CLASS RACER FORUM

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)

- Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - Ahfs (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=82210)

Mike glad you replied. There aren't many 68 Camaro's running any more. Unfortunetly I really like those cars. It's great that your able to do most of the work yourself. That was the way both Stock and Super Stock was back 20,30 years ago. I really liked racing in those years. It wasn't always who had the most money but who could get the most out of what they had. It's tough today to compete with the engine shops that are on a dyno every week finding new ways to get more HP. I don't need to tell you when they changed the rule about using a three speed the glide for the most part became a paper weight. I'm sure the 3 speed will pick you up a bunch. Are you thinking about a metric. I'm sure one will survive in your car and may be the cheapest way in. In SS/IA you at least won't hit to many heads up. I run an A and B stock auto car. It's a very competitive class. I'm not the fastest but my car is no slouch either. I have to play the AFHS game all the time. And I'm sick of it. If I end up getting HP because of the system it will put me further behind the really fast cars. In Stock at least it seems that it's mostly the top half of the classes that really have to play the game all the time. BP

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Castros (Post 662145)

Eliminate the scrutiny and lower the indexes .10
It's long overdue.

That's just dumb.

I think the AHFS has been helping. The 305 combo did get whacked a few years ago but not the 1983 version so most had to modify their bodies to fall in line with the 1983 Camaro body. No small feat. But totally legit.

If NHRA had qualified fields at all national events (75 entries, 60 Qualified for most races) the AHFS may get triggered more often. Or if some points system for Qualifying were in place.

There is no need though to penalize every combo because of technological advances. Some combos already have been hit due to those changes and other combos didn't make significant gains due to technology advances/rules allowances.

A tenth off every index would just park more cars and with counts down overall I think that is counter productive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rboyle (Post 662401)

That's just dumb.

Thanks!

[QUOTE=B Parker;662196]So Jim are you saying that you want to see everyone equal. So if you have racer A who doesn't wish to work on their car, or have the knowledge too. Also doesn't really want to spend any more money than they have to. Just let it be a 5 under car. Instead I'd rather we take racer B who works on their car all the time to improve it and has the knowledge. And is willing to spend the money in the right places. You want to equal the playing field so racer B doesn't have an advantage over racer A. This is racing we are talking about isn't it.

Bingo, we have a winner!!! You nailed it Barry! Congrats to John Armstrong #1 qualifier at Cecil with a carburetor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Castros (Post 662155)

Example of my point:
2018 Indy Non-Qualifiers

129 8735 AA/SA Nic Williams, Northhampton EN, '69 Camaro 9.811 10.70 -0.889
130 3120 I/SA Lyn Smith, Pontiac IL, '73 Century 11.413 12.30 -0.887
131 441 FS/F Mitch Truman, Leesburg IN, '15 Camaro 10.313 11.20 -0.887
132 3355 R/S Tim Weinzapfel, St. Phillips IN, '66 BelA 13.064 13.95 -0.886
133 339L C/SA Randi Lyn Shipp, Floyds Knobs IN, '67 Fir 10.515 11.40 -0.885
134 1322 B/S Tim Bishop, Queenstown MD, '97 Firebird 10.317 11.20 -0.883
135 318 FS/AA Jesse Alexandra, West Bend WI, '17 Camaro 8.519 9.40 -0.881
136 3602 A/S Jason McCormack, Columbiaville MI, '66 Be 10.074 10.95 -0.876
137 154 AA/SA Anthony Fetch, Colonia NJ, '69 Camaro 9.826 10.70 -0.874
138 6070 FS/A Gary Coe, Portland OR, '14 Mustang 8.832 9.70 -0.868
139 338H A/SA Tony Fagnilli, Carolpolis PA, '69 Camaro 10.141 11.00 -0.859
140 7356 C/SA Scott Loge, Livermore CA, '70 GTX 10.544 11.40 -0.856
141 L747 FS/AA Lane Goldstein, Calabassas CA, '18 Camaro 8.545 9.40 -0.855
142 3649 D/SA Bruce Gibson, Dayton IN, '71 Demon 10.696 11.55 -0.854
143 333 A/S Brett McFarland, Manchester OH, '68 Camaro10.099 10.95 -0.851
144 3009 FS/C James Reed, Lincoln IL, '17 Camaro 9.449 10.30 -0.851
145 3922 E/SA Julie Biermann, Xenia OH, '68 Firebird 10.851 11.70 -0.849
146 3651 L/SA Bob Gere, Salem WI, '72 Grand Sport 11.865 12.70 -0.835
147 3969 A/S Joe Martens, N. Olmsted OH, '69 Camaro 10.128 10.95 -0.822
148 2221 G/SA Richard Mace, Jacksonville FL, '91 Corvet 11.179 12.00 -0.821
149 4403 FS/A Gary Emmons, Friendswood TX, '14 Mustang 8.897 9.70 -0.803
150 4411 FS/B Phillip Giles, Flatonia TX, '16 Camaro 9.198 10.00 -0.802
151 3084 F/S Craig Saurbaugh, Grand Haven MI, '66 Nova 11.009 11.80 -0.791
152 3812 F/SA Gary Herche, N. Vernon IN, '71 Skylark 11.063 11.85 -0.787
153 3314 L/SA Chris Utsler, Martinville IN, '74 Apollo 11.915 12.70 -0.785
154 3576 N/SA David Garrity, Greenfield IN, '75 Omega 12.216 13.00 -0.784
155 G339 F/SA Dale Massengill, Kokomo IN, '79 Aspen 11.070 11.85 -0.780
156 3004 O/S Rosalyn Gresens, Toledo IL, '89 Mustang 12.323 13.10 -0.777
157 38 A/S Gary Russell, East Sparta OH, '67 Camaro 10.181 10.95 -0.769
158 33 A/S Tom Russell, East Sparta OH, '67 Camaro 10.202 10.95 -0.748
159 7797 C/S Don Keen, Palmdale CA, '68 Mustang 10.635 11.35 -0.715
160 3952 E/SA Marvin Benoit, Alvaton KY, '71 Camaro 11.026 11.70 -0.674
161 3980 N/SA Bobby Bishop, Lemont IL, '89 Mustang 12.336 13.00 -0.664
162 3657 P/SA Marty Buth, Freeport IL, '84 Mustang 12.802 13.45 -0.648
163 5351 G/SA Keith Hildahl, Northfield MN, '73 Mustang 11.404 12.00 -0.596
164 336 FS/B Kevin Mitchell, Champion IL, '17 Camaro 9.418 10.00 -0.582
165 3219 F/SA Jeff McKinney, Carroll OH, '90 Corvette 11.269 11.85 -0.581
166 5502 L/SA Paul Anderson, Lewiston MN, '80 Malibu 12.151 12.70 -0.549
167 J365 FS/AA Brad Jarvis, Catlin IL, '18 Camaro 8.888 9.40 -0.512
168 4745 C/SA Wayne Larsen, Ponchatoula LA, '69 Mustang 10.946 11.40 -0.454
169 248H E/S Casey Miles, Boca Raton FL, '69 Camaro 11.263 11.65 -0.387
170 3202 FS/A Terry Fritss, Greenup IL, '14 Mustang 9.389 9.70 -0.311
171 3315 J/SA Robert Utsler, Martinville IN, '74 Ventura12.334 12.45 -0.116

I think moving index .1 changes the 129 qualifier to .789 instead of .889 and so on down the sheet

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Parker (Post 662196)

So Jim are you saying that you want to see everyone equal. So if you have racer A who dosn't wish to work on their car, or have the knowledge too. Also dosn't really want to spend any more money than they have to. Just let it be a 5 under car. Instead I'd rather we take racer B who works on their car all the time to improve it and has the knowledge. And is willing to spend the money in the right places. You want to equal the playing field so racer B dosen't have an advantage over racer A. This is racing we are talking about isn't it. Maybe we should also add some starting line handicap to those racers that seem to be able to cut great lights most of the time. So tomorrow if I have to race Dan Fletcher first round lets add some to his light so I have a better chance to beat him.

I've got and idea anyone that averages better than a .30 light at the next race they add some time to their reaction times. Maybe make that .30 a .45 And if they are .20 and better make it a .035 Would that make you feel better.

No, Barry that's not what I'm saying. Racing will never be equal. Some people work harder on their cars....some people have more money to spend. I'm talking about getting some of these combinations that are honestly under factored in line, and put some common sense into the AHFS as well. Why is the same GM LS engine, for example, rated less in a Corvette or GTO than in a Camaro/Firebird? The aerodynamics are negligible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Kaekel (Post 662428)

Jim real simple the Corvette has been able to play the AHFS game. But the problem with this is what if the Camaro or Firebird end up in a heads up run in good air. There are several of them that can run 1.20 plus under. Now they end up with more HP putting them even further away from the Corvette's HP. I have the same problem with my combo. In good air I can run 1.20 under. Most of the 2015 Camaro's have at least .15 and more on me. Now I end up with a heads up run with another combo and go 1.20 under and get HP. I was already behind. How do you fix that. BP

Quote:

Originally Posted by rboyle (Post 662404)

The problem with this is that it's not done the same every time. A few years ago the 1973 /350 Corvette went 1.20 under. They also included the 1974 Corvette when they passed out the HP. The front and the rear of those 2 year Corvettes are different. So why didn't the 1983/305 get the HP.

Forgot to mention at the time the 1973
corvette got the HP the 74 also had a different head and intake they had to use. So instead of keeping their HP different they also at that time amended the 74 specs so they could use the same head as the 73. So I guess they expected if you had the 74 with the right heads and intake up to that time you could now throw those away and do another set up. It didn't matter because we know how cheap it is to change heads and intake. BP

Fact of Life! He who spends the most money will all was be fast! The AHFS want stop that! AHFS was made for by people who want work on there cars!