Parity revisited....it's time to factor.

After witnessing a barrage of some of the quickest A/Fuel runs in the history of the class, it's safe to say we got some 'data' in the form of Bill Reichert's 5.18 and 5.21, Gunderson's 5.20, Ashley's 5.29, Meyer's 5.29, Gallant's 5.30 on and on, that 98% didn't create a level playing field in the class in good air. What will happen when it gets hot? Anyone's guess is good.

Taking an educated guess, I'd be willing to say most of the A/Fuelers are going to have some growing pains as it gets hotter trying to figure out running at whatever the percentage may be when they get to that point in the season. Let's take a look at what may be happening.

Rewind about 5-10 years ago when the A/Fuelers really started coming on strong. The better the air, the more of a science fiction number you would expect out of the A/Fuelers. As A/Fuel technology progressed, they became less dependent on the good air conditions, and started running big numbers in 'decent' air. It kept progressing to what you have seen in the past two seasons where guys like Randy Meyer can run 5.21 in Seattle (Bradshaw driving) when the fuel cars can't even make it down the track, and then runs a 5.29 in Scribner. At the same time, when the air got really, really good, you just didn't see as many super numbers out of the A/Fuelers. Every now and then one would step up and put a big number up, but rather than run the kill the world et in good air, they would just run bracket like 5.20's and .30's.

What I'm getting at is over the past few years, when the air got like what we've seen at Gainesville this year, they made so much power at 100%, they really had to back them down to make it down the track. Apparently in good air, it's knocked some of the edge off to where it's more manageable.

Many of the top teams that ran the big numbers in Gainesville didn't change much from last year's tune-up to this year. So the argument it takes a completely different tuneup for the 98 deal is a moot point.

It's really hard to predict what will happen when it gets hot. Some of the very people that said earlier this year you won't see teens and low twenties again ripped them off this past weekend. So keep that in mind when considering the argument that these cars will flat out not run when it gets hot.

If NHRA really wants to reach true equality in the class, they need to factor the nitro percentage based on the altitude of the track. Temperature is too much of an unpredicable variable to base a factor off of.

Despite not having experience factoring tracks with nitro cars, they do have quite a bit of experience with other classes, not to mention data to look at from the A/Fuelers over the past few seasons at different tracks.

With this in mind, the sea level tracks need to be somewhere closer to 97% to 97.3% Then a gradual scale up on nitro as track elevation increases.

The only problem that may rise with factoring strictly off elevation is it appears that the A/Fuelers are more sensitive to ambient temperature than altitude. If there is enough data, a correction factor may be able to be attained by a five year average of corrected altitude.

I think at the present, the most realistic way to factor the tracks is altitude.

Why change? Why not just leave it alone. Three reasons are 5.18, 5.20 and 5.21. The technology just isn't there for a blown car to run that fast. Not to discredit Ken Perry or Guy Kelly, but 5.350 wasn't the threshold of performance in the conditions. Without hard run data, what 'coulda been' run is nothing more than pure speculation. It's safe to say 5.18 wasn't gonna happen if you ran Santos on his best day off a cliff, despite what some of the armchair crew chiefs out there think.

If you change to a static percent, hit the A/Fuel cars now, they may be hurt pretty bad in the hot months. So then what happens is the good weather races become all A/Fuel races and the summer months become all blown cars. Our car counts have been on the rise the past few years, we don't need a decline.

I think altitude factoring may be a popular move on both sides. It also sends a signal to BOTH sides that NHRA is being proactive at trying to maintain parity on both sides. If it's tilted in one way or the other, make it right.

The season started off kind of like getting back together with that old girlfriend. You really want it to work, and at first you have a good feeling about it, then quickly it goes to hell again. If NHRA doesn't come up with something proactive, we'll have a long season of talking parity again on here.

Let's factor the tracks, and if it isn't perfect this year, correct it for next year. I think the majority of the class would rather take one year to try to keep it equal than be stuck with a system that may cause extreme swings in parity from one combination to the next. -WH

 

bob,

what if reichert, gunderson and gallant were out in pomona? not to take anything away from darien & meadows but they don't usually set the a/fuel pace. they're always right there, and they go rounds because they're probably the most consistent team out there. i don't remember the corrected alt's in pomona on saturday evening, but i do remember i bummed a sweatshirt off doug gordon. i think you would have seen a 5.20 out of one of those a/fuelers.

was reichert's 5.18 as bad ass as it was, the perfect a/fuel run? if you say yes, that's even more of an accomplishment since that was his third pass on 98%. keep that in mind when comparing to what if super blown car was there to make the perfect run.

the problem with both of our arguments is the what if's. i have stated since last year that there are too many variables with both combinations for one rule change to maintain parity throughout the year. i think gainesville reiterates my point.

as far as slowing the blower cars down some when it heats up, i'd support it to an extent. i think the more popular move among both ranks is to simply give the nitro cars more percentage at the altitude tracks. i don't think too many a/fuelers would complain, and if you start taking od away from the blown cars, we know all too well from tafc what happens when you do that: more rpm's. then you have denver...yeah, its hard as hell for an a/fueler to compete there. but if you make that race 92 od for the blown cars, then that race becomes such an odd ball combination as it is, you throw that in, and nobody would mess with it. maybe they should 'wild card' that race to compensate for the fact a/fuelers can't compete.

as far as being too early in the year to cry parity, well, if this summer is going to be as bad as many a/fuel guys say, if nhra factors some of these races with more nitro, then the a/fuelers win.

many people label me as a 'blown whiner'. i like blown cars, i like a/fuel cars. i really like tad. i really do want to see both combo's succeed. i think the factoring system may bring us back together.

i have a dream that blown racers and a/fuel racers can walk side by side....

 

quick poll: how many a/fuel racers would trade a percent now for one back in the summer. race on 97 now to get 99 in the summer?

as far as factoring goes here's an even simpler system:

jan 1- may 15: 97%
may 15-sep 15: 99%
sep 15-dec 31: 97%