Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

Any news on Altitude F.

C

C Tanksley

New Member
Dec 27, 2006
2,365
0
0
WALKER LA
With the first race at alt comming soon what is the word on indexs . Last year at Tucson a few cars were flying that noramly are not that fast . Looks like a good race to mess up a index that don`t need to get hit .
 
Last edited:
We need to lay off the factor changing. I have always been able to repeat my factor et at a sea level track. Is this all over setting records?
 
What happened to the proposal that was posted here? I'm sure most Comp racers responded to the e-mail from NHRA....Pat Hale pointed out that the change was not linear due to the math, as it applied to the size of the index number, but it was a step in the right direction....

Maybe the record setting issue is bogging it down....hardly worth considering as a pivotable reason to not make the change.
 
Change the altitude factors; leave the factors alone; whatever. I've given up on attempting to communicate with the NHRA on such topics. They'll do as they please regardless of how sportsman racers feel.

But, it is worth again pointing out that, when this site doesn't have real or imagined rule changes to debate it is as dead as a doorknob. So, keep these debates alive.
 
Last edited:
As unpopular as it may make me in some parts of the country, I will repeat my feelings that have been expressed on this forum time and time again.......

"DUMP THE FACTORING"...... you run what you run....... if you are a tenth or two slow because of altitude, so is everyone else...... get over it.......

If the problem is as Mike says, RECORDS, then you might have to bite the bullet and tow to a sea level track........

I might be swayed from this stance if there was a guarantee from NHRA that index hits at an adjusted race would NEVER be permanant........ and there could be NO records set.......

QUICK!!!!..... put the cover back on that can of worms........... LOL
 
"DUMP THE FACTORING"...... you run what you run....... if you are a tenth or two slow because of altitude, so is everyone else...... get over it.......

If the problem is as Mike says, RECORDS, then you might have to bite the bullet and tow to a sea level track........

I might be swayed from this stance if there was a guarantee from NHRA that index hits at an adjusted race would NEVER be permanent........ and there could be NO records set.......


Charlie, there is always a danger in making too much sense, people will not be able to disagree.....
 
Last edited:
Mike DePalma said:
We need to lay off the factor changing. I have always been able to repeat my factor et at a sea level track. Is this all over setting records?
Click to expand...

In 04 with your B/A you was 65 under at Denver and 67 under at Vegas . At the other races I saw you was 60 under and 55 under .
 
i have heard from a very good source that the factor changes are very CLOSEto being passed, and that they SHOULD be enforced by tuscon.
 
tom, all joking aside, we feel terrible about what happened. no one likes to see a wrecked car.
 
Mr. Tanksley

You forgot to calculate the .04 that was taken off the index when you checked your data? It was a 7.78 at Denver I went 7.11 in Pomona on a 7.74 or -.62 under. Correct the 7.61 at Denver back to sea level which is a 7.15. Do you want me to go back and see how many runs in the log book are better than 7.15? Nice try though.
 
Mario
Trying to decide which way to go to get back on the track. The old car was 320# to heavy so what ever way I go it will be at weight so we can run the number easier maybe I/D!!!
 
Mike DePalma said:
Mr. Tanksley

You forgot to calculate the .04 that was taken off the index when you checked your data? It was a 7.78 at Denver I went 7.11 in Pomona on a 7.74 or -.62 under. Correct the 7.61 at Denver back to sea level which is a 7.15. Do you want me to go back and see how many runs in the log book are better than 7.15? Nice try though.
Click to expand...

All I know is at vegas 67 under 2 weeks later 62 under . I will admit you are better than most tuneng for alt . Which is a good thing .
 
I have to agree with Mike on this one. I don't really see a difference between our sea level or factored et's. You can't take away the factor because that would play right into the hands of the faster cars. 50 under cars.... might as well stay home because the fast cars would not have to worry about stepping on their d---s!
 
this is an excerpt from a letter i had written a while back. please read it and let me know what you think. i wish i could get the spacing to work in the chart, but hey, i'm ignorant.

Pro Stock cars are arguably the most tested and consistent running naturally aspirated cars competing in N.H.R.A. competition. I would like to use the performance of Pro Stock to gauge how far off the factors for altitude tracks are, using Denver as an example.

Below is a chart consisting of the 16 fastest qualified Pro Stock cars from Denver, the 2 races before Denver, and the 2 races following Denver. The bottom line of the chart indicates how much the Pro Stock cars average time deviated from the times in Denver.

Denver Seattle Sonoma Norwalk E-town
Qual # 1 7.010 6.573 6.609 6.716 6.559
Qual # 2 7.021 6.583 6.618 6.726 6.600
Qual # 3 7.025 6.584 6.619 6.729 6.605
Qual # 4 7.031 6.591 6.620 6.732 6.607
Qual # 5 7.032 6.592 6.629 6.738 6.618
Qual # 6 7.032 6.596 6.636 6.739 6.620
Qual # 7 7.037 6.596 6.638 6.740 6.627
Qual # 8 7.040 6.603 6.643 6.743 6.627
Qual # 9 7.040 6.605 6.647 6.748 6.627
Qual # 10 7.043 6.606 6.652 6.753 6.628
Qual # 11 7.043 6.612 6.656 6.754 6.628
Qual # 12 7.044 6.612 6.661 6.760 6.634
Qual # 13 7.048 6.649 6.661 6.762 6.637
Qual # 14 7.058 6.654 6.668 6.764 6.655
Qual # 15 7.059 6.664 6.688 6.771 6.655
Qual # 16 7.063 6.725 6.692 6.773 6.669
Average. E.T. 7.039 6.615 6.646 6.747 6.625
difference 0.000 0.424 0.393 0.292 0.414

The average deviation from the 2 events prior, and following the Mile High Nationals in 2008 is .380 of a second. This is a far cry from the .51 of a second correction factor that a B/A (comp’s closest class to Pro Stock) receives at Denver.

Something needs to be done to correct the wrongs that a bogus factoring system imposes on racers running at factored tracks. It is not right or fair that racers must endure a system that corrects itself based on a flawed calculation to determine the performance loss that altitude causes on a naturally aspirated engine.
 
Last edited:
Mario,

7.01 x .9405 = 6.5929 the Pro Stocks run better at Seattle than Denver. Example, B/A is at 7.6 in Denver it would be 8.08. Morgan has the record at 6.96. 7.43 is .65 under in Denver. I don't see anyone going to Denver and throwing up some big number better than a low 40. But, I may be wrong. I would be suprised if they could run a 7.43.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back