I need to apologize!!

[bubski]

Originally Posted by Tim Barrett

I thought I knew the 2023 AHFS rules that are in effect for 2023 Stock, Super Stock season. I thought that any fast runs could be,,FIXED,,through the season by runs .650 to .850 under. I was TOTALLY wrong and at the Divisional at No Problem Dragway in February in the final for G/SA class I went
1.127 under for the win.
In the new AHFS rule #7 states,, if the engine combination reviewed is deemed to be over the .850 max,,then the fasted run under through out the year will be used to calculate how much horsepower increase will be made,,even though we had minimal 0-20 oil,iced intake and chilled the engine.
There is NO correcting our fasted run.
I apologize for not reading the rules correctly,but now after the damage has been done,,there's no correcting.
Our combination is the 69 Camaro 350 255 280hp. We've had our butts kicked so many times over the past many years and now we finally worked on our combo,spent lots of money only to maybe screw up our combination. This used to be fun.
I can except any comments.

OMG !! This is the most ridiculous post of the decade !! Sooo!! Bubski's thinking !! Now you've gone beyond the valve job rule that doesn't exist anymore !! ?? Bubski is for sure that no matter what you do with the valve job will not replace the BURR grinder !! Remember no grinding ?? Probably also got the "stocker pistons" with the altered ring lands for the $$$$$$ you spent and the 6# lighter cast iron intake !! Just to name a few !! All these years of racing a limited platform and now this quantum leap in performance ?? Just ask yourself if what you did was legal !! And accept the consequences either way !! Im sure a big capital investment of circumventing the rules is justification enough for doing whatever you want !! CHEERS !!

[Tim Barrett]

bubski thanks for the compliments!! Know take a deep breath and loosen your undies. It will get better for you,,I even think there's meds for you and another New Yorker. I see you are highly educated and I'm no match for a intelligent person like you and another New Yorker. Lol,,,CHEERS!!!

[Dan Fletcher]

Whats done is done. Not throwing rocks, we just need to be smart when possible given the cards we're dealt. Its really pretty simple, run fast when its dictated, but run 70 to 80 under when circumstances allow. I'll help with extrapolating your runs if you want, and I'm not not being a wise *** when I say that.

If one gets a first round single, put a 75 under run in the data base not a non-counting 58.

If one red lights second round don't hold it wide open and go 90 under.

With that said, its a free country and its your car.

[Paradigm Shift]

Rather than cloak, please explain why accurately factoring a vehicle based on true performance capability isn't appropriate and not the best course of action?

The sanctioning body doesn't give a rodentias patoot with regard to who sets the standard for performance in any given class or what that standard may be. Fellow competitors face the impact of this masking and ultimate inaccuracy.

Sounds as though the prudent endeavor is to eliminate the attempt at correction and the system designed and implemented to do so.

The sanctioning body will have no qualm or trepidation if the competitors choose in this manner.

Accuracy and accountability are demanded with regard to inspection but disregarded as it relates to actual performance.


From this point, let them fly.





Bubski may be the salient one in these discussions.

[Doug Hoven]

It seems like a lot of the problems we've seen in stock as far as rule bending really became amplified when the majority of racers decided to just go out and "buy horsepower" from select engine builder. Most not even batting an eye on how that extra horsepower was made. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a game of who can hide their "enhancements" the best. What seems to be true for most combos, is that if you build an engine exactly as the rulebook states, you aren't going to be anywhere close to those that spent the money to have a really fast bullet built. While it's easy to blame the NHRA for everything, I can't help but think us racers share a deal of fault for allowing stock to get to this point. It seems like NHRA has made up their mind as far as policing these enhancements, so as far as I'm concerned, building an engine to uphold the "integrity" of stock eliminator, is sort of a waste of time if you really want to have a chance in a heads up situation. I've yet to see a trophy for "most stock" car. Personally, I like to stick with the "built, not bought" program, but if I wasn't a broke college student, maybe that'd be different.

[Paradigm Shift]

"Rule bending" is a euphemism.

"Hide their enhancements"... from whom?

The sanctioning body hasn't made up its mind on anything. The act or react to what is requested of them.

At the administrative level, there is no concern whether vehicles in a specific class perform at the 9.50 or 11.50 level provided the mandated safety equipment is in place.

These individual performance standards are exclusively germinated at the competitor level.

The sanctioning body shoulders no blame. The racers are solely responsible for the subterfuge that corrupts this category.

The lack of rectitude has no impact on the group sanctioning the events.

The people directly affected by shunned veracity are those that help you push when you need it or pitch in when you require assistance or back out of the beam to wait while you deal with issues.

[Paul Wong]

Originally Posted by Doug Hoven

It seems like a lot of the problems we've seen in stock as far as rule bending really became amplified when the majority of racers decided to just go out and "buy horsepower" from select engine builder. Most not even batting an eye on how that extra horsepower was made. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a game of who can hide their "enhancements" the best. What seems to be true for most combos, is that if you build an engine exactly as the rulebook states, you aren't going to be anywhere close to those that spent the money to have a really fast bullet built. While it's easy to blame the NHRA for everything, I can't help but think us racers share a deal of fault for allowing stock to get to this point. It seems like NHRA has made up their mind as far as policing these enhancements, so as far as I'm concerned, building an engine to uphold the "integrity" of stock eliminator, is sort of a waste of time if you really want to have a chance in a heads up situation. I've yet to see a trophy for "most stock" car. Personally, I like to stick with the "built, not bought" program, but if I wasn't a broke college student, maybe that'd be different.

This absolutely nothing new. This has been going on since the beginning. The cost of admission may have gone up 10-20k on enhancing but people have pushed the rules since the start of all this. There have always been a large portion pushing it hard. I even sold a car 20 years ago because the engines were going north of 20K. Little did I know that was going to be industry standard for good parts......not just enhanced parts, good parts.

There was never a system in place until the AHFS. Like it or not, it took the arbitrary "you went fast the last two races and your combo is in National Dragster getting 5 - 15 hp in the next issue. What we are really missing is people looking at cars. I may be one to ask for it but when i can practically order lunch for who is tearing down next to me in the barn at Indy, we are not checking randomly.

It was clear to me from the get go that .70 under runs are gold and you need as many of them under your belt as you can get.