Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races

[Robert Pare Racing]

,,is anything ever "finalized"?

[bsa633]

AHFS is a sad deal..NHRA seeking input,doing polls and such on different areas shows they dont have a clue what they are doing with the classes but still they can say...well you woted for this and that,..very smart..then we can't blame them for anything,(or give credit..hahaha)

still thinkit's just plain ridiculous to be able to run so much under the index.some has mentioned all the stuff we got the last 10 years + INDEX RAISE in 93 or 94,we cant keep adding weight to the cars all the time.. or maybe we should raise the index another .50 so everyone can run these classes and most hit 1.15 if they chosse..

IT'S TIME to put the performance back into these classes,lower the index and keep the 1.15 so a very few will have the pleasure to slow thier cars down! that could bring the different cars and combinations closer to each other or atleast show the perfomance differences..

[DBarber]

If the AHFS is applied at division races there would be no incentive left to work , invest , develop, or build any new engines , any old junk in the back corner will play ball then. The smile that you get at the ET shack from a fast run will be over and probably most of us that have supported superstock for over 30 years will be too. When i first started, I never made the show at national events, couldn't go fast enough. NO ONE listened to any crying then. They said, "go work on your car young man " . I did, I learned , worked hard, tested and then before long I qualified. As In any motorsport someone will always be faster at best. NHRA divisional and National Events were never for the Saturday-nite racer. It was then and still is the top of the mountain for a sportsman racer. It was never intended to be EASY. Go bracket race if you don't want to work, but leave the rest of us who enjoy the competition and challenge alone. Don Barber

I AM AGAINST APPLYING THE 1.15 AT DIVISION RACES

[Evan Smith]

No one wants to get HP, but how can the system work when every run doesn't count? The AFHS system is there to keep the playing field fair and if racers are sandbagging that is not fairplay. Many guys with fast cars only go to two or three Nationals at best, but run at 5-8 divisonals and many more go to Opens. This makes it far too easy to babysit a combination that is too fast. Before you flame away, read on. Why do runs in Class competition not count after first round, but they do count if you go too fast in the eliminator? Duh, fast guys often skate past first round of class and then are free to go wide open. How is that fair?

The question is, what is too fast? If a combo is soft it deserves HP, however, if the racer has worked his tail off to go fast why should he or she get the lead trophy? NHRA also needs to include factored tracks if they are going to count runs when conditions are mine-shaft-like. If you look, the top qualifiers at these tracks are guys who can go plenty fast.

The real problem is that we need to define why a combination gets HP and not just say it's because two guys went quick.

Evan Smith
Stock 1798
SS 1797

[Dave Ribeiro]

Evan,

Very good post, how can we get the birds at NHRA to listen.. Everyone says there's no- advantages, but you are right-on when they can go-fast and set records at factored tracks with NO-HP at all ???? Yet at the so-called sea-level tracks the faster cars get wacked !!!! something is wrong with this picture ...... What is NHRA waiting for ? When will they at least level the playing field on both coasts ? How can you set a record or run way under and not get HP..

Maybe Len can chime in and tell us how this is still happening ???? Dave,

[Bruce Noland]

Mr. Imbrogno,

Nice try. The majority of the racers say they don't want you guys using a 1.15 under number and so you cook up this "separate" little scheme to implement 1.15 under at divisionals. And then you two don't tell the racers until it is exposed. Now, all of a sudden, you are accepting emails about the scheme. Sure, all of us just got off the boat yesterday.

[Angelo DiTocco]

All's this means is that if the 1.15 is applied to divisionals..... racers are going to do the same thing there that is done at Nationals.... which is slowing their stuff down.

Lynn McCarty's post several pages back............ ignored for the most part, really makes a valid point...... he suggests using "statistical analysis" to determine the combos that have a "statistically significant" advantage.

The only problem with doing this now is that the data from qualifying sheets (that exist since AHFS's inception) are completely skewed and inaacurate due to the sandbagging by us all to avoid triggering the AHFS itself.

Before AHFS was instituted..... I had posted on several forums and wrote to the nhra........ in favor of using a statistical analysis approach to looking at hp factors. At the time.... the qualifying data used for the numbers crunching would have been more reliable. It could have all been done experimentally and its validity checked and rechecked before implementing it.

But like Lynns post.... it was not seriously considered, even ignored by many. I believe at the time...the NHRA's attitude was leaning more towards a system where the individual racer could be held more accountable for what happened to him... rather than a system where they make the determinations.

What Lynn is referencing as a "bell curve" is known in Statistics as a "Standard Distribution". Basically it is measure that is used for a great deal of scientific research such as determinging the effectiveness of a medication.... and even in intelligence testing. In a nutshell..... once a standard distribution is established.... any item (being tested).... more than a "standard deviation" or two above the average... (such as a combo that can go 1.35 under in the summer when the next fastest car is .95 under) is not there by chance.. its not there because the driver stumbled on the perfect tune up... or got a better hold of the track that pass....... it is expected that there must be a logical explanation for it (such as it is under rated). Another example..... if a human scores a 160 on a real IQ examnation.... that person did not get there by guessing all the answers.... there is a reason..... he has exceptional intellectual potential. I really think such a system would have been able to even things out.... and allow racers to persue engine combinations that truely were intersting to them.

I will be holding a seminar on this topic the Wednesday before Gainseville in the purple and yellow hospitality tent under the zepole gazebo.

Either way.... its too bad that this situation still remains a sore point for many. As for myself I eventually gave up and..... I went the route of the soft combo which I highly recommend to others by the way.

Anyway.... I wish all a great holiday season ...... no matter what happens, we're all in it for fun (I hope).

[Dick Butler]

Don Barber,
Interesting comment about the being allowed to run wide open at points meets to make a good run.
Opens and Points meets have by history become bracket races. A good run is always relative. Does anyone else use that combination? was the air Killer? is the HP bogus in relation to others?
Some feel tightening the AHFS to where most combinations are more relative to each other would make "a good run" mean more as it would be compared to closer factored motors....
Some feel a fast run today by some cars means very little if it isnt fairly factored in the first place. Number one Qualifier is a given for lesser factored cars.What does it mean? Someone found another weakly factored motor combination.That takes research but some say their performance is by the pen not hard work.
Class winner in a class like AH where all the parts are the same is a true accomplishment. In a way AH is the way it probably should be all the way down if there werent so many combinations legal to run today. Factoring has to be tighter...for everyones good.
Just opinions. Thanks.

[Mark Callanan]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

Mr. Imbrogno,

Nice try. The majority of the racers say they don't want you guys using a 1.15 under number and so you cook up this "separate" little scheme to implement 1.15 under at divisionals. And then you two don't tell the racers until it is exposed. Now, all of a sudden, you are accepting emails about the scheme. Sure, all of us just got off the boat yesterday.

Bruce
I understand your passion for racing
I really feel you need to learn a nicer way to put thing accross
I am sure Len and the rest of the guys at NHRA would get the message alot better if they wernt being attacked
Telling people they arent being truthfull isnt going to help the cause..
Get your point across without being negative will work better..

Now that siad there has to be a middle ground and using division races and opens to do the factoring will not work and in many cases will just hurt the low budget racer as he gets the HP also

There has to be a way to leave performance in stock and super stock racing or what is the point

You can brackett race on a local level so why travel 200-300 miles and spend $$$ if there isnt a difference??

Class racing needs to be about more then shoe polish..

I also agree I hate seeing cars shut off at 1000 feet but I understand the reason racers do this but it isnt good for class racing at all

I would also like to see the NHRA let the racers in on what they are thinking about earlier in the process and allow us to give our input I do understand in the end it is their clubhouse and they can do as they want

Len I have a hard time believing that most racers want the 1.15 under at the division and open races that just wouldnt make sence to me could expand on what are some of the reasons they may want that rule?

I would think it a good idea in the future to put posts like this in the racer only area of the forum that way we could be sure all that respond are the ones that race

Happy Holidays to all make it a special family time ........

[Bruce Noland]

Evan,

Counting all runs would make sense if we ran the identical combinations, on the same racing surface on the same day. But there are way, way too many variables to attempt to apply one strict rule to govern performance.

This is simply a way for nhra to control performance on the cheap. Len's first post stated very clearly that the majority of the racers were not for -1.15 at divisional races -- His words--"While there have been a large number of racers over the last several years who have asked for division event to be included in the AHFS, there does not appear to be a majority of racers who want this to happen." From the spin doctor himself.

There would be no incentive for working on our cars because nhra has already allowed enough parts to put most of us who are serious about performance over the mark. We can run in Jr. & Top Stock in Div. 1 and be safe from this lunacy but that is not an option for most of the racers.

With rare exception, there is not much difference in performance between altitude and sea level tracks. Some fast folks may miss their tune up when moving between them but the real problem is, as you mentioned, there is no ahfs to speak of at altitude tracks. And that would mean most of the national records would be set at altitude while the majority of the racers back east would be shut out unless they throw caution to the wind. And there is absolutely no reason to believe nhra intends to change this rule.


Mark, did you read Len's first post on this thread? Thanks for your tips on manners but this is a two way street we are on here. And besides, do you know how to communicate with people who are consumed with corporate narcissism?