I'd just lke to shout a big THANK YOU to the racer

[ken robinson]

To many -900 and -1.00 under runs on that list . There had to be a lot of combos that came very close to getting HP. Any run over -850 is on the radar for HP . I see one racer that run between -650 & -750 he needed to hit more races to off set the racer who is bombing the combo . Just look at some of the old Q sheets 3/4 of the field was over -850 under this year like only 15 cars ran -850 or more .

[B Parker]

Ken it's sad that we have to try and make more runs between -.065 and -.075 to make sure our combo's don't get hit HP. My combo like Tony's don't have a lot of others running it. I spent more time this year worrying about how fast I was going to go than ever before. Time and effort that should have been spent trying to win the race. Indy's qualifying showed how fast most can go. Almost every combo is capable of getting hit HP. All it takes is that one or two racers that don't care if their combo gets hit. Take a look at the 69 350/255 HP combo. Could you imagine if Joe and Hal keep that in their car and ran it as hard as they did with the lower HP version. There would be a lot of unhappy 350/255 owners. BP

[PJ305]

Tony I think the better question is why an average of .86 under warrants an 8 hp increase.

I know it went one second under twice to trigger a review but why so much of an inccrease. The current system definitely harms the slower car with the same combo.

How can a system ever work if it punishes a combo that only averages .85 under because it has two triggers and doesn't harm any combo that can average up to .999 under all year with one trigger and no increase.

NHRA needs to adopt a system that treats all combo's fairly and stop using triggers to do a review. If they want .85 under to be the norm then they should average all combo's regardless of triggers.

The instant hp of 1.30 under runs seems to be fair but the percentage of hp needs some tweeking.

We need our reps to start a thread on class racer and get some input from the racers to see if the system can be implemented with more fairness.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

[GUMP]

The one second under run shows the potential of the combination. Owners of slower cars with the same combination do not deserve welfare. They have been shown what's possible....

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by GUMP

The one second under run shows the potential of the combination. Owners of slower cars with the same combination do not deserve welfare. They have been shown what's possible....

I can't necessarily disagree with that.


I think some people find that they may have gotten themselves into a deeper end of the pool. There are certain classes, and certain combinations, where you and your wallet are going to pay a higher price to compete. Since I don't play the lottery, I'll never be in the COPO/Drag Pack/Cobra Jet classes. And I'm good with that.



As Eastwood said in the movie, "A man's got to know his limitations."

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by GUMP

The one second under run shows the potential of the combination. Owners of slower cars with the same combination do not deserve welfare. They have been shown what's possible....

BUT, here in the 21ST century these one second under runs are being made by cars which aren't being looked at. Wouldn't it be a real injustice to the "slower cars with the same combination" if the one second under runs are being made by cars that wouldn't pass a teardown?
What ARE the odds of being torndown at a race today? Even if a car makes a one second under run?

Alan, one of my favorite quotes!

[L.Fite]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

BUT, here in the 21ST century these one second under runs are being made by cars which aren't being looked at. Wouldn't it be a real injustice to the "slower cars with the same combination" if the one second under runs are being made by cars that wouldn't pass a teardown?
What ARE the odds of being torndown at a race today? Even if a car makes a one second under run?

Alan, one of my favorite quotes!

More tech would make the AHFS more fair if it meant a level playing field...

So with the schedules and lack of inspectors, how does one implement the process?

[Charles Stewart]

I jump in this subject and I know I will put more “fuel to the flames”. ( please don’t shoot the messenger here…)
But how about changing all those irritating rules with a “personal index” like the competition eliminator category.
No more sandbags, no more .85 under, no more one second under. Run at the pace than you want with the pocket that you have and please with a maximum of cars field, everywhere possible…

[Alan Roehrich]

I have said for years that, at the very least, any "instant HP hit" run should result in an old school national record level tear down.


One old school tech guy once told me that you'll find less than 1% as many rules infractions among the ten fastest cars at any given event than you will in the bottom ten cars. Of course, he was speaking of the guys running traditional cars, who were consistently fast over a period of years. And, as with any "rule", you will find exceptions.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

One old school tech guy once told me that you'll find less than 1% as many rules infractions among the ten fastest cars at any given event than you will in the bottom ten cars.

I've been told the same thing and for the longest time I believed it. I'm not so sure anymore.
Too many times I've been told "he's cheating so I'm gonna cheat too" and "you're gonna be OK as long as you don't go to Indy".
As I've said before, too many big egos.