Submit 2014 Rule Change Requests

[Jeff Teuton]

Two things. The dymanic eliminators are stock and super stock; always changing because the cars, smart tuners, new parts, etc keep them changing all the time. I think that is a given. The static numbers 1.20 under, 1.00 trigger, .350 under (as mentioned) and all the stationary stuff just doesn't work with changing numbers. A system tied to eliminator averages and engine averages with instant looks when a trigger is hit, then the system applies. You know 1.00 under at Gainesville early in the year, and 1.00 at Indy are not the same. An average would move with the time of year. Have as many adjustment periods as you like; 2,3,4. The same data is collected anyway. It would work better, and just reverse the system to take hp off at a faster rate than is currently available, which takes entirely too long and is too limited. Second thing, since I got a new car, I have petitioned NHRA to reduce the hp on the old cars accross the board. My starting point was older than 2008 5% accross the board (its just an excel program) and maybe only 2% for the LS1. Spoke to tech this weekend and in a frank conversation, 5% might not be enough. So it's all out there. I didn't just dream this stuff up. It's been out there. The current system took the politics out of the program, refine it without politics again and it would be much better. I think that is 3 cents worth. I ain't through. Now there are some glitches that happen, like one or two in the nation; I have a provision for that. Over the many years since myself and Wesley studied this (1999), it has provided for everything and is more gentle and user friendly than the current AHFS. When the current system was proposed by NHRA, I accepted it because it was better than what was out there and it at least functions, but not as well as an average system could. I think I would do away with the body family thing. I don't think the data will support this; an engine on a dyno don't know which car it is going in. Maybe a few rare exceptions, but not many. Anyway, I am now up to 5 cents and that all I got for now, but I got a lot more. Maybe some more. I also proposed for NHRA to sublet the data responsibility to Nitro Joe and friends. A small fee to offset the cost, maybe an additional buck per entry, and some sort of fee to the world famous Nitro and company for current information (which is always current) for details. And I got to go somewhere, and we up to a dime now.

[Richard Grant]

Very Interesting, Jeff. It's obivious that you have put much thought into this concept. It's probably not perfect( nothing is) but at least it begins the process to improve.

[Jeff Lee]

From September 2012 discussion on ClassRacer with Andrew Hill's response (to which I agree with):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lee
Want more participation at NHRA events with the "older / traditional" Stock Eliminator cars?

Want to see a qualifying sheet that is not top heavy with late model factory drag cars that leave you with no desire to participate?

Don't want the expense of having a new "crate Engine" class and making your old 350 / 255 Chevy obsolete and having to buy a 383 Vortec engine trying to keep up with the new factory Super Cars?

Do you want to give the new cars a run for their money?

Drum roll.......reduce the HP of ALL 1992 and OLDER vehicles in the class guide BY FIVE PERCENT! No index changes, just an across the board 5%
reduction in HP. For EVERYBODY. This is not complicated. Take 5% off.

Why 1992? Because the LT1 started in 1993. They had their gift already.

I don't care if your combo just had 20 HP taken off last month for whatever reason. Bam! Take another 5% off the weight. Index stays the same.
I don't care that you built your car with the heaviest parts you could find and you can't make the new minimum. You have 3 classes you can run in. Pick one.

AHFS trigger? I don't know. I'm thinking it should remain the same. But I'd sure like the trigger to be based on the 1/8th mile ET.

Thank you. Let the arrows fly.

Andrew Hill response:
Well that makes sense, just get even more people playing the AHFS game! It would make 1000x more sense to add 5% to all post 1992 combinations, it accomplishes the same thing, but doesn't create a bunch of 1.30 under cars from 1.10 under cars.
__________________
3207 D/SA

[Ed Wright]

Jeff, since it would effect fewer cars possibly having to change classes or weights, would it not be simpler to add 5% to all the newer cars? It's pretty obvious they are the problem, not everybody else. Right?

[denbreeden]

Easy Ed, 5% is way too much for the new cars. I could see maybe 4.5 or 4.75 but 5%? Your killin' me!

Dennis Breeden

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by denbreeden

Easy Ed, 5% is way too much for the new cars. I could see maybe 4.5 or 4.75 but 5%? Your killin' me!

Dennis Breeden

Oh, Dennis, at 3770 lbs you could still run about 1.5 under. LOL

[Pistol Pete]

The seat belt issue to me is that, if you take Racer A that makes 7-8 Div's & just as many
or if not more Nationals compared to Racer B that makes 3-4 Div & 3-4 National meets
the seat belt is not getting used as much.

That's why i say inspect them after 3 years, still good, keep using them.

My .03 cents

[denbreeden]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Oh, Dennis, at 3770 lbs you could still run about 1.5 under. LOL

I couldn't but I'm not saying it couldn't be done with a 5.7, lol.

Dennis Breeden

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by denbreeden

I couldn't but I'm not saying it couldn't be done with a 5.7, lol.

Dennis Breeden

Just got my DragStats yesterday. Fastest SS/JA car listed is one of those. Div 4 car. It's a Stocker, 9" tires, foot brake, leaves REAL soft, yet runs over 108 in the 1/8th, and high 130s in the 1/4. If I ever have to race it I'm going to help you get some hp. LOL

[Jeff Lee]

Ed, you didn't read the entire post.
I posted my thoughts and Andrew Hill said the same thing you are saying. As you can see, I agreed with Andrew (and you).