Re: Index Change
 

Records have been removed from the NHRA site.

Re: Index Change
 

We have been fighting the basic same thing with IHRA for a while. Crate Motor indexs are alot softer than the regular stockers. I guess, the bottem line is the fast guys will still be fast, just have more room to be faster now.

Re: Index Change
 

Did anyone notice this line near the end?

"Runs of 1.250 or more under the index will be reviewed and adjusted Tuesday following the event. Runs at National Events, Divisional Events, and National Open Events, including those at altitude factored race tracks, are included in the 1.250-second-or-more-under analysis".

If I am reading this correctly, this means that a car at Altitude that runs -1.250 now gets HP the same as a car at Sea Level that runs -1.250? If so, I applaud NHRA for fixing this glaring disparity.

Re: Index Change
 

Mike, I think it has been that way. Wasn't that the big deal with Sorenson last year when he dumped the water or something? It's the same as running 1.55 under in 2009. And when the semi-annual adjustments, the new average will be .15 faster than last years 1.00 under average, but with the.3 drop, the effect is a 1.15 under in 2009 average sorta like the 396 guys are commenting about.

Re: Index Change
 

Ah Ray, as of this time the records are still there.

Jeff, the flap with Sorenson was he ran -1.40+ the sea level index at an altitude factored track, then they say he didn't, and pulled the water trick. Jim

Re: Index Change
 

Actually, that's a bad idea. Why? Because NHRA does not consider the current local weather conditions at factored tracks, and adjust the factored index accordingly. I've seen days where the actual conditions at Denver, a factored track, were 1500' better than Bristol, an non factored track. A track that is factored at 3000' could see local current weather that was actually closer to 1900'. Since they don't adjust the factored indexes to account for that, it'd be ludicrous put HP on a car for running 1.25 under the factored index.

If a car were to run 1.250 under the sea level index, then of course, it needs HP. But it already works that way now.

Re: Index Change
 

Hi Jeff. Yes, I remember the Sorenson deal. A car had to run -1.40 (back then, -1.25 now) under it's sea level Index. Meaning Joe in B/SA, if he ran 10.149 or quicker, he got HP regardless of elevation. Difference was, 10.149 is -1.401 under sea level, yet something like -1.77 under the Boise Index.

1 633 B/SA Hal Sorensen, Vancouver WA, '69 Camaro 10.159 11.93 -1.771

The statement in the new AHFS article states:
"Runs of 1.250 or more under the index will be reviewed and adjusted Tuesday following the event. Runs at National Events, Divisional Events, and National Open Events, including those at altitude factored race tracks, are included in the 1.250-second-or-more-under analysis. This is done to better react to any out-of-line indexes or under-horsepowered combinations. Therefore, at all such events, a 3.25 percent horsepower adjustment or index reduction will be initiated Tuesday following the event. The decision to adjust horsepower or to reduce the index will be at the discretion of the NHRA Tech Department".

So is that -1.250 under the sea level Index, or the particular altitude adjusted Index at that event?

Re: Index Change
 

You're right, Jim,

I looked in the wrong menu. Thanks for clarifying.

Re: Index Change
 

Alan, if, and it's a big IF, the altitude factors currently used are correct, a -1.25 at sea level should be the same as -1.25 at altitude. When east coast racers accuse some altitude records of being "bogus", we're called crybabies, and that the factor system used is correct and nothing bogus about it. There were a few records set at Boise a few years ago. Boise's physical elevation is something like 2,800'. The corrected air was much lower than that. One racer reported 1,800'. But the track used the 2,800' factor, and records tumbled. BUT, many cars at sea level, in conditions close to the DA at an altitude facility, don't run anywhere close to the factored record from altitude. Now, does that mean the factor used to equate records is incorrect, or are they sandbagging to not receive HP, or something else? I always equated racing at altitude as "having your cake and eating it too". Run fast, and almost never receive HP. If the factors used really are correct, then a -1.25 at sea level (Atco) should be no different than -1.25 under at altitude (Denver), and both should receive equal adjustments.

B/SA, sea level Index 11.55 (old index). You run 10.150 or quicker (more than -1.400), you get HP.

B/SA Boise Index, 11.93 (old Index). You can run 10.151, which is -1.779, but results in NO HP, because the car didn't run -1.40 under the 'sea level' Index.

If the factors are indeed not a little suspicious, then a B/SA that runs quicker than 10.430 (more than -1.40 under that particular adjusted Index) at Boise should receive HP.

Am I missing something?

Re: Index Change
 

this did nothing but penalize the part time racer trying to go out and compete, factor the fast combo's as needed, this is a crock

Re: Index Change
 

Mike.

To get HP in Denver you have to run 1.25 under the sea level index...But, you pose a great question...maybe some one from NHRA can clarify it for us...

Re: Index Change
 

well.....the index was 30 plus years old, change is good

Re: Index Change
 

change the factoring process, not the index

Re: Index Change
 

Not only are the track "factors" suspect, but the system is flawed.

You call racing at altitude "having your cake, and eating it too". But when you get a combination HP running off of a bogus factor, you're "having your cake and eating someone else's too".

If NHRA is not going to correct the factors to the actual current local conditions, then they need to do just what they've been doing, only hitting cars with HP if they actually go 1.25 under the sea level index.

Again, if the track is factored to over 3000', but local conditions actually correct to 1000', that's like having better than -1000' under sea level at some place like Atco or Mission. A car running 1.25 or more under the factored index at the factored track probably wouldn't go more than 1.00 under at a non factored track in really good air.

Re: Index Change
 

Running ss/cm index @ ss/em weight....great!,thanks!...

Re: Index Change
 

Thanks Mr Geary (I don't like calling anyone Dick, unless they deserve it. LOL).

Alan, I would agree with all of what you wrote. Wonder if NHRA would?

Re: Index Change
 

Mike, I seriously doubt it. I don't think they allow common sense at Glendora.

A blind man could easily see what this whole index.AHFS charade is all about, and it began about a year ago. I saw this coming when the first signs showed up.

Just another sign that NHRA does not belong to us, the racers, anymore. It hasn't in quite some time, and it is only getting worse. It's a damned shame.

Re: Index Change
 

From what I was told, there is "some" truth in what NHRA claims. The SRAC did suggest lowering the indexes, according to a few I spoke with. But they also suggested correcting the AHFS as well. So NHRA lowered the indexes and left the AHFS completely screwed up. Go figure.

Re: Index Change
 

I hope that finally they will treat runs at altitude the same as at sea level,

1.25 under sea level index gets hit,

then 1.25 under altitude index should get hit.

If those correction figures are good enough to let records be set,than they are good enough to factor horsepower period...

as far as the weather argument goes, it is simple, there are good days and bad days at all tracks, good air happens, bad air happens, and mother nature don't care if it is Atco or Denver,but one thing doesn't change and that is the distance above sea level each track is.

There is no chance that a sanctioning body is going to make adjustments for daily air density. They are looking to keep it simple, not add more complicated work. The closest thing to that I have ever seen was when there was a good tail wind and our D1 director wouldn't let us set records, I doubt that you would see that now.

Re: Index Change
 

I'll have to disagree with that completely. It won't work, and it is insanely unfair.

Atco, Mission, and Woodburn are all sea level or close to it. I don't think you'll ever see local weather conditions at any of those tracks correct to 1500' or more below sea level. But factored tracks do have weather that corrects to 2000' below their factored altitude. There's no such thing as a day so good at Atco, Mission, or Woodburn that the air is 2000' below sea level. So the argument that "there are good days and bad days at all tracks" doesn't hold water. Not when there are plenty of track that could never see "good days" like that. It would be absurd to factor a combination because of a run that couldn't possibly be duplicated at an unfactored track. That's one of the few things NHRA has gotten correct.

One run at a track factored at 3500' that had 1500' conditions could render a lot of cars completely useless. Especially since they lowered the indexes 3 tenths. And that run could never be duplicated under actual normal conditions.

The fact that NHRA wants to be cheap and lazy, so they don't correct their factors, is no reason to punish racers.

Re: Index Change
 

Greg,

It says in the very first paragraph of the announcement that they consulted with the Sportsman Racer Advisory Council before coming up with this change. Are you still a member of the council and is this what you advised them to do?

If I remember correctly the indexes were raised 2 tenths in the early 90s to increase participation. With this latest change it looks like they must have too much participation now and are looking to reduce it.


-Toby

Re: Index Change
 

123

Re: Index Change
 

Good point Toby. Something else that a lot of racers may not remember from back then though is that there were a few classes that only received .15 due to the performance of the cars in the classes at the time. I know T/SA and V/SA and one other missed out on the other .05 from back then. Does it matter now,not one bit? It`s all irrellevent,NHRA doesn`t care,they`ll do what they feel they need to to screw the "hobby" class racer. In a way I`m happy they did it.

Re: Index Change
 

This is a huge blow to my program. I was about a -30 player before and ok with that. Now i will most likely not be able to even run the index. I don't have the money to make up the difference. So my car will not see much nhra action in 2010, just bracket racing. I may end up still going to pomona since i had planed on it, but thats about it. I understand why it was done, but its a hard deal for racers on a tight budget and who's cars are not fast enough anymore...

Re: Index Change
 

I am curious what car, combo etc, are you running ? Cant you move down as it were ? Why is this such a blow , Im being honest in my inquiry Id like to know, if its not to much.

Cheers

Chris

Re: Index Change
 

Let me start this by saying my verdict is still out if I'm for or against the index change. On one hand it benefits my superstocker as it allows me a little more breathing room and on the other hand it makes it a little tougher on my low budget stocker I've been putting together. So with that being said.

I love it whenever the AHFS gets discussed with altitude corrections and the lack of understanding most have with how the altitude correction actually works. By the way we've said for the last ten years the altitude correction factors are probably off about 10% because you can somewhat cheat the car into going faster by making changes to compensate. When we used to run at Denver alot we'd change camshafts, converter, rear gear, transmission, tires, and jetting to run fast. So everyone that thinks it's so easy to just go to the mountain and go fast I'd invite you to load up in July and give it a shot.

Someone mentioned 1.25 under at altitude is the same as sea level. This statement is absolutely false. I'll give you an example. Oahe Speedway in Pierre SD is 1700' above sea level in SS/NA I get .24 correction. So my index there is now a 12.39 with my old index being a 12.69. This year at the National Open I went an actual 11.238. Under the new system this would be 1.152 that would equate to a 10.998. However, this is not what it factors to. That run is actually an 11.023. This is how records get figured at altitude. At Denver you lose close to a .10 at this speed. So lets say next year I run an 11.14 and reset the record. This would be 1.25 under should I automatically get HP even though the record is only going to be 1.23 under? So is 1.25 under at altitude still 1.25 under at sea level? According to NHRA's policy for setting records NO!

Also you can't use corrected altitude to figure factoring either. 1500' at Atco and 1500' in Pierre SD as an example are two completely different things. At one place you might get that air and it's cool and dense and the other it may be a little warmer and drier. The car isn't going to run the same nor is it necessarily going to take the same tune to run at either place.

My .02
Rick Ryan

Re: Index Change
 

dang. now i have to go out in the garage and work on my slow mobile because i was only 3.0 under on my best day. see you guys at the track next year!

Re: Index Change
 

I had a chance to attend the divisional in Las Vegas from Nov 4th to the eighth. As an outside observer I noticed that many of the drivers when I last ran my car seventeen years ago were still doing it but not a whole lot of young S/SS racers. This was from a field of 127 stockers & 120 super stockers.
Hard to believe many of these same veterans will still be class racing even ten years from now.
With NHRA now making it more difficult for the newcomer to compete in these ranks look for a slow but increasingly steady decline of class racing.

With this latest move most likely we will soon see the "descendants" of the modified eliminator categories followed by S/SS once again parading down that return road for the last time.

Oh well, something else to watch on You Tube from the Old Folks Home.

Re: Index Change
 

Well, that little "rule of the week" change just cost me some money. Had three customers call today to cancel their appointments for freshen/update. Two were guys that hit 8-10 divisionals and 4-5 nationals a year. Talk was about going heads up fastest street car competition. Good luck with the slick talk, letters, underfactored crap, etc. Think I'll just do up a little project for the winter to see just how quick the GT/?A, ?A and ?A records/ratings/indexes can go.

Hope that isn't correct on the srac members recommending an index drop without specifying a 1.00 under hit. If you guys didn't have that stipulation in writing you fine folks got screwed right along with the majority of racers who DID NOT want this hit.

Re: Index Change
 

Does new index`s mean .35 under to win class on single run and .35 under to set records that are min. Because you have to run .35 under or faster to count in the average`s in the AFHS? Tom

Re: Index Change
 

Toby, I resigned from the SRAC a year ago after figuring out that the committee had no influence on the rules making process. We did discuss the indexes last year and I voted to leave them where they were. My vote was in response to several of our div. 3 racers who race on a budget and felt the change would keep them from racing. Last year our discussion was about lowering the indexes 2 tenths not 3.

The SRAC is a joke. They have no power and no influence.

Re: Index Change
 

One thing NHRA didn`t even consider before they did this was think of the lost revenue to the race tracks from racers like myself no longer participating in the Combo races. I myself will save over $1300 in entry fees and race fuel for just the seven events I attend up here each year,so not all is bad.

Re: Index Change
 

I'm curious, what do you guys guess is the average age of a stock eliminator competitor and car?
Based on that data what is the future of stock eliminator 10-15 years from now?

Re: Index Change
 

Mike, I noticed that also, and wondered the same thing......

Re: Index Change
 

Not quite true Rick,

Doug Patrick #4 @ Morrison, CO 12.624 13.96 -1.336 under

Doug Patrick #1 @ Kent, WA 11.743 12.95 -1.207 under

Doug Patrick #4 @ Sonoma, CA 11.840 12.95 -1.110 under

Not bad for a car tuned in Boca Raton, FL. Like most are saying, fast cars are always fast, no matter what the conditions.

Hope everyone has a Happy Holidays, we'll see you guys soon.....

Wade O

Re: Index Change
 

Why didn`t they leave index`s the same and change the instant hp to 1.55 under, 1.30 under the index to trigger review at national events, .65 under to win class on single, .65 under to set record on min., 1.15 under to count on averages for AFHS at nat. events? or is this change to keep stocker from running SS? Tom

Re: Index Change
 

Alan,
I've seen mineshaft conditions at Atco and Englishtown that produced very fast ET's! But I've never heard of NHRA taking these conditions into account when they gave out horsepower for that review period! So why should an altitude factored track be any different??? What they should do is get the factor right!

Rick,
It seems to me that if the ET factors to a record, than that same factor should be used when figuring out horsepower adjustments! My claim always has been how can someone go to a factored track and set a record at 1.40 under the sea level index (factored) and NOT get horsepower??? I understand how but not why!!! Again, they should work on getting the factors right!!!

Re: Index Change
 

Wade,
Again that 1.33 under at Denver corrects back to only .03 faster than Seattle. Neither Seattle nor Sonoma in July or August are usually particularily fast either. How does that compare to what Doug can run at Orlando or Bradenton in the spring? Remember when NHRA corrects the altitude runs to sea level he was only 1.23 under. I know that car is way faster then that in good air. Also did I mention that I think the correction factors are about 10% off.

Bryan,
I don't disagree with that at all. If you can run 1.40 under the sea level index at an altitude track. That car deserves horsepower as well. My problem is what if you run 1.40 under the index but it corrects back to 1.35. You shouldn't get horsepower.

Rick

Re: Index Change
 

Whenever "1.25 under" comes up in any further discussions,I think it is important to realize that it is actually 1.55 under.(old indexes of course)

Re: Index Change
 

Sounds a little bit too much like a trap if you ask me.....
So a fast car needed to be concerned about going 1.40 under (with the exception of ahfs review triggers at national events)
Indexes lowered .3 - - the instant trigger changed to 1.25
a car can now go up to 1.65 under the old index and not get an instant hit?
if this is correct then to me it looks more like a ploy to weed out the real soft combos