2011 ahfs

[K Stubbs]

Originally Posted by Jeff Teuton

Arkansas didn't pay the 'over the border news tax' to Louisiana. Now you know.

How did you like my Hogs yesterday Jeff?? : )

[Dwight Southerland]

Yeah, Jeff. I don't believe that Arkansas is beholdin' to Lose-iana after yesterday.

[JRyan]

Kent,

I have a question. How can they not refactor altitude runs back to sea level for a horsepower adjustment but then do it for the record?

At a track like Denver you're talking about almost a full tenth difference in some cases. That's an absolute load of BS.
In my ss/na car my Denver index is a 13.10 from a 12.15 sea level index. If I run an 11.89 at Denver you're saying I'd automatically get factored because I'm 1.21 under. But, that only corrects back to an 11.019. That's only 1.121 under not even close to the automatic hit. I'm sorry. That's complete garbage.

Where else in the country is anyone else going to get factored for going 1.12 under the sea level index? The answer, their not! If their going to base hp off the index then I guess you should get the record off the index as well. If not they need to be refactored back to sea level the way the should be.

Rick

[Kent Hanley]

Originally Posted by JRyan

Kent,

I have a question. How can they not refactor altitude runs back to sea level for a horsepower adjustment but then do it for the record?

At a track like Denver you're talking about almost a full tenth difference in some cases. That's an absolute load of BS.
In my ss/na car my Denver index is a 13.10 from a 12.15 sea level index. If I run an 11.89 at Denver you're saying I'd automatically get factored because I'm 1.21 under. But, that only corrects back to an 11.019. That's only 1.121 under not even close to the automatic hit. I'm sorry. That's complete garbage.

Where else in the country is anyone else going to get factored for going 1.12 under the sea level index? The answer, their not! If their going to base hp off the index then I guess you should get the record off the index as well. If not they need to be refactored back to sea level the way the should be.

Rick

Rick ,

I am not saying its right but the old ahfs use to have a sentence or 2 in it saying something like " if you run quicker then 1.40 ( that was the old automatic trigger ) under the sea level index you will be automaticaly factored" it happened to Frank Grossi in gt/aa at Vegas, i think last year when he ran in the 8's.

The ahfs rule that has been in place for the past few months nor does the new proposed ahfs rule have that sentence in it. Plus i heard at vegas this year they hit several combos that ran quicker than 1.25 under the local index. They did retract them later becuase nhra added a sentence that says something like nhra has final decision..

If you re-read the original post it sure doenst say anthing about seperating or recalculating altitude adjusted tracks back to sea level indexes like the old ahfs use too. No one has confirmed this but it sure seemed that is what they are doing. Seeing how we dont see what runs flag a combination we really dont know.

kent

[JRyan]

You're right Kent. The old system did say something to the effect of 1.40 under the sea level index. With regard to the runs this year that hp was given and retracted. I believe there were two runs at Boise that should have warranted hp based on this but were never given hp or retracted at least not publically that I'm aware of.
It shouldn't have to say anywhere in the new rule about it being refactored to sea level. It should just be common sense. If you correct a record run back then why wouldn't you correct any run that triggers the system back. Again, in some lower stock classes we're talking over a tenth difference in correction. How is that even remotely fair for anyone potentially running a combination like that. If you correct one back you have to correct the other. If not this whole system is a bigger joke then it already is.
This is part of the problem we have in our country today. Everything has to be written out. I'm not that old but when did common sense completely leave the room.

Rick

[Kent Hanley]

Originally Posted by JRyan

You're right Kent. The old system did say something to the effect of 1.40 under the sea level index. With regard to the runs this year that hp was given and retracted. I believe there were two runs at Boise that should have warranted hp based on this but were never given hp or retracted at least not publically that I'm aware of.
It shouldn't have to say anywhere in the new rule about it being refactored to sea level. It should just be common sense. If you correct a record run back then why wouldn't you correct any run that triggers the system back. Again, in some lower stock classes we're talking over a tenth difference in correction. How is that even remotely fair for anyone potentially running a combination like that. If you correct one back you have to correct the other. If not this whole system is a bigger joke then it already is.
This is part of the problem we have in our country today. Everything has to be written out. I'm not that old but when did common sense completely leave the room.

Rick

RIck,

In an earlier post in this thread Mike reported that NHRA is looking at the indexs at the adjusted tracks, not sure where that will go .

I did look to see how many runs were at adjusted vs non adjusted tracks.

In SS of the 27 some odd runs in 2010 that were quicker than 1.20 under , 20 were made at adjusted tracks.

In stock it was a little better balanced ,there were around 81 runs quicker than 1.20 under of which 19 were at adjusted tracks.

On a side note 31 of the 81 runs were made at Indy this year.

I would think if nhra is going to add all the lrds races and runs to the pool for the ahfs why worry about the altitude adjusted tracks.. They will have plenty of data with out them plus takes the pressure off of nhra of having to come up with a fair figure for these tracks. I dont race really any adjsuted tracks but have raced vegas twice and seen drastic weather swings from morning to afternoon runs.

Just a thought .

Kent

[Adger Smith]

Hey, Jeff
How about dem HOGS??
We may not have paid, but we called the Hogs... :~)

[danny waters sr]

I got it . How bout put the indexes back to when they were 3 tenths (softer ? ) and go back to this years runs and re-factor (ahfs ) almost everyone. Boy that would start some ****#!$#!$$! ..

[thomas sheehan]

Originally Posted by danny waters sr

I got it . How bout put the indexes back to when they were 3 tenths (softer ? ) and go back to this years runs and re-factor (ahfs ) almost everyone. Boy that would start some ****#!$#!$$! ..

Danny..... you stole my thought!
I've told several people that it would have been hilarious if NHRA would have said "we were kidding about the 3 tenths rollback... and went back and re-factored off of 2010 runs vs the old indexes".

[Billy Nees]

That sounds like something that I would do!