Vegas SS Qualifying - WOW!

[Jeff Lee]

Issac,

Here's the list I came up with. I'm sure there are more but I'm not going to do any more research.

1) Neil Smedley. In 2001 he received 5HP in June after going 1.31 under (adjusted) at the Summit Nationals and then again another 5HP after going 1.30 under (adjusted) in November 2001 @ the Delco Nats. That's +10 HP in one year; all at altitude tracks.

2) Jerry Ryan. 2001 Summit Nats. Kandra was driving Jerry's SS/MA Cutlass and she went 1.25 under and received either 4 or 5 HP as a result.

3) Dave Edwards received 5 or 6 HP in Bristol, TN, 2001. At the time Bristol was a factored track. Since then Bristol has lost it's altitude factor as it's around 1300'.

4) Burt Morgans 1975 Buick 350 wagon in Q/SA received 4 HP in Firebird (AZ) 2002 when Firebird was a factored track. Since then Firebird has lost it's altitude factor as it's around 1250'.

I race live in AZ and watch the density swing from October / November and see as low as 600-800 density altitudes. I also see 5000+ density altitudes in the summer. I'd say an average density altitude on a nice day is around 2500-3200.

So what do you guys want, a "floating" factor based on seasonal changes? Big engines don't slow up as much as little engines at altitude. What do you guys want a "small engine" "big engine" factor? Then, as JR Ryan stated correctly, do you want a "stick-shift" factor as well? What do we do with the seasonal factor on a big 455 with a stick?

What I don't see mentioned but I alluded to was vapor pressure. My experience is humidity sucks away HP more than altitude; more so than temperature. 3000' corrected density with cool air and high humidity will slow you down more than 3000' corrected density with warm air and low humidity. That's why I mentioned earlier "Big Road" to pull the data and include all the variables. Big Road only provided the density correction factor. That's not the entire story.

Issac, I really don't want to piss you off so correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is you guys sandbagged' that Buick until you got HP off and then once you got HP off you almost immediately went 1.18 under! Yea, when you rub NHRA's nose in your "gift" they might be a little upset and maybe not so forgiving! Also, I believe that 1.18 under was before NHRA's policy of a "freebie" was intact. Again, I could be wrong...
Remember, going 1.15+ under does NOT immediately get HP. It just makes you eligible for review. Apparently their review process was not in your favor. But I'll bet after the adjustment you were still ahead in HP (ahead of the previous reduction).


Regarding the "freebie", I've been the reciepient of this policy in stock class so I personally know it is there. I've seen others use it as well. But anybody that utilizes the system is skating on thin ice. You roll the dice every once and awile and you get what you get. And yes, I am lucky that I am the one and only in my class running what I do. That way I don'y have to deal with those pesky "engine families". Glad I don't have to figure that out as I see a bucket of worms in that family!

Look, I want what's fair. As I stated previously, I'm all for all runs count towards AHFS. I'm also all for a .500 reduction in index across the board for S & SS. Whatever it takes so nobody has to hold back performance. I absolutely hate to see people slow a perfectly good run down to avoid the AHFS.

And no-namers, quit pulling other people's cars into the equation. You don't & I don't know what tune or what mission the owner / driver is on from one track or the other. I can talk from personal experience how a car runs at different elevations. And I've seen the factors are pretty darn close.

[Earle Holt]

All I can say is that it would make sense to apply a factor that is fair. 20 cars ran 1.20 under. Those same 20 cars couldn't do that in mineshaft conditions at Atco. If cars are running "factored" numbers that aren't realistic, something is wrong.

This is exhausting...

[JRyan]

Earle,

I believe that if all those guys weren't afraid to "cut 'em loose" in mineshaft air at ATCO, they'd all be 1.20+ under the index there too. We've run all over in all kinds of weather, and our car, in what the locals called "bad air" in Houston, was faster than it was in Denver with the factor. Again, the "locals" said it was .12 to .16 slow for Houston. So should we put a NEGATIVE FACTOR at Houston?

Jeff had it right. Simple air calculations (xxxx feet) don't tell the whole story.

Jerry

[JRyan]

Earle,

I believe that if all those guys weren't afraid to "cut 'em loose" in mineshaft air at ATCO, they'd all be 1.20+ under the index there too. We've run all over in all kinds of weather, and our car, in what the locals called "bad air" in Houston, was faster than it was in Denver with the factor. Again, the "locals" said it was .12 to .16 slow for Houston. So should we put a NEGATIVE FACTOR at Houston?

Jeff had it right. Simple air calculations (xxxx feet) don't tell the whole story.

But I should add that I still think a % correction should be considered for the factors to make it more fair at most tracks.

Jerry

[Big Road]

Jeff Iam sorry that I didnt put all the facts in the first post but here goes indy 72 temp,77 humidity.29.10 bar Vegas 84 temp.16 humidity.27.80 bar I understand the reality of the change of seasons but what is the differance if you go 1 second when your air is good and 8 tenths when the air is bad everone is at the same track at the same time as of a performance standpoint. But when you set a record at a factored track and go better than 1.40 under where does that leave the people at a regular tracks Is that a fair playing field

[Jeff Lee]

Big,
Looking at the weather numbers it's just as I thought. Personally, I'd rather have the Vegas conditions than the Indy conditions you noted. And I think I would also like the Vegas track surface over the Vegas track surface. As I said earlier, I've not had the pleasure of racing at Indy. But as most racer's, dream of going and doing well there someday.
Yes, sometimes the weather is favorable to the racer at an altitude track. And it does hurt somebody else I suppose. But then again, I've never had the pleasure of racing at sea level conditions much less those -800 conditions. I really think it all balances out in the end. Those roads all connect you know...

Good racing to ya'!

[Isaac Zane]

So it does sound like there have been zero adjustments at alt. tracks since they added in the No alt. tracks or runs count.

Jeff,

Just to correct you, we never did sandbag the car until we got HP off. We only got HP off after they decided that the 71-72 350's got HP off and we asked for the same. When we first started running our car, we barely ran under the index. The first 1.5+ years of running the car, it was barely a -.5 player and still finished in the Top 10 even after losing ALL of our heads-up runs. After working, adjusting, HP adjustment, tuning and some better parts the car was almost able to run -1.00. After more work by B&B Automotive Machine in Lynnbrook, NY and even better parts we finally became a top half player. And the -1.18 run was THIS year in great air where many cars were better than -1.2, hardly rubbing their noses in it. Our earlier HP hit was fron E-town in what Warren Johnson called "once in a hundred years" great air. We got hit in great air, those at Alt. tracks should have to deal with getting hits in their great air also. Also, we are not now at less HP then when we started. Jeff, you lost that bet also!


Yes, we thought we had that one freebie also, but then they added in the family deal.

I just think that they should include ALL RUNS EVERYWHERE in their HP system. And then probably throw in a little common sense. (An Oxymoron??)

[Isaac Zane]

Hey, I gotta new rule!

How about if you only attend one Nat'l event per half, you lose your "freebie". That one counts!

Maybe we could expand that down to div. events also. No Nat'ls, div counts.

[Stewart Way]

Comparing the top 18 SS cars at Vegas that also were also at Pomona looks like around an average .16 quicker against the factor in Vegas than at Pomona. All 18 were at least .07 quicker. Don't think that is all starting line and humidity. Think part of it is the wrong factor. All runs should count.

[John Mason]

Remember, Vegas was a class race. Dan went 9.50 in Vegas with the heads up tune up and 9.46 at Pomona in race day mode. Same with several others I know of. Most SS'ers hold about .15 for heads up, which makes the factor about right.
That being said, for years I've advocated correcting all runs to a constant norm from track conditions for records and AHFS review as dynos do - say to 29.92 bar, 70 degrees and 20% humidy. We all do a version on it to dial our cars so let's have NHRA do it for those reasons. -600 feet at Houston and Atco corrected up, 11000 feet at Denver corrected down, etc.
A simple computer program to implement, could even print the DA on the time slip.
Too simple?