We need a new "instant" trigger! - Page 2

Billy Nees · 03-26-2009, 11:07 AM

Mike, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm OK with the -1.40 number I just don't think that the 3.25% number is enough. What I'm looking for is something like 7% or even more.

Mark Yacavone · 03-26-2009, 11:42 AM

Billy, if a certain killer car starts out at about 400# heavy, even 7% is not going to do the job.

Mike Carr · 03-26-2009, 11:46 AM

Ok, now I see what you mean, and what you want to do. By "trigger", I thought you were referring to the -1.40 under mark. At 3.25%, an A/SA 427/425 would get hit 14 HP. Bob's car, at 180 HP in U/SA, gets hit only six. Which, on the surface, doesn't seem fair. Yet, the the U/SA gets more weight added (120 pounds vs the A/SA's 112 pounds). At 4%, it would be 18 HP and 144 pounds in A/SA and 8 HP and 160 pounds in U/SA. 5% is 22 HP and 176 pounds in A, 9 HP and 180 pounds in U. I suppose if one were to want to increase the rate at which a combination receives HP, they would go for a higher percentage (4 or 5%). Would that be too much or not enough? You might poll 100 racers and get 75-80 different opinions and responses. Maybe we need a poll posted on here to see what other's opinions and thoughts are. ME personally, again, I wouldn't change much. They could always make a small change, maybe up to 3.5% and see what that does. BTW, did you get your book in the mail, Billy?

Billy Nees · 03-26-2009, 11:51 AM

Mike, yes I did and I'm sorry for not thanking you sooner.

Billy Nees · 03-26-2009, 11:53 AM

Mark, you're right but it would help to bring it in line twice as soon without obsoleteing a combo overnight.

Jack Matyas · 03-26-2009, 12:06 PM

Billy-- Using your 7% would be harsh at best -- for example our LS1 Firebird is rated at 364 hp -- 7% would be 25 HP at one shot -- or in C/SA trim-- a 9lb class-- thats 225 lbs at one time -- ouch ! ! ! One fabulous day at Atco or somewhere with good air and your toast -- no thanks ! ! ! You're trying to reinvent the wheel in a day .......

Mark Yacavone · 03-26-2009, 12:10 PM

Maybe I'm taking this thread o/t, but here's some ideas for getting some of the soft hp ratings in line:
(I'm not advocating any of them. Just tossing them out)

Implement the AHFS adjustments 4 times a year.

Take away the "free race " during the data period.

Include altitude tracks in the 1.15 and 1.40 trigger (under the factored index)

Lower the "high side " trigger to 1.30 under.

Trouble is , if you implement all the above, you'll have alot more racers making 1000 ' runs in qualifying, and "bracket racing" in class and heads- up runs.
Not good , if you ever want to build spectator appeal for S/SS

art leong · 03-26-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Mike, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm OK with the -1.40 number I just don't think that the 3.25% number is enough. What I'm looking for is something like 7% or even more.

Billy maybe they should institute the "Artie Leong" rule 8.5% in one shot. Seemed to make a lot of people happy at the time.
Lets see now? 425 HP times 8.5%. Thats 36 horsepower in a 9 pound class thats 320 pounds. Sounds like a plan to me.
To be serious. Billy whatever the number guys are still going to play games. And run in braket mode. I just think anyone the goes fast enough for a instant hit sound be torn down. And nhra should use corrected density altitude. For their books We all know running 115 under in a mineshaft is easier than running 115 under at 3000' density altitude.

Chad Rhodes · 03-26-2009, 12:34 PM

how about this.

1.400-1.424 under = 3.5%
1.425-1.449 under = 5%
1.450-1.474 under = 7%
1.475 under or more = 10%

or 1% for every .01 under 1.40

novassdude · 03-26-2009, 12:54 PM

I think Chad is on to the right idea. Make it multiple trigger points each with a larger hit on the horse power. I would maybe spread ot out alittle more that what he had. Maybe an extra percent per tenth or some thing like that.
In the case of some thing like a 2:00 under run it should be hit no matter where the run takes place. weather it was a factord track or not.

03-26-2009, 11:07 AM	#11
Billy Nees VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: On a hilltop in Pa. Posts: 4,486 Likes: 3,587 Liked 7,683 Times in 1,731 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! Mike, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm OK with the -1.40 number I just don't think that the 3.25% number is enough. What I'm looking for is something like 7% or even more. __________________ Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS I'm not spending 100K to win 2K

03-26-2009, 11:42 AM	#12
Mark Yacavone Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Miles From Nowhere Posts: 7,809 Likes: 2,900 Liked 5,114 Times in 1,948 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! Billy, if a certain killer car starts out at about 400# heavy, even 7% is not going to do the job. __________________ "We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers

03-26-2009, 11:46 AM	#13
Mike Carr VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Enon Valley PA Posts: 1,650 Likes: 234 Liked 83 Times in 37 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! Ok, now I see what you mean, and what you want to do. By "trigger", I thought you were referring to the -1.40 under mark. At 3.25%, an A/SA 427/425 would get hit 14 HP. Bob's car, at 180 HP in U/SA, gets hit only six. Which, on the surface, doesn't seem fair. Yet, the the U/SA gets more weight added (120 pounds vs the A/SA's 112 pounds). At 4%, it would be 18 HP and 144 pounds in A/SA and 8 HP and 160 pounds in U/SA. 5% is 22 HP and 176 pounds in A, 9 HP and 180 pounds in U. I suppose if one were to want to increase the rate at which a combination receives HP, they would go for a higher percentage (4 or 5%). Would that be too much or not enough? You might poll 100 racers and get 75-80 different opinions and responses. Maybe we need a poll posted on here to see what other's opinions and thoughts are. ME personally, again, I wouldn't change much. They could always make a small change, maybe up to 3.5% and see what that does. BTW, did you get your book in the mail, Billy? __________________ Mike Carr, Tri-State S/SS Association President Looking for 2015 S/SS Race Sponsors Contact me if interested buffdaddy_1302@hotmail.com (724) 510-5912

03-26-2009, 11:51 AM	#14
Billy Nees VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: On a hilltop in Pa. Posts: 4,486 Likes: 3,587 Liked 7,683 Times in 1,731 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! Mike, yes I did and I'm sorry for not thanking you sooner. __________________ Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS I'm not spending 100K to win 2K

03-26-2009, 11:53 AM	#15
Billy Nees VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: On a hilltop in Pa. Posts: 4,486 Likes: 3,587 Liked 7,683 Times in 1,731 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! Mark, you're right but it would help to bring it in line twice as soon without obsoleteing a combo overnight. __________________ Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS I'm not spending 100K to win 2K

03-26-2009, 12:06 PM	#16
Jack Matyas Live Reporter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Bethlehem , PA -Christmas City , USA Posts: 4,927 Likes: 406 Liked 2,050 Times in 398 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! Billy-- Using your 7% would be harsh at best -- for example our LS1 Firebird is rated at 364 hp -- 7% would be 25 HP at one shot -- or in C/SA trim-- a 9lb class-- thats 225 lbs at one time -- ouch ! ! ! One fabulous day at Atco or somewhere with good air and your toast -- no thanks ! ! ! You're trying to reinvent the wheel in a day ....... __________________ Jack Matyas 1547 FS/C 2015 Camaro COPO # 62- 2012 Camaro Convertible COPO

03-26-2009, 12:10 PM	#17
Mark Yacavone Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Miles From Nowhere Posts: 7,809 Likes: 2,900 Liked 5,114 Times in 1,948 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! Maybe I'm taking this thread o/t, but here's some ideas for getting some of the soft hp ratings in line: (I'm not advocating any of them. Just tossing them out) Implement the AHFS adjustments 4 times a year. Take away the "free race " during the data period. Include altitude tracks in the 1.15 and 1.40 trigger (under the factored index) Lower the "high side " trigger to 1.30 under. Trouble is , if you implement all the above, you'll have alot more racers making 1000 ' runs in qualifying, and "bracket racing" in class and heads- up runs. Not good , if you ever want to build spectator appeal for S/SS __________________ "We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers

03-26-2009, 12:34 PM	#19
Chad Rhodes VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Where the Green Grass Grows, AL Posts: 2,375 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! how about this. 1.400-1.424 under = 3.5% 1.425-1.449 under = 5% 1.450-1.474 under = 7% 1.475 under or more = 10% or 1% for every .01 under 1.40 __________________ Chad Rhodes 2113 I/SA

03-26-2009, 12:54 PM	#20
novassdude Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: usa Posts: 752 Likes: 204 Liked 136 Times in 49 Posts	Re: We need a new "instant" trigger! I think Chad is on to the right idea. Make it multiple trigger points each with a larger hit on the horse power. I would maybe spread ot out alittle more that what he had. Maybe an extra percent per tenth or some thing like that. In the case of some thing like a 2:00 under run it should be hit no matter where the run takes place. weather it was a factord track or not.