ATTN Sportsman Council Members and Racers

[Larry Munk]

How about this one. Lets do like was done before. No car older than 15/20 years old in stock. All the antiques can go to super stock or the car shows. Put the comp cars where they belong. And while you're at it drop the indexes .4.

[Jim Wahl]

Larry,
Why don't you just say you only want GM cars in competition? Then they can dominate Stock as well as Pro Stock. Comp, and Super Stock. Won't be any need for factors then huh? Jim

[Larry Munk]

Actually Jim I'm a Ford guy. They still make a rear drive car.

[Jim Wahl]

Me thinks there was a dig there somewhere. I'm used to that kind of thinking. jim

[stefan callender]

Lynn, I want to know, If someone has a combination that can go 1.30 under, but other competitors with the same combination can only go 1.00-1.15 under, does that mean it needs 40 hp?? Oe one guy has a really good motor, and the others need to get to work??

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by stefan callender

Lynn, I want to know, If someone has a combination that can go 1.30 under, but other competitors with the same combination can only go 1.00-1.15 under, does that mean it needs 40 hp?? Oe one guy has a really good motor, and the others need to get to work??

or one guy needs a trip to the barn

[Lynn A McCarty]

Originally Posted by stefan callender

Lynn, I want to know, If someone has a combination that can go 1.30 under, but other competitors with the same combination can only go 1.00-1.15 under, does that mean it needs 40 hp?? Oe one guy has a really good motor, and the others need to get to work??

This can all be born out of the proper statistics. There is more than one reason a combo can go way under the target maximum. Lets point a few out:

1.) Has knowledge of engineering or other technological knowledge others do not have.
2.) Individual spends much time hitting all the tune up sweet spots
3.) Individual spends tons of money to get it right.
4.) cheats
5.) has bogus parts legal or not legal
6.) Has knowledge of engineering or other technological knowledge others do not have.
7.) Has been doing it for a long time and found all the sweet spots.
8.) Got very lucky and hit sweet spots through no prowess of his own.
9.) Run was extremely good air conditions
10.) Has a very bogus HP rating

Many of these might be very hard to calculate statistically. Many items are not even necessary. I submit that the easiest one to determine is number 10.

Every recorded event has random variability, some we can determine, some not. For example if GM builds 100 250 6 cylinder Camaros, not one Camaro is going to run exactly the same to a hundreth of a second in 1/4 mile. The variability will fall into an average with most being in the middle and trail off some faster and some slower than the average. The farther you get from the average the least populated the events occur. This can be plotted into a bell curve.

Now take a 100 GM built 427 Camaros. Those will follow another curve very similar to the 6 cylinder Camaro, only must faster in ET as a total average. There will be the same number of individuals that go faster than the average and as slower for multiple reasons. The curves will look very similar statistically only the curve is shifted as a total to a much faster ET average.

However, the undeniable statistic is that the average of the one is much faster than the statistical average of the other.

Certain individuals within a group will always do better than others. Some of these things we can control, some we cannot. That is spelled out in the random occurrences of events.

However, when one engine averages 1.15 under, and another engine averages 8 under, that is the simplest of things to figure out statistically. We call it the difference between a common cause and a special cause.

So, to answer your question, all engines will have people who are better than others, spend more money, get lucky, spend more time, have more talent or determination. This is all part of the game. What is inexcusable is the known total average of one engine predictably way ahead of the average of another to be allowed a built in statistical advantage. AHFS perpetuates this and maintains it by design.

In statistics we call it assigning common cause as special cause status. When you do this, you are domed for failure in your analysis. I can explain this further if anyone wishes.

[55 Chevy]

Bruce
So then we set the national trigger at -1.6 or even better get rid of both of them. What are the problems with doing that?
If we drop the indexes by .2 the top guys before long(maybe almost immediately) will be pushing the bubble yet again & we are back in the same boat as we are today.
We need to encourage new racers into Stock/Super Stock & dropping the indexes is not the way to do that.

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Larry Munk

Actually Jim I'm a Ford guy. They still make a rear drive car.

so does GM