Word is 1.15 under for AHFS at Opens and Divisional races

[Michael Beard]

It's been noted that a number of performance-related concessions have been made over the years, superceded parts, this, and that. I don't feel that an AHFS hit is an attempt to "slow racers down" as much as it is to get cars classified correctly. Since cars have made performance gains through various concessions, why *shouldn't* they have their horsepower adjusted? HP ratings are supposed to reflect a combinations potential. More potential, more horsepower. Once a car is correctly classified and factored, y'all can go aas fast as you want!


>> 3) AHFS trigger set to "review" at 1.00 under index.

Is it better to have an imperfect AHFS system, or the pre-AHFS factoring by committee?


>> 4) Maximum ballast 100#.

How about if your race weight exceeds the minimum weight for the next heavier class, you *must* claim that class? ie., if you're running in B/SA at C/SA weight, you must claim C/SA for that event.


5) Combine FI cars with carb cars first, later combine stick and auto.

Many folks like to claim S/SS as performance eliminators, that is until you start combining classes to come up with more heads-up runs... If two classes have the same index, why would they not be considered the same class? They just need letter designations for indexes, not combinations.

[Speedracer]

NORWALK, Ohio - Final order after 3 rounds of qualifying in Stock Eliminator at the NHRA POWERade Drag Racing Series, Inaugural Summit Racing Equipment NHRA Nationals:

Psn--Num--Class-Driver, Home Town, Machine-----------------ET---Index---(+/-)

1 1788 H/SA Bruce Noland, Leesburg VA, '73 Camaro 11.214 12.45 -1.236
2 3656 D/FIA Bruce Witherspoon, Lansing MI, '90 Corvette11.192 12.30 -1.108
3 1499 B/SA Jim Boudreau, Tewksburry MA, '69 Camaro 10.454 11.55 -1.096
4 2808 B/FIA Bobby Warren, Clinton NC, '98 Firebird 10.629 11.70 -1.071
5 1044 A/SA John Shaul, Fultonham NY, '64 Fury 10.264 11.30 -1.036
6 1656 A/SA Kenneth Miele, Egg Harbor Twp NJ, '67 Shel 10.282 11.30 -1.018
7 3200 K/SA Tim Lowe, Macy IN, '72 Skylark 11.951 12.95 -0.999
8 1056 C/S Todd Bednaz, Terryville CT, '68 Camaro 10.656 11.65 -0.994
9 1021 J/SA Gene Monahan, Brockton MA, '86 Firebird 11.757 12.75 -0.993
10 751 D/S Ben Wenzel Sr., Freeland MI, '67 Camaro 10.823 11.80 -0.977


Regardless of what the published rules for AHFS are,here is a situation that looks like it warrants horsepower.The number one qualifier was well over a tenth of a second faster than the number two qualifier,and over a quarter of a second faster than the number ten qualifier.I'm sure he worked real hard on his combination,but he could have still been number one qualifier by running 1.13 under and slowed it down a tenth.What we don't know is if the numbers 2-10 qualifiers were in bracket mode?On paper though,it looks like horsepower is warranted.

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Michael Beard

It's been noted that a number of performance-related concessions have been made over the years, superceded parts, this, and that. I don't feel that an AHFS hit is an attempt to "slow racers down" as much as it is to get cars classified correctly. Since cars have made performance gains through various concessions, why *shouldn't* they have their horsepower adjusted? HP ratings are supposed to reflect a combinations potential. More potential, more horsepower. Once a car is correctly classified and factored, y'all can go aas fast as you want!

Can't say as I disagree!

>> 3) AHFS trigger set to "review" at 1.00 under index.

Is it better to have an imperfect AHFS system, or the pre-AHFS factoring by committee?

Committe will always leave an impression of favoritisim, used for and against compititors. Also, I think it's pretty clear that NHRA wants as little effort placed on the class as possible on their part. Either by design or default (lack of resources), that's just the way it is. Therefore, imperfect AHFS.

>> 4) Maximum ballast 100#.

How about if your race weight exceeds the minimum weight for the next heavier class, you *must* claim that class? ie., if you're running in B/SA at C/SA weight, you must claim C/SA for that event.

Sounds fair enough.

5) Combine FI cars with carb cars first, later combine stick and auto.

Many folks like to claim S/SS as performance eliminators, that is until you start combining classes to come up with more heads-up runs... If two classes have the same index, why would they not be considered the same class? They just need letter designations for indexes, not combinations.

Bottom line: more heads-up races. Cut it, name it, brand it any way you want, the end result is still the same. Sponsors, manufacturers and fans are all happier. Some racers will be disappointed.

Michael,
my responses are in bold text.

Tgriffith,
Your "wish what your asking for" statement is accurate. As I stated, under this idea I would only be .29 under with present conditions of my SS/H AMX. The problem I constantly see here on this forum is everybody wants what is best for themselves. If I could not make a show because of this, so be it. I'll work harder. Could be successful, could be a failure. But I firmly believe that if performance is not king in this class (S & SS), then it will die.
Note: these idea's are not just mine. They are an accumulation of many other's I am in contact with. They just don't want to get torn apart by the lions (or kitties, whichever they may be)!