2011 ahfs

[Travis Miller]

Originally Posted by Jeff Teuton

Mike F. Just for information there were over 630 runs in Stock over 1.10 under and I think over 300 in Super Stock. In Stock, the old cars outnumbered the new car about 6 to 1 if I remember my numbers, and almost all the runs in Super Stock were not the new cars. That was in all formats; National, Points, & National Opens thru Pomona. One to go this weekend.

So you are saying that in 2010 there were over 630 runs in Stock and 300 in SS that were under by 1.10 or more but did not cause an automatic hit because the number had been lowered to 1.25 under. Since .3 was removed from the indexes, those 930 ET's that the cars ran would have been the same as 1.40 under in the previous year.

Checking data for 2008 I find only 5 runs in Stock and 4 runs in S/S that hit the automatic hit number of 1.40 under the index. For 2009 there were 6 runs in Stock and 8 runs in S/S that committed the same 1.40 under automatic hit. Something does not compute here.

Using Nitro Joe's Stats, I find that for 2010 there were 47 stockers and 21 S/Sers that ran more than 1.10 under the index. To reach the 630 run data under 1.10, each of these 47 stockers would have had to do that on average of13 times. In S/S each of the 21 cars would have had to do it 14 times.

Also in 2010 there were 12 runs in Stock that were more than 1.25 under causing an automatic hit. Of those 12 runs, 10 fell into the new car group. For S/S there was only 1 automatic hit and it was a new car.

630 runs for Stock and 300 for S/S...???????

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions and ??????? expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions and ???????.)

[Ed Wright]

Thanks for all your work, Travis.

[Jim Bailey]

Oh my gosh Travis ...the silence is deafening ....LMAO. JB

[MikeFicacci]

I'm a little confused myself. 630 Stock eliminator runs 1.10 under? If that is in fact a true statement and you have sat there and counted........? How many of the 630 were new cars?

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by mikeficacci

i'm a little confused myself. 630 stock eliminator runs 1.10 under? If that is in fact a true statement and you have sat there and counted........? How many of the 630 were new cars?

628 ?

[Travis Miller]

Here's the runs I can find in Stock for 2010 that are 1.10 or more under.

At LODRS events runs under 1.10 were 25 new and 14 old.

At National events there were 95 new and 14 old.

(As a side note, at Indy 65 runs were made by new cars at 1.10 or more under while old cars made 14 runs under.)

Since National Opens are not always listed I can only guess that the remaining 482 Stock runs of 1.10 or more under happened at those events and had to be by old cars. That means the 482 runs would account for the 6 to 1 ratio of old cars vs new cars.

While I cannot guarantee 100% accuracy in my figures, I do believe I am not very far off, except maybe for the National Opens. But then that could be the reason for the automatic hit at 1.20 under instead of 1.10 under.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions and figuring expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions and figuring.)

[Ed Wright]

Travis, your numbers are more in line with what one would expect based on what I have seen at the races.

Thanks for the research.

[Kent Hanley]

[QUOTE=Travis Miller;224457]Here's the runs I can find in Stock for 2010 that are 1.10 or more under.

At LODRS events runs under 1.10 were 25 new and 14 old.

At National events there were 95 new and 14 old.

(As a side note, at Indy 65 runs were made by new cars at 1.10 or more under while old cars made 14 runs under.)

Since National Opens are not always listed I can only guess that the remaining 482 Stock runs of 1.10 or more under happened at those events and had to be by old cars. That means the 482 runs would account for the 6 to 1 ratio of old cars vs new cars.

While I cannot guarantee 100% accuracy in my figures, I do believe I am not very far off, except maybe for the National Opens. But then that could be the reason for the automatic hit at 1.20 under instead of 1.10 under.

Travis Miller

(



Travis when i was looking at it a month ago i think i found around 78 "combinations" in stock and super stock that had runs quicker than 1.1 under. I looked at all events sInce the nhra proposed ahfs included all tracks at all nhra races including nationals, divisionals and national opens. Of the 78 combinations 13 were the new factory cars.


MIke F. fyi,i beleive your Dads and brothers cars would of been included in that because of Gary Richards run at the Dutch because all the 396 would of been hit. I also think all the 427 would of been hit as well.


Just and fyi and what i saw.

Kent

[Ed Wright]

Kent, that was all last year, off the new indexes? Where did you get your numbers?

[Travis Miller]

Kent, you are probably right about the 13 new cars. By the end of the year 18 different new cars had been that fast. I am saying those 18 new cars made 95 runs more than 1.10 under the index.

FYI, I did not count runs of 1.10 under at altitude tracks because when factored to sea level, very very few of them are 1.10 under. However I did notice that a lot of older cars did run 1.10 under at altitude tracks before factoring to sea level. I'm sure those numbers are not included in your figures, or are they?

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)