New Ahfs Posted

[Just Observing]

I am not claiming I got it figured out, but here is my understanding of the sliding thresh hold.


Racer #1 GT/CA 350 295/322 chevy combo ( A very common combo)

Racer #2 GT/CA 400 Pontiac ( A very rare combo)

These two guys duke it out at both the US nats and Sports nats at Columbus. Both racers go -1.150 under in the class finals at both races. Thus triggering a review under the "new" AHFS.

Since racer #1 combo is very common and there are several runs in the database, say 25, if this combo average is only -.800 under then it would get HP on the sliding scale AHFS.

While Racer #2 with a rare combo and less than 5 runs in the database has to be -1.00 under to get HP! Racer #2 could go to a third race and slow down his car to qualify at only -.69 under to lower his average to below the -1.00 threshold.

In my opinion it should be the exact opposite of what is proposed. Low # of runs in Database should have a lower threshold to recieve HP compared to High # of runs in the database should be a higher threshold to recieve HP.

[Rod Greene]

Finally something that makes sense. This should help level the playing field for the non GM cars.

[PJ305]

Originally Posted by Just Observing

I am not claiming I got it figured out, but here is my understanding of the sliding thresh hold.


Racer #1 GT/CA 350 295/322 chevy combo ( A very common combo)

Racer #2 GT/CA 400 Pontiac ( A very rare combo)

These two guys duke it out at both the US nats and Sports nats at Columbus. Both racers go -1.150 under in the class finals at both races. Thus triggering a review under the "new" AHFS.

Since racer #1 combo is very common and there are several runs in the database, say 25, if this combo average is only -.800 under then it would get HP on the sliding scale AHFS.

While Racer #2 with a rare combo and less than 5 runs in the database has to be -1.00 under to get HP! Racer #2 could go to a third race and slow down his car to qualify at only -.69 under to lower his average to below the -1.00 threshold.

In my opinion it should be the exact opposite of what is proposed. Low # of runs in Database should have a lower threshold to recieve HP compared to High # of runs in the database should be a higher threshold to recieve HP.

Not positive but i don't think the AHFS will alow the same driver too use the third race toward his average. Maybe Len can chime in and shed some light on this.

[Greg Hill]

I like the fact that they are going to include all runs at National events including all class runs. Some of these guys that have been protecting their combinations are going to have to decide if they want to win class or continue to protect their combos. This should make the AHFS work better than before.

As far as the class averages go I didn't see anything wrong with the old way of doing things. Average must be 1 second under to get horsepower.

Greg

[Chuck Beach]

I don't think you can lower your own average, ask Mr. Hale about that, his 383 got hit, he was the only car and combo.

[DustyLowell]

We all need to e-mail Nhra and let them know that if they count class runs they are taking the performance out of the class. Class Eliminations is one of the only times we can let it all hang out and show how much work we have put into our cars. Now if they absolutely need to add more runs to the AHFS then just count all runs at divisionals. This would be a huge mistake if we let this happen.

[Andys dad]

Class is also the place when the combinations which need to be hit, dominate class and leave those combinations which have already been hit, (over the years) in their dust.

I think altitude tracks should count just like they do in COMP.

[Bruce Noland]

Guys, it's kinda hard to discuss or offer input when you don't know what cars are going to be in your new found "class combination." It is important for nhra to publish these combination groupings before actually trying to talk about the system or offer input; muchless trying to enforce the new changes.

Greg all the -1.10 to -1.15 maximum performance racers should be happy with the new class proposal. It is also very helpful to guys running very rare combinations because they are not tied to others. Just changing a cam allows some racers to be put into a category all to their own.

[Lynn A McCarty]

Originally Posted by Just Observing

I am not claiming I got it figured out, but here is my understanding of the sliding thresh hold.


Racer #1 GT/CA 350 295/322 chevy combo ( A very common combo)

Racer #2 GT/CA 400 Pontiac ( A very rare combo)

These two guys duke it out at both the US nats and Sports nats at Columbus. Both racers go -1.150 under in the class finals at both races. Thus triggering a review under the "new" AHFS.

Since racer #1 combo is very common and there are several runs in the database, say 25, if this combo average is only -.800 under then it would get HP on the sliding scale AHFS.

While Racer #2 with a rare combo and less than 5 runs in the database has to be -1.00 under to get HP! Racer #2 could go to a third race and slow down his car to qualify at only -.69 under to lower his average to below the -1.00 threshold.

In my opinion it should be the exact opposite of what is proposed. Low # of runs in Database should have a lower threshold to recieve HP compared to High # of runs in the database should be a higher threshold to recieve HP.

I dont understand what you mean by higher or lower "threshold". However, to fully understand this is to understand the law of averages. Statistically, an average means that there are as many above the average as below the average.

So.......if you have a good number of cars running a certain engine family, then do you realize how bogus it means that an engine "average" that 1.15 under number? This means that to overcome the cars that go 6 under it takes an equal number of cars to go 1.7 under.

So......why dont we see that much? Sandbagging! They all crop around 1 to 1.15 under cause they know where the upper limit us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If at the bottom of the curve they are all going a second under, you need to know to what you are looking. "Cramming" of events tells a story. If there isnt a standard bell curve of events, something is adversely affecting the combo.

If you run the statistical curve properly, it becomes very apparent what is happening. A combo with low numbers cannot be "averaged" out. Who is to say where he falls on the curve? He might be average, he might be slow, he might be very talented. There is no way to know, so these cases need to be weighted separately as they dont fit statistically unless there are enough numbers.

AHFS' biggest mistake is they statistically assign the Upper Limit to be the AVERAGE. An upper limit can never be the average. That is statistically and scientifically invalid.

[Bruce Noland]

After more than ten years of "requests" nhra has finally relented and brought back the AA classes; mostly because of the interest from Mother Mopar from what I'm told. So maybe we should start making "requests" for Top Stock and JR. Stock to be given their own classes at National events. You never know, Mopar may become interested in these classes too.