Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races

[Len Imbrogno]

R. Pinoski,

Yes, you are reading it wrong. Your example of the 1/31/2003 AHFS is not at all correct. What you posted on this wedsite is not what appears on the NHRA website. For some reason, you missed an entire paragraph which fits in above the "class average" paragraph and reads as follows:
ENGINE FAMILY AVERAGE FOR THE SPECIFIC ENGINE COMBINATION BEING REVIEWED. ALL CARS, REGARDLESS OF CLASS, RUNNING THE PARTICULAR ENGINE COMBINATION BEING REVIEWED ARE INCLUDED IN THIS SCREENING.

Bruce, enough is enough. The basic format of the AHFS has not changed since its inception. You are more than welcome to your opinion and I will respect that. I am very sorry that you continue to feel ill-treated because of a horsepower adjustment you received, as a result of your not paying attention to the issue.

As I stated previously on this thread, next week at the PRI show, key NHRA tech personnel will have a meeting to finalize a revised AHFS for racers to see. The new AHFS will most likely have changes to it, therefore, continuing this conversation is a moot point. The tech department will post the revised AHFS after the PRI meeting, on the NHRA website, for all racers to review.

Hope to see some of you at the PRI show. Thank you for your past support and emails, and, thank you for racing NHRA.

[Tony Curcio]

1.15 under will seem ridiculously soft in another 3 to 5 years. When AHFS started gathering stats in 2001, it was relatively rare. This is the real problem with a fixed and apparently arbitrary benchmark.

It wasn't that long ago that only the top 10 or 15 cars qualified at 1.00 under or more. This year, I distinctly remember running .99 under at a divisional somewhere, and finding myself below 50th in a full field.

If the trigger point is too low, it discourages performance, too high it it doesn't correct HP. The trigger point needs to move along with the racers' capabilities.

A statistical average, median, or bell-curve will fix this. The more runs that are included, the better it will work.

[Bruce Noland]

edit.

Len,

I know it is getting a little warm for you in here, but you failed to answer one one very simple question. When did nhra give advance notice that it was going to group such a large number of dissimilar vehicles together for reviews? The ahfs makes a point of connecting the Firebird and Camaro but it is not believable for us to think that Corvettes, Omegas, Appolos, Cutlas and Chevelles should be connected for reviews. This list includes everything from wagons to Corvettes. Doesn't it make sense that nhra should list the vehicle combinations for the racers instead of offering generic statement.
Please tell us when you published that information?

edit,

Len,
I missed your earlier post about the 2003 ahfs. This statement at issue has not been in the ahfs since it's origin.To clarify your statement, I believe you meant that the statement's origin was from 2003. My issues are not with the 2003 version. My issues are with the latest version which actually uses that statement to justify the huge number of dissimilar combinations that are now grouped together. And of course nhra never bothered to tell us they were going to group these combinations. I think you need to answer that question. You can attempt to make me look like the bad guy for pressing you for an answer but in the end it's your responsibility to get answers for our questions. We all know you have failed to answer a very simple question.

Also, the current ahfs may resemble the original but that is about it. It sure functions in a different manner.

[Andys dad]

Ok not 100% - good

Since I am up waiting on football I am going to give you my opinion. Now admittedly you will figure I am wrong but here goes. I thought NHRA was all about (in stock) hp to weight.

I do not know when we decide the same engine in a different car should have less hp. It is ridiculous. I have raced the Chevelle with the same combo I have in the Camaro. You know what the engine did not tell me it deserved more hp in the new combo.

The AHFS can not be perfect, it needs and deserves change. Any system should undergo regular changes from its initial format in order to accept input and reality adjustments as times, equipment and technology improve. The system must improve overtime.

As to whether NHRA is a democracy, I would say it is not, it is a rule establishment organization focused on safety.


When will some thing like this be addressed - The Mopar combo in my class that has 40 more cubic inches and weighs an astonishing 400 pounds less. Both are 4 barrels. No chance in class or heads up. Either gigantic difference (40 cubic inches or 400 pounds) would be enough.

The best game in town is avoiding the AHFS hit. "Take care of your HP (AHFS)" is a comon phrase by most who are at the top of the performance curve.

But like it use to be in the old west - there is always a faster gun.

[Larry Hill]

All my opinions are for stock. Count all runs at divisional and national events. Use 1.15 under as trigger. Award points for class rounds won, 10pts. per round, 5 bonus points for class win @ indy. Qualifying points for top 16. Maximum 100lbs. over minimum weight. National opens will not count. If car goes 1.25 under automatic teardown [.1 grace] at nationals and divisionals. If 1.25 under car fails run not counted for AHFS. IF SPEED AND ET. DO NOT MATCH NO TICKET AT THE ET.BOOTH DURING QUALIFING AND CLASS ELIMINATIONS.
Larry

[RPinoski1]

Here are the links from the NHRA website. Let me know what I miss quoted.

http://www.nhra.com/wklynews/2000new...er/112202.html

http://www.nhra.com/2003/sportsman/n...ry/013101.html

Here is a proposed change: http://www.nhra.com/2003/sportsman/n...st/081702.html

Here is the audit of the guides announcement.
http://www.nhra.com/content/sportsma...9836&zoneid=85

Finally here is the current AHFS as posted on the NHRA site.

http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/ahfs.html

Just to add to this.....There should be a links page on CLASS RACER to all of the changes as they are posted on the NHRA site. I know if I miss a day of reading on numerous sites "working on my car" I might miss a crucial rule "clarif-interpretation-change" that might effect all of us racers.

For ex....The accepted crankshaft clarification statement which is way different from what the rule book reads. This one really through me for a loop. I realized I was Waaaay out of the loop when I read this!

http://www.nhra.com/content/sportsma...9848&zoneid=85

Have a great off season...........

GO HAWAII WARRIORS

[Len Imbrogno]

RPinoski,


http://www.nhra.com/2003/sportsman/n...ry/013101.html

The missing letters after sportsman/ are news/january/ Not n...y. For some reason this website is not allowing the correct address to print. Perhaps the "moderator" can explain why.



The article is entitiled "AUTOMATIC HORSEPOWER FACTORING SYSTEM EXPLAINED. Re-read it because it is just as I said it was.

[Stevie Ficacci]

i think tony curcio's last post is right on. the ahfs has to somehow allow for cars to get faster over the years.

[Yo Ken]

Len,

Its the way the software was written for this type of message board so your URL's become hyperlinks. Anytime you have either http:// or www, the vB code will not always show the full address, but the link will be correct. If you need to let others know the full URL, just leave out the http:// or www.

Example:
nhra.com/2003/sportsman/news/january/013101.html

People can just copy and paste the URL, most browsers will automatically add the http:// or www, and the site will open.

[Charlie Ford]

Good one Larry!!