Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races

[Bruce Noland]

Dave,

I missed your post while typing my last post. Len's job performance is a different issue but I would like to ask a couple of questions since it has become part of this theard. I'm sure there is some official response to these questions.

I'm glad you have had a positive relationship with Len. I'm glad he is doing some good things. But he drops the ball on way too many important issues for us. When Len came to work for nhra he made a very strong point during all of his early meetings with us. He said that Tom Compton told him that he knew he had a lot of unhappy customers in the Sportsman ranks and that it was his (Len) job to make things right. Len stood before several group meetings and said that he answered only to Tom Compton and that nothing would change for Sportsman racers unless we voted on it. I told him that we would hold him to those statements and he boastfully said I hope so.

Can you tell the difference between racing now and racing before Len came? Are we happier now? Yea, I know we can always race some where else and I'm doing that but I still have a lot of friends who race nhra as well and I'm going to race with them too.

And why won't Len answer any of the tough questions? Maybe he is between a rock and a hard place, but he can still be honest without coming out here and cherry picking the threads and then adding some nhra spin and heading for cover. I'm out here taking a hammering over this thread because I believe strongly enough in our sport and its traditions to take the pounding, but this guy just hits and runs. Len get your butt back out here and tell us the truth about what has been going on with the ahfs!!!!!

A couple of questions he can answer and won't. Who made all the changes to the ahfs without publishing them first which in turn hurt a lot of unsuspecting racers? And if the changes were improperly made to the ahfs why hasn't nhra corrected the problem by readjusting the illegal adjustments and going back to the ahfs version that we all agreed would be the way we would regulate our performance? I have heard that they are now going to publish a new version of the ahfs - at least we should know what will happen for a few weeks into the new season.

And finally, since he answers only to Tom Compton why didn't he follow the wishes of the majority of the racers and stop this -1.15 under business when it first came up?

[Len Imbrogno]

Bruce,

Sorry if I have not been able to continually review this message thread. My duties go far beyond monitoring websites. Let's also not forget that I also respond to questions on other various websites for Comp Eliminator, TAD, TAFC, Bracket Racing, NHRA member tracks issues and many others, as well as hundreds of emails and telephone calls monthly.

Regarding your questions about AHFS changes, any minor changes done to the AHFS have been published for racers to see. As examples: 6-5-03 - "Racer Sound of asking for racer input on AHFS; 8/17/03 - Proposed changes to AHFS by NHRA; 10/1 03- "Adapted changes to AHFS based on racer input"; 1/31/03 - "AHFS explained"

While there were minor changes to the AHFS as published above, the basic format of the AHFS has never changed. It has always been based on three screenings. 1- engine family average, 2-class/engine average, 3- Body Style and transmission type.
If you feel there have been changes that racers were unaware of, as you continually state, please post on this website what and where those changes were so we can all see what you continue to refer to as "changes that hurt unsuspecting racers".

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

I'm really slow here. But then I spoke to 2 other racer's who had also hashed thru this thread and they couldn't give me a definitive answer either. So regarding this thread, is the proposed AHFS trigger of -1.15 under the index by itself or in conjunction with the proposed .200 reduction of each index? And either way, are we talking about a mandatory "review" @ -1.15 or are we talking a mandatory assignment of HP @ -1.15 under? Presently it's a "review" @ 1.15 and then HP is automatically assigned in incrementals thereafter.
I'd like a definitive answer, not a speculative answer and preferably from Len.
Thank you,
Jeff Lee

I sent the above to Len Imbrogno. His response (he asked that I share this on classracer and he would respond in a few more days):

-START- Good to hear from you. The S/SS committee has yet to a have chance to get together to finalize anything to release to the racers regarding the AHFS. This is the point I have been trying to make to everyone. This coming week will be the first time since Pomona that key tech guys will be together, at the PRI show, to be able to discuss and review all the details, then post a finalized proposal on the NHRA website for racers to see. So far, it looks as though the review process will still be 2 runs at 1.15 (as it currently is) and it also looks like there may not be any change to the indexes for 2008. - END-

So there it is. At this point, no decisions have been made, NHRA is looking for input and it doesn't look like a .200 or any reduction in indexes. So as it is now, this very minute, the AHFS does not have anything in writing as far as changes. Because the paragraph above by Len Imbrogno is exactly what we have now. So what is all the screaming about?

I'll give some racers (and pretend racers) something to scream about. Here's what I would like to see implemented by NHRA for 2008. All areas are designed to bring the racing back into racing and are for both Stock and SuperStock.

1) If NHRA insists to limit fields, limit the field but not the entrants.
If 200 racers want to qualify for 75 positions, let 'em fight for it.

2) Lower all indexes .500.
Yes, that will knock some out of the playing field. And maybe .500 is too harsh but it gets the point across. Some will play harder, some will never come back. Nobody ever said this was supposed to be easy and the determined will come out stronger. Isn't that what this sport was built on? By the way, my SS/H AMX has never been faster than .79 under so presently I'm not looking good under this proposal.

3) AHFS trigger set to "review" at 1.00 under index.
Yes, that will make it darn difficult to get HP if all you do is play against the AHFS. Keep reading...

4) Maximum ballast 100#.
With items #2 & #3 above, you shouldn't need 350#'s of ballast (or more) to protect yourself.

5) Combine FI cars with carb cars first, later combine stick and auto.
You'll have a lot of heads-up runs determining the overall winner. Guess that means you had better be fast or stay at home!

6) All runs @ National events count.
Translating this to todays rules, it would take a 1.500 under run to set the AHFS. Atmospheric conditions are hardly ever a factor in anybody running 1.500 under or better.
So if the mineshaft makes you run 1.00 under or better against a .500 harder index, you probably need HP anyways.

7) As stated by Evan Smith previously, points for accomplishments.

You combine all of the above and the fans have some real races to watch. It's easy to implement. Just takes a stroke of a pen. For the whinners that will inevitably get on here and complain they've spent every ounce of energy in going .500 under today and this will knock them out of the field, sorry. Historically, there was a time in Stock & SS that it was an honor just to run the index. If this is your passion, you'll find your way.

Stock has gone from a performance class where it was a training field for SS and sometimes modified and then Pro-Stock. Reputations and careers of engine builders and component manufacturers were built from this class. Eventually those that couldn't keep up started complaining (to the point the Stock class was dropped in the early '70's) and it became more of a bracket class. Note I'm not complaining about bracket racers or bracket racing. As technology advanced and the science of the class became less secretative, NHRA tech "old guard" faded away and more liberal rules with softer indexes followed, it became increasingly easy to run very far under the index. So here we are today, almost everybody can run .75 under or greater with minimal effort.
I think the time has come that the Stock class & SS class go full circle, back to what it once was in terms of prestige. And maybe a decade or two later it will evolve the other way again.

That's my feelings on the subject. Despite a few casualties, I believe in the long run it is better for the sport.

[Harry 6674]

I agree with you Jeff, but why not go all the way and eliminate the shoe polish and run off the record. No break out. I think racers would like this if they tried it. The faster class cars wouldn't have such an advantage of playing games at the stripe against the lower classed cars. Running close to your record would be more important than how much seat time you get. You would still have some sandbagging but it be less.

[Jeremy]

I'll go with Jeff.
Thanks Jerry Davis Stk 4168

[Len Imbrogno]

Bruce,

The statement you are refering to has been in the AHFS write-up since its origin, as post on the NHRA website on 1/31/2003 under "AHFS explained". It can be accessed in the NHRA website archives for everyone to see.

[Jeremy]

NHRA has done many thing's to make the Bracket Racers happy. Most all local racing is for them, they invented Super Street, Super Gas, Super Comp, Top Sportsman, Top Dragster and changed much of Stock and Super Stock for them. I don't think they will be happy until they have all of Stock and Super Stock and performance will be gone.
NHRA would you please leave Stock and Super Stock some what a performance based class, it's the only place I have to race.
Thanks

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Harry 6674

I agree with you Jeff, but why not go all the way and eliminate the shoe polish and run off the record. No break out. I think racers would like this if they tried it. The faster class cars wouldn't have such an advantage of playing games at the stripe against the lower classed cars. Running close to your record would be more important than how much seat time you get. You would still have some sandbagging but it be less.

There's a good reason why you can't do that. Because , before long S and SS would be down to 20-30 cars at a national event. Just like happened back in the 70's.

[tgriffith]

you know,,,before some of you go off on NHRA on some "not thought out" ideas like lowering indexes .50 and running off of records, and a 64 quaified field,,,,you might want to be carefull what you ask for,,,,it just might happen,,,,,you have to remember that alot of racers dont build their parts in the backyard anymore and race "Store Bought stockers" ,,, have very DEEP pockets to go VERY FAST,,,,so while one might be sitting 1.00 under now,,,if it becomes a "who can go the quickest" might find themselves outside looking in

I know of a few guys that would love the idea of running off the record,,,,isnt that right Mark Y (LOL) ........ that mustang of your would look killer on the front cover of the National Dragster!!!!

[RPinoski1]

Just a little to add to this. When they allowed all natural SS cars to move to the top of a class eliminating the 200LB maximum weight removal rule the HP factors that were in place were no longer valid. Next came the rule where natural SS cars could move up a class this again messed up all the HP factors.

They should have administered the AHFS without all the other changes listd above. I don't believe these things were accounted for when they did these changes.

For instance with my 67 NOVA. When the 327 275/295 got hit to 299 anyone that could move their car to SS/GA from the natural HA/IA were not hurt as bad as the guys that were stuck say in SS/IA.
If the car is in SS/GA and triggers the hit, the lower class cars are hurt exponentally more then the SS/GA car that originally caused caused the HP hit.

I know this works across the board for all combos.

I don't think the AHFS takes this in to account. In fact I know it doesn't!

I have to believe the Ol' Guy that created the factoring system (forgot his name) took this in to account by having the maximum weight removal to go to the top of natural class and not being allowed to move up in class.

Anyone care to expound on this..............