Horsepower welfare changes.....

[B Parker]

Originally Posted by charlie westcott

At what point is it so complicated that someone says "hey, why cant someone use a little common sense and level it out"
Its turning into an example of over complication that only a few understand, or care to even read. I got to the second sentence and threw in the towel.
When People I know, go to a race, and shut off at the 1000' so they can bring the average down, then something is fundamentally wrong with the whole system.

Later, and good luck
cw

Charlie you sure have that right. At the Epping Divisional Alan Reinhart was announcing and asking our Div. Director to make it a mineshaft race so cars would run to the quarter mile instead of shutting down at the 1,000 ft. Again I'm not saying to lower the index's but I would have hoped before now someone would realize the 15 year old system would need to get up to speed with the last 15 years of Tec. BP

[B Parker]

Here is how simple the system could be. Count the same races they do now. No mine shaft conditions anymore. And no more reviews every six months. Go 1:15 under at any of the races and get 3 hp added to your combo. Go 1:20 to 1:25 under and get 5 hp added 1:26 to 1:30 get 10hp added Any faster than 1:31 under combo needs to be evaluated and hp added. And I agree with most of you if you cause an instant hp hit to your combo tear down is required. Indy should count for slow averages. They would need to work out something as far as tear downs. If you have a time trial on Saturday morning and you are running first round only a few hr's later. Or if you are in a later round of eliminations and time or personal doesn't allow it to happen at that race. BP

PS And for all of you that think Indy should count. How about all qualifying runs count. Only class runs are exempt. First round of Class is no longer counted as a qualifying run. And so the system would keep up with tec every year the numbers increase by .01. Example next year it would start at 1:16 before instant hp hit and so on. System gets evaluated every 2 years. Just like our seat belts that are worn out.

For a hp decrease only once a year review. Count all runs in any car for that year motor. If average is .05 or less a 5 hp decrease.

[MikeMoller]

Originally Posted by jamie2370

Mike, I have the same question. Wording seems to state that once you get HP that you can NEVER get a decrease? Def needs clarification

What about combo's that were increased years ago? 1975 Chevy Monza with a 262/110 changed to 171 hp (auto) on 10/16/2012. Is this not eligible for HP decrease??

[Billy Nees]

Barry, HP increases must be given on a percentage basis. You can't (well, you can, NHRA did for years) just give HP 3 or 5 or 10 at a time. As an example, a 3 HP hit to an A car (8.00 lbs.) is a 24 lb. weight penalty. The same 3 HP hit to a U car (20 lbs.) is 60 lbs.! Now look at your 10 HP hit, 80 vs. 200 lbs.!

[B Parker]

Billy you are correct. My point was to make the system simple and so less games have to be played all year to avoid a hp hit. If you do go fast but not too fast you get a minor amount of hp not enough to ruin your combo. Something that would only make you have to carry about 20 pds. If you go real fast you get a hp hit to put you inline with what the hp should be for that combo.
The KISS rule should be in effort for the AHFS BP

[B Parker]

I'm sure I'll get attacked for this one. But how many comb's in 600ft of air or less in a heads up run on kill do you think can go somewhere around 1:20 under. Maybe not your car but someone else that is running your combo. Here is something I don't want to see happen. Lets take the 1969 350/255 hp combo. There are a lot of them out there. And that combo has been beat on as much as any. Now Indy has shown the 350 combo is not the fastest in the class the last several years. So you get two H/SA cars one being the 350 and the other a Chrysler heads up in a later round at a race. Both are on kill and the air is good say 600ft. The 350 wins and only by .03 and goes 1.22under. The 350 is already not the fastest in the class so how much more weight and further behind do we want to put them. BP

[James Perrone]

How about run class at divisionals
. More cars involved .
More chances for fast runs .
Think about it. With 60 cars at National events nobody gonna get HP
Usually the #1 qualifier will go 1 second under. And mineshaft happens
Also Indy needs to count. It’s the only race that people will go stupid fast.
This is a way to make the system work.
The sandbagging at a class race will not work.

[Frank Castros]

You have a no expense spared, state of the art, cutting edge, amazingly beautiful Stock Eliminator car that you have worked very, very hard to refine it's carefully chosen combination to run like a bat out of hell, only to very carefully protect it's factor by not running too fast or fast too often, even if means racing to 1000 feet during a heads up run against a formidable foe.

What am I missing here?

[Randy Wells]

Frank, I think it is hey went 10.05 at 105 MPH, no HP but you still know that car is stupid fast.

Randy Wells
Wells Bros
C/SA

[Frank Castros]

I wish I knew a solution to the AHFS, Index and factoring quagmire and hope someone much smarter than me does, so the issue will be resolved and we can enjoy performance based RACING not this sandbagging bull****.