New Ahfs Posted

[DustyLowell]

We all need to e-mail Nhra and let them know that if they count class runs they are taking the performance out of the class. Class Eliminations is one of the only times we can let it all hang out and show how much work we have put into our cars. Now if they absolutely need to add more runs to the AHFS then just count all runs at divisionals. This would be a huge mistake if we let this happen.

[Andys dad]

Class is also the place when the combinations which need to be hit, dominate class and leave those combinations which have already been hit, (over the years) in their dust.

I think altitude tracks should count just like they do in COMP.

[Bruce Noland]

Guys, it's kinda hard to discuss or offer input when you don't know what cars are going to be in your new found "class combination." It is important for nhra to publish these combination groupings before actually trying to talk about the system or offer input; muchless trying to enforce the new changes.

Greg all the -1.10 to -1.15 maximum performance racers should be happy with the new class proposal. It is also very helpful to guys running very rare combinations because they are not tied to others. Just changing a cam allows some racers to be put into a category all to their own.

[James Perrone]

Am I reading this right..Sticks &autos are combine in new AHFS?
Hope not.

[Lynn A McCarty]

Originally Posted by Just Observing

I am not claiming I got it figured out, but here is my understanding of the sliding thresh hold.


Racer #1 GT/CA 350 295/322 chevy combo ( A very common combo)

Racer #2 GT/CA 400 Pontiac ( A very rare combo)

These two guys duke it out at both the US nats and Sports nats at Columbus. Both racers go -1.150 under in the class finals at both races. Thus triggering a review under the "new" AHFS.

Since racer #1 combo is very common and there are several runs in the database, say 25, if this combo average is only -.800 under then it would get HP on the sliding scale AHFS.

While Racer #2 with a rare combo and less than 5 runs in the database has to be -1.00 under to get HP! Racer #2 could go to a third race and slow down his car to qualify at only -.69 under to lower his average to below the -1.00 threshold.

In my opinion it should be the exact opposite of what is proposed. Low # of runs in Database should have a lower threshold to recieve HP compared to High # of runs in the database should be a higher threshold to recieve HP.

I dont understand what you mean by higher or lower "threshold". However, to fully understand this is to understand the law of averages. Statistically, an average means that there are as many above the average as below the average.

So.......if you have a good number of cars running a certain engine family, then do you realize how bogus it means that an engine "average" that 1.15 under number? This means that to overcome the cars that go 6 under it takes an equal number of cars to go 1.7 under.

So......why dont we see that much? Sandbagging! They all crop around 1 to 1.15 under cause they know where the upper limit us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If at the bottom of the curve they are all going a second under, you need to know to what you are looking. "Cramming" of events tells a story. If there isnt a standard bell curve of events, something is adversely affecting the combo.

If you run the statistical curve properly, it becomes very apparent what is happening. A combo with low numbers cannot be "averaged" out. Who is to say where he falls on the curve? He might be average, he might be slow, he might be very talented. There is no way to know, so these cases need to be weighted separately as they dont fit statistically unless there are enough numbers.

AHFS' biggest mistake is they statistically assign the Upper Limit to be the AVERAGE. An upper limit can never be the average. That is statistically and scientifically invalid.

[Bruce Noland]

After more than ten years of "requests" nhra has finally relented and brought back the AA classes; mostly because of the interest from Mother Mopar from what I'm told. So maybe we should start making "requests" for Top Stock and JR. Stock to be given their own classes at National events. You never know, Mopar may become interested in these classes too.

[Jack McCarthy]

i did notice that the new AHFS (and EVERY prior edition and all rules) do not contain "NHRA must notify racers if NHRA decides to modify this (or any rule)"... please everyone make a note on this so we can save some server space in the future.

jack

all class runs helps... but the AHFS cannot and will not ever work... and why the altitude guys get a FREE pass is the most absolute bull**** in the entire worthless system !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bruce Noland]

Jack,

You think we need to have someone call nhra everyday to see if they change something?

In re: ahfs and class, most of the folks with the faster cars will simply set their cars up for 1.12 or so under. Most can do this.

[Dave Ribeiro]

Bruce,

You are right when you say they will set it at 1.12 under....

Jack,

Is dead on about the alt. BS, Why should those track and guys get a FREE-Pass, aren't they part of the same NHRA as the East coast guys... Or do they pay more dues than we do ???
Why can't this be FIXED ? * Len, anyone? Dave,

[Greg Hill]

My input to NHRA about the altitude tracks was that they should also be included in the ahfs. If the indexes are not right they need to fix the factors, but to not include them is a bunch of B. S.

Also I like the idea of Top Stock and Junior Stock. I just don't know how they could fit in at National events.

Greg