Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Parker
The only remotely justifiable argument for lower indexes is that it "keeps out the riff-raff", and I consider that to be nothing more than arrogance on the part of the racers who feel that way. Indexes will NEVER eliminate sandbagging.
Really...I saved 3 years to have my engine fixed so I could go back out and race. I started with a camaro that ran 4 to 5 under .worked my *** off testing on a very limited budget to make my car faster. We are a performance based class. If you knew me you would know I would like as many people at the races as possible. It has been said that lowering them would keep people away. I know personally I am not going to some because I triggered it once by .005 when the air got real good overnight at Epping. Now if I had a heads up run from another fast car in the class it could happen again. what do I get for all my hard work is horsepower. I also never mentioned 3 tenths, I do agree that is too much. And yes it would be wonderful if we had someone like Famer to have a better handle on factors. Traction problems really have to do with your dial. would not matter the index. I am wondering how many stockers are out there that can not run a tenth under. It does not always cost money to pick a car up. But it helps. Trust me I have one of the smallest budgets there is. I hope the riff raft come race with us. All are welcome by me
|
For all to come and enjoy, split the difference: Add .15 to the indexes to help out the lower budget and cross overs.......change AHFS hit to 1.50 under that's .15 more than current, change the review to 2 1.25 unders, with ahfs average going up to 1.05 for change from .85.
HP reduction could use some serious help. Its pretty rough as is.
There, I think I like it, at least I like it more than the current AHFS formulas.
Eric