Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

It's just a rumor, but if it's true how will that help the AHFS system?

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Larry,

Will this statement also be revised?

"This will only apply to qualified fields of 32 or more cars. Automatic changes due to runs of -1.20 or more under the respective index will still count at these events."

However, I don't understand how this rumored change effects AHFS.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Will make zero difference other than it will never be mineshaft except for maybe Indy.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Sorry for the typing but I'm one-handed right now.
The only people that this will affect are the people who don't play the "welfare" game. It won't change anything for those who play the game.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

NHRA needs to quit dumbing down the performance side of things for stock and super stock. Why not offer points for qualifying and national records? More heads up runs? Instead, they reduce class and heads up opportunities, and offer no incentive or recognition for records. They don’t support the few tech officials they have. If there is no upside to performance almost everyone will hang back instead of showing what the cars can do when AHFS can make an impact . You would like think a bean counter was running the show….

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Race off national records....... that would shake things up a bit.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Or let it fly and suspend AHFS for 2 years and let the chips fall where they may.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

I'm sure the averages will go up on certain combos if they raise the mineshaft number. When you get in great air. Plenty of cars can run one second under. I can't see 40 cars of a 80 car field hanging around .95 under.
Plus there are a lot of .90 under passes that don't count when it does go mineshaft at the .85 under now. It will surely be fun to watch the scrabbling. Some are artist at qualify in the right spots so they line up to mister bye in the later rounds. Probably more heads up races will happen in the fast air I'll bet.

Paul Haszlauer
7019 SS/FA

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

I'm not sure what the "welfare" game is. Some know where the best spot is for them on the qualifying sheet and run it to the 1000' mark. Personally I'm not good enough to know the best spot. Guys like Jody Lang do out west here. My car is fast in stock but I like Superstock where it's slow.. I'm not a "stock to the lanes" at 7:30 person I guess.

Paul

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Points for qualifying; like maybe 10pts for #1 spot, 9pts for #2, and so forth. Would national qualifying points be more than Divisional? Would it be the top 10% get qualifying points. 100 racers top ten get points, 128 racers top 13 get points, the AHFS always rounds up on any fraction of a whole number.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Maybe it would be better to consider a race mineshaft by the weather conditions. That is what it was actually intended for. Low temp, high barometer, low humidity and tail wind. So lets say below 62 degrees. Baro above 30.15 Humidity below 30% and tail wind above 7 mph. In my mind that is mineshaft.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Mike, I don't want to come across as argumentative, maybe just comparing
regions. At lots of races that I have attended over the years in the Midwest,
I would consider a barometer of 29.5, temp of 75 or less, humidity of 50%
or less, and no wind as mineshaft capable. I can only dream of the conditions you describe at a National Open. I don't know the answer,
but I'm not sure there is a problem. NHRA makes it tougher, racer's get
more creative, what was "GRAY" area, gets missed for a while, NHRA
figures it out, but then realize 40% of the racers are doing it, so it becomes
O.K., and everybody does it=more cost. I think that is where we lose a
lot of racers. Want racers to run it to the finish line, Reward Them.

J.R.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

It only effects Division 1
We hit the mineshaft more than any other division
We are Bad azz fast over here. D-1. Or we live in fantasy land
Not for the weak.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

So when would these weather conditions apply?

8am? 12pm?
Beginning of Stock qualifying?
Beginning of SS qualifying?
Each pair of cars?

What if the parameters were met at the beginning of a session then you had a 2 hour rain delay in the middle of qualifying would they still apply?

Using weather Data is just too unwieldy!

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bingo!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Instead of penalizing performance, NHRA should incentivize performance.

Cash, plaque and 10 points for #1 qualifier, 5 points for #2 qualifier
10 points for setting record
Qualified field at National Events
Cash and 10 points for winning class

Incentives will be more fun and get quicker results than just establishing a new line in the sand.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Only if, at the same time, they expand tech, do more "tear downs" and tighten up on or close the loop-holes and gray areas.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Exactly the problem, if someone destroys my combo by going 1.50 or more under, I want to know it was legal.

Jim Mantle V/SA 6632

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

My take on what would be considered mineshaft.
Density altitude is less than the actual altitude of the track, as determined by NHRA,
to be determined at the start of each round of qualifying and eliminations for that class.

Jim Mantle V/SA 6632

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

You are no argumentative at all. Just threw that out there to see what some thought. Those numbers are some that we see here early and late in the season at D-2 events periodically. We can and do get those numbers at the early points races here in Florida like the orlando race or the baby gators.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

I wouldn't have a problem with -.85.
Good idea...I'm surprised NHRA adopted it.
I suppose having AHFS at Indy is okay too. It's going to be mineshaft anyway.
Having 2-3 cars that run 1.5- 2.0 under there just showcases what a p. poor job they did at factoring them in the first place.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

No one liked or commented on this post, why not? Let's see what the high flyers have and make the adjustment in 2024 either with refactoring and or index reduction. I believe that a majority of those who race in Stock Eliminator are spending time, money and the liberal interpretation of the already flawed rule book. Let it sort itself out by exposing the cheaters, under factored and sand baggers to unlimited performance.
What you say?

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Sooooo when 2 more years of damage have been done and the "cheaters, under factored and sandbaggers" have been exposed, what then? Retroactively factor, fine and ban them? Strip them of their winnings and repatriate the beaten?
IMHO, it has almost gotten to the point where it all needs to be torn down like in '73 or '74!

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

That's the point, it's up to Lonnie and his team(?) to sort the intel from there and make sense of it.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Mr. Grimm, tear down this wall. (and be a hero like Ronald Reagan)

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

I believe it was 1972 when they went back to pure stock rules. Street tires, exhaust, etc.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

I don't see how this would fix anything. I actually think it gives more opportunity to lower the average.

Under the current system, I would like to see the 1.2 trigger raised at mineshaft races.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Wellllll, upon further review, maybe not that far back but the mid-90s would be nice.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

"it has almost gotten to the point where it all needs to be torn down like in '73 or '74!"

im all for that !!!!!

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

So if they are considering .95 under why not just do away with mine shaft conditions all together. Why not just do away with Stock being a performance class. No more heads up. No more class run offs. Lets make it an even playing field for those that don't have a clue, or are just to lazy to work on your car to make it faster. It's not just about spending money on your car. It's so much easier just to complain about those that are faster than you and hope NHRA hits them with HP. Got to love the HP welfare system. With AHFS in effect at Indy this year. How many stockers went 1.20. All it did was make many that love the performance side of stock stay away. And those that still went that could run 1.20 under played the game. How many along with me stay awake at night thinking of ways to make your car faster. I'm glad to have someone like Jim Boudreau in my class that is faster than me. He pushes me to want to make my car faster than him. It just sucks that you could get punished with HP for making your car faster in a class that has been performance based. BP

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Ya know Barry, I don't want S/SS to ever become a "Not Performance Based" Eliminator . I'm not a fan of the way that the AHFS can be manipulated either. It wasn't designed that way. BUT, let us look at the other side of the "HP welfare system". One that you have taken full advantage of and NEVER seem to have a problem with. Why don't we call it "HP food stamps". You can build your entire combo using parts that were never put on your car. They have been given to you (along with many other Racers and many other combos)by the Tech Dept. over the years and have greatly "enhanced" the performance abilities of your combo. Now IMHO, in a "Performance Based" eliminator, that just isn't "fair". Don't you think that there should be SOMETHING in place to (if used properly and not taken advantage of) repatriate the Racers with combos that didn't qualify or can't take advantage of "HP Food Stamps"?

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

Barry, you and Jim are getting up in age and need plenty of sleep to stay, healthy, wealthy, and wise.

Re: Raising Mineshaft Requirements To .95 Under For Stock
 

I would like to see, section by section revisions to the Stock Eliminator rule book written by the ACTIVE racers of this forum. I greatly respect your experience, knowledge and passion for the class we love, so please express your ideas of how it will again make sense to all the competitors.
Billy, Larry and others please take the lead.