Automatic Horsepower Factoring System - Page 9

SS Engine Guy · 04-07-2008, 12:06 AM

To Lynn: I'm saying that the santioning bodies didn't just say (as an example): "Gee, I think that for no reason at all we are going to let everyone work on their combustion chambers". When this has been a no-no in the rulebook forever.
*Some people or group of people caused this rule to be changed. Lobbied, threateded, insinuated or just politely asked it dosen't matter. The santioning bodies didn't "give" us anything in that area. I saw the worked over chambers 2 years before the rule was changed. I still see welding in the chamber even tho the new rule forbids it. Some of the smarter tech people see this also. This rule was a responce to an action not a solution to a problem.

*Aftermarket blocks:The sanctioning bodies didn't just "give" us that option. For several years I was asked to write letters, give opinions, talk to so and so about certain chev. blocks that would crack a thrust surface in one or more cylinders within a few passes even at .030. I did not write, I did not give an opinion, and did not talk to the sanctioning bodies. I told my customers that they had chosen a non workable combination in my opinion. Next thing I know the Bowtie block was allowed. It didn't crack cylinder walls, in fact, it held the hone and the roundness of the bore better than a standard block and it weighed more due to more material in critical areas. Now it is common to use 1" or bigger cams and that is the block of choice. The better thickness in critical areas more than offsets the extra weight because the good working cars already had weight hung on the nose. Again, the santioning bodies didn't just one day say "Hey, what the hell lets give some racers aftermarket blocks". It was a responce to an action.

*Aftermarket or replacement cylinder heads: I still have people come to me and say: "I can't find any unmodified or decent 441's, 461's, 462's etc.". What they really meant to say is : "I can't find any unmodified or decent 441's,461's, 462's etc. for 60 bucks a pair anymore". I direct them to Hemmings or Ebay. They say: "Damn, they want 500 - 700 bucks a pair in Hemmings". Racing is expensive. Best way I know of to turn money into smoke and noise. Again, the santioning bodies didn't just have this idea one day and say: "What the hell, lets allow some engines heads with better adaptablility to modification." Again a responce to an action. Not a solution to a problem. There never was any problem.

and so on ......

Lynn, I see you every chance bring up the point of aftermarket or superceeded parts not being available to all and I agree with you. As I said 100%. You are right. I think where I first posted that I didn't think that the santioning bodies had "given" us anything is where we got crossed. I do think that the sanctioning bodies have allowed so much BS at the expense of many to appease the few that it is irrepairable.

Now back to the way it is done: I give my customers that HP that they want. Not what they can afford. I found out a long time ago that a few good customers would pay good money to go fast legally. I can give a customer the most power that I can make and put it in a crap chassis and it won't perform. I can give a customer the best power that I can make and let them and others play with the tune and it won't perform. When I see a guy work on the same combo for years he is usually fast. But when you change the rules from week to week it is a hard thing to over come. Even to very good tuners. When I see 1.2 under passes from customers that can change 3 converters in a weekend, a cam or two, collectors and primaries back and forth and still have time at the end of the day for a cold beverage or two I don't wonder how they ever got to be fast. I know. At the opposite end of the spectrum when I see out of shape cars. Spark plug electrodes burnt completely off and valvetrains destroyed from valve train geometry problems but yet they are 1.2 under at the 1000 ft mark. I don't wonder how they are that fast. I know. Its a underfactored combo. ;-) Take an underfactored combo and give it to a worker instead of a tinkerer and you have a 1.7 under car but it is still underfactored.

Do with the indexes what you want. Trigger where ever you want. It won't change a thing. The small percentage of HP that is gained on Monday was already in the weight box on the pass that tripped the trigger. AHFS was a bad idea to begin with that is too little too late.

Dick Butler · 04-07-2008, 07:24 AM

SS Engine Guy,
Outstanding post. Thanks for taking the time to discuss so many parts of the issue.Now knowing the game as you do what do you think could be done to correct the factoring issue? Can it be done within our class structure or rules?

vic guilmino · 04-07-2008, 08:14 AM

ss engine guy
very good post

Dick Butler · 04-07-2008, 11:43 AM

Nope,
He addressed the issues, pointed out some facts that support the fact AHFS as it sits WILL NOT address the issue of underfactored motors, without punishing hard work by others. My question is what is a suggestion the WILL make a better method of factoring from here on which could be put in place to FIX it.

Byron Worner · 04-07-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPinoski1

Maybe the above statement is the answer....If a car is that much faster than the others in the class, and proven to be totally legal...why should it be given HP? Only given HP if it is factored bogus...

The AHFS in reverse would work better, or something like that...then the sand bagging would be eliminated......

I think you have this backwards. Why give horsepower to an illegal motor making a bogus run and punish the racer with the same combination who is legal. I agree that if a racer goes 1.40 under he should be torn down. Then if he is legal the horsepower is levied. I also think if a racer is responsible for horsepower, that has triggered a review, and is torn down and found to be illegal the horsepower should be reset.

Dave Ribeiro · 04-07-2008, 01:37 PM

Byron,

I agree that no-HP should be given til that engine is torn down and found legal, not just the 1.40 under but any time someone gets factored they need to be torn down......This is the only way to be sure that the HP is Justified, not just add HP on monday because someone went too fast...This needs to happen everytime more HP is added to a combo... Dave,

Bruce Noland · 04-07-2008, 02:07 PM

The cold hard facts about this horsepower business. nhra is not going to spend any extra money on Sportsman racing. They have saved 100 K + by parting ways with Len and installing the SRAC and still haven't filled the tech staff at Glendora from what I'm told.

Sure, it would be great if they had the tech staff in place to check the weather and do on-the-spot tear downs if someone pops up with a -1.40 run but it doesn't look like that will ever happen.

I've also heard about a new calculation that may be added to the AHFS. That is, hit a combination if the combination is more than a tenth faster than the over all class average. It's just another band aid for a broken system. The SRAC members have to be impartial and consider what is best for the sport.

nhra has accepted +30 horsepower in changes to many combinations. They should do something clean like lowering the indexes by .30 to match the changes they have accepted. Then start tearing down cars if some racers are out there thumping the hell out of their competition. Flag those who are flying and plan a tear down party for them.

I have only seen one unanimous poll on the Internet, so we shouldn't expect all of us to agree on a contentious issue like the AHFS.

The AHFS should be a top priority of the SRAC and they should also seek general oversight of the AHFS; which includes a serious review of horsepower adjustments by all Stock, Super Stock members of the SRAC.

Lynn A McCarty · 04-07-2008, 05:47 PM

SS Engine Guy,

I agree with most of what you said. Thanks for the explanation.

Weren't we discussing AHFS and heads up? What would you do to address the after market casting situation, bogus combos, bogus intake runner cc list, an ineffective AHFS?

Believe me it could be done. All it takes is the courage and the willingness to do so. I thought that was our talking points.

If we could all agree on certain issues, maybe these steering committees would take action?

If we never get anything accomplished, it shouldn't be because we didn't try.

Dick Butler · 04-07-2008, 06:36 PM

Lynn, CIC for Stk or SS .

SS Engine Guy · 04-08-2008, 01:06 AM

Thanks for those that took the time to read my long winded post. I am going to look at some numbers and see if I can come up with a suggestion. I really don't think there is one answer to the situation. And it probably won't please everyone. (or maybe anyone).

Part of what I am going to look at is the difference in cubic inches vs. et. vs, factored hp. vs. makers (Ford, GM, Mopar) within several SS classes and see if any correlation exists. This may apply or may not in Stock eliminator. It may offer a solution or it may only cloud the issues even more. The CIC suggestion may apply here, only in a somewhat different way than what is used in comp.
The problems that the AHFS is supposed to address weren't created in a day. I wish that someone had the answer that would make everyone happy, boost attendence, cause younger racers to get interested and migrate towards our catagories, and in general, make this all the fun that it used to be. Might even collect some sponsorship for our classes along the way. This can't be impossible. It will probably be hard but nothing worth having ever comes easy in life. I personally think that the AHFS is detrimental to our sport.

04-07-2008, 12:06 AM	#81
SS Engine Guy Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: usa Posts: 256 Likes: 1 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System To Lynn: I'm saying that the santioning bodies didn't just say (as an example): "Gee, I think that for no reason at all we are going to let everyone work on their combustion chambers". When this has been a no-no in the rulebook forever. Some people or group of people caused this rule to be changed. Lobbied, threateded, insinuated or just politely asked it dosen't matter. The santioning bodies didn't "give" us anything in that area. I saw the worked over chambers 2 years before the rule was changed. I still see welding in the chamber even tho the new rule forbids it. Some of the smarter tech people see this also. This rule was a responce to an action not a solution to a problem. Aftermarket blocks:The sanctioning bodies didn't just "give" us that option. For several years I was asked to write letters, give opinions, talk to so and so about certain chev. blocks that would crack a thrust surface in one or more cylinders within a few passes even at .030. I did not write, I did not give an opinion, and did not talk to the sanctioning bodies. I told my customers that they had chosen a non workable combination in my opinion. Next thing I know the Bowtie block was allowed. It didn't crack cylinder walls, in fact, it held the hone and the roundness of the bore better than a standard block and it weighed more due to more material in critical areas. Now it is common to use 1" or bigger cams and that is the block of choice. The better thickness in critical areas more than offsets the extra weight because the good working cars already had weight hung on the nose. Again, the santioning bodies didn't just one day say "Hey, what the hell lets give some racers aftermarket blocks". It was a responce to an action. *Aftermarket or replacement cylinder heads: I still have people come to me and say: "I can't find any unmodified or decent 441's, 461's, 462's etc.". What they really meant to say is : "I can't find any unmodified or decent 441's,461's, 462's etc. for 60 bucks a pair anymore". I direct them to Hemmings or Ebay. They say: "Damn, they want 500 - 700 bucks a pair in Hemmings". Racing is expensive. Best way I know of to turn money into smoke and noise. Again, the santioning bodies didn't just have this idea one day and say: "What the hell, lets allow some engines heads with better adaptablility to modification." Again a responce to an action. Not a solution to a problem. There never was any problem. and so on ...... Lynn, I see you every chance bring up the point of aftermarket or superceeded parts not being available to all and I agree with you. As I said 100%. You are right. I think where I first posted that I didn't think that the santioning bodies had "given" us anything is where we got crossed. I do think that the sanctioning bodies have allowed so much BS at the expense of many to appease the few that it is irrepairable. Now back to the way it is done: I give my customers that HP that they want. Not what they can afford. I found out a long time ago that a few good customers would pay good money to go fast legally. I can give a customer the most power that I can make and put it in a crap chassis and it won't perform. I can give a customer the best power that I can make and let them and others play with the tune and it won't perform. When I see a guy work on the same combo for years he is usually fast. But when you change the rules from week to week it is a hard thing to over come. Even to very good tuners. When I see 1.2 under passes from customers that can change 3 converters in a weekend, a cam or two, collectors and primaries back and forth and still have time at the end of the day for a cold beverage or two I don't wonder how they ever got to be fast. I know. At the opposite end of the spectrum when I see out of shape cars. Spark plug electrodes burnt completely off and valvetrains destroyed from valve train geometry problems but yet they are 1.2 under at the 1000 ft mark. I don't wonder how they are that fast. I know. Its a underfactored combo. ;-) Take an underfactored combo and give it to a worker instead of a tinkerer and you have a 1.7 under car but it is still underfactored. Do with the indexes what you want. Trigger where ever you want. It won't change a thing. The small percentage of HP that is gained on Monday was already in the weight box on the pass that tripped the trigger. AHFS was a bad idea to begin with that is too little too late.

04-07-2008, 07:24 AM	#82
Dick Butler VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Indiana Posts: 1,197 Likes: 5 Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System SS Engine Guy, Outstanding post. Thanks for taking the time to discuss so many parts of the issue.Now knowing the game as you do what do you think could be done to correct the factoring issue? Can it be done within our class structure or rules?

04-07-2008, 08:14 AM	#83
vic guilmino Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: wv Posts: 882 Likes: 42 Liked 56 Times in 21 Posts	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System ss engine guy very good post __________________ Vic Guilmino 1129 STK

04-07-2008, 11:43 AM	#84
Dick Butler VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Indiana Posts: 1,197 Likes: 5 Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System Nope, He addressed the issues, pointed out some facts that support the fact AHFS as it sits WILL NOT address the issue of underfactored motors, without punishing hard work by others. My question is what is a suggestion the WILL make a better method of factoring from here on which could be put in place to FIX it.

04-07-2008, 01:37 PM	#86
Dave Ribeiro VIP Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Williamsburg, Va.---USA Posts: 1,827 Likes: 1,612 Liked 56 Times in 27 Posts	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System Byron, I agree that no-HP should be given til that engine is torn down and found legal, not just the 1.40 under but any time someone gets factored they need to be torn down......This is the only way to be sure that the HP is Justified, not just add HP on monday because someone went too fast...This needs to happen everytime more HP is added to a combo... Dave, __________________ Dave Ribeiro 1033 STK

04-07-2008, 02:07 PM	#87
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System The cold hard facts about this horsepower business. nhra is not going to spend any extra money on Sportsman racing. They have saved 100 K + by parting ways with Len and installing the SRAC and still haven't filled the tech staff at Glendora from what I'm told. Sure, it would be great if they had the tech staff in place to check the weather and do on-the-spot tear downs if someone pops up with a -1.40 run but it doesn't look like that will ever happen. I've also heard about a new calculation that may be added to the AHFS. That is, hit a combination if the combination is more than a tenth faster than the over all class average. It's just another band aid for a broken system. The SRAC members have to be impartial and consider what is best for the sport. nhra has accepted +30 horsepower in changes to many combinations. They should do something clean like lowering the indexes by .30 to match the changes they have accepted. Then start tearing down cars if some racers are out there thumping the hell out of their competition. Flag those who are flying and plan a tear down party for them. I have only seen one unanimous poll on the Internet, so we shouldn't expect all of us to agree on a contentious issue like the AHFS. The AHFS should be a top priority of the SRAC and they should also seek general oversight of the AHFS; which includes a serious review of horsepower adjustments by all Stock, Super Stock members of the SRAC. __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK

04-07-2008, 05:47 PM	#88
Lynn A McCarty Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Plainfield (INDY) Indiana Posts: 468 Likes: 1 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System SS Engine Guy, I agree with most of what you said. Thanks for the explanation. Weren't we discussing AHFS and heads up? What would you do to address the after market casting situation, bogus combos, bogus intake runner cc list, an ineffective AHFS? Believe me it could be done. All it takes is the courage and the willingness to do so. I thought that was our talking points. If we could all agree on certain issues, maybe these steering committees would take action? If we never get anything accomplished, it shouldn't be because we didn't try. __________________ Lynn A McCarty 3470 SS Last edited by Lynn A McCarty; 04-08-2008 at 03:30 PM.

04-07-2008, 06:36 PM	#89
Dick Butler VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Indiana Posts: 1,197 Likes: 5 Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System Lynn, CIC for Stk or SS . Last edited by Dick Butler; 04-07-2008 at 08:00 PM.

04-08-2008, 01:06 AM	#90
SS Engine Guy Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: usa Posts: 256 Likes: 1 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Automatic Horsepower Factoring System Thanks for those that took the time to read my long winded post. I am going to look at some numbers and see if I can come up with a suggestion. I really don't think there is one answer to the situation. And it probably won't please everyone. (or maybe anyone). Part of what I am going to look at is the difference in cubic inches vs. et. vs, factored hp. vs. makers (Ford, GM, Mopar) within several SS classes and see if any correlation exists. This may apply or may not in Stock eliminator. It may offer a solution or it may only cloud the issues even more. The CIC suggestion may apply here, only in a somewhat different way than what is used in comp. The problems that the AHFS is supposed to address weren't created in a day. I wish that someone had the answer that would make everyone happy, boost attendence, cause younger racers to get interested and migrate towards our catagories, and in general, make this all the fun that it used to be. Might even collect some sponsorship for our classes along the way. This can't be impossible. It will probably be hard but nothing worth having ever comes easy in life. I personally think that the AHFS is detrimental to our sport.