Extict A car...

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by art leong

I agree that these cars aren't factored correctly. But this is their first year and they will be getting 3.25 percent Tuesday. There are quite a few of them not just one or two. The AHFS will catchup with them, like it did for the FI cars. I just hope these guys run their cars for real and not to the 1000'
I was around in the "dartboard " days and believe me you don't want that back. Cars were factored and defactored for things that had absolutely nothing to do with performance.
This whole internet thing has brought out the worst in people.
Remember a few years ago when they wanted to ban guys like Biondo, Fletcher, Richardson, Emmons. Etc. The so called Professional sportsman racers?
Then the end of the world was near due to fuel injection.
Then last year a brand new Cobra Jet went out and won the Pomona race..
We will see who wins Indy. But whoever it is it will be because of driving. and car knowledge, not a HP advantage.

Art, this is their second year, 3.25% won't even come close to reigning in a car that can run 1.7 under the new indexes (AKA 2 seconds under last year's indexes) and they've added more cars. And at least Ford is making plans for the next two years. At this rate, no matter how well the AHFS works, or how often it is triggered, there'll always be another killer or three ready to hit the track with a bogus factor that'll take years to reign in.

Outside of guys who race every weekend, like Fletcher, Biondo, the Richardsons, Rampy, and Bertozzi, all guys I know well and respect, most average racers may only be in a position to win a national event maybe 5 times in their life, if they race for 10-20 years. So, when they draw one of those bogus cars heads up, especially in the later rounds when they might just be on track to one of those rare shots at a win, it is really huge, especially for them. It's not just that the bogus cars might win a race, it's that they can easily prevent someone else from getting anything close to a fair shot at it.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Art, this is their second year, 3.25% won't even come close to reigning in a car that can run 1.7 under the new indexes (AKA 2 seconds under last year's indexes) and they've added more cars. And at least Ford is making plans for the next two years. At this rate, no matter how well the AHFS works, or how often it is triggered, there'll always be another killer or three ready to hit the track with a bogus factor that'll take years to reign in.

Outside of guys who race every weekend, like Fletcher, Biondo, the Richardsons, Rampy, and Bertozzi, all guys I know well and respect, most average racers may only be in a position to win a national event maybe 5 times in their life, if they race for 10-20 years. So, when they draw one of those bogus cars heads up, especially in the later rounds when they might just be on track to one of those rare shots at a win, it is really huge, especially for them. It's not just that the bogus cars might win a race, it's that they can easily prevent someone else from getting anything close to a fair shot at it.

You are right about the second year I meant first year they had to show what they had.
How about running class at more places. This would force things along quicker

[Alan Roehrich]

I think they should have class eliminations at every event. It's one of the few ways they could increase the effectiveness of the AHFS as it stands.

It's the first year they've decided to really show some of their potential. I think the rumor mill had something to do with that, and then there's the fact that there are more of them than there were last year.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I think they should have class eliminations at every event. It's one of the few ways they could increase the effectiveness of the AHFS as it stands.

It's the first year they've decided to really show some of their potential. I think the rumor mill had something to do with that, and then there's the fact that there are more of them than there were last year.

I agree this would be constuctive instead of destructive.
And properly altitude correct