|
![]() |
#111 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greensboro NC
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 1
Liked 83 Times in 32 Posts
|
![]()
My dad told me a story about Ronnie Sox in 1967 he set the NHRA record at lakeland dragway in Memphis then lost at 4 cars. NHRA had a rule then it was mandatory to tear down if you ran quicket than the record. Buster made Ronnie tear the car down after he lost. Ronnie was mad and my dad helped him.........3 years later my dad was able to drive for Sox and Martin. My point is Ronnie was going to leave and Buster told him if you leave plan on taking a year off.
Herb McCandless Jr I didnt read mush of this thread but if it was done then it can be done now. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#112 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
Bruce
What Bucky was saying is the NHRA Divisional and Tech people will be meeting next week (PRI week) to finalize changes for 2008. It is an annual thing nothing unusual. I also agree with Buck on Len. He has always been straight with me and lets me know when I might be out of line. He is between the "rock and the hard spot", when changes are made he gets abuse from the opposition no matter what his stand was on the issue. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#113 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
weve heard some really good suggestions concerning some of the problems with the AHFS. i think everyone needs to realize that any system we use will never be perfect.my opinion would be that if all the cars in a certian class can be factored within a tenth of each other, it would be as good as it can get.
any number we use to start triggering is really meaningless. the cars that are in danger of hitting this trigger will just slow there cars down to keep themselve below it. aside from heads up runs and trying to qualify for indy (maybe), any data put into the system will be false as the cars will only be going as fast as the owner care to show. therefore the only people who get hp will be someone who had a heads up, or some one who went to fast carelessly. (its a shame in a "perfomance" class that we are all not going as fast as we can, or get called "brain dead "D**k Slingers", "DONKEY" and "MORON". these quotes were lifting from posts this past week referring to people who actually "race" thier "racecars".) i think we can all agree that a cars true potential is only really shown during heads up runs. these runs are the ones that need to be used during the AHFS. the only problem with this is that only about half the classes have enough cars in them to be seriously in danger of having a heads up run. according to my most recent nitro joe's, 23 classes have 21 or more cars and 46 have 21 or less cars. i use 21 because that would average 3 cars per division in that particular class. next year when the classes are combined (FI and carbs) these numbers change to 21 classes with 21+cars and 25 with 21 or less cars. so only about half of the classes "might" have a heads up run where they show the true potential of thier cars. for example i race in F and G/SA. currently the 2 biggest classes in stock and regularly have around 10 cars each in division 1 at any race. I went to 12 races and went a few rounds but only had 2 heads up runs, the only time all year i "may" have needed to show the true potential of my car. many racers can go all whole year or years without a heads up run. this is the biggest flaw with the AHFS. there is no good data to work from because all the cars in "bracket mode". for some it is alot and for some it may be very little. realistically a guy with an good running car will get himself hp by running his car hard. but guys with soft combos and fast cars dont get hit because they have no reason to show thier hand.
__________________
Steve Ficacci 1142 G/SA |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#114 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,855
Likes: 83
Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts
|
![]()
I think there are one or two fast racers who are for making 1.15 under at Divisionals the new mark and yet the majority of the racers still oppose any changes. And I'm not sure that the fast racers who are for it aren't hedging a little with their endorsement of the -1.15 number.
You guys have to remember that nhra has been allowing tons of go fast parts for the past ten years. Now they want to slow all the racers down who worked hard on their combinations by taking a broad brush stroke and erasing ten years of approving parts and modifications. There are some folks who are limited as what they can do with their combinations but there are others who choose not to work hard or to spend the money necessary to go fast and yet they are in the minority of racers who seem to be the most vocal on this issue. Look at their numbers. We are still in a performance sport and I am absolutely opposed to snuffing out the only bit of tradition that we have left.
__________________
Bruce Noland 1788 STK Last edited by Bruce Noland; 11-30-2007 at 01:42 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#115 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,855
Likes: 83
Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts
|
![]()
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?
__________________
Bruce Noland 1788 STK Last edited by Bruce Noland; 11-30-2007 at 05:13 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#116 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 40
Likes: 1
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
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".
__________________
Len Imbrogno |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#117 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anthem, Arizona
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
-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.
__________________
Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#118 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#119 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
![]()
I'll go with Jeff.
Thanks Jerry Davis Stk 4168 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#120 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Miles From Nowhere
Posts: 7,815
Likes: 2,904
Liked 5,121 Times in 1,952 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
"We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers Last edited by Mark Yacavone; 11-30-2007 at 07:57 PM. Reason: typo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|