AHFS Question

[Chuck Norton]

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

[Chuck Beach]

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?

[novassdude]

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.

[Chuck Beach]

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.

[Jim Wahl]

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

[bill dedman]

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???

[Greg Hill]

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.

[Chuck Norton]

Originally Posted by Jim Wahl

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.

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?

[Jack Matyas]

Originally Posted by Chuck Norton

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?

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 ...................

[Chuck Norton]

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