AA/S AAA/S and Class consolidation

[Dick Butler]

Bruce can you be more specific? how does the current AHFS vary from what you are generally describing and "the way it used to be"?
Better yet give one criteria which should be used? Altitude factoring? Air gauge/ Teardown first?
R Sledge is right. Give real examples...please

[Bruce Noland]

Geezz Dick,

Wake up!

Just look it up for yourself. The orginal AHFS is still on the nhra site. There is a very simple one paragraph description of how we set up the system.

Now Wesley and others have created this after-the-fact monster of a system that basicly says they can do what ever the hell they please and without telling one racer about the changes before they implement them.

The AHFS that we voted for was a combination specific system. The system that Wesley has created says he no longer needs similar combinations to get a triggering event. He has also combined huge numbers of cars that were never even considered to be similar by the original AHFS - like Chev, Olds, Buick, and Pontiac.

Your question shows that you have not been paying attention. This problem has nothing to do with teardowns or any number of side show issues. But, it has everything to do with the design and administration of the rules and how Wesley and others have cheated us by abusing the system to satisfy their own needs. And the nhra staff just hunkers down and tells the racers they have bushwacked to send in letters pleading their cases. It's total BS!

I have copied all of this material and plan on presenting it to a newly promoted nhra executive.

[RJ Sledge]

Bruce

Why don't you share some of the finer points of what you plan on sending to NHRA, just so that we all can get on the same page.

I would like to see some solid ideas of what to do, not just saying that they (NHRA) have not done this or have done that.

I hope that you will provide some of what you are going to tell them.

How about using the top 5 hitters (or less for combo's that are one off's, i.e. Shelby, etc.) from each combo to run an average, instead of the everyone running that particular combo?

How about counting all runs at National Events instead of Qualifying and Eliminations?

How about not counting Record attempts when you go 1.40 under at Divisional races?

How about using 1000 ft times at National Events to get ride of the sandbagging?

How about having to tear down before you receive an Automatic hit?

Just a few things that I have been thinking about, anybody else have some ideas to kick around?

R J Sledge

[RJ Sledge]

Hey Dick, I forgot about the Altitude Factor situation that you mentioned, there needs to be a way to formulate something so that all Runs at National Events, both Sea Level and Altitude events get figured in.

The formulas that they use are extremely out dated and they need attention.

Any ideas?

R J

[bill dedman]

Bruce,

I am not a racer, and have no dog in this hunt, but I would like to submit a suggestion for your consideration.

To wit:
Please include with your laundry list of modifications/improvements to the AHFS, a suggestion that the business of factoring an engine in a PARTICULAR CHASSIS, and not "across the board" is illogical to the point of bizarre. An engine has no knowledge of what kind of chassis it's installed in and unless there are OVERT problems in constructing suitable headers, will make virtually the same flywheel horsepower in ANY Stocker chassis.

The racers I have talked to all agree that somebody with some axe to grind got this system into place, (were trhe racers polled???) and it surely does not contribute to a "level playing field."

Nobody seems to know where this came from. Do you know?

Thanks much for your time and attention.

Bll

[Mark Yacavone]

Bill, It makes perfect sense. Take a T/SA 283/220 wagon that goes 1.15 under and then subtract the weight difference of a Chevy II in I/SA with the same motor . Now look at the index difference. Tell me if the Chevy II needs hp put on it.

[Bruce Noland]

Guys,

My point is the version of the AHFS that we the racers approved should be the HP system that we use. Not this unauthorized and unpublished (in advance) version that Wesley has come up with. Just read the first version of the AHFS that we all approved and then read Wesley's twisted version. And remember he has made all these changes and not given any advanced notification of the changes. That should be enough to get your blood boiling.

What would I want to add to the version that we approved? Nothing!

You can forget about all the trick math and weather factors because that would require an expenditure of nhra cash!

The original system was working as well as can be expected. It has been said many times, that there is no one system that will cure the HP factoring problems. The original AHFS was doing the job it was intended to do but the powercrats at nhra, like Wesley, won't leave it alone.

[bill dedman]

Mark; is the glass half full or half empty? Sounds to me like the indexes are at fault. How can an engine make more horsepower in a wagon than it makes in a light two-door sedan?

It can't.

If there's a problem relative to the index, look at the index, not the horsepower involved; you KNOW the output of the engine doesn't change from chassis-to-chassis. The problem of inappropriate indexes is spread throughout the entire class system. To predicaate a horsepower factoring system that dictates factrored horsepower based in the vehicle the engine it's in makes NO sense to me.

Looks like NHRA needs to adjust the index, if it's wrong (and it sure looks that way.)

The situation you point out clearly illustrates that the indexes in those two classes are badly skewed.... one of them, at least, is too fast, or too slow. They need to fix THAT, not continue this fairytale of engines changing output depending on their 'host vehicle." You KNOW that doesn't really happen.

Looks like we have the tail wagging the dog, here.

As I said, I am not a (class) racer, so maybe I shouldn't even be posting on this; it just seemed that if Bruce was actually going to address the AFHS issue with the Ivory Tower, then this issue could be a part of that, But, since he hasn't replied to my post, perhaps he has no interest in making this a part of his presentation; I can only guess. It could be that he doesn't want to "muddy the water" by presenting too many issues at one time, or perhaps he agrees with you that incorrect indexes can be dealt with by skewing the horsepower numbers in SELECT vehicles, and not applying the factored HP for an engine "across the board."

Maybe he'll let us know how he feels about this, one way or the other.

Again, thanks for your time and input.

Bill