2011 ahfs

[Bryan Worner]

Originally Posted by Travis Miller

Horsepower changes for a GT engine does not matter what body it is used in.

Horsepower changes that effect certain bodies is only for Stock and regular S/S.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)

Travis. Then why doesn't it state that in this section of the system? Isn't GT part of Super Stock? Wasn't GT created to save SS?? Shouldn't the same rules apply? The ONLY difference from GT to Super Stock is the years of the car and combo must match in SS? Am I right or wrong?

If I'm right, your earlier statement makes no sense! The rule should be enforced for the whole class or not at all!

[Travis Miller]

Originally Posted by Bryan Worner

Travis. Then why doesn't it state that in this section of the system? Isn't GT part of Super Stock? Wasn't GT created to save SS?? Shouldn't the same rules apply? The ONLY difference from GT to Super Stock is the years of the car and combo must match in SS? Am I right or wrong?

If I'm right, your earlier statement makes no sense! The rule should be enforced for the whole class or not at all!

I'll see if I can answer your questions one at a time.


It does. In the introduction of SECTION 10B - SUPER STOCK/GT the rulebook states..."Cars will be classified by using the shipping weight of the body divided by the horsepower or performance rating of the engine used." I do not read anywhere that the GT engine horsepower rating is different when used in a FWD as opposed to a RWD car. If you would like to submit that rule change for 2012, a letter must be received by the S/SS Committee asking for that change no later than the end of July 2011.


Yes


No. GT was created because in the early '80's it looked like the V8 engine was no longer going to be produced and NHRA saw a way to still have new models running each year by using the old tried and true V8s. NHRA knew the older SS cars would be raced for a long time to come.


They cannot. FWD conversions are not allowed in regular SS.


That is a partially correct statement. There are other differences in GT and SS especially concerning FWD cars.


It's a free country. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Personally my opinion is it makes complete sense.


The whole class (actually the eliminator) consists of SS, SS/GT, GT/Truck, Modified Stock, Modified Truck, Modified, and SS/MX.

Now since that's all out of the way, until the time that the rule gets changed, GT horsepowers will remain the same for FWD conversions as they are for RWD cars. With all that is going on right now with Stock and SS, figuring horsepowers different for FWD and RWD cars in GT does not look likely anytime soon.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)

[Bryan Worner]

Travis quoted, "I do not read anywhere that the GT engine horsepower rating is different when used in a FWD as opposed to a RWD car. If you would like to submit that rule change for 2012, a letter must be received by the S/SS Committee asking for that change no later than the end of July 2011."

Myself, as well as many other racers have submitted these requests numerous times, with nothing being done! We are constantly told that the data is there to support the argument, but no changes are made! How many letters/emails must we send before this is even looked into? It is very frustrating!

Could you please explain to me why this "platform" rule only applies to Stock and Regular SS? That is what I do not understand and why I said that since GT is part of SS that the ahfs rules need to apply to ALL SS classes. And, you are right, all classes include the modified classes and truck classes! But the trucks would be a different "platform" than an F Body!! And modified "horsepower" only affects that class, unlike combos run in many different SS and GT classes.

If the "platform" rule is in the AHFS, then it should be enforced as written! Not as how it is interpreted differently by tech officials!!

No offense to you Travis! I applaud you for coming on here and discussing the issue!

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way.

[Travis Miller]

Originally Posted by Bryan Worner

Myself, as well as many other racers have submitted these requests numerous times, with nothing being done! We are constantly told that the data is there to support the argument, but no changes are made! How many letters/emails must we send before this is even looked into? It is very frustrating!

Bryan, You also stated that the AHFS applies to all SS classes. That it does, it just does not break down the difference between FWD and RWD classes in GT as the rules currently stand.

If you and others have submitted in writing to the S/SS Committee that you would like to see a rule change where GT horsepowers are rated differently for FWD and RWD cars, and no changes are made, it looks like they do not want to change the current way horsepowers are set for GT.

Personally I have never heard any S/SS Commitee member talk about this issue and we discuss a lot of things at the races. But then I am not on the committee and they do not fill me in on each and every thing that goes on.

What does your own DD say about it? He is on the S/SS Committee.

BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone reading this thread.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)

[Adger Smith]

Ok, Brian
Let's play pick the platform for GT. Let's use the new popular LS1 engine in both platforms.
Platform #1 1969 Corvette which was listed as an L-88
Platform #2 1969 Camaro which was listed as a ZL-1
Which platform is the best?
Which fits the class the best?
What are the advantages, if any?

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by Adger Smith

Ok, Brian
Let's play pick the platform for GT. Let's use the new popular LS1 engine in both platforms.
Platform #1 1969 Corvette which was listed as an L-88
Platform #2 1969 Camaro which was listed as a ZL-1
Which platform is the best?
Which fits the class the best?
What are the advantages, if any?

No brainer....CORVETTE....10% engine set back, shorter wheelbase and a Corvette is just a little more aero dynamic and neater looking (my opinion).....LOL. No rust except maybe the frame. More expensive to buy, build and a little harder to work on. Sorry Brian....I couldnt resist jumping in there.

[Jeff Teuton]

Mike F. Just for information there were over 630 runs in Stock over 1.10 under and I think over 300 in Super Stock. In Stock, the old cars outnumbered the new car about 6 to 1 if I remember my numbers, and almost all the runs in Super Stock were not the new cars. That was in all formats; National, Points, & National Opens thru Pomona. One to go this weekend.

[Bryan Worner]

Originally Posted by Adger Smith

Ok, Brian
Let's play pick the platform for GT. Let's use the new popular LS1 engine in both platforms.
Platform #1 1969 Corvette which was listed as an L-88
Platform #2 1969 Camaro which was listed as a ZL-1
Which platform is the best?
Which fits the class the best?
What are the advantages, if any?

OK Adger, so if the Corvette triggers horsepower, should the Camaro get it too??? Should a truck running GT/TA also get the hp the Corvette triggered??? Should the Cobalt running GT/AA get the hp too??? The answer should be NO! As it currently stands, according to Travis, they would all get hp added to their combo.

But if that happens in SS, only the Corvette would get the hp! My argument is if the "platforms" can be separated in regular SS for hp it can also be done in GT!!! Get it?

As far as fitting classes, what class? I guess the lighter car would fit the faster class and the heavier car would fit the slower class better! When you're talking GT, it's all about horsepower of the combo and shipping weight of the car. So, I'm sure you already knew your answer before you asked the question, right??

[Adger Smith]

Bryan,
LOL!
You have a PM
You are dead on and dead right about the aero difference in the Corvette Vs Truck and why one shouldn't suffer because of another. The problem is numbers or stats don't know the difference when everything with the same GT engine is considered equal. They aren't equal.
The other problem is the AHFS is set up with the assumption that anything that is fast is not factored correctly with HP or Index. It has no way of allowing someone that works hard is dedicated to performance to show his ability. It is designed to further mediocrity.
It just takes the performance factor out of a class that was developed on performance.
We are being handed a blow that bracket racers don't even have to deal with. They can go as fast as they want and dial what they want without being penalized.
How about Bracket 1 for SS and Bracket 2 for Stock and you can't dial or run more than 1 second under the index? I never thought I would live long enough to be able to see bracket racing become a performance based class. (at least in TD and TS going fast means you get to qualify) Sorry, I got mad and off the subject.

[Travis Miller]

Originally Posted by Jeff Teuton

Mike F. Just for information there were over 630 runs in Stock over 1.10 under and I think over 300 in Super Stock. In Stock, the old cars outnumbered the new car about 6 to 1 if I remember my numbers, and almost all the runs in Super Stock were not the new cars. That was in all formats; National, Points, & National Opens thru Pomona. One to go this weekend.

So you are saying that in 2010 there were over 630 runs in Stock and 300 in SS that were under by 1.10 or more but did not cause an automatic hit because the number had been lowered to 1.25 under. Since .3 was removed from the indexes, those 930 ET's that the cars ran would have been the same as 1.40 under in the previous year.

Checking data for 2008 I find only 5 runs in Stock and 4 runs in S/S that hit the automatic hit number of 1.40 under the index. For 2009 there were 6 runs in Stock and 8 runs in S/S that committed the same 1.40 under automatic hit. Something does not compute here.

Using Nitro Joe's Stats, I find that for 2010 there were 47 stockers and 21 S/Sers that ran more than 1.10 under the index. To reach the 630 run data under 1.10, each of these 47 stockers would have had to do that on average of13 times. In S/S each of the 21 cars would have had to do it 14 times.

Also in 2010 there were 12 runs in Stock that were more than 1.25 under causing an automatic hit. Of those 12 runs, 10 fell into the new car group. For S/S there was only 1 automatic hit and it was a new car.

630 runs for Stock and 300 for S/S...???????

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions and ??????? expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions and ???????.)