AHFS Question
 

After reviewing the most recent list of horsepower assessments, it occurs to me that it must be possible for one car, at one race, on one weekend, to earn a percentage hit based on exceeding -1.15 the index more than once and, at the same time, establishing an average for the combination that makes the assessment inescapable. Obviously, I don't have access to all the run data but I've been going through the limited information that's available and I can't recall a previous instance in which the system was applied in this manner.

A case in point that caught my attention is the instance of the number one qualifier in Stock at Topeka. As far as I can tell, that car attended only one national event during the first half of this season and was assessed a horsepower penalty last week based solely on runs at that one event. I am not aware of anyone else running that particular combination during that segment of the season so it appears that one racer at one event both triggered a review and established the average leading to an assessment all in the course of one day.

Were there other combinations affected by this interpretation? Has this interpretation been applied previously and I just missed it?

c

Re: AHFS Question
 

Chuck, It seems to me someone posted some AHFS rules and asked it they were new and what they meant. Of course ,they were undecipherable mumbo jumbo that could be taken to mean one thing, or just the opposite.
I CAN tell you, it didn't happen to me last year with one strike in one rating period, with my one of a kind V/Stick combo.

Re: AHFS Question
 

Mark,

Did you earn your strike by running -1.15 once in one weekend or did you assume that, having exceeded the magic number once that weekend, another such run at the same event would be part of the first strike or that it would be the final nail in the coffin? (Sorry for the "coffin" reference. Us old guys shouldn't use that word lightly!)

c

Re: AHFS Question
 

The way Wesley said it works is 1.15 triggers a look and 1.40 automatic review.

Re: AHFS Question
 

The 1.15 has to be triggered twice for a combo in the review period (first half or last half of season) and 1.40 is automatic except in D3, Travis and the tech dept. tears you down after the 1.40 under run.

Re: AHFS Question
 

Chuck, Maybe this will help explain:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...0/ai_n9306341/


Travis

Re: AHFS Question
 

From Travis's reference:

3. For 2004, two runs by the same combination or the same class that are 1.15-second or quicker under the index during the evaluation period will trigger the AHFS process. With the change, two runs from the same driver or two different drivers would have to be posted to trigger the system and cause changes. This will help filter out "one-time fast runs" in categories where there are one or few numbers of a specific combination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Travis. That explains things to some extent. The application of the system as defined by the above passage would appear to sanction the awarding of horsepower in instances when one car, with one driver, on one extraordinary day, could be assessed power as in the case of the number one qualifier at Topeka.

To Chuck Beach: That's the way I understood it, too (except the part about the teardown. It is my personal opinion that the teardown should be required in any trigger or automatic situation.) The wrinkle that I had not previously understood is that, in the Topeka scenario, the two triggers came literally within minutes of one another thus giving a different look to the term "one-time fast runs." There seems that not everyone has viewed this part of the system in the same light.

To Bob Pagano: I think my response to your observation is the same as Chuck Beach's. The two trigger runs (and quite possibly the horsepower hit) are interpreted to be runs by one driver, at one event, on one day.

I find it interesting that I'm getting a lot more phone calls, PMs, and e-mail than are reflected by the responses to this post. The unofficial count of combinations that were affected adversely by this interpretation during this segment has risen to three.

c

Re: AHFS Question
 

Chuck,
I think there is still some confusion on the two trigger scenaro, my understanding is it had to be at different races, you didn't get 2, 3 or more triggers at the same race. Travis, am I wrong about this?

Re: AHFS Question
 

From Travis's reference:

3. For 2004, two runs by the same combination or the same class that are 1.15-second or quicker under the index during the evaluation period will trigger the AHFS process. With the change, two runs from the same driver or two different drivers would have to be posted to trigger the system and cause changes. This will help filter out "one-time fast runs" in categories where there are one or few numbers of a specific combination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The way I read this it says any two runs. So I would think two runs by the same car on the same day should trigger the system.
This does make it bad for a person with a one off combo. But if they are clear on the system they can control their own situation. Had he been clear on how the system works after he ran more than 1.15 under he could have backed it down to save his Horse power rating.

Re: AHFS Question
 

I am not disagreeing with what it says, but making 2 or more runs under at a good track at the same race makes no sense. You are at a race at Maple Grove and there is class and the weather is great. There are 8 really good cars in your class. You win class and you made 3 runs under 1.15 in your one off combo. All the other guys ran just as fast or faster than you did but you out drove them. You get HP and since there combo is more common, they don't.

Re: AHFS Question
 

Chuck , looking at it again, I decided to turn it loose during the class single, knowing (or thinking) I had one free RACE coming. I'm quite sure I went better than 1.15 under in the first round. No data available on DRC. Okay, I'll shut up about this now.....

Re: AHFS Question
 

I believe that, herein, lies the problem. There have been instances in the past in which that interpretation was not followed. Now, it is being enforced. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said something like, "... consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...," but I maintain that all of us out here with "little minds" are have little protection other than consistent application of rules and laws. If civilization is really nothing more than a game of semantics, it may well be time for those of us with limited skills and no influence to start heading for the hills.

c

Re: AHFS Question
 

No problem, Mark. Now that you've been so forthcoming with information, you'll get yours in the next segment.

Cheers,

c

Re: AHFS Question
 

3. For 2004, two runs by the same combination or the same class that are 1.15-second or quicker under the index during the evaluation period will trigger the AHFS process. With the change, two runs from the same driver or two different drivers would have to be posted to trigger the system and cause changes. This will help filter out "one-time fast runs" in categories where there are one or few numbers of a specific combination

This just means that the system is activated and a review will happen. It does not mean that a HP change WILL happen. It just means there will be a review of the combo. They then take all the other runs for that combo in consideration and the class average and then decide the proper course. If you run 1.40 under you WILL get 3.25% the next Monday. Jim

Re: AHFS Question
 

I have just one question, and it's not tied into the maze of the labyrinthine vagaries of the AHFS, except in a very basic, simple way.

It is this:

If a car, let's say Fred Henson's 'Cuda, for example, makes a run that is more than 1.40 under his index, and for whatever reason, that car isn't weighed (I don't think Fred's car was weighed after that fateful run) and his engine isn't torn down (somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Fred tore it down for them), and that run is used to put in place a new factored horsepower number, isn't that assuming a LOT, that the car WAS of legal weight, AND that it had a bona-fide, 100-percent STOCK engine configuration, with LEGAL FUEL at the time that run was made????

How can NHRA install new horsepower factors on a car that they have NO IDEA of the legality of?

I'm sure Fred wouldn't run a light car, and just as sure that his engine wasn't 500 cubic inches, but HOW CAN NHRA KNOW THAT if they didn't weigh the car and tear the engine down, much less, check the fuel?

They can't.... but, that didn't keep them from destroying that combination as a viable race car with this system that automatically bestows egregious amounts of horsepower on cars that MAY, or MAY NOT be legal, if they don't check them thoroughly...

With VERY expensive race cars' viability at stake, how could they do that without ascertaining the legality of the car in question?

HOW?

Is this just another of their "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID" deals???

Re: AHFS Question
 

In the past one person could only get one trigger of 1.15 under per event. If two people with the same combination were to go 1.15 under at the same event that would inititate a review. Even if a car went 1.15 under 10 times at one event it would not in itself inititate a review.

Re: AHFS Question
 

I just found out that there has been no written policy change on the AHFS in the last year. What I said before should be the way the system is administered. Can one person arbitrarily change the way this is run, with no prior change in the written policy? Is this just another way NHRA ignores it's own rules and procedures? Is one person now the decider on who gets hp and who doesn't? After the triggers are met are averages being taken into consideration? Again there is no transparency about any of this.

As flawed as the system was it was at least administered for the most part fairly to all.

Re: AHFS Question
 

Maybe they just discovered that they didn't took full advantage of the words written on the subject and now wanted to screw us around again..

Re: AHFS Question
 

bill dedman, I though they took the hp. off fred henson hemi, Tom

Re: AHFS Question
 

Back to Chucks original question.....

Shouldn't only the (1) best run for that competitor at the even't count?

How can multiple runs at the same event by the same competitor count?......

Humm....maybe this interpretation was used to prevent obscure combos from running under the radar of the AHFS..... LOL

Re: AHFS Question
 

Jim, your interpretation is exactly the way the system has functioned for almost 10 years. Like it or hate it, the AHFS has survived long enough for most of us to have a feel for how it works. I can think of more than half-a-dozen very well-known NHRA officials who have been involved with administering the system and, it has served a purpose. The question seems to be, what constitutes a "trigger." The language of the original rule is vague and allows for a range of interpretations. The overwhelming preponderance of racers who have contacted me today have been working under the impression that one racer can only accumulate one trigger at a given event. I don't know how it was intended to operate but I believe that is the way it has worked since the words were written.

The issues that are puzzling to me are: 1. Who decided that the official interpretation should be changed? One person? Two persons? A committee of persons? 2. Why was it deemed important to change it? Does the system work too well? Not well enough? Not at all? 3. When was the decision made? In February? In April? In mid-July? 4. Who knew that the interpretation had been changed? The tech department? The RAC? Glen Gray? Anyone? 5. Did anyone stop to think that racers should be informed at any point along the way? If not, why not?

Re: AHFS Question
 

Chuck -- You bring to light five very good questions but the next important question is -- how the hell are we ever going to get straight answers -- and from whom will they come ? With the HP Committee now more or less disbanded who is left ...................

Re: AHFS Question
 

So, let's say I make two runs in class at over 1.15 under. But in eliminations I dial her back and run four rounds at .70-.80 under. Does this mean that all my runs count towards my combo, and if yes, it shouldn't receive any horsepower? If all my runs don't count, why not?

Re: AHFS Question
 

Sean ,That's a damn good question.

Rich, Obscure combos? I resemble that remark!

Re: AHFS Question
 

Obviously there is a problem. Greg Hill had it right. One person and get one review point at one event. Two people can get two at one event. One person can do it at 2 events and get the review. I have followed this system since it's inception and that has been the way it was always done. Sean, your fastest run at a National Event is only what goes in the system. To offset your average, you would have to go slow every run at a National Event. Points Races only get hp if 1.40 under run. This is all fixable, just needs a little help. But it needs to be fixed before a buncha races are run, or don't make any till yearend. Or something.

Re: AHFS Question
 

Jeff, I understand what you're saying, but according to some of the latest h.p. refactoring, the way you described (that's the way I understood it) is not how it is being run now. I am now just trying to understand the "latest enhancement" and how it is being played.

Re: AHFS Question
 

I think all the members or the 'committee' have been contacted about various mistakes. I have been passing them along. Unfortunately I remember all too well the teardown at Indy of everything we had there(as many as four) for making suggestions. And it went on for several years. The good part is it's fixable, and we need a clear understanding of the system (which, like it or not, I thought we had).

Re: AHFS Question
 

That is sort of how it looks the way Sorensons have raced the last couple of years...even if that's not the reason . ..

Re: AHFS Question
 

It is also what The Fletch did to save B/SA a few years ago when another racer was going to hit the combo he ran. He ran quite a few races going less than .65 under to lower the class avg. It is just a way to work the system to save a HP hit.(or index) To lower the class avg. After 2 different + 1.15 runs just put the ego away for going fast and run a little quicker than .5 on every run at a few National Events. Jeff was right about the trigger being at two events for one person and both triggers at one event for 2. That is the way it was told to me by a former member of the AHFS administration commitee a few years ago when I ask him to hold a private class on AHFS. Understanding the system has kept me from doing a second index Kill on the class I run. I guess I had better be careful If there has been a change in the way the new group is applying the system.

Re: AHFS Question
 

Tom Mook said, "bill dedman, I thought they took the hp. off Fred Henson's hemi,"

They did take SOME HP off, but what about all the damage that was done between the time they "awarded" this HP and the time they took it off?

I don't remember exactly when they added that HP, but it's been a while.

In the meantime, Fred has installed a 4-speed to change classes ($$$$$) to try to keep the car competitive and reportedly had a lot of trouble getting the car down the strip. The engine in question was eventually installed in a different chassis (a B-Body) and sold to another racer.

That's just what FRED did. I don't know anything about the other E-Body Hemi racers that suffered under this NHRA "mistake", but your implication that everything is OK now, since NHRA removed that HP doesn't address the whole picture. And, who's to say it won't happen again, to somebody else?

Who was it that said "You can't fix stupid"??? Hmmmmm....

Re: AHFS Question
 

The responses to this thread have been particularly illuminating. Anyone reading it from beginning to end should be able to identify what has happened in the evolution of the system as it has been applied over its lifetime and how a recent unannounced twist in its interpretation has resulted in significant consequences to some racers. This is certainly not the first time it has been re-interpreted to the disadvantage of individuals or groups of individuals. Even more illuminating have been the volume and content of responses that have arrived in the form of E-mails, phone calls, and Private Messages. I appreciate the sensitivity of the situation and the reluctance that more than a few individuals have expressed to come forth with public statements. It is, however, very clear that a subtle change has occurred and that racers should be aware that such changes can occur without warning. To trust a particular interpretation of a loosely worded and autocratically administered system is to play Russian Roulette with some very expensive investments in cars and parts. Sadly, the incident has raised a few questions relative to the perceived integrity of the system itself and those who manipulate it.

This morning I have contacted one of the forum moderators and requested that this thread be terminated but allowed to remain in the archives. This decision was made solely by me because I feel that most of the information that is relevant to the original question has emerged. There is no conspiracy and there has been no pressure applied to me from any quarter to end it. Experience suggests that most posts that appear in a thread such as this one after it has passed two pages in length offer little in the way of new information and often devolve into a discussion that contributes little to the good of the community of racers. This issue will not be resolved in this forum and statements made here will do nothing to address anyone's interest.

Thanks to everyone who has posted and/or contacted me with pertinent information.

c