Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races

[turttle]

I'm from the old school, lets run off of the records and who ever cant handle the heat in the kitchen, there is always Super Pro, Super Gas, Pro or Super Street to race at. Back in the day you was the big dog just to go the record. If someone runs more then a tenth under the record at a given even, it automatic loses a tenth. Now this would get interesting for sure.

Jimmy Turttle

[Speedracer]

That was already attempted and the participation dropped off considerably.
The AHFS should count ALL runs or should be eliminated altogether.It makes no sense to exclude "certain runs and certain places".
If the 1.15 under was changed to 1.55 or 2.15 under,people would still complain.If people resort to spending $5000 and up on a set of heads to run one second or more under,they will spend a couple hundred more bucks and put their car on the juice to run 2 seconds under.
Both items are illegal,but nobody seems to care.

[Earle Holt]

As I see it, there are some gems throughout this discussion that have been brought up.

I like the idea of more runs being counted, but not necessarily at ALL factored tracks. Some seem to be more advantageous than others. I wouldn't be happy for getting HP added to my combo for a run at a factored track who's "factor" is innaccurate, or skewed by atmospheric conditions that make it superhuman. (Las Vegas in October? Boise in April/May?)

I think Stevie Ficacci is right about more head's up runs and I like Dave Ring's suggestion about how Comp is currently set-up.

Good stuff guys. Keep the ideas coming...as soon as the name-calling starts, I don't know about you, but I move on to the next post.

[Bob Orme]

While I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm around all of you guys every year, and perhaps can lend a perspective point of view from the outside that isn't corporate.

No AHFS during qualifying at any event. If there must be an AHFS hit after an event, it should be triggered during any elimination round -- Divisional or National, regular or class, but not Opens. Getting hit with horsepower at an event that will only earn you grade points wouldn't make any sense at all.

Running STK and SS exactly like Comp would make sense to me in some respects. ...mostly because I understand Comp. But, doing so would park a boatload of race cars and drivers who have been racing under the dial-in elimination rules for many years. The classes really are bracket classes the way things are set up today. You have to dial in, hit the tree and race the stripe to win.

If, as some have suggested, the quotas for National events shrink to 64, then I'd say run 'em like Comp, with CIC's during the event and levy permanent hits the following week on those killing the index.

Adjustments at altitude factored tracks......what would really be fair? An adjustment running under the factored index, or an adjustment only when running under the non-factored index? I don't think either one is fair, given the antiquity of the altitude factors and the variable air available at every track, be they at altitude or not. Maybe, add .20 to the hit number at a factored track to get a hit. I don't know -- just offering a suggestion.

Whatever happens or doesn't happen, I hope it keeps the most cars and drivers on the strip as is possible.

[Charlie Ford]

The following is a proposal I sent to NHRA.



Subject: Horsepower adjustment committee

I would like to propose a new alternative to the present procedure of adjusting the horsepower ratings, and/or indexes, that is currently being used by NHRA.

This method would utilize a panel of racers to gather the information and suggest adjustments on a monthly, or more frequent, basis. The panel would consist of one Stock, and one SS racer, from each Division. The information can be obtained from different sources fairly easily. Drag Race Central, NHRA online, and Nitro Joe?s race stats, just to mention a few. Each Division Director could select the panel members, on a volunteer basis. Each member would deal only with his/her particular class (Stock or SS). No member would serve as both class representatives. Information would be collected, surveyed by all the members, and recommendations submitted. Since there are seven Divisions, there should be a majority vote on most reviews. The exception to this would be that, if a member?s combination is under review, that member could have input, but no vote. All runs would count to compile the information for review. No set performance number, as is now being used, would initiate a review, but all runs would be considered. However, a simple formula of additional and/or reduction of horsepower adjustment could be implemented, but not set in stone. Information would be compiled, and reviewed for several combinations at one time. Information would pertain to particular engine information. Body style could be considered, but not mandatory. The same would apply to transmission type. The members would then agree on any adjustments by vote.

I would like to explain how this system would work, versus the system now being used, by a few hypothetical situations.
1. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.14 under the index. The No.2 qualifier is -.98 under. Under the current system, no review is needed. However, it is obvious that there is a disparity. With this system, information about the low qualifier would be reviewed. For the most part, the member from the Division of the low qualifier would have personal input as to the validity of the performance. If the information regarding the low qualifier?s engine combination indicates that he/she is far advanced over similar combinations, then the each member would have input as to whether this is a true indication of the capabilities of this particular engine.
2. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.28 under the index. The next 6 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.15 under their indexes. Under the current system, all of these combinations would count towards a review. However, in this scenario, the track?s actual altitude is 1,500?, but the adjusted altitude is 200?. In other words, the actual race conditions are extremely favorable to engine performances greater than the actual numbers that they are capable of producing. In this scenario, the member from the Division where the track is located would have personal input regarding the actual conditions at the time these numbers were produced. This information would be considered by all of the members before recommendations would be made.
3. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.42 under the index. The next 10 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.25 under their indexes. However, this particular track is an altitude corrected track, therefore no runs are used to trigger a review under the current system. Under this system, these runs could indeed be used for review. Once again, the member from the Division where this race was held would have personal input to share with the other members regarding any decisions.
4. At a Division Event, the low qualifier is ?1.25 under the index. The next 5 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.15 under their indexes. Under the current system, no review would be initiated. However, under this system, this information could be used by the members to make decisions at that time, or use the information for future reference.
These are just a few of the numerous scenarios that could be listed for comparing the two systems.

There are several advantages to this system. By using all runs, the horsepower ratings would begin to reflect the true performance of each combination. This would help eliminate the constant manipulation of the existing system. After a period of time (notably shorter than the existing system), you would begin to see much more parity among the different combinations. Good air conditions would now have an impact on the decisions for how much, if any, of an adjustment, were needed. Bad conditions and/or altitude corrected tracks would no longer protect the engine combinations from scrutiny.

I think this a workable solution to the problems of the existing system. There might also be suggestions that could be considered towards improvement of this idea.

[Paul Hellenberg]

Charlie Ford made some great point's especailly about taking track conditions into the equation.

[Andys dad]

I think you guys are trying to invent the BCS of drag racing.

I personally do not think that works either.

By the way how many rounds did you guys race last year and how many were "heads up"? I wager not very many. We went 34 rounds with 2 heads up. We went 6 rounds and 7 rounds at back to back races, for those who think you need to go rounds to have them, and had none. It just does not happen a lot.

If we continue to make this a big problem NHRA might decide to make it go away.

This thread is proof, there is not a single solution that will satisfy every one - so who gets to be unhappy?

We are all just bored since last year is over and next year has not started.

Once we are back to racing, most of us will not have time for this crap.

We will be spending money we can not afford on our addiction -drag racing.

There is no rehab for drag racing. Nothing will make us quit.

[Greg Hill]

The simple thing to do is count all runs at National events including all class runs. This is not a big change but would have a big effect on soft combos.

Greg

[Andys dad]

I think it is a daunting task to try to make Fords, Chevys, and Chryslers in the same class, have a level playing field.

We have acombination - we race against - that has 40 more cubic inches and weighs 400 lbs less than us. I know we would hear a lot of reasons why but 400 pounds and 40 cubic inches. It is a four barrel with upgraded, imporved and approved rules.

Our combination is 10hp less (80 pounds) - if it is in a different body style.

Go figure.

AHFS will never be able to please even a majority. So let's just hope we make it to February.

That is if you are 18, which Andy is not, so no racing for him at National evets in February.

[tgriffith]

what about letting the AHFS be in effect every run BUT also use a formula to decide how far under the index it should be,,,,,,,,,,example would be,,,at alt factored tracks,,the AHFS would also be factored,,,take into consideration of weather conditions,,,,,If one was racing at 300ft below sea level,,the the AHFS would not be 1.15,,it would be a higher number,,,,,,it would be that hard for NHRA to come up with a formula of what it should be at each track,,,,,,the only confusion might come from weather or conditions changing,,,,,,,,,,,for the AHFS to wrok and work correctly,,it is going to have to be flexible and count every run