Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Bob
Sorry if I affended you with the update. The SRAC council spent countless hours of thankless work on this and received and enormus amount of input from interested Stock and Super Stock Racer to present to the NHRA committee. The end result is and always will be there decision and they have the right to change there mind at any time. I felt that an update to these racers was in order. NO this is not the final draft but the basic rule before the example is the NHRA S/SS committiees intent.
No I am not interested in your 2 cents worth since I have seen no input from you to the SRAC council on this matter until now. I will be sure that any further updates that I post will be addressed to interested racers for updates only.

Thanks
Mike Crutchfield D2 S/SS SRAC council member

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

I'm sure nobody cares to look at the lowly FWD classes. Although it qualifies for a HP reduction, it's a waste of time to request one for my Turismo, because it's already 150lb heavy for the class, and even with a HP reduction, I'd still have to add 500lb to get to the next class. The lower class breaks are SIX lbs per hp different. The fast guys don't want to go to .75 or 1 lb breaks because they'd have to carry so much weight... why's it ok for us and not for them?

NHRA DF/S... 150lb heavy, runs -.30 under
IHRA FF/SA... 80lb heavy, runs -1.000 under (-.95 under the old NHRA FF/SA class)
...something wrong with this picture?

Hey buddy, spare a buck for titanium parts? :rolleyes:

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Michael, for what it is worth, I think Stock probably should have one pound weight breaks, from AA on down, starting at 7.0 pounds per HP.

It probably wouldn't work for Super Stock with the high HP ratings some engines have for Super Stock.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Guess I didn't read close enough. I assumed they meant uncorrected times at altitude tracks. Too many bogus corrected records on the books. We don't need hp factors based on an altitude corrected et. I've run quicker uncorrected at Amarillo Texas (3800') in great weather than I could at Tulsa which is 670'. Hope they don't use corrected times. You can tell they have worked hard on this. I appreciate it.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

In regards to altitude tracks now being included, does the -1.200 under mean -1.200 under the sea level or factored Index?

My class, DF/S. 15.60 sea level Index. 15.99 at Las Vegas. At Vegas, would I have to run 14.400 or 14.790 to get hit?

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Mike here is my input for the SRAC, Do you guy's REALLY listen to the racer's ?
I did put my input, is it this Forum you guys use for input ? My input was a signed
Petition that was presented to us in the staging lanes at a Div7 race that was going to our
SRAC members that was asking to put all these new combos in there own class for next
season, So what do you guys do! ONCE AGAIN EVERYONE GETS SCREWED!!! PERIOD.
So all you whinnersss that cant work on your S--T and make it run have won again, Im sorry
but this is no longer PERFORMANCE BASED RACING, and you will be lucky to see me at
any future NHRA races.


BTW if the answer to the question about using this forum for input on the AHFS is YES!!
You guys are just as messed up as the system!!!

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Alan, your thoughts on the weather issue have merit, but they need to keep it simple, adjusting for weather has so many variables and extra work involved that it ain't happening. You are beating a dead horse on that issue. good and bad weather happens at all altitudes and tracks over time it evens out. And yes I have been bitten by it and got hp and I am dealing with it.

I think this is a step in the right direction generally. The biggest moves are that all the lodrs runs count and I think what I am seeing is that runs at altitude count using the altitude index. All good in my book.

I am unsure how this affects hp on stick cars, just trying to decipher it. I think that in many cases the stick combo will get hit also, and I agree with that.

Mike, Thanks for your post and hard work on this.

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Super Stock already has full-pound breaks for 'I' on down. Given the high HP ratings, I can see keeping .5 break or .75 breaks for the very highest Stock classes, but agree that it should go to full pound breaks at some point. Super Stock starts it at 10lbs... sounds pretty close to me.

How 'bout... (May as well re-letter if you're going to re-do weight breaks... no need for a "AA")
A 7.25-7.74
B 7.75-8.24
C 8.25-8.74
D 8.75-9.49
E 9.50-10.24
F 10.25-10.99
G 11.00-11.99
H 12.00-12.99
I 13.00-13.99
J 14.00-14.99
K 15.00-15.99
L 16.00-16.99
M 17.00-17.99
N 18.00-19.24
O 19.25-20.49
P 20.50-21.99
Q 22.00-23.00
R 24.00-or more
with indexes set commiserate as necessary...

Does this even get discussed? This would pare down 10 classes, and generate some more heads-up runs -- something all of us performance-oriented Class Racers want, right? (Combine sticks'n'autos and you've really got something... 'course Rome wasn't built in a day, even though it looks like it.)

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

Mike I appreciate you giving us a look at the preliminary version.

Thanks

Re: 2011 ahfs
 

If Stock and S/S were to ever go to one pound classes, you'd almost have to make it that a car can run it's natural class only. Reason being, take a 396/375 Camaro in B/SA, rated at 390. Under the current rules, it can run A and C also. On one pound classes, that's 780 total pounds of adjustable weight. Almost no car would (legally) have that capability. It would even be worse for a car that runs SS/BA, like a '64 Hemi. 500 hp rating = 1000 pounds to move to SS/AA and SS/CA if there were 1 pound classes. So making a car run it's natural class would be a good thing (and easiest) with 1 pound classes.