AI?s answer to the AHFS

[4543]

Obviously AI is thinking way outside the box here and way beyond what?s realistic but a couple of the comments have merit. The review panel including NHRA, engine builders, etc. the max limit on HP in a year, the graduated HO penalties. I just did this for fun so don?t go ballistic over the answer! I wish NHRA would simply leave the -1.30 penalty in effect everywhere with a 5 HP penalty for every hit and dump the rest of the system.

DeepSeek V3
Fixing the NHRA Automatic Horsepower Factoring System (AHFS) requires addressing its core issues?fairness, predictability, and transparency?while maintaining competitive parity. Here?s a structured approach:

1. Improve Transparency & Consistency
Publish Clear Rules: Define exact parameters (e.g., weight breaks, RPM limits, performance thresholds) that trigger adjustments.
Real-Time Data Access: Allow teams to monitor their AHFS adjustments in real-time via NHRA?s databases.
Explain Adjustments: Provide detailed reports on why horsepower factors are altered (e.g., ?X engine combo gained 0.3% in ET, triggering a Y% HP increase?).
2. Refine the Performance Triggers
Use Multiple Data Points: Instead of relying solely on elapsed times (ET), incorporate:
60-foot times (traction efficiency)
Incremental splits (330ft, 660ft, 1000ft)
Trap speed (consistency vs. peak power)
Adjust for Conditions: Normalize data using weather station inputs (DA, humidity, track temp) to prevent unfair penalties due to optimal runs in rare conditions.
3. Implement Gradual, Predictable Adjustments
Smaller Incremental Changes: Instead of large HP swings (e.g., +15 HP overnight), use smaller, phased adjustments (e.g., +5 HP per race if dominance continues).
Cap Maximum Adjustments: Set a seasonal limit (e.g., no more than +20 HP total in a year).
4. Introduce a ?Grace Period? for New Combos
Allow 3-5 Races before factoring begins, letting teams develop setups without immediate penalties.
5. Establish an Independent Review Panel
Comprised of NHRA officials, engine builders, and racers to review contentious adjustments and suggest revisions.
6. Encourage Parity Without Stifling Innovation
Reward Rule Stability: Freeze HP factors for combos that stay within a tight performance window (e.g., ?0.05 ET over 10 runs).
Limit ?Gaming the System?: Penalize teams that intentionally sandbag (underperform in qualifying to avoid AHFS).
7. Improve Feedback Loop with Racers
Quarterly Meetings: Let teams voice concerns and propose tweaks.
Simulation Tools: Allow teams to model potential AHFS impacts before making setup changes.
8. Modernize Data Collection
Mandate Telemetry for Top Teams: Use onboard sensors to validate power curves and detect hidden advantages.
Conclusion
The AHFS should be predictable yet adaptable, ensuring competition stays close without discouraging participation. By making the system more transparent, data-driven, and incremental, NHRA can restore racer confidence while keeping the racing field balanced.

Would you like a deeper dive into any specific area (e.g., weather correction models, historical AHFS controversies)?

[Billy Nees]

[QUOTE=4543;714791]Obviously AI is thinking way outside the box here
I wish NHRA would simply leave the -1.30 penalty in effect everywhere with a 5 HP penalty

Leaving the -1.30 penalty with a 5 hp hit won't work at all but I'm pretty sure that depending on the program, AI would probably figure that out on it's own.

-1.30 and a 5 hp hit has a far different affect on a 500 hp Hemi than it does on a 100 hp Pinto.

[KRatcliff]

[QUOTE=Billy Nees;714795]

Originally Posted by 4543

Obviously AI is thinking way outside the box here
I wish NHRA would simply leave the -1.30 penalty in effect everywhere with a 5 HP penalty

Leaving the -1.30 penalty with a 5 hp hit won't work at all but I'm pretty sure that depending on the program, AI would probably figure that out on it's own.

-1.30 and a 5 hp hit has a far different affect on a 500 hp Hemi than it does on a 100 hp Pinto.

Just change the "hp" to "%" and you would be pretty much where it is today at a 5.25% change. I know it is in context of doing smaller changes, but I am not understanding how it accomplishes anything if they are going to keep an AHFS system in place.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by 4543

2. Refine the Performance Triggers
Use Multiple Data Points: Instead of relying solely on elapsed times (ET), incorporate:
60-foot times (traction efficiency)
Incremental splits (330ft, 660ft, 1000ft)
Trap speed (consistency vs. peak power)

Great idea.



Stan

[L.Fite]

AI...
The Great Regurgitator...
GIGO...

[4543]

I don?t think the incremental times will ever be valid in a dial in type race where people are concerned about breaking out. I think the point about taking weather conditions into account is valid. The 5.25 penalty is too severe unless your goal is to take a car capable of winning class and taking it out of contention.

[Mike Pearson]

I think they should bring back ?mineshaft? again. That seemed to be a good thing when it was in place. Also I like the idea of the incremental hits on HP instead of a huge hit that kills a combo. If you run 1.30 under or quicker it should be automatic tear down. I agree with Perone that if you can run 1.30 under in bad air you need an Adjustment. There has to be some sort of system in place to control the parity. It doesn?t effect me unless someone that runs my combo gets a HP hit. My engine combo is already carrying a pretty good penalty. Unfortunately you can?t get reductions any more once the combo has been hit.