Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races

Charlie Ford · 11-29-2007, 09:59 AM

The following is a proposal I sent to NHRA.

Subject: Horsepower adjustment committee

I would like to propose a new alternative to the present procedure of adjusting the horsepower ratings, and/or indexes, that is currently being used by NHRA.

This method would utilize a panel of racers to gather the information and suggest adjustments on a monthly, or more frequent, basis. The panel would consist of one Stock, and one SS racer, from each Division. The information can be obtained from different sources fairly easily. Drag Race Central, NHRA online, and Nitro Joe?s race stats, just to mention a few. Each Division Director could select the panel members, on a volunteer basis. Each member would deal only with his/her particular class (Stock or SS). No member would serve as both class representatives. Information would be collected, surveyed by all the members, and recommendations submitted. Since there are seven Divisions, there should be a majority vote on most reviews. The exception to this would be that, if a member?s combination is under review, that member could have input, but no vote. All runs would count to compile the information for review. No set performance number, as is now being used, would initiate a review, but all runs would be considered. However, a simple formula of additional and/or reduction of horsepower adjustment could be implemented, but not set in stone. Information would be compiled, and reviewed for several combinations at one time. Information would pertain to particular engine information. Body style could be considered, but not mandatory. The same would apply to transmission type. The members would then agree on any adjustments by vote.

I would like to explain how this system would work, versus the system now being used, by a few hypothetical situations.
1. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.14 under the index. The No.2 qualifier is -.98 under. Under the current system, no review is needed. However, it is obvious that there is a disparity. With this system, information about the low qualifier would be reviewed. For the most part, the member from the Division of the low qualifier would have personal input as to the validity of the performance. If the information regarding the low qualifier?s engine combination indicates that he/she is far advanced over similar combinations, then the each member would have input as to whether this is a true indication of the capabilities of this particular engine.
2. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.28 under the index. The next 6 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.15 under their indexes. Under the current system, all of these combinations would count towards a review. However, in this scenario, the track?s actual altitude is 1,500?, but the adjusted altitude is 200?. In other words, the actual race conditions are extremely favorable to engine performances greater than the actual numbers that they are capable of producing. In this scenario, the member from the Division where the track is located would have personal input regarding the actual conditions at the time these numbers were produced. This information would be considered by all of the members before recommendations would be made.
3. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.42 under the index. The next 10 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.25 under their indexes. However, this particular track is an altitude corrected track, therefore no runs are used to trigger a review under the current system. Under this system, these runs could indeed be used for review. Once again, the member from the Division where this race was held would have personal input to share with the other members regarding any decisions.
4. At a Division Event, the low qualifier is ?1.25 under the index. The next 5 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.15 under their indexes. Under the current system, no review would be initiated. However, under this system, this information could be used by the members to make decisions at that time, or use the information for future reference.
These are just a few of the numerous scenarios that could be listed for comparing the two systems.

There are several advantages to this system. By using all runs, the horsepower ratings would begin to reflect the true performance of each combination. This would help eliminate the constant manipulation of the existing system. After a period of time (notably shorter than the existing system), you would begin to see much more parity among the different combinations. Good air conditions would now have an impact on the decisions for how much, if any, of an adjustment, were needed. Bad conditions and/or altitude corrected tracks would no longer protect the engine combinations from scrutiny.

I think this a workable solution to the problems of the existing system. There might also be suggestions that could be considered towards improvement of this idea.

11-29-2007, 09:59 AM	#13
Charlie Ford Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Spring, Texas Posts: 169 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races The following is a proposal I sent to NHRA. Subject: Horsepower adjustment committee I would like to propose a new alternative to the present procedure of adjusting the horsepower ratings, and/or indexes, that is currently being used by NHRA. This method would utilize a panel of racers to gather the information and suggest adjustments on a monthly, or more frequent, basis. The panel would consist of one Stock, and one SS racer, from each Division. The information can be obtained from different sources fairly easily. Drag Race Central, NHRA online, and Nitro Joe?s race stats, just to mention a few. Each Division Director could select the panel members, on a volunteer basis. Each member would deal only with his/her particular class (Stock or SS). No member would serve as both class representatives. Information would be collected, surveyed by all the members, and recommendations submitted. Since there are seven Divisions, there should be a majority vote on most reviews. The exception to this would be that, if a member?s combination is under review, that member could have input, but no vote. All runs would count to compile the information for review. No set performance number, as is now being used, would initiate a review, but all runs would be considered. However, a simple formula of additional and/or reduction of horsepower adjustment could be implemented, but not set in stone. Information would be compiled, and reviewed for several combinations at one time. Information would pertain to particular engine information. Body style could be considered, but not mandatory. The same would apply to transmission type. The members would then agree on any adjustments by vote. I would like to explain how this system would work, versus the system now being used, by a few hypothetical situations. 1. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.14 under the index. The No.2 qualifier is -.98 under. Under the current system, no review is needed. However, it is obvious that there is a disparity. With this system, information about the low qualifier would be reviewed. For the most part, the member from the Division of the low qualifier would have personal input as to the validity of the performance. If the information regarding the low qualifier?s engine combination indicates that he/she is far advanced over similar combinations, then the each member would have input as to whether this is a true indication of the capabilities of this particular engine. 2. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.28 under the index. The next 6 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.15 under their indexes. Under the current system, all of these combinations would count towards a review. However, in this scenario, the track?s actual altitude is 1,500?, but the adjusted altitude is 200?. In other words, the actual race conditions are extremely favorable to engine performances greater than the actual numbers that they are capable of producing. In this scenario, the member from the Division where the track is located would have personal input regarding the actual conditions at the time these numbers were produced. This information would be considered by all of the members before recommendations would be made. 3. At a National Event, the low qualifier is ?1.42 under the index. The next 10 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.25 under their indexes. However, this particular track is an altitude corrected track, therefore no runs are used to trigger a review under the current system. Under this system, these runs could indeed be used for review. Once again, the member from the Division where this race was held would have personal input to share with the other members regarding any decisions. 4. At a Division Event, the low qualifier is ?1.25 under the index. The next 5 qualifiers are all faster than ?1.15 under their indexes. Under the current system, no review would be initiated. However, under this system, this information could be used by the members to make decisions at that time, or use the information for future reference. These are just a few of the numerous scenarios that could be listed for comparing the two systems. There are several advantages to this system. By using all runs, the horsepower ratings would begin to reflect the true performance of each combination. This would help eliminate the constant manipulation of the existing system. After a period of time (notably shorter than the existing system), you would begin to see much more parity among the different combinations. Good air conditions would now have an impact on the decisions for how much, if any, of an adjustment, were needed. Bad conditions and/or altitude corrected tracks would no longer protect the engine combinations from scrutiny. I think this a workable solution to the problems of the existing system. There might also be suggestions that could be considered towards improvement of this idea.