Index Change

[JRyan]

Let me start this by saying my verdict is still out if I'm for or against the index change. On one hand it benefits my superstocker as it allows me a little more breathing room and on the other hand it makes it a little tougher on my low budget stocker I've been putting together. So with that being said.

I love it whenever the AHFS gets discussed with altitude corrections and the lack of understanding most have with how the altitude correction actually works. By the way we've said for the last ten years the altitude correction factors are probably off about 10% because you can somewhat cheat the car into going faster by making changes to compensate. When we used to run at Denver alot we'd change camshafts, converter, rear gear, transmission, tires, and jetting to run fast. So everyone that thinks it's so easy to just go to the mountain and go fast I'd invite you to load up in July and give it a shot.

Someone mentioned 1.25 under at altitude is the same as sea level. This statement is absolutely false. I'll give you an example. Oahe Speedway in Pierre SD is 1700' above sea level in SS/NA I get .24 correction. So my index there is now a 12.39 with my old index being a 12.69. This year at the National Open I went an actual 11.238. Under the new system this would be 1.152 that would equate to a 10.998. However, this is not what it factors to. That run is actually an 11.023. This is how records get figured at altitude. At Denver you lose close to a .10 at this speed. So lets say next year I run an 11.14 and reset the record. This would be 1.25 under should I automatically get HP even though the record is only going to be 1.23 under? So is 1.25 under at altitude still 1.25 under at sea level? According to NHRA's policy for setting records NO!

Also you can't use corrected altitude to figure factoring either. 1500' at Atco and 1500' in Pierre SD as an example are two completely different things. At one place you might get that air and it's cool and dense and the other it may be a little warmer and drier. The car isn't going to run the same nor is it necessarily going to take the same tune to run at either place.

My .02
Rick Ryan

[partsbob67]

dang. now i have to go out in the garage and work on my slow mobile because i was only 3.0 under on my best day. see you guys at the track next year!

[SS Engine Guy]

Well, that little "rule of the week" change just cost me some money. Had three customers call today to cancel their appointments for freshen/update. Two were guys that hit 8-10 divisionals and 4-5 nationals a year. Talk was about going heads up fastest street car competition. Good luck with the slick talk, letters, underfactored crap, etc. Think I'll just do up a little project for the winter to see just how quick the GT/?A, ?A and ?A records/ratings/indexes can go.

Hope that isn't correct on the srac members recommending an index drop without specifying a 1.00 under hit. If you guys didn't have that stipulation in writing you fine folks got screwed right along with the majority of racers who DID NOT want this hit.

[Wade_Owens]

Originally Posted by JRyan

When we used to run at Denver alot we'd change camshafts, converter, rear gear, transmission, tires, and jetting to run fast. So everyone that thinks it's so easy to just go to the mountain and go fast I'd invite you to load up in July and give it a shot.

Rick Ryan

Not quite true Rick,

Doug Patrick #4 @ Morrison, CO 12.624 13.96 -1.336 under

Doug Patrick #1 @ Kent, WA 11.743 12.95 -1.207 under

Doug Patrick #4 @ Sonoma, CA 11.840 12.95 -1.110 under

Not bad for a car tuned in Boca Raton, FL. Like most are saying, fast cars are always fast, no matter what the conditions.

Hope everyone has a Happy Holidays, we'll see you guys soon.....

Wade O

[Bryan Worner]

Alan,
I've seen mineshaft conditions at Atco and Englishtown that produced very fast ET's! But I've never heard of NHRA taking these conditions into account when they gave out horsepower for that review period! So why should an altitude factored track be any different??? What they should do is get the factor right!

Rick,
It seems to me that if the ET factors to a record, than that same factor should be used when figuring out horsepower adjustments! My claim always has been how can someone go to a factored track and set a record at 1.40 under the sea level index (factored) and NOT get horsepower??? I understand how but not why!!! Again, they should work on getting the factors right!!!

[JRyan]

Wade,
Again that 1.33 under at Denver corrects back to only .03 faster than Seattle. Neither Seattle nor Sonoma in July or August are usually particularily fast either. How does that compare to what Doug can run at Orlando or Bradenton in the spring? Remember when NHRA corrects the altitude runs to sea level he was only 1.23 under. I know that car is way faster then that in good air. Also did I mention that I think the correction factors are about 10% off.

Bryan,
I don't disagree with that at all. If you can run 1.40 under the sea level index at an altitude track. That car deserves horsepower as well. My problem is what if you run 1.40 under the index but it corrects back to 1.35. You shouldn't get horsepower.

Rick

[442OLDS]

Whenever "1.25 under" comes up in any further discussions,I think it is important to realize that it is actually 1.55 under.(old indexes of course)

[buzzinhalfdozen]

I don't see this as a bad thing. I think for the most part we all can still agree that Stock and S/S are performance oreinted classes right? Yes there are some racers who are directly affected by this if they could run at the .3 under. I know that trying to find ET is both costly and time consuming, however how many racers started running Stock or S/S were unaware of this? As with all sports of any type those with the most money can almost always stay ahead, I think that cannot be denied. There seems to be quite a few racers out there with the resources and the willingness to spend it. Does that hurt the sport? It's hard to say for sure but my initial thoughts are yes, If and when this "class" of racer tires of the financial outlay involved verses the return where does that leave the rest of the racers?I've read all of the posts on this and find it hard to really argue with what most have had to say,however as you would expect how the particular racer is affected by this change seems to dictate their response. I've read alot of racers posts of soft indexes, under rated combos ect. which may all be true, but can you imagine the uproar if just a few combos or indexes were hit?All in all basically to me they,ve done nothing more than change the amount under of the qualifying sheet.Joe