Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Since the thread Whither the 425/427 got hi jacked I will start it fresh. Bill Dedman is correct when he posted "this is not rocket science". The rule is simple, You go 1.40 under you get hit period.
The people that witnessed the Sorenson scaling incident which really should have no bearing on whether the combo gets hit or not, have been contacted by at least 2 NHRA people and asked to put what they saw in writing. They have agreed to do so and have been told this issue isn't over by any means. My opinion for what it is worth, is for some unknown reason the big NHRA broom has come out of the closet, the carpet lifted, and in one sweep it has all disappeared. It has become quite obvious that the 1.40 under rule only applies to those that NHRA wants it to apply to. If I were Fred Hensen, Frank Grossi or anybody else that got hit with 3.25 % HP I would be HOT and in somebody's face.

Dave Schmitz

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Dave, just think, if you'd had a Chevy all those years..... LOL! How different your life could have been!!!

You probably don't remember me, but I lived in Hayward from 1980 'til 2004 and watched your E-Body car a lot at Fremont, Sac., Sears Point etc....


I hung around Hollums' shop with Len Schneider and MIke Loge a lot.... you and I met a time or two, but that was 25+ years ago... fat guy with a white beard (ME, not you).... worked for the Chronicle.

Anyway, thanks for the info.... I can see Fast Freddy's lawyers lining up the paperwork as we speak... LOL!

Re: Sorensen's 1.408 under decision
 

We came oh so close to building a 427 Camaro. But we had all the parts from the 65 Hemi car that Butch Leal bought from us and all we had to do was change the pistons, cam and use cast iron heads and we were done. Don little is still the only guy I know that can make that street hemi run. Hensens motor proves that.
Yes I do remember you even though it was a long time ago.
I see Sorensen is running the divisional at Mission. (talk about a fast track) It looks like Joe is back behind the wheel again. Can't believe NHRA hasn't acted on this yet.

Dave Schmitz

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

In talking to my div tech director this how it is no nhra person saw what happened so no hp hit. However new langauge is beinng writen as far as 1.40 under. Kind of closeing the barn door after the horse got out. So untill we see somthing in writing the matter is dead. I think his veiw was it has to be seen by someone from nhra and it is ilegal to take out wieght of taint a fuel sample to void a run. I also found out the hard way that only Nal event runs count for ahfs averages. On fri before teching in I asked the div tech director and div director if div runs counted on the average and was told yes then after my fist run on sat I was told that they had called Cal and now it was nal only so much for that.So now with so few cars in the average there maybe a lot of hp given out unless you had your car painted in Cal. Tom Meyer

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Sorenson's car sure has lost a lot of its luster!!!! His car will still beat mine in a heads-up run every time, but it won't mean as much as it did before Boisie.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

This system really needs more of persons input rather than new "writing" that gets NHRA of the hook...this was 1.40 under the sealevel index at an altitude track...like 1.60 under..come on..were is the fairness to others that got this treat?

p.s. Why didn't he get the Record?was the other runs too far apart and the slower ET over current Record?

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

So, we can run as fast as we want at div races, as long as we stay off that 1.40 trigger, without hurting our AHFS averages?

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

WHAT happened to kevin cours post on this matter?

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Thats my take on it Ed. It is now a three person board Bruce Danny and I can not rember the other so like I said maybe you need your car painted in Cal. Tom

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Tom -- I don't agree with your anology as I'm probably one of the few on this board who has had his car painted in California and it hasn't helped me over the years one bit -- not one little bit .. ever......

PS-- I really hate to admit it but I got some very nice paint work .

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Jack, not one itsy, bitsy bit ever? Ever?

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

So, let me get this straight:

Henson runs 1.40 under, avoids the scales, so nobody knows whether he was light, but gets HP ANYWAY, on Monday.

Sorensen runs 1.40 under, but comes up "light", and DOES NOT get HP.

Would somebody explain to me in what ways these two scenarios differ?

In neither case could it be verified that these two cars were of legal weight.

One gets HP, and the other doesn't.

New language isn't going to fix this....

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

....this is another good reason to lower the S/SS index -.50 .....then throw away the AFHS and get back to real racing...the way it should be.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Bill dedman said


In neither case could it be verified that these two cars were of legal weight

YESSSSSSS

One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak)

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Then it becomes what was trying to be avoided,a rich mans eliminator,like comp.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

No......real racing would be run off the index or record with correct tech, appropriate penalties, correct factoring and no need for AHFS. The way it should be.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Junior Barns said, "One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak)"

A "fair trial" would be to prove his innocence.... on the contention that he was of legal weight.

When you give that up, the assumption becomes that you were "guilty".... LIGHT.

Your spin on this defies simple logic, Junior....

They're both "guilty" (assumed light in Fred's case; PROVEN light in Sorensen's.)

Same result should be imposed on both. No way to prove that Fred's car was of the correct weight. He could have been 100 # light...

Is it fair to others who run that combination for NHRA to ASSUME that his car was of legal weight? I don't think so... They share whatever penalty he accrues.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Henson's run was on a redlight 1st round at the D4 points race in Belle Rose. He was not required to go to the scales, he did not "AVOID" the scales. I was helping a friend that weekend and we were parked next to fred, I assure the car wasn't light and he didnt mean to do it

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Chad,

If Fred didn't go to the scales after the run, he avoided them, whether intentionally, or not. He had no reason to go to them, having just lost that round.

This is not in any way shape, or form critical of what Fred did; it's just an effort to get the two situations (Sorensen and Henson) "on the same page" so some logical conclusions can be drawn.

Your contention that he wasn't light is probably correct, but because it's just YOUR OPINION, it's not the sort of thing that NHRA could hang a far-reaching decision on.

The fact is, nobody (but Fred) knows what his car weighed when he made that run.

Nobody will EVER know, for sure. Ballast (some of it) is easily removeable.

In that vein, the car POSSIBLY could have been light, in spite of your considered opinion. I'm certainly not saying it was, because there's no way for me to know FOR SURE.

If it was, (in this case, a distinct possibility), then how can they give him HP? Even if it were NOT, how can they give him HP since they don't REALLY know what the car weighed on that run? They can't just ASSUME it was of legal weight... nobody's crystal ball is accurate under those circumstances.

The circumstances and similarities between what happened at Boise and in Fred's case would seem to me to be very similar in view of the fact that one car was weighed and was light; the other car was NOT weighed so cannot be proven NOT to have been light at that time.

But then, that's just MY take on it... I'm sure NHRA is going to do whatever THEY want to do with this.
Nothing could matter less than what ~I~ think...

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

How can anyone possibly think that Henson was light? He was in eliminations. He intended to win that round. It was correct for him to get horsepower.

Sorensen was light because he adjusted his weight after the run before coming to the scales. He left the starting line with the intention of qualifying. He has had that car long enough to know exactly what it weighs on every run. He should get horsepower and an extended vacation.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Billy -- Nothing -- Nada -- Zip -- Zero..........if anything it was harder on me ......................If you remember I've already taken the 1.40 hit on Monday ........maybe I should have tried this weight / water deal instead .

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Ed -- Thanks for the offer but we have plenty of good painters here in the East . At the time my GTO served as a "West Coast" car and burned up pretty good at Pomona.........when "they" were done you couldn't tell it was ever on fire and still retained all of the original sheetmetal ...............

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

I have a dumb question. If somebody (like Sorenson) just wanted to know how quick his car was capable of running that day, why not just pull 25 or 30 lbs BEFORE the pass? No funny stuff on the return road, etc.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

I think u guys have beat this 1 2 death let it go
Robbie Shaw

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

who the heck put you in charge ???

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

john kelly im with you. robbie shaw in my eyes must of help take weight out of the car thats why he wants it to die. sounds like a friend trying to take the heat of sorenson.there is no doubt in my mind sorenson knows somebody that was able to crush this.
WHY WONT SORENSON SPEAK UP ON THIS WEB SITE???????????

HE'S GUILTY BOTTOM LINE.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Problem is there is no tech as we used to know it.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Not everywhere.....some places still believe in enforcing whats left of the rules.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Problem is that they dont enforce the rules equally. There are cars out there that are way off and no one is looking at them.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

that would be solved if they all showed up at the Cajun Sports Nationals, Wesley would catch em

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Why should they even try to explain what they were doing if anything on this site against a bunch of squirrels who weren't there and have already found them guilty? I have a real good idea the value they put on their motors and I can't believe they would drain the water than drive back to the pits unless it was real close.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

This would have never happened on Mr. Wesleys watch period. He may be very strict but very fair.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

what if i went 1.408 under then just before the scales i took a 2 pound **** and was 1 pound under weight would it count? Or would they throw the **** on the scales with me and make it legal?

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Micky, you are full of it. Brandon says hi.
Jim

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Mickey,I'd suggest you carry a doggie bag to deposit the poo and present it at the scales as ballast.You may be tossed for "loose" ballast though.
Through course of this debate am I correct that when the scales are open EVERYONE is supposed to weigh?Did Sorensen go over the scales?If he didn't isn't that a one year vacation?
Just once I'd like to see someone who is bounced get on here and admit they broke a rule.Nah it's better to play victim.

Ed F.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Does anyone have any solid PROOF that he drained the water? If so was it presented to the NHRA? If not, why not?

He did scale and came up light.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Thank you.

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

Dwa

Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision
 

If they just could come up with an explanation in wich circumstanses this 1.40 deal does apply (or dosen't) .and in what divisions...then racers would know...or would they?