Is it h.p. On monday for the mustangs?

Chuck Norton · 10-04-2009, 11:58 AM

Larry,

After reading Tom's post, I'm not sure if the A/SA Mustang ran 9.75 on the clocks or if the record (adjusted for the altitude factor) will be 9.75?

Calculations conducted with my admittedly limited math skills suggest that a run of roughly 9.99 on the clocks would have resulted in a 9.75 record. Since 9.99 is not -1.40, it would seem that the run wouldn't be fast enough to have earned an immediate hit. That is, of course, if the rules are interpreted the way they were up until this year.

Additionally, the ultimate interpretation of the wording of the Altitude Correction Factors chart on NHRA.com will enter into the final scenario. The conditions placed on supercharged and/or turbocharged cars could arguably be intended for the classes that appear above the notation on the page, plus, the example cites only classes within Competition Eliminator. Since Stock and Super Stock appear below that notation, I would wonder if it applies to those classes. I don't recall an instance in which the "half-factor" wording has been applied to Stock or Super Stock combinations. At one point in time, the turbo cars of John and Marka Gallina were regularly assessed horsepower awards at altitude as well as sea level tracks but I don't recall any calculations being made other that the usual altitude correction.

Once again, the conundrum of evaluating boosted engines using a system designed to accommodate naturally aspirated engines becomes problematic.

c

10-04-2009, 11:58 AM	#1
Chuck Norton Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Covina, CA Posts: 474 Likes: 110 Liked 89 Times in 19 Posts	Re: Is it h.p. On monday for the mustangs? Larry, After reading Tom's post, I'm not sure if the A/SA Mustang ran 9.75 on the clocks or if the record (adjusted for the altitude factor) will be 9.75? Calculations conducted with my admittedly limited math skills suggest that a run of roughly 9.99 on the clocks would have resulted in a 9.75 record. Since 9.99 is not -1.40, it would seem that the run wouldn't be fast enough to have earned an immediate hit. That is, of course, if the rules are interpreted the way they were up until this year. Additionally, the ultimate interpretation of the wording of the Altitude Correction Factors chart on NHRA.com will enter into the final scenario. The conditions placed on supercharged and/or turbocharged cars could arguably be intended for the classes that appear above the notation on the page, plus, the example cites only classes within Competition Eliminator. Since Stock and Super Stock appear below that notation, I would wonder if it applies to those classes. I don't recall an instance in which the "half-factor" wording has been applied to Stock or Super Stock combinations. At one point in time, the turbo cars of John and Marka Gallina were regularly assessed horsepower awards at altitude as well as sea level tracks but I don't recall any calculations being made other that the usual altitude correction. Once again, the conundrum of evaluating boosted engines using a system designed to accommodate naturally aspirated engines becomes problematic. c