2011 ahfs

[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 Adger Smith

Bryan,
LOL!
You have a PM
You are dead on and dead right about the aero difference in the Corvette Vs Truck and why one shouldn't suffer because of another. The problem is numbers or stats don't know the difference when everything with the same GT engine is considered equal. They aren't equal.
The other problem is the AHFS is set up with the assumption that anything that is fast is not factored correctly with HP or Index. It has no way of allowing someone that works hard is dedicated to performance to show his ability. It is designed to further mediocrity.
It just takes the performance factor out of a class that was developed on performance.
We are being handed a blow that bracket racers don't even have to deal with. They can go as fast as they want and dial what they want without being penalized.
How about Bracket 1 for SS and Bracket 2 for Stock and you can't dial or run more than 1 second under the index? I never thought I would live long enough to be able to see bracket racing become a performance based class. (at least in TD and TS going fast means you get to qualify) Sorry, I got mad and off the subject.

Adger....don't forget the "DELAY BOX" being used in T/S & T/D. Almost like the trans brake buttons used in S/S.....LOL.

[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.)