Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races - Page 3

Greg Hill · 11-27-2007, 07:37 PM

The way to do this is to have all runs count at National events. This should suffice to help get rid of the softer combinations. All you will do by counting all runs at divisional and open races is to force racers to run more weight more oil, less timing, etc.. If you count the 2nd and 3rd round of class there will be some significant changes in horsepower ratings. Look at Indy this year if you don't believe me.

Greg

Bruce Noland · 11-27-2007, 07:56 PM

Dave,

Where has all this nonsense come from? It sounds like Len and Wesley did have it all figured out before Wesley ran off at the mouth. The first ten can trigger the AHFS under this set up and the rest of the field is OK? They have to be kidding.

Len has already posted that the majority of the racers were not for it - so how did this plan get so far along without any of the racers knowing about it?

It makes Imbrogno look like a liar!

Jeremy · 11-27-2007, 08:24 PM

All this crying and voting is gonna kill class racing. There will always be more loosers than winners and after a year or two of voting by the cry baby racers the race part of "class racing" will be gone as it is nearly now.
It's a lot easier to vote performance away than to go out in the garage and work.
There will be no need to sell or buy performance parts or for anyone even wanting to watch as performance part of class racing is disappearing and unless a friend wins the race no one could care less.
I vote to forget holding performance back, and let bracket racers go back to bracket racing. At least let performance keep up with the rule changes.
I've already stopped on my new motor for '08, no need to update if all I have to go to is a bracket race.

Dave Layer · 11-27-2007, 08:35 PM

Bruce
I don't have clue, must be one of those internal things.

Jeremy
Amen

Harry 6674
How about 64 car qualified fields?

We need the keep "PERFORMANCE" in Stock and Super Stock. Let the Bracket competetors (I can't call them racers) go bracket race, There are plenty of them to go to. Stock and Super Stock will be fine with out them.

keith ohanesian · 11-27-2007, 08:37 PM

Dave I've been telling the twins there combo is soft for years!!! Now I guess we all see why I call them DUMB F@#$%... This funny. I'm starting to think Len answers these post just to add more fuel.... lol Bryon voted NO Bryan votes YES do they make sense?????

Real Racer · 11-27-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Layer

We need the keep "PERFORMANCE" in Stock and Super Stock. Let the Bracket competetors (I can't call them racers) go bracket race, There are plenty of them to go to. Stock and Super Stock will be fine with out them.

Double Amen to that Dave!

SS Engine Guy · 11-27-2007, 08:58 PM

Deleted. for lack of interest

Lynn A McCarty · 11-27-2007, 09:04 PM

If we all do it in the spirit of improvement, then it is all of us working together for the betterment of our sport. No we dont all have to agree, but the right things usually rise to the top. Super Stockers and Stockers are for the most part a smart group of people.

I still strongly believe that we should shy away from the "trigger" system. Engines performances should be tracked on a bell curve and matched to other engines and a standard. A standard bell curve should be developed for Super Stock and for Stock. Those engines that have a curve outside of the standard should be addressed.

Currently the system works because of the self correcting mechanism that the HP committee does by manual review. Comparing the "average" to the 1.15 level of performance *or even 1.00 under) is a serious flaw. This does 3 fallible things:

1.) Keeps all the engines that are on top right where they are (on top).
2.) Doesnt quantify properly the level of correction required
3.) Doesnt accurately reflect individual outstanding performances rather than bogus HP or parts acquisitions

The biggest flaw is that the HP added cant keep up with the enhancement of raw parts acquisition, and rules liberalizations. As we know one engine receiving 45HP is still on the top. If it is still on top, then what does that say for it 45HP ago? Some of it can be explained by rule changes, but some not.

Proposal:

1.) Run a bell curve on all similar engine combinations
2.) Run a bell curve for all of Super Stock and Stock
3.) Develop a Standard for Super Stock and Stock
4.) Plan-Do-Check-Act

A Few Benefits:

1.) Will be able to see when a rule change benefits one group more than another
2.) Predicts engines rated low or high from its performance verses rated HP
3.) Predicts "cramming" events as bell curves skew for things like "sandbagging"
4.) Mathematically adjusts engines based on their real parameters and eliminates outstanding individual performances. (American Way!)
5.) Would give you a quantitative reflection to tell you "how much" the engine is bogus when compared to the group.

I am sure everyone realizes how many cars have to go way faster than 1.15 under for the whole engine family to "average" 1.15 under. The law of averages states that for an item to average 1.15 under (or even 1.00 under), there must be an equal number above the average as below the average. It is the way all the scientific community does their evaluations. It wouldn't be perfect, but a much better and more useful tool.

Lynn

Blingmaster · 11-27-2007, 09:19 PM

I have been enjoying this sport since 1965 longer than some shorter than others...In the begining you sought out a dynamite combo you were sure no one in the world would pick ,you put endless hours into disassembling scraping sound deadner, aftermarket fenders just to pick up 6 lbs. Just so you could possibly have a chance to set a national record..The undisputed fastest car in the country for your class. National record holders would get free admission to the races if posted in dragster....You would paint national record holder with the pride of a new father on your fender....What has happened to this ?????? You ran off of national records no afhs....If you were smart and ingenius enough to hold record you got instant respect from your peers. people would try to duplicate your comb...how is that for an ego trip???How about throwing out the point system because most of us racers cannot afford the traveling road show....and install a national record system...You set national record found to be legal free ride in national and divisional events for the year record was set....if you destroyed record ahfs would kick in and horsepower would be added......Is this concept toooooo simple..We have people right now I would assume that can go faster than 1.15 under but could never get through a tear down...Yet if that combo goes 1.15 under automatically h.p. given. Lets get the juices flowing and put performance not sandbagging into S/SS racing......

Bryan Worner · 11-27-2007, 09:25 PM

Dave, I was under the assumption that .20 was coming off all indexes, and didn't know the AHFS would be different for divisionals (qualifying based) than it is currently for National Events. That would have meant runs of -1.35 under with the current indexes! But since that is not the case......I would have to reevaluate!

I have said all along the number needs to be lower than -1.40 because you have the same people running -1.30 under or better at every points race to be #1 to get the bye. And if these racers don't go to enough national events to trigger reviews, then they never get hit, where someone like me who goes to 8 or 9 nationals has to constantly slow their car down to avoid the AHFS!

I love class racing just as much as anyone out here! Isn't that why most of us run Stock and Super Stock?? But when you have a fast car, and you are covered by a tenth or so..........shouldn't the AHFS even that out eventually???? I think that is what it's there for!

I'll be racing next year regardless of what happens! I'm sure it will affect me as much as it will anyone on here discussing the topic! Obviously none of us has all the right answers! And I'm sure this will all be the same for next season, so we can all voice our displeasure for another year!! No matter what is done......you will never make every racer happy!

11-27-2007, 07:37 PM	#21
Greg Hill VIP Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Louisville , KY Posts: 1,995 Likes: 68 Liked 279 Times in 68 Posts	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races The way to do this is to have all runs count at National events. This should suffice to help get rid of the softer combinations. All you will do by counting all runs at divisional and open races is to force racers to run more weight more oil, less timing, etc.. If you count the 2nd and 3rd round of class there will be some significant changes in horsepower ratings. Look at Indy this year if you don't believe me. Greg

11-27-2007, 07:56 PM	#22
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races Dave, Where has all this nonsense come from? It sounds like Len and Wesley did have it all figured out before Wesley ran off at the mouth. The first ten can trigger the AHFS under this set up and the rest of the field is OK? They have to be kidding. Len has already posted that the majority of the racers were not for it - so how did this plan get so far along without any of the racers knowing about it? It makes Imbrogno look like a liar! __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK Last edited by Bruce Noland; 11-27-2007 at 09:15 PM.

11-27-2007, 08:24 PM	#23
Jeremy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 95 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races All this crying and voting is gonna kill class racing. There will always be more loosers than winners and after a year or two of voting by the cry baby racers the race part of "class racing" will be gone as it is nearly now. It's a lot easier to vote performance away than to go out in the garage and work. There will be no need to sell or buy performance parts or for anyone even wanting to watch as performance part of class racing is disappearing and unless a friend wins the race no one could care less. I vote to forget holding performance back, and let bracket racers go back to bracket racing. At least let performance keep up with the rule changes. I've already stopped on my new motor for '08, no need to update if all I have to go to is a bracket race. Last edited by Jeremy; 11-27-2007 at 09:00 PM. Reason: miss spelled word.

11-27-2007, 08:35 PM	#24
Dave Layer Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 93 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races Bruce I don't have clue, must be one of those internal things. Jeremy Amen Harry 6674 How about 64 car qualified fields? We need the keep "PERFORMANCE" in Stock and Super Stock. Let the Bracket competetors (I can't call them racers) go bracket race, There are plenty of them to go to. Stock and Super Stock will be fine with out them.

11-27-2007, 08:37 PM	#25
keith ohanesian Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 392 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races Dave I've been telling the twins there combo is soft for years!!! Now I guess we all see why I call them DUMB F@#$%... This funny. I'm starting to think Len answers these post just to add more fuel.... lol Bryon voted NO Bryan votes YES do they make sense????? __________________ No prep is king Last edited by keith ohanesian; 11-27-2007 at 08:46 PM.

11-27-2007, 08:58 PM	#27
SS Engine Guy Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: usa Posts: 256 Likes: 1 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races Deleted. for lack of interest Last edited by SS Engine Guy; 11-27-2007 at 09:40 PM.

11-27-2007, 09:04 PM	#28
Lynn A McCarty Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Plainfield (INDY) Indiana Posts: 468 Likes: 1 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races If we all do it in the spirit of improvement, then it is all of us working together for the betterment of our sport. No we dont all have to agree, but the right things usually rise to the top. Super Stockers and Stockers are for the most part a smart group of people. I still strongly believe that we should shy away from the "trigger" system. Engines performances should be tracked on a bell curve and matched to other engines and a standard. A standard bell curve should be developed for Super Stock and for Stock. Those engines that have a curve outside of the standard should be addressed. Currently the system works because of the self correcting mechanism that the HP committee does by manual review. Comparing the "average" to the 1.15 level of performance or even 1.00 under) is a serious flaw. This does 3 fallible things: 1.) Keeps all the engines that are on top right where they are (on top). 2.) Doesnt quantify properly the level of correction required 3.) Doesnt accurately reflect individual outstanding performances rather than bogus HP or parts acquisitions The biggest flaw is that the HP added cant keep up with the enhancement of raw parts acquisition, and rules liberalizations. As we know one engine receiving 45HP is still on the top. If it is still on top, then what does that say for it 45HP ago? Some of it can be explained by rule changes, but some not. Proposal: 1.) Run a bell curve on all similar engine combinations 2.) Run a bell curve for all of Super Stock and Stock 3.) Develop a Standard for Super Stock and Stock 4.) Plan-Do-Check-Act A Few Benefits: 1.) Will be able to see when a rule change benefits one group more than another 2.) Predicts engines rated low or high from its performance verses rated HP 3.) Predicts "cramming" events as bell curves skew for things like "sandbagging" 4.) Mathematically adjusts engines based on their real parameters and eliminates outstanding individual performances. (American Way!) 5.) Would give you a quantitative reflection to tell you "how much" the engine is bogus when compared to the group. I am sure everyone realizes how many cars have to go way faster than 1.15 under for the whole engine family to "average" 1.15 under. The law of averages states that for an item to average 1.15 under (or even 1.00 under), there must be an equal number above the average as below the average. It is the way all the scientific community does their evaluations. It wouldn't be perfect, but a much better and more useful tool. Lynn __________________ Lynn A McCarty 3470 SS Last edited by Lynn A McCarty; 11-27-2007 at 09:11 PM.*

11-27-2007, 09:19 PM	#29
Blingmaster Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: usa Posts: 83 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races I have been enjoying this sport since 1965 longer than some shorter than others...In the begining you sought out a dynamite combo you were sure no one in the world would pick ,you put endless hours into disassembling scraping sound deadner, aftermarket fenders just to pick up 6 lbs. Just so you could possibly have a chance to set a national record..The undisputed fastest car in the country for your class. National record holders would get free admission to the races if posted in dragster....You would paint national record holder with the pride of a new father on your fender....What has happened to this ?????? You ran off of national records no afhs....If you were smart and ingenius enough to hold record you got instant respect from your peers. people would try to duplicate your comb...how is that for an ego trip???How about throwing out the point system because most of us racers cannot afford the traveling road show....and install a national record system...You set national record found to be legal free ride in national and divisional events for the year record was set....if you destroyed record ahfs would kick in and horsepower would be added......Is this concept toooooo simple..We have people right now I would assume that can go faster than 1.15 under but could never get through a tear down...Yet if that combo goes 1.15 under automatically h.p. given. Lets get the juices flowing and put performance not sandbagging into S/SS racing......

11-27-2007, 09:25 PM	#30
Bryan Worner Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Duncannon, PA Posts: 823 Likes: 133 Liked 521 Times in 84 Posts	Re: Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races Dave, I was under the assumption that .20 was coming off all indexes, and didn't know the AHFS would be different for divisionals (qualifying based) than it is currently for National Events. That would have meant runs of -1.35 under with the current indexes! But since that is not the case......I would have to reevaluate! I have said all along the number needs to be lower than -1.40 because you have the same people running -1.30 under or better at every points race to be #1 to get the bye. And if these racers don't go to enough national events to trigger reviews, then they never get hit, where someone like me who goes to 8 or 9 nationals has to constantly slow their car down to avoid the AHFS! I love class racing just as much as anyone out here! Isn't that why most of us run Stock and Super Stock?? But when you have a fast car, and you are covered by a tenth or so..........shouldn't the AHFS even that out eventually???? I think that is what it's there for! I'll be racing next year regardless of what happens! I'm sure it will affect me as much as it will anyone on here discussing the topic! Obviously none of us has all the right answers! And I'm sure this will all be the same for next season, so we can all voice our displeasure for another year!! No matter what is done......you will never make every racer happy!