2011 ahfs

[Kent Hanley]

Originally Posted by JRyan

You're right Kent. The old system did say something to the effect of 1.40 under the sea level index. With regard to the runs this year that hp was given and retracted. I believe there were two runs at Boise that should have warranted hp based on this but were never given hp or retracted at least not publically that I'm aware of.
It shouldn't have to say anywhere in the new rule about it being refactored to sea level. It should just be common sense. If you correct a record run back then why wouldn't you correct any run that triggers the system back. Again, in some lower stock classes we're talking over a tenth difference in correction. How is that even remotely fair for anyone potentially running a combination like that. If you correct one back you have to correct the other. If not this whole system is a bigger joke then it already is.
This is part of the problem we have in our country today. Everything has to be written out. I'm not that old but when did common sense completely leave the room.

Rick

RIck,

In an earlier post in this thread Mike reported that NHRA is looking at the indexs at the adjusted tracks, not sure where that will go .

I did look to see how many runs were at adjusted vs non adjusted tracks.

In SS of the 27 some odd runs in 2010 that were quicker than 1.20 under , 20 were made at adjusted tracks.

In stock it was a little better balanced ,there were around 81 runs quicker than 1.20 under of which 19 were at adjusted tracks.

On a side note 31 of the 81 runs were made at Indy this year.

I would think if nhra is going to add all the lrds races and runs to the pool for the ahfs why worry about the altitude adjusted tracks.. They will have plenty of data with out them plus takes the pressure off of nhra of having to come up with a fair figure for these tracks. I dont race really any adjsuted tracks but have raced vegas twice and seen drastic weather swings from morning to afternoon runs.

Just a thought .

Kent