Index Change

[Ray Menard]

Records have been removed from the NHRA site.

[mbrace5]

We have been fighting the basic same thing with IHRA for a while. Crate Motor indexs are alot softer than the regular stockers. I guess, the bottem line is the fast guys will still be fast, just have more room to be faster now.

[Mike Carr]

Did anyone notice this line near the end?

"Runs of 1.250 or more under the index will be reviewed and adjusted Tuesday following the event. Runs at National Events, Divisional Events, and National Open Events, including those at altitude factored race tracks, are included in the 1.250-second-or-more-under analysis".

If I am reading this correctly, this means that a car at Altitude that runs -1.250 now gets HP the same as a car at Sea Level that runs -1.250? If so, I applaud NHRA for fixing this glaring disparity.

[Jeff Teuton]

Mike, I think it has been that way. Wasn't that the big deal with Sorenson last year when he dumped the water or something? It's the same as running 1.55 under in 2009. And when the semi-annual adjustments, the new average will be .15 faster than last years 1.00 under average, but with the.3 drop, the effect is a 1.15 under in 2009 average sorta like the 396 guys are commenting about.

[Jim Wahl]

Ah Ray, as of this time the records are still there.

Jeff, the flap with Sorenson was he ran -1.40+ the sea level index at an altitude factored track, then they say he didn't, and pulled the water trick. Jim

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Mike Carr

Did anyone notice this line near the end?

"Runs of 1.250 or more under the index will be reviewed and adjusted Tuesday following the event. Runs at National Events, Divisional Events, and National Open Events, including those at altitude factored race tracks, are included in the 1.250-second-or-more-under analysis".

If I am reading this correctly, this means that a car at Altitude that runs -1.250 now gets HP the same as a car at Sea Level that runs -1.250? If so, I applaud NHRA for fixing this glaring disparity.

Actually, that's a bad idea. Why? Because NHRA does not consider the current local weather conditions at factored tracks, and adjust the factored index accordingly. I've seen days where the actual conditions at Denver, a factored track, were 1500' better than Bristol, an non factored track. A track that is factored at 3000' could see local current weather that was actually closer to 1900'. Since they don't adjust the factored indexes to account for that, it'd be ludicrous put HP on a car for running 1.25 under the factored index.

If a car were to run 1.250 under the sea level index, then of course, it needs HP. But it already works that way now.

[Mike Carr]

Hi Jeff. Yes, I remember the Sorenson deal. A car had to run -1.40 (back then, -1.25 now) under it's sea level Index. Meaning Joe in B/SA, if he ran 10.149 or quicker, he got HP regardless of elevation. Difference was, 10.149 is -1.401 under sea level, yet something like -1.77 under the Boise Index.

1 633 B/SA Hal Sorensen, Vancouver WA, '69 Camaro 10.159 11.93 -1.771

The statement in the new AHFS article states:
"Runs of 1.250 or more under the index will be reviewed and adjusted Tuesday following the event. Runs at National Events, Divisional Events, and National Open Events, including those at altitude factored race tracks, are included in the 1.250-second-or-more-under analysis. This is done to better react to any out-of-line indexes or under-horsepowered combinations. Therefore, at all such events, a 3.25 percent horsepower adjustment or index reduction will be initiated Tuesday following the event. The decision to adjust horsepower or to reduce the index will be at the discretion of the NHRA Tech Department".

So is that -1.250 under the sea level Index, or the particular altitude adjusted Index at that event?

[Ray Menard]

You're right, Jim,

I looked in the wrong menu. Thanks for clarifying.

[Mike Carr]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Actually, that's a bad idea. Why? Because NHRA does not consider the current local weather conditions at factored tracks, and adjust the factored index accordingly. I've seen days where the actual conditions at Denver, a factored track, were 1500' better than Bristol, an non factored track. A track that is factored at 3000' could see local current weather that was actually closer to 1900'. Since they don't adjust the factored indexes to account for that, it'd be ludicrous put HP on a car for running 1.25 under the factored index.

If a car were to run 1.250 under the sea level index, then of course, it needs HP. But it already works that way now.

Alan, if, and it's a big IF, the altitude factors currently used are correct, a -1.25 at sea level should be the same as -1.25 at altitude. When east coast racers accuse some altitude records of being "bogus", we're called crybabies, and that the factor system used is correct and nothing bogus about it. There were a few records set at Boise a few years ago. Boise's physical elevation is something like 2,800'. The corrected air was much lower than that. One racer reported 1,800'. But the track used the 2,800' factor, and records tumbled. BUT, many cars at sea level, in conditions close to the DA at an altitude facility, don't run anywhere close to the factored record from altitude. Now, does that mean the factor used to equate records is incorrect, or are they sandbagging to not receive HP, or something else? I always equated racing at altitude as "having your cake and eating it too". Run fast, and almost never receive HP. If the factors used really are correct, then a -1.25 at sea level (Atco) should be no different than -1.25 under at altitude (Denver), and both should receive equal adjustments.

B/SA, sea level Index 11.55 (old index). You run 10.150 or quicker (more than -1.400), you get HP.

B/SA Boise Index, 11.93 (old Index). You can run 10.151, which is -1.779, but results in NO HP, because the car didn't run -1.40 under the 'sea level' Index.

If the factors are indeed not a little suspicious, then a B/SA that runs quicker than 10.430 (more than -1.40 under that particular adjusted Index) at Boise should receive HP.

Am I missing something?

[Rich Wallin]

this did nothing but penalize the part time racer trying to go out and compete, factor the fast combo's as needed, this is a crock