2011 ahfs

I agree 100% with Angelo. No heads up runs during eliminations and do away with the ahfs. It's just one big bracket race anyway. Let the people who want to thrash their stuff or build "soft" combinations do so and the people who want to bracket race do their thing. I've been stock and super stock racing since 1968 and still am. The original intent of these classes was always that they were performance driven. Those of us who still want to compete in that arena should be able to as well as those who don"t.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by garbarineracing

I agree 100% with Angelo. No heads up runs during eliminations and do away with the ahfs. It's just one big bracket race anyway. Let the people who want to thrash their stuff or build "soft" combinations do so and the people who want to bracket race do their thing. I've been stock and super stock racing since 1968 and still am. The original intent of these classes was always that they were performance driven. Those of us who still want to compete in that arena should be able to as well as those who don"t.

Well then you guys should save a ton of bucks and just race heavy or pro at Englishtown
way down on the traveling expenses no motels or motor homes.

[Angelo DiTocco]

Originally Posted by art leong

Well then you guys should save a ton of bucks and just race heavy or pro at Englishtown
way down on the traveling expenses no motels or motor homes.

Artie - I think you should read my most before commenting on what Joe wrote

[MikeFicacci]

I like heads up racing even if you're covered by little. I know constructive ideas have kind of gone out the window but I don't mind the new system.

I would suggest two changes. How about making the instant horsepower 1.10 under just like it used to be at 1.40 when the indexes were higher .3. 1.10 under is absolutely flying no matter what the class. Also, I'm getting lost in the terminology but counting the altitude runs off the adjusted index should count for both the automatic hit and the averages.

Lastly, I'm a big fan of one pound weight breaks for the simple fact that it will make heads-up runs more frequent and hopefully help the system work faster.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Angelo DiTocco

Artie - I think you should read my most before commenting on what Joe wrote

Sorry Angelo. I read the first line, and skipped to the next post.This thread is going like a chat room hard to keep up

[Tom Moock]

I like to know who is going to keep track of all the runs? Sims like a lot of work for somebody to keep track of the averages for each combination. A lot of times they list wrong body types on Drag race central. Is somebody going to look at everybody`s tech card? Drag race central doesn't list times for all runs in eliminations at points meet and no list for Open`s. . Tom

[Travis Miller]

I just cruised through the Stock classes in Nitro Joe's Stats latest issue and saw very few older cars that made a run more than 1.10 under the index. I'm sure those few guys worked very hard to attain that honor. What I saw more of was quite a few newer cars that ran more than 1.10 under and they were each probably toting quite a few extra pounds.

It looks like a 1.10 under immediate hit on the revised AHFS for 2011 would have done much more for getting horsepowers corrected and done it a lot quicker than 1.20 under.

Considering that .3 was taken off the indexes this year, a 1.10 under immediate hit would have been exactly the same as the old 1.40 under hit. I seem to remember everyone being very happy with the hit set at 1.40 under. Setting the new hit at 1.20 under puts us back to the same as when the AHFS started in 2002 with a hit of 1.50 under.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions and ramblings of a techman in the off season expressed on this forum by me are exactly that, my opinions and ramblings.)

[Ed Wright]

I like the new system as (or if) I understand it. I understand Wade's issues but a few years down if we all get that much faster the indexes may get whacked again. I can't imagine any real racer (like Wade) stopping working on their stuff to go faster. Only the bracket racers won't. The performance nuts will. And they will still be called d**k swingers and ego polishers, and things will go on. I like class elininations & heads ups.

I appreciate the time & effort they spent on this. Just, personally, hope factored times at altitude times aren't used.

[Jim Bailey]

Great minds think a like. Well said Travis !!! Couldn't have said it any better myself ....then again, maybe I did ! JB

[JRyan]

Mark, if anyone was smart enough to respond to Rick's earlier post about the altitude tracks, you may find that you wouldn't have to sandbag at altitude because you don't really run what you run.

Using your car as an example: Sea Level index of 11.70 - 1.10 under would be 10.60. If you ran at Denver, your index would be 12.61. A run of 1.10 under would be an 11.51. For example, let's just say that you had to go 1.08 under (10.62) to get the record at sea level, so you figured your 1.10 under run at Denver would get you the record. Well, you'd be wrong! Your 1.10 under run of 11.51 would only factor back to a sea level run of 10.67 so you'd miss the record by .05 hun.

Based on that, was it really a 1.10 under run, or a 1.03 under run??? Can anyone answer that question, or is it the reason that NHRA continues to treat altitude runs differently? It might be a monumental amount of work for them, so I can see why they'd shy away. But I also don't think that many who complain on this board about runs at altitude even know how the system works.

I do think, and have said it on this board many times, that the altiude factors are somewhat out of line and should be rethought and probably lowered at least 10%.
Mark, that would make your index at Denver a 12.52 instead of the 12.61.

So Rick's question remains unanswered. Anyone going to answer it?

Jerry