2011 ahfs

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Jeff Teuton

I guess any valve spring, any valve job, etc, etc,etc,etc,etc,ported heads,etc, any brakes, any etc that enhance performance makes Stock and SS very dynamic eliminators, combined with static numbers, AHFS, makes for a math guys nightmare. It's kinda like taking a really good pie and moving it off the counter and onto a short table, and then getting mad at my dog Lucky for eating the pie that he couldn't reach before. But if you leave the pie on the counter, and Lucky, being the smart Beagle he is works out , looses weight, and developes the ability to jump on the counter, should you still be mad if he gets the pie. Now you know how the AHFS works. But then I am probably not wise enough to discuss this thing anyway.

Jeff, that's hilarious..................so how many times have you told your wife "honey, the dog ate the pie...............i swear"

[Jeff Teuton]

I guess the only other thing is 'Do I beat Lucky?' for eating the pie, or give him a much loved ear scratching for working so hard. I guess the answer is 1.20 under or .850 under average for all his jumps. And nobody including me ever beats Lucky. You gotta admit it's pretty close. Of course Travis the Tech Guy will have to see what kind of pie it was, what size was the plate, just how much did Lucky eat, homeade or store bought. I just couldn't pass that Travis.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Jeff Teuton

Of course Travis the Tech Guy will have to see what kind of pie it was, what size was the plate, just how much did Lucky eat, homeade or store bought. I just couldn't pass that Travis.

See, that's where you screwed up. At Bowling Green, you should have had Travis at your trailer feeding him, but you had us and the Hills down there instead, and left Travis and Redman out.

[Craig Couris]

Does anyone else have an opinion on the AA/SA index of 10.60?

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Craig Couris

Does anyone else have an opinion on the AA/SA index of 10.60?

well i know it was set way low on purpose to avoid the AHFS, but 10.60 is a bit low. Maybe 10.75, or 10.80

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Chad Rhodes

well i know it was set way low on purpose to avoid the AHFS, but 10.60 is a bit low. Maybe 10.75, or 10.80

It was set at 10.90 when the class was formed to allow the cars to run a little harder before the trigger. Len Imbrogno called or emailed most of the people who were asking for the AA class to be formed and asked them what the index should be. Those of us who were contacted tried to reach everyone who was not contacted, but I'm sure some people were missed, unfortunately. For example, I did not have Craig's contact information at the time, whether anyone else asked him, I do not know. The general consensus of the majority was the 10.90 index, and Len gave us exactly what we asked for.

None of that was considered when they lowered the indexes and changes the triggers for the AHFS. At 10.90, you'd have had to run a 9.500 to get 3.25%, under the original indexes and AHFS. That was just about ideal, because the records were initially set in the 9.6-9.7 zone, before the new cars were introduced. We knew all along it would make it very hard to qualify at Indy, because most people couldn't run fast enough in 3500-4000 feet of air.

Then they arbitrarily lowered it to 10.60 when they lowered all the other indexes. Maybe they should have lowered it a little, to 10.80, but not 10.60 by any stretch.

They will not change the index though, because it gives the new cars so much more room to run. At 10.60, you need to run a 9.3500 to get 3.25%. That's probably why the AA index was lowered to begin with, although I can also see where whoever made the decision to lower the indexes either didn't look or didn't care.

[Craig Couris]

Alan,

That's exactly why the AA index was originally set at 10.90 but there were no other combinations that could run 9.30's.

Mark,

You may be missing my point relative to the AA index. The only combination (so far) that can run 9.60 in the heat is a blown car so the AHFS will never ever help the carburetor cars in the class and the blown cars will never get hit because there just isn't any reason to run any faster.

If I were smart, I'd push the Corvette into the corner and prepare the CJ for 2011 but that still doesn't fix the problem plus I'm not that smart.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Craig Couris

Alan,

That's exactly why the AA index was originally set at 10.90 but there were no other combinations that could run 9.30's.

If I were smart, I'd push the Corvette into the corner and prepare the CJ for 2011 but that still doesn't fix the problem plus I'm not that smart.

At the time, there were no cars that could run in the 9.5's without mineshaft air. Which was exactly the point.

Now there are plenty of cars that can run 9.2 at 2500 feet or more.

If you were smart, you'd sell all that stuff and get richer quicker. And then you'd be bored silly. So stay stupid with the rest of us and we'll see you next February.

[Craig Couris]

Alan,

I'm afraid the stupidity is starting to wear off.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Craig