We need a new "instant" trigger!

[Billy Nees]

Mark, believe it or not, I'm not concerned about U/SA. Go reread my comments from the beginning. I have used Bobs combo as an example as it is the most graphic and the most current. I also have never had a heads up run in eliminations and that's a lot of rounds.
Alan, I agree with cwigle about the more obscure combos in the more popular classes getting hit first. The more of a given combo, the more likely that combo is to have more proportionately slow and fast cars. The Hemis and 6 packs seem to have proven this.
How about this, instant hit the cars off of the 1/8th mile indexes. It's simple and it won't affect any of the other triggers. For that matter, let's look at putting all of the triggers at the 1/8 mile. Also, I like Beardies idea about weight in the cars. If for example, a car enters a race classified as a AA/SA car and on it's first qualifying pass goes across the scales at A/SA weight (8.00-8.50) then give the driver the option of running A or taking the weight out of the car to make AA. On his second qualifying pass if he stays in AA and the
car weighs more that 8.00 lbs then the driver is DQed for the race.
Ron, as much as I like the CIC thing it won't work in Stock and SS.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Mark, believe it or not, I'm not concerned about U/SA. Go reread my comments from the beginning. I have used Bobs combo as an example as it is the most graphic and the most current. I also have never had a heads up run in eliminations and that's a lot of rounds.
Alan, I agree with cwigle about the more obscure combos in the more popular classes getting hit first. The more of a given combo, the more likely that combo is to have more proportionately slow and fast cars. The Hemis and 6 packs seem to have proven this.
How about this, instant hit the cars off of the 1/8th mile indexes. It's simple and it won't affect any of the other triggers. For that matter, let's look at putting all of the triggers at the 1/8 mile. Also, I like Beardies idea about weight in the cars. If for example, a car enters a race classified as a AA/SA car and on it's first qualifying pass goes across the scales at A/SA weight (8.00-8.50) then give the driver the option of running A or taking the weight out of the car to make AA. On his second qualifying pass if he stays in AA and the
car weighs more that 8.00 lbs then the driver is DQed for the race.
Ron, as much as I like the CIC thing it won't work in Stock and SS.

Billy, recent history proves my point for me. Here's an example: How many times in the past 5 years have the 396/375 cars been hit compared to the several cars in the classes that there are fewer of? Those 396/375 cars were hit because they triggered an evaluation by going more than 1.15 under. So, what will happen when you lower the trigger to 1.2 under?

If you have 2-3 cars running a combination that is capable of easily running 1.4 under, and and 25-30 cars running a combination that will run 1.2 under, the 25-30 cars will get hit first, and more often, because one slow car out of 2-3 is a bigger percentage and affects the average more than 5-6 slow cars in the 25-30 car group.

If you move to the 1/8 mile index, you'll hit automatic cars harder because the stick cars ET better further down track than the automatic cars. You'd also have to look at the fact that quite possibly the cars running more than 1.4 under gain more in the second half than the cars running 1.2 under or less, so the difference at the 1/8 mile may not be great enough to hit the faster cars first and/or harder. I'd have to look harder at a lot more data to see if trying the trigger at the 1/8 mile mark could work.

If you take away weight as a way to kill off ET, a smart racer will just kill timing and/or short shift to kill off ET, or do something else. We used to do it all the time running Super Comp instead of adding weight or using a throttle stop, because weight hurt the reaction time. Shift 1000RPM (or more) sooner for one or two shifts and you slow down. How are you going to stop that? Kill 20 degrees of timing and you slow down (all you have to do is leave the start timing retard on). How do you stop that? There are a bunch of ways to kill ET, too many for them to police. We can run the car 30 degrees hotter and kill ET. We can put thick oil in it, and add an extra quart and kill ET. Weight is just easy.

[Billy Nees]

Alan, go reread my posts and please bring it to my attention just where it was that I want to move the trigger to less than 1.40? I'm fine with -1.40 I just want to move the percentage up if not on the first hit then on the second hit. The 375/396 is getting hit based on the -1.15 trigger not on the -1.40 trigger. That just goes to prove my point about a lot of "smart guys" working on a combo. As far as hitting the autos harder than the sticks by going to an 1/8th mile trigger, they are considered different combos anyway. I'm suggesting to take away the weight to keep them honest. I doubt any driver will take 20* of timing out of their car unless they're doing it down track. NHRA can't control where you shift your car or what oil is in your car, that's the difference between "bracket mode" and "on kill". I was really hoping to meet you at Gainesville as I feel that you're a pretty sharp guy and someone that I would enjoy talking to but your arguments against changing the "instant hit" are starting to get pretty thin. Too many "possiblys" in there.

[Alan Roehrich]

There are already people pulling timing out. Plenty of them.

You're grasping at straws, and trying to get NHRA to check even more than they do now, which they're not willing to do, by trying to force a maximum weight. Again, they'll just kill ET another way, it will not keep anyone honest. The smartest racers, who are usually the fastest, and most often running heavy, are smart enough to do other things if you tell them they cannot run heavy. Further, technically, that extra ballast is already illegal. Look how much removable ballast you are allowed. The rest is supposed to be permanent. Think about it. If they don't look for something now, what makes you think they'll start?

So, if you take the percentage of the hit up, historically, what would have happened? Recently, for example, Henson's hit would have been far worse on the rest of those Hemi cars. Henson is on the sidelines, at least for a while, and the rest of them are still suffering. Further, it was a silly mistake, he didn't even have to run it out. So ignore that, and look to see how many times the rarer cars capable of going really fast have been hit at 1.4 under. Not many.

You ignore the fact that a higher HP car that will run further under the index will likely gain more in the last 1/8 than in the first 1/8.

We won't be out for 3 more weeks, at least, and I'm not likely to drive again for a while, we're down to one car, and I'm by far the worst driver. We would like to have made Gainesville, but it just was not meant to be. I'm looking at a couple of cars to build, but the current economic situation means that's a long term process, barring a big score at the lottery, and I don't play it.

You may not like my arguments, that is fine. You may think they are thin. That's fine, too. But I'm familiar enough with the laws of probability, and the law of unintended consequences, that I'm also well aware of the fact that the one time NHRA will give you what you think you want is usually the time that what you think you want is really the last thing you want. I'd much prefer to see them do nothing rather than see them do something to make things worse. Put very simply, be very careful what you wish for, you may get it. And you may find out too late it doesn't look so good after you get it.

[art leong]

Billy be careful about the cars weighing to much.
The next thing, they will do is throw cars out for to little compression. Been there done that.

[Michael Beard]

Or cylinder heads that look "too stock... well they don't look like the heads on those cars over there!"

It's funny to me that guys keep complaining about how it's supposed to be a performance eliminator, yet they sit around a think up new ways to slow the cars down. Ron might be on to something with having more Class, or more heads-up runs in general, which is one thing that so many people say they love about Class racing... yet mention reducing the number of classes via weight breaks or combining sticks and autos and they go ballistic. Which is it?

Re: incremental data being too much work... download qdata and edata files from the Compulink system. Import into spreadsheet. Next?

Re: maximum weight being hard to police. uh... why? You already get a weight sticker. Take another 10 seconds out of your day and put the other number on the sticker, too. "They'll slow them down other ways" Err... ok. So do it.

So many people play the game and then act offended that people play the game. Whatever. Bottom line, for all its shortfalls, the best solution is a small committee of humans with a modicum of knowledge and common sense. Or, like I said before, factor *everybody* now against a baseline based on the years of data that's already been gathered, applying bell curve statistics.

[Alan Roehrich]

I never said maximum weight was too hard to police, I said they would not do it. And I said it would be just another rule people would easily find a way around. So it is pointless. If you asked for it, and got it, then it did not work, what then?

I never said that incrementals actually represented "too much work", I said they were not interested in doing it.

No, the best solution is NOT a small group of people, especially not if NHRA chooses the people, and there is no recourse.

The BEST solution is to actually fix the AHFS system.

I doubt either will happen.

I agree, it is amusing that people claim to be in love with class racing because it is performance based, and then the same people will scream bloody murder if increasing the amount of heads up races is suggested, or if increasing the reward for performance is proposed.

It is also funny how people game the game and then complain when others do it.