Index Change

Wade_Owens · 12-19-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

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 · 12-19-2009, 10:17 AM

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 · 12-19-2009, 10:30 AM

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 · 12-19-2009, 10:38 AM

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 · 12-19-2009, 11:53 AM

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

12-19-2009, 10:17 AM	#2
Bryan Worner Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Duncannon, PA Posts: 825 Likes: 136 Liked 535 Times in 86 Posts	Re: Index Change 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!!!

12-19-2009, 10:30 AM	#3
JRyan Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aberdeen SD Posts: 645 Likes: 30 Liked 112 Times in 31 Posts	Re: Index Change 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

12-19-2009, 11:53 AM	#5
buzzinhalfdozen Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bellevue Ohio Posts: 984 Likes: 0 Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts	Re: Index Change 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 __________________ Joe Buchanan SS/BX 3117

12-19-2009, 10:38 AM	#4
442OLDS VIP Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Elgin,IL Posts: 1,340 Likes: 5 Liked 282 Times in 103 Posts	Re: Index Change 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)