How much undeer the index is your record

[Adger Smith]

Hey,
Why change you combination with a stick?
That is just more money we have to spend chasing a dream.
No it is actually more punishment to you pocket book for being fast.
I hate to say this because of the backlash,
but
IHRA is looking better all the time.
I can run my car fast, tinker with it at the races and learn some things as long as I don't go quicker than 1.40 under.
I can go run my car without being in bracket mode.
I won't be punished for adding to the performance of my car.
As pointed out earlier I don't have to harm an index to set a record.
I could actually set a couple of IHRA records lower than the current NHRA records with out going quicker than the magic 1.40 under.
I bet there are other racers in the same situation.
High entry fees, fees for everything you (they) can think of, High fuel costs,
I'm beginning to realize all this & AHFS enhancement has my ego deflating at the rate my pocketbook is also being deflated.

Wow, I can't believe this...give me a Prozac

[doublet]

The table is interesting, but being a non-racer, I have a couple of questions.

1. There are some classes where quite a bit of disparity exists between the index and the record just before and just after. For example: C/S record is .5 under the index, but B/S & D/S are both 1.05 under, and then E/S and F/S both go to .5 again. Why?

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the index supposed to be what a reasonably prepared race car should run on average each time down the track? Does this mean that, on average, for every car that consistantly can run 1 second under it's index, that there are an equal number of cars within that index that can't get within 1 second of it?

These may be stupid questions, but like I said, I am only a spectator.

[Bob Bender]

Some of the records are altitude corrected that is BS!!!

[doublet]

Only some?

[Pedigo Perf]

It would be nice if NHRA allowed a few events where you could run as hard as possible to set a record without the penalties......but they don't. Thats why the records are at altitude tracks. Go get you one if you dare.

[doublet]

That still doesn't explain to me why the diparity between some classes.

[Pedigo Perf]

Jim Hughes C/S can run 1.0 under at will but you don't see him setting the record probably because it is a pain in the butt (teardown) and pays ZERO!

[Mike Carr]

Originally Posted by doublet

The table is interesting, but being a non-racer, I have a couple of questions.

1. There are some classes where quite a bit of disparity exists between the index and the record just before and just after. For example: C/S record is .5 under the index, but B/S & D/S are both 1.05 under, and then E/S and F/S both go to .5 again. Why?

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the index supposed to be what a reasonably prepared race car should run on average each time down the track? Does this mean that, on average, for every car that consistantly can run 1 second under it's index, that there are an equal number of cars within that index that can't get within 1 second of it?

These may be stupid questions, but like I said, I am only a spectator.

Doublet, after two years, if a record is not re-set, it goes to a "minimum", which is five-tenths under (-.50). If the Index is 11.00, and the record is set at 9.79. If no one sets in lower in two years, the record goes to 10.50.