Re: 2011 ahfs
 

I actualy like the new cars and I agree that technology must somehow be partnered with corporate marketing in order to move forward however..................

I gotta agree w/ Bob here - The EFI cars had their own classes for a few years - knocked heads w/ eachother - got HP - and were reabsorbed into traditional stock classes.

No one shed any tears for those car owners..... over the fact that those people had built "legal" cars according to the "existing" rules. They got separated out... and I don't think anyone could argue that it didn't work. The situation w/ the new cars is no different. I have no skin in this game... yet.... but I don't buy that argument. I know the NHRA has their hands full - and I understand what that means - but I don't think it would take a team of people to replicate what was done in the past w/ the EFI cars.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

FYI- The EFI cars had ten years worth of significant advantage over the carburetor cars such as the 396 / 325, 455 Olds to name just a few. Does everyone want to repeat this?

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

My crystal ball also said:

ALL future records will be exactly .99 under the index......

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Craig is absolutely right. There is much more of this than meets the eye. Where the hell is my incentive to buy 2 new cams and dyno? Why on earth would I call A-1 and say, "build me a new state of the art converter?" And why do I call my engine machinest and say "lets try that far fetched hone job and ring combo to see if its worth a couple?" Why do I call Hole-Shot and buy some new lighter weight wheels? You tell me why I should be proud of running my car in NHRA Stock Eliminator and slowing it down to keep from getting kicked in the nuts by the AHFS and wasting my already spent money?

So, the people supporting us, the contingency companies and so forth are going to see a drop in people buying "improvements". Why in the hell would they consider signing up again for class/win contingency sponsors?


Somebody please explain?

Wade O

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

I don't think the "perks" that GM threw at Glendora were as substantial as they are with the current manufacturers to get the favorable HP figures.That being said,is it any wonder they won't put them in their own class.
Only speculation on my part.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Wade,

Thanks for seeing this as I do. The very first thing I did after reading the proposal is figure how fast I could go before being dinged. I've been working on the Corvette getting it ready to move from AA to A and now I must leave it in AA to avoid getting it hit hard. Same with the Oldsmobile. We've been getting our brains beat in for twenty years with this combination and now I have to slow it down?

No one will want to set a record and no one will want to run it out the back door to win a heads up race (with the exception of the underfactored new cars) because you will win the battle but lose the war. NHRA will not have to do away with heads up runs- we will do it for them.

Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Good point Bob, exactly what I was thinking. If you look at most records, you will have to go faster than this to even set one. Which will get you looked at and possible hp. Bad idea all the way around.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Bob:
The powers have chosen to, once again, ignore the real root of the problem amd are now getting the S/SS community to focus on the updating AHFS system, as though that is the real problem. You, Craig, Angelo and Wade have pulled back the fluff and exposed this effort for what it is: "Window Dressing." "Smoke and mirrors folks!!"
Underated crate motor cars (and non crate motor cars) that don't exist, lexan windows, bogus intakes, fiberglass fenders, two speed transmissions and all the rest of the rule breakers, that have been passed off as OK for new age stockers and are now supposed to be accepted. The latest atrocity is the Viper motor into a Challenger as a stocker. And on top of that, we should be "thankful" that the big three support pro teams. Why?
Perhaps you, Mike Ficacci and Craig Couris should be on that committee.
JC

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Wade, you just explained it. No intrest or reward for improvement. Very valid points that you posted. No system that can be manipulated by competitors will ever bring the desired effect. That being a closely correct hp factor. Or what some may call a level playing field.
This isn't rocket science. If a car can go 'X' fast at a very low mph then something is wrong. The answers are: Illegal parts or improper factor. Hell I still can't understand why a combo isn't subjected to a thorough tech inspection (complete teardown) before hp can be added. If I were you dp/ford owners I would be wondering about that as much as anything. Especially since those combos are relatively new technology.
This, to me, is still racing and that means making your combo as fast as possible under a set of clearly defined rules. We need to encourage racers to improve their combos under existing rules. Not change the rules everytime someone gets caught. This is one of the things that keep specialty manufacturers in business and able to post contingency.
Lastly, as said before, any system that can be easily manipulated by participants won't work not now or ever. Case in point, I just finished, last week, disassembly of a engine that got several hits on that particular combo and it wouldn't pass tech by a mile. Does that hurt anybodys feelings? It hurt 2 of my customers that run that combo.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

WOW

I had no idea so many guys can run more than a second under

I ran real fast at Pomona and was only 95 under - that use to be 125 under

Now I am learning most people are out of line more than I thought

Otherwise why all of the hub bub

Just how many heads up races have been won by the new cars anyway?

How many heads up races have been won by you guys holding so much in reserve?

The count is probably way in favor of the old cars since there are so many more.


:-) peace