Taking the Complicated out of our Index Numbers

[Andrew Holt]

TWO RELATIVELY EASY AND COSMETIC CHANGES I PROPOSE:
ONE:
When I try to explain Comp to even other NHRA class racers.. they always glaze over when I try to explain our "go more than .51 under your index... blah blah blah".
It would make ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE to the current racing, but I would propose we change the indexes and CIC hits to make it easier for everyone to understand.
Subtract .5 sec from everyone's index AND make the CIC anything faster than your index.
My example:

OLD: Andrew Holt I/D Index 7.17 --> At 6.67 (.50 under) Im clean. At 6.66 (.51 under) I take .01 CIC.
NEW: Andrew Holt I/D Index 6.67 --> At 6.67 (Even with Index) Im clean. At 6.66 (.01 under) I take .01 CIC.

PRO: Much easier math. Much easier to explain. Much easier to announce. Much easier for anyone who doesn't race Comp to understand what the hell we are talking about.
CON: Nhra has to adjust index. Comp racers have come to a consensus to change something cosmetic that has been the same for a long time.
TWO:
After the above change, have the scoreboard read the ET ran, and the amount under ran on the scoreboard. From my perspective, MPH is a number that is irrelevant in Comp eliminations.

With these two changes, anyone could watch a race from the stands, and quickly get explained what is going on... who won a race.. and more importantly why (was someone dead late...).. and what are the ramifications (did he/she blast his index..etc). I think taking the unnecessary complicated part of Comp out of Comp is one small piece of the puzzle to get fans/other racers more interested in it.

If there is enough people who either think its a good idea, or at the very least don't care one way or the other (It wont change anything about the on track racing... Its a zero sum change)... I would propose this to my D3 rep to have it debated as a change.

 

[Joey arrowsmith]

Under this system would there be a time/point where permanent index adjustments would happen?

 

[Andrew Holt]

This isn't remotely a system change. Just how we do our numbers.
Just trying to make it easier to understand. Every time a friend visits us at a race...their eyes glaze over when I try to explain how our index system works.
Take 0.5sec off....and you can say:
Run faster than your index you take temporarily adjustments. Go a tenth faster you take permanent adjustments.
Simple.
If the amount under is on the board...they don't need the updated ladder and a calculator to figure out how a race went down.

 

[Joey arrowsmith]

This isn't remotely a system change. Just how we do our numbers.
Just trying to make it easier to understand. Every time a friend visits us at a race...their eyes glaze over when I try to explain how our index system works.
Take 0.5sec off....and you can say:
Run faster than your index you take temporarily adjustments. Go a tenth faster you take permanent adjustments.
Simple.
If the amount under is on the board...they don't need the updated ladder and a calculator to figure out how a race went down.

I like it

 

[RIchard Brinlee]

I like it

Me too! Great idea!!!

 

[Andy Moeck]

Me too! Great idea!!!

Great idea.

 

[Allen Wilson III]

I like it!

 

[Jeff Childs]

I think another casual fan friendly aspect of this is that it's a half second quicker showing up on the board. I think it's gonna look a lot cooler seeing 6.67 on the board vs a 7.17!

 

[Andrew Holt]

I think another casual fan friendly aspect of this is that it's a half second quicker showing up on the board. I think it's gonna look a lot cooler seeing 6.67 on the board vs a 7.17!

I agree. Plus... the index makes sense when a fan looks at it... meaning.. a car with a 6.67 index should go around 6.67-ish. If you're used to dial-in type racing.. where the dial-in is exactly how fast it should go.. this makes sense also.

Really this change is similar to NHRA making the reaction time 0.000 instead of 0.400.

After thinking about it.. another downside is that you will have cars that are -0.100 under an index.. and +0.100 over an index... so the under/over will be used more. Might take alittle getting used to. I think the PROs outweight the CONs.. IMO.

 

[Alayton11]

Don't take the MPH off the scoreboard. I need to see how far you ran from the lanes .

 

[Craig Bourgeois]

The software won’t have any part of it. Who’s going to pay to rewrite it?

 

[Andrew Holt]

Good question but I think it's worth figuring out a cost / how to implement and figure it out. My first thought is NHRA, since we race at NHRA organized events with their rule structures. Seems like an organizational body kind of responsibility, and something they could budget for. If NHRA balks at the cost, and Comp racers really want it, maybe Comp racers and NHRA split it... I would pitch in money to aid. Again, flying blind on the costs, but there are enough of us racing that could pitch in a few dollars to get some lines of code changed.

Taking my helmet off and thinking about it as a fan...big picture...growing the sport includes people being pumped up about it... racers AND fans in the stands. Fans in stands sometimes end up being the next person wanting to get involved. I'd like to avoid a fan in stands not enjoying the racing because it is confusing to understand. A few lines of code changed, and the casual fan may have a different experience. Making the sport easier to understand where we can, along with all the other promotions and purses going on... lots of positive mojo for Comp.

 

[Lonnie Kuenzli]

I think the shear coolness of the machinery gets completely lost due to the complicated math when it comes to the average fan. Find a way to address that and there will be more butts in the stands when Comp runs.

Lonnie Kuenzli