HP Adjustments on NHRA.com

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by RJ Sledge

I'm at a loss......

RJ

Is that new??
________________________________________________

So many of the factoring decisions are political at best. It goes like this . . . . . Some person in NHRA's chain of command gets inundated by complaints from some racer they like, or think is okay, and that racer makes good, valid arguments why this or that change is necessary to "make things fair". That NHRA person then has his way of thinking twisted to align with the racer and every time the unfair situation becomes a topic of conversation, his point of view has already been set. Now we know that these NHRA people are not that technical, so their ability to do a rational analysis is limited. And, they will not often research the issue to gain more evidence, they will just talk about it more. When they hear about this issue from more racers, they talk more (from the same point of view). Finally, a critical mass is reached and the tipping point results in policy change, index changes, hp factors, new rules etc. Often they don't even go back and review the results of their decisions, they just go through more cycles like described above.

The points to learn are 1) be liked by your NHRA people; 2) talk a lot (don't gripe, whine and argue); and 3) do more of 1) and 2).

Example in fact: Years ago, a friend of mine got his little combination factored, way before the AHFS. To keep the effect of this story as civil as possible, let's call my friend Ricky Mac. Ricky Mac was not a braggard or rude or unlikeable. He didn't talk much to many people, but worked on his car a lot with his head, not his pocket book. Also, he rarely raced out of Div 4 and was not a contender for a national title or such. Many other cars similar to his were being raced across the country using the same engine but not at the same performance level. However, some **st coast whiners who ran the same classes began a campaign of talking and complaining, and after a stellar performance by Ricky Mac one weekend under mineshaft coastal conditions, the whines got traction and the pencil was put to paper for Ricky. There was a little problem, however. There were people that were liked more than Ricky Mac, let's called them Friends of Glendale or FOG for short, who ran the same engine in other body styles, and the pencil would have put the hurt to them. So, the solution came with a factor placed only on the particular engine and body combination that Ricky Mac raced. So, you could race that particular engine in dozens of other body styles at 10 hp less (aerodynamics be damned!) . Talk about micro, micro factoring!

And that difference stayed in the class guide until this year when, under the guise of the AHFS, another stellar performance by two of such cars raced by Ricky Mac and his friend Tommy Joe in a heads-up race triggered another round of factoring. However, this time the increase was applied across the board to all other makes using this engine, except a few body styles that were passed by. And you guessed it, in the group of body styles that missed the machete of factoring included the body styles used by FOG.

Whether or not all that has been intentional or not, I do not know. But the evidence is mighty curious. The lessons to learn are that you need to follow points 1), 2) and 3) above, there is not a lot of technical consideration given to decisions, and work on your car like FJ said.

(Disclaimer: The facts given are true. The names have been changed to protect all. Such behavior is based on past history and in no way is a predictor of future performance.)

[Ryan_Haag]

Originally Posted by Herbie Null

Ryan, when I went from my 67 camaro to the 87 camaro I put the same engine and transmission in. At the same weight vs the 67 I went a tenth quicker and 2 mph faster, the fwd GT cars vs the RWD cars follow this same logic. So I would say a jelly bean car with the same HP and weight as you would be a good 15 hundredths to 2 tenths faster in qualifying than you. Now if the FWD car with the lighter shipping weight can run GT/C are lower because of the lighter shipping weight then they get another 5 hundredths because of the index break that a RWD can not get to.

Sounds like I need to update Herbie!

[thomas sheehan]

Originally Posted by Herbie Null

Ryan, when I went from my 67 camaro to the 87 camaro I put the same engine and transmission in. At the same weight vs the 67 I went a tenth quicker and 2 mph faster, the fwd GT cars vs the RWD cars follow this same logic. So I would say a jelly bean car with the same HP and weight as you would be a good 15 hundredths to 2 tenths faster in qualifying than you. Now if the FWD car with the lighter shipping weight can run GT/C are lower because of the lighter shipping weight then they get another 5 hundredths because of the index break that a RWD can not get to.

Herb... you made a good point comparing your 67 camaro to your 87 camaro (being a tenth quicker and 2 mph quicker).
Now here is where I disagree with this whole point. Why do we only look at the FWD vs RWD comparison. If they give the RWD's a break, why don't they do the same for Ryan's 67 camaro? (obviously 1 tenth slower as you stated), What about a shoebox (Randall Klein's car) running GT (a bigger disadvantage). Doesn't an RWD 87 camaro have a huge advantage in GT over that car (55 shoebox).
My point is where do you stop? They stopped with the RWD vs FWD comparison which only helps certain people (not the masses).
I hope this makes sense....

[Ed Wright]

If that data is correct, I am really surprised at the difference between the 1988 Camaro and 1988 Firebird. I wasn't aware a 1988 Firebird was that much better than the later Firebird. Very interesting.

[SS 230]

Originally Posted by thomas sheehan

Herb... you made a good point comparing your 67 camaro to your 87 camaro (being a tenth quicker and 2 mph quicker).
Now here is where I disagree with this whole point. Why do we only look at the FWD vs RWD comparison. If they give the RWD's a break, why don't they do the same for Ryan's 67 camaro? (obviously 1 tenth slower as you stated), What about a shoebox (Randall Klein's car) running GT (a bigger disadvantage). Doesn't an RWD 87 camaro have a huge advantage in GT over that car (55 shoebox).
My point is where do you stop? They stopped with the RWD vs FWD comparison which only helps certain people (not the masses).
I hope this makes sense....

Exactly!

[Bob Bender]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hill

Drag coefficient isn't the whole story, a fourth gen camaro has a drag coefficient of .34 and a new massive Dodge Durango is .33. You have to multiply drag coefficient by the frontal area to get the real numbers. Here are some numbers I found searching online (may not be 100% accurate, couldn't find a database with all of them).

1988 Camaro IROC Z-> Cd = 0.34, A = 21.00 ft^2, CdA = 7.14 ft^2
1988 Firebird Trans Am-> Cd = 0.31, A = 20.75, CdA = 6.43
1993-2002 Camaro-> Cd = 0.34, A = 22.00, CdA = 7.48
1993-2002 Firebird-> Cd = 0.34, A = 22.00, CdA = 7.48
1995-2005 Cavalier-> Cd = 0.38, A = 20.2, CdA = 7.24
1997 Sunfire-> Cd = 0.38, A = 22.2, CdA = 7.68
2005 Cobalt-> Cd = 0.324, A = 23.1, CdA = 6.90
2005 Stratus-> Cd = 0.33, A = 23.1, CdA = 7.03
C6 Corvette -> Cd = 0.286, A = 22.3, Cd = 6.38
C5 Corvette-> Cd = 0.29, A = 21.3, CdA = 6.18
2008-11 Challenger-> Cd = 0.35, A =25.3, CdA = 8.86

Could you do the numbers on my wagon??

[Herbie Null]

Removed post, my computer was hacked, lol

[joe176]

OMG ....I should've kept my cavalier !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ryan_Haag]

Originally Posted by Herbie Null

Tom, the GT cars weight break vs Index on the SS cars are pretty close on this already, now for the 55 shoebox running GT? My personal opion is that if the engine came in the car it should be a original SS car, the GT class was intended to be a different motor and car combo. This is how it was listed back in 1984--Enter Super Stock GT, a new class for 1984.
Designed for 1980 and newer factory-production two-door sedans and convertibles, the new GT classes offer the racer an opportunity to slide his body into something brand new bodywise ... but familiar enginewise.

http://www.nhra.net/50th/news/index.html?story=305

I disagree that if I run GT with my 67 Camaro, I have to claim the heaviest shipping weight offered in a 67 Camaro. Now how is that fair when you are going to be running a Cobalt at 2670 and the lightest I can weigh is 3130!!! Explain that one to me! Why does an older car have a disadvantaged when it comes to shipping weights?

[Herbie Null]

.....