note, at Indy 65 runs were made by new cars at 1.10 or more under while old cars made 14 runs under.)

Since National Opens are not always listed I can only guess that the remaining 482 Stock runs of 1.10 or more under happened at those events and had to be by old cars. That means the 482 runs would account for the 6 to 1 ratio of old cars vs new cars.

While I cannot guarantee 100% accuracy in my figures, I do believe I am not very far off, except maybe for the National Opens. But then that could be the reason for the automatic hit at 1.20 under instead of 1.10 under.

Travis Miller

(



Travis when i was looking at it a month ago i think i found around 78 "combinations" in stock and super stock that had runs quicker than 1.1 under. I looked at all events sInce the nhra proposed ahfs included all tracks at all nhra races including nationals, divisionals and national opens. Of the 78 combinations 13 were the new factory cars.


MIke F. fyi,i beleive your Dads and brothers cars would of been included in that because of Gary Richards run at the Dutch because all the 396 would of been hit. I also think all the 427 would of been hit as well.


Just and fyi and what i saw.

Kent

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Kent, that was all last year, off the new indexes? Where did you get your numbers?

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Kent, you are probably right about the 13 new cars. By the end of the year 18 different new cars had been that fast. I am saying those 18 new cars made 95 runs more than 1.10 under the index.

FYI, I did not count runs of 1.10 under at altitude tracks because when factored to sea level, very very few of them are 1.10 under. However I did notice that a lot of older cars did run 1.10 under at altitude tracks before factoring to sea level. I'm sure those numbers are not included in your figures, or are they?

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)