When will NHRA announce rule changes?

Has anyone heard when?

 

Early October according to NHRA press release.

The NHRA Competition Committee has unanimously decided that the issue of parity in Top Alcohol Dragster must be addressed for the 2004 season. After reviewing data that has been gathered over the last several years on the differences between blown Alcohol Dragster and A/Fuel Dragster, a trend is apparent: The A/Fuel entries are becoming the dominant vehicle in the class.

NHRA believes it is important to continue to preserve the two types of racing applications for fans and competitors alike, while maintaining fair competition between these distinctly different racecar combinations

NHRA will not make any changes that will allow blown Alcohol Dragsters to run quicker or faster than they currently do. Rather, NHRA's intent is to develop a plan to bring the performance of A/Fuel Dragster more in line with that of the blown Alcohol Dragsters.

NHRA is evaluating a number of actions that could accomplish its objective, including additional weight changes, rear end gear-ratio changes, and limiting the percentage of nitro for A/Fuel racers.

NHRA plans to make a final announcement on the changes in early October.

 

>>FROM SPEEDZONEMAGAZINE.COM
----------------------------

Exclusive chat with Len Imbrogno:

Sept. 16, 2003 Top Alcohol Dragster will be on the forefront of discussions for the rest of 2003 and to start 2004, as the NHRA has announced there will be rule changes in their attempt to bring the A/Fuelers and the Blown Alcohol cars closer together in performance, as they feel the performance gap is getting too wide between the two types of cars. While I agree that there is close to a .10-.20 spread under moderate to ideal conditions, I personally don't think that slowing down the A/Fuelers is the right thing to do, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the A/Fuelers have been the ones that have undergone the last three or four rule changes. Secondly, Drag Racing is about going faster, and slowing down the injected cars is a little counterproductive in a go fast sport. Plus the changes proposed, primarily to the fuel percentage is an unknown. I think NHRA should allow the blown cars to run the "Gizmo" Blower (yes it is an added cost, but with the selling of the old blower, the cost would probably be $5,000 or so. I also think that clutch management should be allowed for the blown teams. Probably the cost of that deal is 5,000 - 7,000 by the time you sell the old clutch. I shudder to think the coast for the A/Fuel teams as they try to make their combination run under 90% if that is the decision made.

The score card as of this past weekend is 27 wins for BAD's and 21 wins for A/Fuelers, with 8 of those A/Fueler wins at National events which are optimally (is that a word?) prepared. BAD's have won only 4 National events. After a week of reading all the message boards and all the pros and cons and expert (from self appointed experts) opinions out there on the Internet highway, I got in contact with NHRA Sportsman boss Len Imbrogno today to get the NHRA's take on the TAD situation. To no surprise, he was general in most of his comments, but he did give me much insight into the NHRA decision to make the changes to the A/Fuelers. He is a person that appears genuinely concerned about the class and is not just a yes man, or someone that tells you what you want to hear so you go away. The class is a top priority for the NHRA right now!

Sz: Len, How did the NHRA come up with the decision to make the change to the A/Fuelers instead of the BAD's?

Len: it came down to a number of reasons, all of which combined to make this decision. #1. There is less cars in the A/Fuel class, therefore less cars to have to make a change.
#2. The changes that would be necessary for the BAD's to run numbers close to the A/F's would be a lot more costly than the changes we will probably mandate for the injected cars.
#3. Insurance issues with the divisional tracks in particular, and having cars run the speeds the A/Fueler's are now running are cause for a major concern. (SZ, my take is there would be changes made even if A/Fuelers were the only car in the class)
#4. Some of the A/fuel teams have talked about the speeds they are running at Marginal tracks. They were as concerned as the NHRA themselves. And the option to have the class only run at National events is out of the question for now.

Sz: What changes are you contemplating?

Len: There are a few different ones that we are looking at, and they include a gear ratio change, adding weight and fuel %. The most likely are gear change and/or weight. We know that weight is a change that has been used before with mixed results simply because the team continued to drop engine size. We don't think they will drop their size too much more. Gear ratio is a change that is that is out there already, as a couple teams are running a 320 gear (compared to the common 290) including a team that is an upper middle qualifier already. Fuel % is the one that has the biggest unknown, simply because the percentages we know that have been used so far have not been below the 95%.

Sz: How do you think the teams will respond to the change(s)?

Len: Good question that is why we can't go out and spend money to test with teams. For starters there is not any money to pay teams to test. Secondly, how do we know teams will be honest with their testing? To their defense, why would they?
They may not run well on purpose thus negating any changes we give to them. That is the plan is to give them enough notice on the changes so they have time to test themselves.

Sz: Are the changes going to be made and kept for, say, a year and then adjusted if necessary?

Len: No, The changes will be subject to adjustments depending on how things progress.

Sz: What do you say about the threats from either side? From the BAD's if you don't make a change, a bunch are going to leave the class? And by the A/Fueler's, if you make a rule change we are leaving the class.

Len: That is the toughest thing about the class. But the numbers still favor the BAD's, so the class would be hurt far more if they were to leave en masse. We know that an A/Fueler has more potential for increased performance than a BAD, so they are the car that can undergo changes and still find performance.
You have to remember (and this goes to all the cars in the class more than anything), that the NHRA as a sanctioning body has to do its best to have as level as a playing field as we can mandate, but we know we will never have total parity. We also can not make a rule that will cause one of the two cars to be extinct. Both types of cars are critical for the success of the class.

Sz: why not just give the BAD's the 'Gizmo' ("C" or whatver they call it)

Len: A couple reasons, firstly the overall cost factor is quite large, secondly, the PSI company has stated that they don't really want to build the "Gizmo". The number of blowers built would probably amount to around 60-75 and they are very busy developing and producing other products at this time. It is something that could not be done under current NHRA regulations (meaning widely available to all competitors as the same time) by the beginning of the year.

Sz: What do you think will be the reaction from the A/Fuel teams, and how are they reacting already?

Len: Of course, they are going to be unhappy to start and are unhappy right now knowing that have to look forward to changing their tune-ups, but they also know that the class as a whole, is more important than any single entity. We have been in contact with many of the top teams in the class throughout the year, and especially in the last month, so we are confident that the changes made will be made with the most expert information available to us, right from the racers themselves.

Sz: How important is it for the class to be completely the same in regards to parity?

Len: It is actually impossible for that to happen. To keep them close is very important, but one of the two will almost always have the advantage at given tracks under given conditions. The thing that is still lost particularly on the BAD's is that they round wins against each other is actually very close. I can tell you that based on last years data, as you are aware (I totally agree with the statistical data you have posted) parity did exist in actual competition. I'm not sure if you had this one or not, but, in the 141 times an A/F ran a BAD during the 2002 season, the A/F car won 68 times (48%) and the BAD won 73 times (52%). How could anyone ask for any better parity? I understand the frustration of a BAD car running its best number and an A/Fueler going out and still beating him by a tenth or more. But the number of times that has happened in the last two years, is not overwhelming, it is something that stands out though. Way more often the other way, a BAD runs an okay number, and the A/Fueler falls on its face due to dropped holes or smoking the tires. What do the BAD's want us to do, ignore the overall results and just look at the et's the two different cars run. That would be irresponsible. If we had a magic fix that automatically made either the BAD's .15 quicker all the time or the A/Fueler's .15 slower than they are right now all the time, the overall wins would be skewed way to the BAD's side. How fair is that?
The class is one the will be closely monitored now and in the future to try and keep it as close as we can. We will always have one side saying it is not right though. It's the nature of the beast. You can't keep everyone happy all the time.

Ed's Note: I certainly am glad I am not in the NHRA's shoes with regards to this matter, but I understand that something had to be done. I still believe that the changes should be made to the BAD's though. The insurance and marginal tracks that host divisional races make that option difficult though. What is the right solution? It will be debated to death, and still there will be two sides and no common ground. The only common ground that both sides should look to though is to try and work with the NHRA to have a class with diversity and relative parity. The Fans love it! To the teams out there, don't have tunnel vision on this, try and make it work.

------------------------------------

 

I would have to say, that "article" or whatever it is to be called, hit EVERY nail on the head, squarely. Len Imbrogno seems to have a strong grasp on the issues at hand. We all are never going to be pleased at all times. Hopefully we can all achieve some amount of satisfaction with whatever they decide to do, and I must also agree with Dean Murdoch that I'm glad I'm not in that hot seat! Good luck to all involved.