ATTN Sportsman Council Members and Racers

[stefan callender]

Lynn, I want to know, If someone has a combination that can go 1.30 under, but other competitors with the same combination can only go 1.00-1.15 under, does that mean it needs 40 hp?? Oe one guy has a really good motor, and the others need to get to work??

[Chad Rhodes]

Originally Posted by stefan callender

Lynn, I want to know, If someone has a combination that can go 1.30 under, but other competitors with the same combination can only go 1.00-1.15 under, does that mean it needs 40 hp?? Oe one guy has a really good motor, and the others need to get to work??

or one guy needs a trip to the barn

[Lynn A McCarty]

Originally Posted by stefan callender

Lynn, I want to know, If someone has a combination that can go 1.30 under, but other competitors with the same combination can only go 1.00-1.15 under, does that mean it needs 40 hp?? Oe one guy has a really good motor, and the others need to get to work??

This can all be born out of the proper statistics. There is more than one reason a combo can go way under the target maximum. Lets point a few out:

1.) Has knowledge of engineering or other technological knowledge others do not have.
2.) Individual spends much time hitting all the tune up sweet spots
3.) Individual spends tons of money to get it right.
4.) cheats
5.) has bogus parts legal or not legal
6.) Has knowledge of engineering or other technological knowledge others do not have.
7.) Has been doing it for a long time and found all the sweet spots.
8.) Got very lucky and hit sweet spots through no prowess of his own.
9.) Run was extremely good air conditions
10.) Has a very bogus HP rating

Many of these might be very hard to calculate statistically. Many items are not even necessary. I submit that the easiest one to determine is number 10.

Every recorded event has random variability, some we can determine, some not. For example if GM builds 100 250 6 cylinder Camaros, not one Camaro is going to run exactly the same to a hundreth of a second in 1/4 mile. The variability will fall into an average with most being in the middle and trail off some faster and some slower than the average. The farther you get from the average the least populated the events occur. This can be plotted into a bell curve.

Now take a 100 GM built 427 Camaros. Those will follow another curve very similar to the 6 cylinder Camaro, only must faster in ET as a total average. There will be the same number of individuals that go faster than the average and as slower for multiple reasons. The curves will look very similar statistically only the curve is shifted as a total to a much faster ET average.

However, the undeniable statistic is that the average of the one is much faster than the statistical average of the other.

Certain individuals within a group will always do better than others. Some of these things we can control, some we cannot. That is spelled out in the random occurrences of events.

However, when one engine averages 1.15 under, and another engine averages 8 under, that is the simplest of things to figure out statistically. We call it the difference between a common cause and a special cause.

So, to answer your question, all engines will have people who are better than others, spend more money, get lucky, spend more time, have more talent or determination. This is all part of the game. What is inexcusable is the known total average of one engine predictably way ahead of the average of another to be allowed a built in statistical advantage. AHFS perpetuates this and maintains it by design.

In statistics we call it assigning common cause as special cause status. When you do this, you are domed for failure in your analysis. I can explain this further if anyone wishes.

[55 Chevy]

Bruce
So then we set the national trigger at -1.6 or even better get rid of both of them. What are the problems with doing that?
If we drop the indexes by .2 the top guys before long(maybe almost immediately) will be pushing the bubble yet again & we are back in the same boat as we are today.
We need to encourage new racers into Stock/Super Stock & dropping the indexes is not the way to do that.

[Mike Meier]

I agree with the Canadian guy in the '55 Chevy. By the way, I spent my Sunday finding a tenth and a half in my car, thats why I took so long to reply...lol.

[Bruce Noland]

55 Chevy,
There has been no official word on this subject. However, if the indexes are reduced, the fast racers will finally have a fair power barrier to work with. Entry level racers can find good -1.00 cars for less than $18,000.00 if they do their home work. And finally, nhra isn't going to dump the triggers.

[fredjohnston]

NHRA and the competitors need some way of triggering a horsepower review. There are combos that are not properly factored and until something happens to bring these in line where their rating should be, you can spend all the money in the Federal Reserve and never out run or even run with them.

[Tony Janes]

The great myth Stock and Super Stock is Performance based eliminator. Thirty five years ago or so it was, when you had to win class to get into the eliminator.Now you can enter and run the eliminator as long as the car meets the rules of stock and superstock. It does not matter whether the car run 1.60 under or the index, the exception is Indy. True you qualify by performance but that is about it for the performance end. Now the subject of class. Eight times a year class in run for super stock and stock plus Sportnationals. This is a sideshow and should not effect policy for the eliminator. Now we have a small group, 4 to 7% in stock a little less in super stock who want to trade two tenths of the indexes for the ability to run 1.499 under. I do not think this should happen.

[gofastorgohome]

Originally Posted by Tony Janes

. Now we have a small group, 4 to 7% in stock a little less in super stock who want to trade two tenths of the indexes for the ability to run 1.499 under. I do not think this should happen.

Please explain how you arrived at these numbers.

Thanks.

[Ron Ortiz]

Bruce Noland and all other interested parties, if it could happen, would you be in favor of getting rid of the trigger for a year, instead of this dropping the indexes, or would you be in favor of the current system?

Ron Ortiz
U/SA