CLASS RACER FORUM - 2011 ahfs

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)

- Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - 2011 ahfs (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=29770)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Carr (Post 223169)

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?

I would say it'll be whatever it reads on your time slip. Just like Comp. So a 14.79 at Vegas would get you an automatic hit. They already tried to give HP at factored tracks this year. You're right though, it probably does need some clarification.

I heard they are going to redo the altitude factors to make them closer to sea level, but I also heard they were going to set the automatic hit at .85 under.

-Toby

Mark,

The new AHFS didn't change that much. They really only changed the automatic hit from 1.25 to 1.20 under. They also added the sliding scale for runs more than 1.25 under to bring an out of whack combo in line faster.

The trigger for review stayed at 1.00 under just like last season. That's 1.3 under the old index. The trigger used to be 1.15 under the old index which is .85 under the new index.

So the trigger is .15 softer and the automatic HP hit is .10 softer than it used to be.

-Toby

I agree with Mark, That is why all the so called new stockers should run in FX classes , with the parts and mods they have they are really not what they are being call. In some cases they are crate motor cars. They should run FX just like the FI class cars did until they got sorted out. This is going to make a bigger mess .

As you all know the SRAC doesn’t make the rules we just try and represent you and communicate your thoughts and ideas to the powers to be at NHRA. NHRA did listen and take some of your/our input into consideration when designing the new AHFS and any SRAC rep will tell you this has been work in progress and reflects a long month of working together.

The new AHFS isn’t perfect and will never be perfect for everyone and every combination but I personally think it’s a step in the right direction.

Adjusting runs based upon the weather at the time of the run to equal the playing field is impossible and we will never see that. The beauty of the new AHFS is it takes averages from all the runs and in all conditions. By including LRDS races this increases the number of runs from 23 races to around 64. So the data will better represent the true performance of an engine combination and average the great weather days at Vegas from the hot humid days of tracks at Columbus.

As for which index is NHRA using for altitude adjusted tracks. We need clarification on that BUT if you read the current AHFS it reads the same and this year at Vegas they factored cars based upon the local Vegas index. So cars that ran 1.25 under were hit on Tuesday UNTIL NHRA exercised the other new language in the rule which reads “the decision to adjust horsepower or to increase the index will be at the discretion on the AHFS Committee”. When NHRA did take something into consideration for the cars they hit because they took the HP off them a week later. What does that mean and how will they use that who knows. But it does also allow them the discretion to add HP to combinations they feel is not adjusting quickly enough.

For the record, surveys were done and submitted to NHRA sharing with them that the majority of racers would prefer if the new combinations be put into their separate class until they get properly adjusted just like they did with the FI cars were years ago. That doesn’t look like that is going to happen

Kent

Why doesn't NHRA just factor all the new cars with right HP. Then we would't be in this mess!

Nice post Mark. You can come run T/S or T/D with us?? Kidding......

Thanks for the info Kent. Is it possible for us to see what data is being used for the changes implemented? Are they taking into consideration sub sea level conditions also? Maybe I missed it but where there surveys done on Class Racer or another site? I know it is too late for changes or opinions so I will stop here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Carr (Post 223180)

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.

Sounds good to me ! One class ONLY......the natural one and 1 pound breaks. Sticks and Automatic together. Small wt. adjustment allowed for the lower classes for trans used. It just MIGHT bring back some sponsors so a class win would be worth something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWhitney (Post 223194)

Why doesn't NHRA just factor all the new cars with right HP. Then we would't be in this mess!

I couldn't have said that it any better myself

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kaekel (Post 223197)

I couldn't have said that it any better myself

X 2 Here we go again !

I have one question regarding using altitude adjusted runs. I'll use my car as an example here. My car runs SS/NA. At sea level my index is a 12.15 at Las Vegas my index is a 12.45. Let's say I run an 11.24 on the timeslip. This would be -1.21 under the index. At sea level this means I'd receive automatic horsepower. However, when you correct that run to sea level which is what is done when setting a record it only equates to a 10.96 and change. That wouldn't trigger automatic horsepower.
So what is NHRA going to actually use for a figure -1.21 altitude run or -1.19 under sea level index? If I was setting a record at the divisional it would be corrected to the 10.96 and that's what would show up as the record. Can any commitee members answer this?

Rick Ryan