Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races

[Angelo DiTocco]

All's this means is that if the 1.15 is applied to divisionals..... racers are going to do the same thing there that is done at Nationals.... which is slowing their stuff down.

Lynn McCarty's post several pages back............ ignored for the most part, really makes a valid point...... he suggests using "statistical analysis" to determine the combos that have a "statistically significant" advantage.

The only problem with doing this now is that the data from qualifying sheets (that exist since AHFS's inception) are completely skewed and inaacurate due to the sandbagging by us all to avoid triggering the AHFS itself.

Before AHFS was instituted..... I had posted on several forums and wrote to the nhra........ in favor of using a statistical analysis approach to looking at hp factors. At the time.... the qualifying data used for the numbers crunching would have been more reliable. It could have all been done experimentally and its validity checked and rechecked before implementing it.

But like Lynns post.... it was not seriously considered, even ignored by many. I believe at the time...the NHRA's attitude was leaning more towards a system where the individual racer could be held more accountable for what happened to him... rather than a system where they make the determinations.

What Lynn is referencing as a "bell curve" is known in Statistics as a "Standard Distribution". Basically it is measure that is used for a great deal of scientific research such as determinging the effectiveness of a medication.... and even in intelligence testing. In a nutshell..... once a standard distribution is established.... any item (being tested).... more than a "standard deviation" or two above the average... (such as a combo that can go 1.35 under in the summer when the next fastest car is .95 under) is not there by chance.. its not there because the driver stumbled on the perfect tune up... or got a better hold of the track that pass....... it is expected that there must be a logical explanation for it (such as it is under rated). Another example..... if a human scores a 160 on a real IQ examnation.... that person did not get there by guessing all the answers.... there is a reason..... he has exceptional intellectual potential. I really think such a system would have been able to even things out.... and allow racers to persue engine combinations that truely were intersting to them.

I will be holding a seminar on this topic the Wednesday before Gainseville in the purple and yellow hospitality tent under the zepole gazebo.

Either way.... its too bad that this situation still remains a sore point for many. As for myself I eventually gave up and..... I went the route of the soft combo which I highly recommend to others by the way.

Anyway.... I wish all a great holiday season ...... no matter what happens, we're all in it for fun (I hope).

[Bruce Noland]

Evan,

Counting all runs would make sense if we ran the identical combinations, on the same racing surface on the same day. But there are way, way too many variables to attempt to apply one strict rule to govern performance.

This is simply a way for nhra to control performance on the cheap. Len's first post stated very clearly that the majority of the racers were not for -1.15 at divisional races -- His words--"While there have been a large number of racers over the last several years who have asked for division event to be included in the AHFS, there does not appear to be a majority of racers who want this to happen." From the spin doctor himself.

There would be no incentive for working on our cars because nhra has already allowed enough parts to put most of us who are serious about performance over the mark. We can run in Jr. & Top Stock in Div. 1 and be safe from this lunacy but that is not an option for most of the racers.

With rare exception, there is not much difference in performance between altitude and sea level tracks. Some fast folks may miss their tune up when moving between them but the real problem is, as you mentioned, there is no ahfs to speak of at altitude tracks. And that would mean most of the national records would be set at altitude while the majority of the racers back east would be shut out unless they throw caution to the wind. And there is absolutely no reason to believe nhra intends to change this rule.


Mark, did you read Len's first post on this thread? Thanks for your tips on manners but this is a two way street we are on here. And besides, do you know how to communicate with people who are consumed with corporate narcissism?

[stockracer]

Whats the problem with -1.15 under, as long as they count all runs it will make this system work better then ever! And if they are goin to continue to allow record runs a alt. adj. tracks, then hp should follow. Getting hp back is a joke, so they might as well get rid of that little program. Hell, make it -1.00 under for a hit. Who cares, there were a bunch of guys on this forum talking about Indy Qual being a joke because of so many guys goin -1.00 under...So you want to change the index's. Thats no goin to solve anything! Soft combo is still soft!

As far as tossin guys for shutting off at 1000', that rediculous! Deep staging gone, Button gone, Now Bracket racers are on the way out! When will the bitching stop?

[LNorton]

----

[RON TAYLOR]

When Has Ahfs Ever Fffing Worked You Got 350 Cad Fuel Inj. Rated At 180 Hp In Superstock . Get Rid Of It This A Performance Class . They Got Bracket Racing For Everybody That Can"t Get There Combo To Run Fast.

[bottombulb]

I have the answer for all of you "performance based racers" (read that bracket racer haters). If you want your performance class back like the "good old days", forget the AHFS or combining classes or changing indexes. Remove the dial-in/breakout format and institute the CIC format like Comp. Just think, all the performance based racing you can stand! Oh sure, you'll have a bunch of people run away with the class for a few years, but nobody escapes the CIC forever. And best of all, you get rid of all those damn bracket "racers". After all, you don't see them running in Comp, do you? Oh wait, come to think of it, you do. Well, maybe it should just be heads up, period. No indexes or factored HP or anything, just like Pro Stock. Thank God there are none of those damn bracket "racers" there either! Oh wait again. Nevermind. I don't have an answer after all. Those damn bracket "racers" just keep finding a way to ruin everything.

[Mark Yacavone]

You just can't count runs at divisionals without the the threat of teardown there.
Count ALL runs at National events .
Do it four times a year.
You carb guys better lobby for this or you'll be in the back of the bus for four or five years..... or broke, whatever comes first.

[Evan Smith]

Steve, you make a great point and I agree. There needs to be more reason to go fast in the first place, other than Top or Jr. Stock, or bragging rights. Hopefully combining the EFI cars and the regular classes will help this.

I would not be happy about having to protect my factor every run, but what point is there to having a system at all when it is easily avoidable? Anyone can skirt the system the way it is now.

If you want incentive to go fast then here it is:

I proposed to Len and Mr. Light a system in which points (divisional and/or national) are awarded to the top 16 qualifiers at national and divisional events in Stock and SS. Top qualifier gets 16 points, 16th qualifier gets 1 point and you can do the rest of the math. With that, points should be awarded for national records (come up with a fair point value and a max number of points that can be earned in a season) and also for wins during class eliminations. If you get points for beating someone heads-up during the eliminator, why not award points during Class Eliminations. OK, busy classes offer more opportunity for points, well then build a car for that class.

This would help a go-fast guy gain a Top-10 finish in the divsion rather than it just being based on bracket-racing points totals. If Stock and SS are performance-based classes, then performance should matter. This is a simple way for performance to matter.

Evan

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Evan Smith

Steve, you make a great point and I agree. There needs to be more reason to go fast in the first place, other than Top or Jr. Stock, or bragging rights. Hopefully combining the EFI cars and the regular classes will help this.

I would not be happy about having to protect my factor every run, but what point is there to having a system at all when it is easily avoidable? Anyone can skirt the system the way it is now.

If you want incentive to go fast then here it is:

I proposed to Len and Mr. Light a system in which points (divisional and/or national) are awarded to the top 16 qualifiers at national and divisional events in Stock and SS. Top qualifier gets 16 points, 16th qualifier gets 1 point and you can do the rest of the math. With that, points should be awarded for national records (come up with a fair point value and a max number of points that can be earned in a season) and also for wins during class eliminations. If you get points for beating someone heads-up during the eliminator, why not award points during Class Eliminations. OK, busy classes offer more opportunity for points, well then build a car for that class.

This would help a go-fast guy gain a Top-10 finish in the divsion rather than it just being based on bracket-racing points totals. If Stock and SS are performance-based classes, then performance should matter. This is a simple way for performance to matter.
Evan

Best idea yet! Doesn't address the AHFS issue but I'd support something like this anyday. There should be rewards for all the hard work besides a line in ND and a certificate. I think by the time they combine FI with carbs and maybe even combine trannys you'll see that some will be forced into going fast.
I've also proposed to Len that either 1/8th mile or 1000' increments are used in evaluations along with 100# maximum ballast. That would take care of the racers sandbagging the AHFS. Racers, putting on a show on your brakes will make the class as appealing as the throttle-stop classes!

[Tony Curcio]

1.15 under will seem ridiculously soft in another 3 to 5 years. When AHFS started gathering stats in 2001, it was relatively rare. This is the real problem with a fixed and apparently arbitrary benchmark.

It wasn't that long ago that only the top 10 or 15 cars qualified at 1.00 under or more. This year, I distinctly remember running .99 under at a divisional somewhere, and finding myself below 50th in a full field.

If the trigger point is too low, it discourages performance, too high it it doesn't correct HP. The trigger point needs to move along with the racers' capabilities.

A statistical average, median, or bell-curve will fix this. The more runs that are included, the better it will work.