2011 ahfs

[K Stubbs]

Originally Posted by Andys dad

Should you just keep spending money and working harder to go faster and faster?

Is .90 under? (use to be 1.20 under) enough?

In some cases you may not be able to be the fastest in your class - then what?

Is having the fastest car the most important thing?

I guess I will have to calculate how many "heads up" rounds there were this year counting all National and Divisional events. (Nitro Joe can you help here?)

Seems to me - most of the guys who win a lot - do not have the fastest car in their class..

:-) peace

Ron, Buddy, I wonder if you had won first round at pomona and had to race Lynch heads up second round, you would still feel the same way about everything? : ) Or just agree that you are doing the right thing by ordering a new drag pack.

[Ed Wright]

People that just want to bracket race with no class run-offs or heads ups can do that at home every weekend can't they? I don't see anything wrong with the proposal if they don't use corrected times at altitude tracks. It's a lot more liberal than last year's system unless you run WAY under. Right? I didn't hear all this last year. Is everybody actually all that much faster (review trigger .3 lower) than last season? The two times I had to watch that in 2009 (had problems last year) I just added weight and backed the timing down. Got 3/10ths more leeway now. Other than the new bogus cars, how many of you are actually that fast?

Not trying to offend anybody, just curious.

[Angelo DiTocco]

Originally Posted by art leong

Well then you guys should save a ton of bucks and just race heavy or pro at Englishtown
way down on the traveling expenses no motels or motor homes.

Artie - I think you should read my most before commenting on what Joe wrote

[Tom Moock]

I like to know who is going to keep track of all the runs? Sims like a lot of work for somebody to keep track of the averages for each combination. A lot of times they list wrong body types on Drag race central. Is somebody going to look at everybody`s tech card? Drag race central doesn't list times for all runs in eliminations at points meet and no list for Open`s. . Tom

[Wade_Owens]

Originally Posted by Ed Wright

Other than the new bogus cars, how many of you are actually that fast?

Not trying to offend anybody, just curious.

Ed, I have great respect for you. You have seen alot during your years of racing. Much more than me. BUT, it may not be how fast anyone is today or next year, or the following year. Who knows how fast any certain combo could go. But with the penalties in place, why try? I want to try some new stuff, I think it will help. But as of today, why bother?

Wade

[MikeFicacci]

I like heads up racing even if you're covered by little. I know constructive ideas have kind of gone out the window but I don't mind the new system.

I would suggest two changes. How about making the instant horsepower 1.10 under just like it used to be at 1.40 when the indexes were higher .3. 1.10 under is absolutely flying no matter what the class. Also, I'm getting lost in the terminology but counting the altitude runs off the adjusted index should count for both the automatic hit and the averages.

Lastly, I'm a big fan of one pound weight breaks for the simple fact that it will make heads-up runs more frequent and hopefully help the system work faster.

[Travis Miller]

I just cruised through the Stock classes in Nitro Joe's Stats latest issue and saw very few older cars that made a run more than 1.10 under the index. I'm sure those few guys worked very hard to attain that honor. What I saw more of was quite a few newer cars that ran more than 1.10 under and they were each probably toting quite a few extra pounds.

It looks like a 1.10 under immediate hit on the revised AHFS for 2011 would have done much more for getting horsepowers corrected and done it a lot quicker than 1.20 under.

Considering that .3 was taken off the indexes this year, a 1.10 under immediate hit would have been exactly the same as the old 1.40 under hit. I seem to remember everyone being very happy with the hit set at 1.40 under. Setting the new hit at 1.20 under puts us back to the same as when the AHFS started in 2002 with a hit of 1.50 under.

Travis Miller

(Disclaimer: Opinions and ramblings of a techman in the off season expressed on this forum by me are exactly that, my opinions and ramblings.)

[Ed Wright]

I like the new system as (or if) I understand it. I understand Wade's issues but a few years down if we all get that much faster the indexes may get whacked again. I can't imagine any real racer (like Wade) stopping working on their stuff to go faster. Only the bracket racers won't. The performance nuts will. And they will still be called d**k swingers and ego polishers, and things will go on. I like class elininations & heads ups.

I appreciate the time & effort they spent on this. Just, personally, hope factored times at altitude times aren't used.

[Jim Bailey]

Great minds think a like. Well said Travis !!! Couldn't have said it any better myself ....then again, maybe I did ! JB

[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