Ahfs

[Ellis V Buth]

Originally Posted by Frank Castros

How would lowering the indexes change these qualifying results?

Daren,
The point of listing this result is to dispel the notion that lowing the indexes by a tenth across the board would be unfair to to those at the bottom of the list. Based on this example I don't think so.

Using Indy qualifying...where most people won't even enter unless they're capable of running .75 under...isn't exactly a good example. That's cherry picking the most competitive race of the year for qualifying to try to prove a point.

Go use the Columbus qualifying sheets from the past 2 seasons...or basically any divisional qualifying sheet where more of the cars that aren't as far under the index are likely to show up...and you'll find significantly more cars that aren't more than a few hundredths under the index especially in the heat of the summer.

Lowering indexes any further won't do anything to make the faster cars come back to the slower ones. It would, however, make several cars completely useless thru the summer months. In stock eliminator...where the car counts are already starting to falter a little bit...is shrinking the field of available cars for divisionals or "non-Indy" nationals really what is in the best interest of the class?

[Frank Castros]

Indy is Indy, I get it, but 171 cars in my opinion is a fair example, especially without the AHFS in effect.

[Frank Castros]

The issue is at the top of the qualifying sheet not the bottom and maybe the rare combos at the bottom need HP adjustments.

[Ellis V Buth]

Originally Posted by Frank Castros

Indy is Indy, I get it, but 171 cars in my opinion is a fair example, especially without the AHFS in effect.

171 cars is a fair example if you are trying to find how "quick" the field could be when you bring together the best cars in the land. But it isn't a fair example for lowering indexes by a tenth when there are cars at nearly every divisional event that struggle to run under the index already.

I truly don't believe lowering indexes is the right solution for this perceived "problem" at all...

[Jim Kaekel]

The only way the AHFS can be made to truly work is by looking at the 1/8 mile, 1,000' E.T.'s and 1/4 mile MPH. When you see someone run 10.80 @ 100 MPH, for example, it's no secret that they're blatantly trying to protect their HP.

[Mike Pearson]

Lowering the index will not help fix the inequalities in the AHFS. That will only help to kill the class even worse that it is now. There is some new blood coming in to the stock and super stock classes but no where near enough to keep the class alive long term. This should not be a rich man only class. I have a slow car and typically qualify near the bottom of the sheet for several reasons. One is my combo is not competitive due to the HP rating. Two is the cost to improve my car would be exorbitant to try to get near the top of the sheet. Three is what is the sense to spend 20-30 thousand dollars on an engine and another 10 thousand on a transmission and converter to race for a $1500 purse. I just won Super stock at the division 2 race in Reynolds Ga several weeks ago. Winners purse was $1500. So far I have gotten $300 in contingency and I expect a few more will pay so a total of approximately $2200 for the win. I spent $320 to enter and another 400 in diesel fuel in the truck. 120 in race fuel. That leaves me about $1400 clear after expenses. I dont do this for the money by the way.
I say raise the indexes 2 tenth and leave the trigger where it is and maybe that might get a few more to hit the trigger. Possibly some retired racers might come back and a few new racers might get started and grow the class back again.

[B Parker]

Originally Posted by Angelo DiTocco

I still think the approach should include giving hp back to combos that do not have the options for aftermarket parts that some of the combos you refer to currently have. You have one of each... so I think you know what I mean LOL

Angelo I have not worked on the 94 car. I'm sure when we get the time it will be faster, but I didn't get the car to go fast. Take a look at Bubba's race against Allie at Cecil. It looks like he was on an 10.0 run in B. He dosen't seem to have any problems flying when he needs to.

And I thought you had one of the fastest ones!!!

[B Parker]

Originally Posted by Mike Pearson

Lowering the index will not help fix the inequalities in the AHFS. That will only help to kill the class even worse that it is now. There is some new blood coming in to the stock and super stock classes but no where near enough to keep the class alive long term. This should not be a rich man only class. I have a slow car and typically qualify near the bottom of the sheet for several reasons. One is my combo is not competitive due to the HP rating. Two is the cost to improve my car would be exorbitant to try to get near the top of the sheet. Three is what is the sense to spend 20-30 thousand dollars on an engine and another 10 thousand on a transmission and converter to race for a $1500 purse. I just won Super stock at the division 2 race in Reynolds Ga several weeks ago. Winners purse was $1500. So far I have gotten $300 in contingency and I expect a few more will pay so a total of approximately $2200 for the win. I spent $320 to enter and another 400 in diesel fuel in the truck. 120 in race fuel. That leaves me about $1400 clear after expenses. I dont do this for the money by the way.
I say raise the indexes 2 tenth and leave the trigger where it is and maybe that might get a few more to hit the trigger. Possibly some retired racers might come back and a few new racers might get started and grow the class back again.

Mike I hope you just didn't figure out your not going to make money racing. I don't know what combo you run in Stock but what if someone runs your combo wants to go fast and is willing to do the work and spend the money and has the knowledge. And then goes 1.20 under. This isn't T-ball not everyone can put the same time, effort, money and knowledge into their cars as others. So we should punish those that can? It's not all that hard to make almost any combo a one second under car. Yes you may have to spend some money, put some time and effort in. If you don't choose to I don't have a problem with it. But that's your choice. You can spend as much as 10 grand for a converter and trany but you can also go real fast for less than half that amount. I would be in favor of taking a look at the index's in the lower classes that loose that tenth between K and L. In most of the higher classes if you can't go at least one under and you have a heads up you may have spent all that money getting to the track and paying the entrance fee just to get put on the trailer in a heads up race. BP

[B Parker]

Originally Posted by Jim Kaekel

The only way the AHFS can be made to truly work is by looking at the 1/8 mile, 1,000' E.T.'s and 1/4 mile MPH. When you see someone run 10.80 @ 100 MPH, for example, it's no secret that they're blatantly trying to protect their HP.

So Jim are you saying that you want to see everyone equal. So if you have racer A who dosn't wish to work on their car, or have the knowledge too. Also dosn't really want to spend any more money than they have to. Just let it be a 5 under car. Instead I'd rather we take racer B who works on their car all the time to improve it and has the knowledge. And is willing to spend the money in the right places. You want to equal the playing field so racer B dosen't have an advantage over racer A. This is racing we are talking about isn't it. Maybe we should also add some starting line handicap to those racers that seem to be able to cut great lights most of the time. So tomorrow if I have to race Dan Fletcher first round lets add some to his light so I have a better chance to beat him.

I've got and idea anyone that averages better than a .30 light at the next race they add some time to their reaction times. Maybe make that .30 a .45 And if they are .20 and better make it a .035 Would that make you feel better.

[Mike Pearson]

Originally Posted by B Parker

Mike I hope you just didn't figure out your not going to make money racing. I don't know what combo you run in Stock but what if someone runs your combo wants to go fast and is willing to do the work and spend the money and has the knowledge. And then goes 1.20 under. This isn't T-ball not everyone can put the same time, effort, money and knowledge into their cars as others. So we should punish those that can? It's not all that hard to make almost any combo a one second under car. Yes you may have to spend some money, put some time and effort in. If you don't choose to I don't have a problem with it. But that's your choice. You can spend as much as 10 grand for a converter and trany but you can also go real fast for less than half that amount. I would be in favor of taking a look at the index's in the lower classes that loose that tenth between K and L. In most of the higher classes if you can't go at least one under and you have a heads up you may have spent all that money getting to the track and paying the entrance fee just to get put on the trailer in a heads up race. BP

I always knew there was no money to be made class racing. My combo is a 1968 Camaro running SS/IA. I don’t know if any car in the class running that combo that can get any where near a second under. I have run .62 under with my car the way it is right now. It’s pretty old school and I have the wrong converter in the car for the combo. I do plan to update my trans to a 3 speed soon with the correct converter so I expect to see a .20 improvement with that change. I know I can’t win a heads up race against some of the FI and oddball combos that run my class. I just accept it and continue to race. I do enjoy it. I am just an old working man and race with in my means. My car is not fast but everything is done by me. Engine transmission rear end and chassis are done by me. I do farm out the machine work but do all of the assembly myself. Not many do that anymore. I even painted it myself.