[JRyan]

Mark, if anyone was smart enough to respond to Rick's earlier post about the altitude tracks, you may find that you wouldn't have to sandbag at altitude because you don't really run what you run.

Using your car as an example: Sea Level index of 11.70 - 1.10 under would be 10.60. If you ran at Denver, your index would be 12.61. A run of 1.10 under would be an 11.51. For example, let's just say that you had to go 1.08 under (10.62) to get the record at sea level, so you figured your 1.10 under run at Denver would get you the record. Well, you'd be wrong! Your 1.10 under run of 11.51 would only factor back to a sea level run of 10.67 so you'd miss the record by .05 hun.

Based on that, was it really a 1.10 under run, or a 1.03 under run??? Can anyone answer that question, or is it the reason that NHRA continues to treat altitude runs differently? It might be a monumental amount of work for them, so I can see why they'd shy away. But I also don't think that many who complain on this board about runs at altitude even know how the system works.

I do think, and have said it on this board many times, that the altiude factors are somewhat out of line and should be rethought and probably lowered at least 10%.
Mark, that would make your index at Denver a 12.52 instead of the 12.61.

So Rick's question remains unanswered. Anyone going to answer it?

Jerry