Ahfs
 

So on my 5 hour trip to the Grove I gave this some thought. After trying to come up with some combo's that are underfactored and not by just a little HP I had a hard time naming any. Most of the new cars run in their own class. There are a lot of older cars that run really strong but not many are more than 5 off. In a heads up run in mind shaft air unless a 1000ft deal is made we are putting at risk combo's that really are not out of whack. Case in point the 1970 402/375 Nova's. Hit 15 Hp a few years ago because of a Heads up run at Atco in good air. The 69 350/ 255 hp combo. Tim came real close at Gainesville to the instant hit in mind shaft air. Hal and Joe run real close at several races. Looking at Indy for the last ten years the 305 of Rod's and Chris have owned the H class. .I still think the 305 is the better combo. With all the fuss about the AHFS to help make those underfactored combo's get Hp. Out of the and I'm quessing 100 or more combo's that run Stock what combo are we tying to get inline. For me I feel we have a bigger risk of hurting a combo that really dosen't need HP over getting combo's that could use HP. So please you guys that feel their are combo's so out of whack I like to know what they are and how they affect anyone else.
Thanks Barry

It's late at night sorry for ranting a little.

Re: Ahfs
 

Eliminate the scrutiny and lower the indexes .10
It's long overdue.

Re: Ahfs
 

Lowering the index really hurts the lower class cars that sometimes struggle to get to the index.

What needs to be addressed is the stroke of a pen reductions to certain combos when the AHFS was in affect. The rules were in place, go by the rules as written. NHRA helping a “friend” to be fast just screws the rest of us in that class.

Does anybody know the process to get a Stock piston approved?

Re: Ahfs
 

I completely deleted my post so that I can agree with Larry.

Re: Ahfs
 

Work with the manufacturer to have the piston made, however, the manufacturer has to submit the piston to NHRA for approval.
Also, make sure the submitted piston is the same weight or heavier than the spec. Although NHRA checks the total assembly weight during a teardown, they will reject a submitted position even if it is a few grams lighter than the spec.

Re: Ahfs
 

Example of my point:
2018 Indy Non-Qualifiers

129 8735 AA/SA Nic Williams, Northhampton EN, '69 Camaro 9.811 10.70 -0.889
130 3120 I/SA Lyn Smith, Pontiac IL, '73 Century 11.413 12.30 -0.887
131 441 FS/F Mitch Truman, Leesburg IN, '15 Camaro 10.313 11.20 -0.887
132 3355 R/S Tim Weinzapfel, St. Phillips IN, '66 BelA 13.064 13.95 -0.886
133 339L C/SA Randi Lyn Shipp, Floyds Knobs IN, '67 Fir 10.515 11.40 -0.885
134 1322 B/S Tim Bishop, Queenstown MD, '97 Firebird 10.317 11.20 -0.883
135 318 FS/AA Jesse Alexandra, West Bend WI, '17 Camaro 8.519 9.40 -0.881
136 3602 A/S Jason McCormack, Columbiaville MI, '66 Be 10.074 10.95 -0.876
137 154 AA/SA Anthony Fetch, Colonia NJ, '69 Camaro 9.826 10.70 -0.874
138 6070 FS/A Gary Coe, Portland OR, '14 Mustang 8.832 9.70 -0.868
139 338H A/SA Tony Fagnilli, Carolpolis PA, '69 Camaro 10.141 11.00 -0.859
140 7356 C/SA Scott Loge, Livermore CA, '70 GTX 10.544 11.40 -0.856
141 L747 FS/AA Lane Goldstein, Calabassas CA, '18 Camaro 8.545 9.40 -0.855
142 3649 D/SA Bruce Gibson, Dayton IN, '71 Demon 10.696 11.55 -0.854
143 333 A/S Brett McFarland, Manchester OH, '68 Camaro10.099 10.95 -0.851
144 3009 FS/C James Reed, Lincoln IL, '17 Camaro 9.449 10.30 -0.851
145 3922 E/SA Julie Biermann, Xenia OH, '68 Firebird 10.851 11.70 -0.849
146 3651 L/SA Bob Gere, Salem WI, '72 Grand Sport 11.865 12.70 -0.835
147 3969 A/S Joe Martens, N. Olmsted OH, '69 Camaro 10.128 10.95 -0.822
148 2221 G/SA Richard Mace, Jacksonville FL, '91 Corvet 11.179 12.00 -0.821
149 4403 FS/A Gary Emmons, Friendswood TX, '14 Mustang 8.897 9.70 -0.803
150 4411 FS/B Phillip Giles, Flatonia TX, '16 Camaro 9.198 10.00 -0.802
151 3084 F/S Craig Saurbaugh, Grand Haven MI, '66 Nova 11.009 11.80 -0.791
152 3812 F/SA Gary Herche, N. Vernon IN, '71 Skylark 11.063 11.85 -0.787
153 3314 L/SA Chris Utsler, Martinville IN, '74 Apollo 11.915 12.70 -0.785
154 3576 N/SA David Garrity, Greenfield IN, '75 Omega 12.216 13.00 -0.784
155 G339 F/SA Dale Massengill, Kokomo IN, '79 Aspen 11.070 11.85 -0.780
156 3004 O/S Rosalyn Gresens, Toledo IL, '89 Mustang 12.323 13.10 -0.777
157 38 A/S Gary Russell, East Sparta OH, '67 Camaro 10.181 10.95 -0.769
158 33 A/S Tom Russell, East Sparta OH, '67 Camaro 10.202 10.95 -0.748
159 7797 C/S Don Keen, Palmdale CA, '68 Mustang 10.635 11.35 -0.715
160 3952 E/SA Marvin Benoit, Alvaton KY, '71 Camaro 11.026 11.70 -0.674
161 3980 N/SA Bobby Bishop, Lemont IL, '89 Mustang 12.336 13.00 -0.664
162 3657 P/SA Marty Buth, Freeport IL, '84 Mustang 12.802 13.45 -0.648
163 5351 G/SA Keith Hildahl, Northfield MN, '73 Mustang 11.404 12.00 -0.596
164 336 FS/B Kevin Mitchell, Champion IL, '17 Camaro 9.418 10.00 -0.582
165 3219 F/SA Jeff McKinney, Carroll OH, '90 Corvette 11.269 11.85 -0.581
166 5502 L/SA Paul Anderson, Lewiston MN, '80 Malibu 12.151 12.70 -0.549
167 J365 FS/AA Brad Jarvis, Catlin IL, '18 Camaro 8.888 9.40 -0.512
168 4745 C/SA Wayne Larsen, Ponchatoula LA, '69 Mustang 10.946 11.40 -0.454
169 248H E/S Casey Miles, Boca Raton FL, '69 Camaro 11.263 11.65 -0.387
170 3202 FS/A Terry Fritss, Greenup IL, '14 Mustang 9.389 9.70 -0.311
171 3315 J/SA Robert Utsler, Martinville IN, '74 Ventura12.334 12.45 -0.116

Re: Ahfs
 

How would lowering the indexes change these qualifying results?

Re: Ahfs
 

I still think the approach should include giving hp back to combos that do not have the options for aftermarket parts that some of the combos you refer to currently have. You have one of each... so I think you know what I mean LOL

Re: Ahfs
 

A racer may want to complete in the A/SA shootout knowing that the index is a full tenth of a second harder than the B/SA index of 10.25. Some racers are fast enough to be in the shootout and qualify. The Bell Curve is always in effect.

Re: Ahfs
 

How would lowering the indexes change these qualifying results?

Daren,
The point of listing this result is to dispel the notion that lowing the indexes by a tenth across the board would be unfair to to those at the bottom of the list. Based on this example I don't think so.

Re: Ahfs
 

Using Indy qualifying...where most people won't even enter unless they're capable of running .75 under...isn't exactly a good example. That's cherry picking the most competitive race of the year for qualifying to try to prove a point.

Go use the Columbus qualifying sheets from the past 2 seasons...or basically any divisional qualifying sheet where more of the cars that aren't as far under the index are likely to show up...and you'll find significantly more cars that aren't more than a few hundredths under the index especially in the heat of the summer.

Lowering indexes any further won't do anything to make the faster cars come back to the slower ones. It would, however, make several cars completely useless thru the summer months. In stock eliminator...where the car counts are already starting to falter a little bit...is shrinking the field of available cars for divisionals or "non-Indy" nationals really what is in the best interest of the class?

Re: Ahfs
 

Indy is Indy, I get it, but 171 cars in my opinion is a fair example, especially without the AHFS in effect.

Re: Ahfs
 

The issue is at the top of the qualifying sheet not the bottom and maybe the rare combos at the bottom need HP adjustments.

Re: Ahfs
 

171 cars is a fair example if you are trying to find how "quick" the field could be when you bring together the best cars in the land. But it isn't a fair example for lowering indexes by a tenth when there are cars at nearly every divisional event that struggle to run under the index already.

I truly don't believe lowering indexes is the right solution for this perceived "problem" at all...

Re: Ahfs
 

The only way the AHFS can be made to truly work is by looking at the 1/8 mile, 1,000' E.T.'s and 1/4 mile MPH. When you see someone run 10.80 @ 100 MPH, for example, it's no secret that they're blatantly trying to protect their HP.

Re: Ahfs
 

Lowering the index will not help fix the inequalities in the AHFS. That will only help to kill the class even worse that it is now. There is some new blood coming in to the stock and super stock classes but no where near enough to keep the class alive long term. This should not be a rich man only class. I have a slow car and typically qualify near the bottom of the sheet for several reasons. One is my combo is not competitive due to the HP rating. Two is the cost to improve my car would be exorbitant to try to get near the top of the sheet. Three is what is the sense to spend 20-30 thousand dollars on an engine and another 10 thousand on a transmission and converter to race for a $1500 purse. I just won Super stock at the division 2 race in Reynolds Ga several weeks ago. Winners purse was $1500. So far I have gotten $300 in contingency and I expect a few more will pay so a total of approximately $2200 for the win. I spent $320 to enter and another 400 in diesel fuel in the truck. 120 in race fuel. That leaves me about $1400 clear after expenses. I dont do this for the money by the way.
I say raise the indexes 2 tenth and leave the trigger where it is and maybe that might get a few more to hit the trigger. Possibly some retired racers might come back and a few new racers might get started and grow the class back again.

Re: Ahfs
 

Angelo I have not worked on the 94 car. I'm sure when we get the time it will be faster, but I didn't get the car to go fast. Take a look at Bubba's race against Allie at Cecil. It looks like he was on an 10.0 run in B. He dosen't seem to have any problems flying when he needs to.

And I thought you had one of the fastest ones!!!

Re: Ahfs
 

Mike I hope you just didn't figure out your not going to make money racing. I don't know what combo you run in Stock but what if someone runs your combo wants to go fast and is willing to do the work and spend the money and has the knowledge. And then goes 1.20 under. This isn't T-ball not everyone can put the same time, effort, money and knowledge into their cars as others. So we should punish those that can? It's not all that hard to make almost any combo a one second under car. Yes you may have to spend some money, put some time and effort in. If you don't choose to I don't have a problem with it. But that's your choice. You can spend as much as 10 grand for a converter and trany but you can also go real fast for less than half that amount. I would be in favor of taking a look at the index's in the lower classes that loose that tenth between K and L. In most of the higher classes if you can't go at least one under and you have a heads up you may have spent all that money getting to the track and paying the entrance fee just to get put on the trailer in a heads up race. BP

Re: Ahfs
 

So Jim are you saying that you want to see everyone equal. So if you have racer A who dosn't wish to work on their car, or have the knowledge too. Also dosn't really want to spend any more money than they have to. Just let it be a 5 under car. Instead I'd rather we take racer B who works on their car all the time to improve it and has the knowledge. And is willing to spend the money in the right places. You want to equal the playing field so racer B dosen't have an advantage over racer A. This is racing we are talking about isn't it. Maybe we should also add some starting line handicap to those racers that seem to be able to cut great lights most of the time. So tomorrow if I have to race Dan Fletcher first round lets add some to his light so I have a better chance to beat him.

I've got and idea anyone that averages better than a .30 light at the next race they add some time to their reaction times. Maybe make that .30 a .45 And if they are .20 and better make it a .035 Would that make you feel better.

Re: Ahfs
 

I always knew there was no money to be made class racing. My combo is a 1968 Camaro running SS/IA. I don’t know if any car in the class running that combo that can get any where near a second under. I have run .62 under with my car the way it is right now. It’s pretty old school and I have the wrong converter in the car for the combo. I do plan to update my trans to a 3 speed soon with the correct converter so I expect to see a .20 improvement with that change. I know I can’t win a heads up race against some of the FI and oddball combos that run my class. I just accept it and continue to race. I do enjoy it. I am just an old working man and race with in my means. My car is not fast but everything is done by me. Engine transmission rear end and chassis are done by me. I do farm out the machine work but do all of the assembly myself. Not many do that anymore. I even painted it myself.

Re: Ahfs
 

Mike glad you replied. There aren't many 68 Camaro's running any more. Unfortunetly I really like those cars. It's great that your able to do most of the work yourself. That was the way both Stock and Super Stock was back 20,30 years ago. I really liked racing in those years. It wasn't always who had the most money but who could get the most out of what they had. It's tough today to compete with the engine shops that are on a dyno every week finding new ways to get more HP. I don't need to tell you when they changed the rule about using a three speed the glide for the most part became a paper weight. I'm sure the 3 speed will pick you up a bunch. Are you thinking about a metric. I'm sure one will survive in your car and may be the cheapest way in. In SS/IA you at least won't hit to many heads up. I run an A and B stock auto car. It's a very competitive class. I'm not the fastest but my car is no slouch either. I have to play the AFHS game all the time. And I'm sick of it. If I end up getting HP because of the system it will put me further behind the really fast cars. In Stock at least it seems that it's mostly the top half of the classes that really have to play the game all the time. BP

Re: Ahfs
 

That's just dumb.

Re: Ahfs
 

I think the AHFS has been helping. The 305 combo did get whacked a few years ago but not the 1983 version so most had to modify their bodies to fall in line with the 1983 Camaro body. No small feat. But totally legit.

If NHRA had qualified fields at all national events (75 entries, 60 Qualified for most races) the AHFS may get triggered more often. Or if some points system for Qualifying were in place.

There is no need though to penalize every combo because of technological advances. Some combos already have been hit due to those changes and other combos didn't make significant gains due to technology advances/rules allowances.

A tenth off every index would just park more cars and with counts down overall I think that is counter productive.

Re: Ahfs
 

Thanks!

Re: Ahfs
 

[QUOTE=B Parker;662196]So Jim are you saying that you want to see everyone equal. So if you have racer A who doesn't wish to work on their car, or have the knowledge too. Also doesn't really want to spend any more money than they have to. Just let it be a 5 under car. Instead I'd rather we take racer B who works on their car all the time to improve it and has the knowledge. And is willing to spend the money in the right places. You want to equal the playing field so racer B doesn't have an advantage over racer A. This is racing we are talking about isn't it.

Bingo, we have a winner!!! You nailed it Barry! Congrats to John Armstrong #1 qualifier at Cecil with a carburetor.

Re: Ahfs
 

I think moving index .1 changes the 129 qualifier to .789 instead of .889 and so on down the sheet

Re: Ahfs
 

No, Barry that's not what I'm saying. Racing will never be equal. Some people work harder on their cars....some people have more money to spend. I'm talking about getting some of these combinations that are honestly under factored in line, and put some common sense into the AHFS as well. Why is the same GM LS engine, for example, rated less in a Corvette or GTO than in a Camaro/Firebird? The aerodynamics are negligible.

Re: Ahfs
 

Jim real simple the Corvette has been able to play the AHFS game. But the problem with this is what if the Camaro or Firebird end up in a heads up run in good air. There are several of them that can run 1.20 plus under. Now they end up with more HP putting them even further away from the Corvette's HP. I have the same problem with my combo. In good air I can run 1.20 under. Most of the 2015 Camaro's have at least .15 and more on me. Now I end up with a heads up run with another combo and go 1.20 under and get HP. I was already behind. How do you fix that. BP

Re: Ahfs
 

The problem with this is that it's not done the same every time. A few years ago the 1973 /350 Corvette went 1.20 under. They also included the 1974 Corvette when they passed out the HP. The front and the rear of those 2 year Corvettes are different. So why didn't the 1983/305 get the HP.

Forgot to mention at the time the 1973
corvette got the HP the 74 also had a different head and intake they had to use. So instead of keeping their HP different they also at that time amended the 74 specs so they could use the same head as the 73. So I guess they expected if you had the 74 with the right heads and intake up to that time you could now throw those away and do another set up. It didn't matter because we know how cheap it is to change heads and intake. BP

Re: Ahfs
 

Fact of Life! He who spends the most money will all was be fast! The AHFS want stop that! AHFS was made for by people who want work on there cars!

Re: Ahfs
 

Stock Eliminator is a tough neighborhood to live in for those who just want to participate.

Those who make power do so the old fashioned way. They earned it.

Lower the indexes a .10 and not the trigger and let's see who earns it.

Re: Ahfs
 

How the he'll does lowering everyone's index a tenth fix anything?
So if you are a fast car that can run -1.30 and you lose a tenth then you are -1.20
Yet a typical -.80 good car is now a -.70 good car and the bump at Indy goes from -.85 to -.75 and number one is -1.20 or so. Maybe it eliminates mineshaft conditions being early and late in the season but it doesn't fix a fast combo being fast it only hurts the slower guys

Re: Ahfs
 

perhaps making any combination( any car in any class) that has had ANY run of "say 1.20 seconds AND/OR MORE under their current index" in the previous 2 years IRREGARDLESS of if its during qualifying or in eliminations, they will have their index re-adjusted by XX seconds---this will mean ANY AND ALL classes will be subject to the index change--ALL Stock and Super Stock classed cars will be subject to this change--FED 387

Re: Ahfs
 

Rich,
My points are these;
When was the last time the indexes were lowered?
With the enhancements to the rule book the current indexes are antiquated.
What percentage of Stock Eliminator cars can run a second under or more at will?
What percentage struggle to run .1 - .3 under?
How many races are qualified fields?
Frank

Re: Ahfs
 

Personally as a fan and no longer a racer I like to see performance and loath when racers de-tune their cars to protect their combinations for what? What are you saving it for? Why are racers making deals to race to 1000 feet during class eliminations?
For old school guys like me it makes me question why you guys do this crap.
Let it fly!

Re: Ahfs
 

Is the thought process to reduce index by .1 makes more cars that could be hit with HP?

Re: Ahfs
 

Metamorphosis

Re: Ahfs
 

I would rather not see the NHRA lower the indexes across the board. I know part of the whole “game” is picking the right combo, but it is safe to say that if I lose a tenth on the index, I will never be able to get it back, whereas some cars can easily go a tenth faster by either the tap of a keyboard, or turn of a wrench. I am trying to use as many of the “enhancements” given throughout the years that made many of these cars fast, but there are some combos out there, mainly in the bottom half of the alphabet, that no matter how much time or money you put into them, they will never be one second under players. I can and have played the game with getting a few hp back on the combo, but you have to purposely run the car slow to keep the average down. It was easy when I had a worn out engine, but pretty much counterintuitive at this point. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but grouping all cars as being able to run faster with enough time or money is not really fair. I’ll see what a 3 speed will do for the car soon, but other than that, I’d have to find a better combination if I want to hang with combos much more responsive to the typical stocker techniques of today. That being said, the majority probably doesn’t really give a toss about slow stockers anyway. Rant over.

Re: Ahfs
 

Like Doug said, many, mostly "lower class" Stockers, do not , and can not , benefit from many of the "enhancements" that NHRA has been doling out to certain combinations in recent years. For many of the lower HP cars, there are no approved aluminum aftermarket cylinder heads, intake manifolds, carbs, etc available for their combinations. Not to mention that some people, actually like working within the limitations of the "crappy" components that their combination left the factory with. Certainly the enhancements have helped many racers, but not all, so it seems unfair that all the indexes should be reduced, when not all were gifted with "special" parts to improve their performance potential.

Re: Ahfs
 

How would you guys in the lower classes feel if they lowered the index's by .1 in cars from K up. Just a thought BP