Sorenson's 1.408 under decision - Page 2

Billy Nees · 05-25-2009, 02:25 PM

Jack, not one itsy, bitsy bit ever? Ever?

bill dedman · 05-25-2009, 08:21 PM

So, let me get this straight:

Henson runs 1.40 under, avoids the scales, so nobody knows whether he was light, but gets HP ANYWAY, on Monday.

Sorensen runs 1.40 under, but comes up "light", and DOES NOT get HP.

Would somebody explain to me in what ways these two scenarios differ?

In neither case could it be verified that these two cars were of legal weight.

One gets HP, and the other doesn't.

New language isn't going to fix this....

hadtobethere · 05-25-2009, 08:37 PM

....this is another good reason to lower the S/SS index -.50 .....then throw away the AFHS and get back to real racing...the way it should be.

junior barns · 05-25-2009, 08:41 PM

Bill dedman said

In neither case could it be verified that these two cars were of legal weight

YESSSSSSS

One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak)

Ed Fernandez · 05-25-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hadtobethere

....this is another good reason to lower the S/SS index -.50 .....then throw away the AFHS and get back to real racing...the way it should be.

Then it becomes what was trying to be avoided,a rich mans eliminator,like comp.

SS Engine Guy · 05-25-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hadtobethere

....this is another good reason to lower the S/SS index -.50 .....then throw away the AFHS and get back to real racing...the way it should be.

No......real racing would be run off the index or record with correct tech, appropriate penalties, correct factoring and no need for AHFS. The way it should be.

bill dedman · 05-25-2009, 09:58 PM

Junior Barns said, "One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak)"

A "fair trial" would be to prove his innocence.... on the contention that he was of legal weight.

When you give that up, the assumption becomes that you were "guilty".... LIGHT.

Your spin on this defies simple logic, Junior....

They're both "guilty" (assumed light in Fred's case; PROVEN light in Sorensen's.)

Same result should be imposed on both. No way to prove that Fred's car was of the correct weight. He could have been 100 # light...

Is it fair to others who run that combination for NHRA to ASSUME that his car was of legal weight? I don't think so... They share whatever penalty he accrues.

Chad Rhodes · 05-25-2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Junior Barnes said, "One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak)"

A "fair trial" would be to prove his innocence.... on the contention that he was of legal weight.

When you give that up, the assumption becomes that you were "guilty".... LIGHT.

Your spin on this defies simple logic, Junior....

They're both "guil;ty (assumed light in Fred's case; PROVEN light in Sorensen's.)

Same result should be imposed on both. No way to prove that Fred's car was of the correct weight.

Henson's run was on a redlight 1st round at the D4 points race in Belle Rose. He was not required to go to the scales, he did not "AVOID" the scales. I was helping a friend that weekend and we were parked next to fred, I assure the car wasn't light and he didnt mean to do it

bill dedman · 05-26-2009, 02:41 AM

Chad,

If Fred didn't go to the scales after the run, he avoided them, whether intentionally, or not. He had no reason to go to them, having just lost that round.

This is not in any way shape, or form critical of what Fred did; it's just an effort to get the two situations (Sorensen and Henson) "on the same page" so some logical conclusions can be drawn.

Your contention that he wasn't light is probably correct, but because it's just YOUR OPINION, it's not the sort of thing that NHRA could hang a far-reaching decision on.

The fact is, nobody (but Fred) knows what his car weighed when he made that run.

Nobody will EVER know, for sure. Ballast (some of it) is easily removeable.

In that vein, the car POSSIBLY could have been light, in spite of your considered opinion. I'm certainly not saying it was, because there's no way for me to know FOR SURE.

If it was, (in this case, a distinct possibility), then how can they give him HP? Even if it were NOT, how can they give him HP since they don't REALLY know what the car weighed on that run? They can't just ASSUME it was of legal weight... nobody's crystal ball is accurate under those circumstances.

The circumstances and similarities between what happened at Boise and in Fred's case would seem to me to be very similar in view of the fact that one car was weighed and was light; the other car was NOT weighed so cannot be proven NOT to have been light at that time.

But then, that's just MY take on it... I'm sure NHRA is going to do whatever THEY want to do with this.
Nothing could matter less than what ~I~ think...

Super Sport · 05-26-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad Rhodes

Henson's run was on a redlight 1st round at the D4 points race in Belle Rose. He was not required to go to the scales, he did not "AVOID" the scales. I was helping a friend that weekend and we were parked next to fred, I assure the car wasn't light and he didnt mean to do it

How can anyone possibly think that Henson was light? He was in eliminations. He intended to win that round. It was correct for him to get horsepower.

Sorensen was light because he adjusted his weight after the run before coming to the scales. He left the starting line with the intention of qualifying. He has had that car long enough to know exactly what it weighs on every run. He should get horsepower and an extended vacation.

05-25-2009, 02:25 PM	#11
Billy Nees VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: On a hilltop in Pa. Posts: 4,489 Likes: 3,593 Liked 7,704 Times in 1,734 Posts	Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision Jack, not one itsy, bitsy bit ever? Ever? __________________ Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS I'm not spending 100K to win 2K

05-25-2009, 08:21 PM	#12
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision So, let me get this straight: Henson runs 1.40 under, avoids the scales, so nobody knows whether he was light, but gets HP ANYWAY, on Monday. Sorensen runs 1.40 under, but comes up "light", and DOES NOT get HP. Would somebody explain to me in what ways these two scenarios differ? In neither case could it be verified that these two cars were of legal weight. One gets HP, and the other doesn't. New language isn't going to fix this.... __________________ Bill

05-25-2009, 08:37 PM	#13
hadtobethere Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 243 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision ....this is another good reason to lower the S/SS index -.50 .....then throw away the AFHS and get back to real racing...the way it should be.

05-25-2009, 08:41 PM	#14
junior barns Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 541 Likes: 11 Liked 20 Times in 14 Posts	Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision Bill dedman said In neither case could it be verified that these two cars were of legal weight YESSSSSSS One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak) Last edited by junior barns; 05-25-2009 at 08:46 PM. Reason: add

05-25-2009, 09:58 PM	#17
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision Junior Barns said, "One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak)" A "fair trial" would be to prove his innocence.... on the contention that he was of legal weight. When you give that up, the assumption becomes that you were "guilty".... LIGHT. Your spin on this defies simple logic, Junior.... They're both "guilty" (assumed light in Fred's case; PROVEN light in Sorensen's.) Same result should be imposed on both. No way to prove that Fred's car was of the correct weight. He could have been 100 # light... Is it fair to others who run that combination for NHRA to ASSUME that his car was of legal weight? I don't think so... They share whatever penalty he accrues. __________________ Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 05-25-2009 at 10:44 PM.

05-26-2009, 02:41 AM	#19
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision Chad, If Fred didn't go to the scales after the run, he avoided them, whether intentionally, or not. He had no reason to go to them, having just lost that round. This is not in any way shape, or form critical of what Fred did; it's just an effort to get the two situations (Sorensen and Henson) "on the same page" so some logical conclusions can be drawn. Your contention that he wasn't light is probably correct, but because it's just YOUR OPINION, it's not the sort of thing that NHRA could hang a far-reaching decision on. The fact is, nobody (but Fred) knows what his car weighed when he made that run. Nobody will EVER know, for sure. Ballast (some of it) is easily removeable. In that vein, the car POSSIBLY could have been light, in spite of your considered opinion. I'm certainly not saying it was, because there's no way for me to know FOR SURE. If it was, (in this case, a distinct possibility), then how can they give him HP? Even if it were NOT, how can they give him HP since they don't REALLY know what the car weighed on that run? They can't just ASSUME it was of legal weight... nobody's crystal ball is accurate under those circumstances. The circumstances and similarities between what happened at Boise and in Fred's case would seem to me to be very similar in view of the fact that one car was weighed and was light; the other car was NOT weighed so cannot be proven NOT to have been light at that time. But then, that's just MY take on it... I'm sure NHRA is going to do whatever THEY want to do with this. Nothing could matter less than what ~I~ think... __________________ Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 05-26-2009 at 02:44 AM.