Chassis talk. Out of Top Stories post. (1 Viewer)

[Buzzz Miller]

The person that started this post is ill-informed about the current 10.1 E Funny Car chassis spec and has given out erroneous information.
Norm Porter

Wow! Really sorry there Norm. Sorry I was so un-informed. I do not have the current 10.1 e at the office with my computer. I only have the 10.1 d at the office, as the "e" is at the shop. I should have done my homework far prior to spewing forth all of this falsified information.
I guess I am totally mis-informed. I thought that I read in the SFI spec that tubing #16 was stated as "Lower frame rails 1 1/4 x .058" And 18B as "Rear diagonal . . . 7/8 x .049", 22A as "Forward side bay diagonal, double bay construction 1 x .049", 22B as "Forward side bay diagonal, single bay . . . 1 1/4 x .049", and 23 as "forward side bay X or K 7/8 x .058 or 1 x .049".

I guess I will need to repent, and go do some real research before I post again. My appologies to you Norm. Also I am so sorry for all of those that went out and acted on my poor undocumented and falsified information.

I also guess that Warren Johnson lied about the NHRAs plans for the future funny-car spec. Grant Downing must have met up with Warren and matched their stories together. Kevin Knowles too. (Why do I trust these people?!)
My car was going to have a 1 1/2" .065 wall tubing lower frame rail. I decided that over a year ago when purchasing the tubing. But according to them, that will not be sufficient. So I am in a panic, and I get to wait it out.

 

[Randy]

Wow! Really sorry there Norm. Sorry I was so un-informed. I do not have the current 10.1 e at the office with my computer. I only have the 10.1 d at the office, as the "e" is at the shop. I should have done my homework far prior to spewing forth all of this falsified information.
I guess I am totally mis-informed. I thought that I read in the SFI spec that tubing #16 was stated as "Lower frame rails 1 1/4 x .058" And 18B as "Rear diagonal . . . 7/8 x .049", 22A as "Forward side bay diagonal, double bay construction 1 x .049", 22B as "Forward side bay diagonal, single bay . . . 1 1/4 x .049", and 23 as "forward side bay X or K 7/8 x .058 or 1 x .049".

I guess I will need to repent, and go do some real research before I post again. My appologies to you Norm. Also I am so sorry for all of those that went out and acted on my poor undocumented and falsified information.

I also guess that Warren Johnson lied about the NHRAs plans for the future funny-car spec. Grant Downing must have met up with Warren and matched their stories together. Kevin Knowles too. (Why do I trust these people?!)
My car was going to have a 1 1/2" .065 wall tubing lower frame rail. I decided that over a year ago when purchasing the tubing. But according to them, that will not be sufficient. So I am in a panic, and I get to wait it out.

Apologies aren't good enough. You must take this woman out on a date tonight. And don't forget to shave. Velcro effect, you know.

 

[DrRocket]

Oof! Now THAT is scary!

 

[d'kid]

Scary Randy, think I've seen here at the bowling alley down at the beach...

d'kid

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

Randy, you were very hard to find in Pomona without your car there! We had shirts to give you (as shown above) but never met up with you although everyone in the alky pits kept saying "he was just here."

 

[Buzzz Miller]

For fear of that punishment, I will go to my shop, and memorize all of the changes from 10.1 d to 10.1 e, and make sure never to mispost again. That is a fate worse than death. Just what she would eat alone is more than I can afford.



(I am going to go and check anyway, becuase according to what I remember, these were not changed in the move to e.)

 

[Randy]

Randy, you were very hard to find in Pomona without your car there! We had shirts to give you (as shown above) but never met up with you although everyone in the alky pits kept saying "he was just here."

Bill Miller gave me one of his crew shirts Kevin made for him. I was too chicken to wear it at the track, though.

I'm not much of a spectator. I had a few meetings for our program next year and hung out with some of my pro team pals that I don't normally get to see.

Just to toot my own horn...Connie Kalitta sponsored the "Closest To The Pin" award on the 9th hole at the Eric Medlen Golf Tournament and I won it. It was just under 170 yards and I stuck it with a great draw from my 8 iron. I had Connie and John Medlen sign it. It looks cool hanging on the wall. And I did not have it heat treated.

RG

 

[Buzzz Miller]

Just how close was it to the pin?

And was the pin grade 8 or grade 5?

 

[Randy]

Just how close was it to the pin?

And was the pin grade 8 or grade 5?

It was only inches away, give or take 4 feet or so.

Actually, I think it was at least 4 feet away.

I was surprised no one came closer. I told the guy that gave me the award it was a lucky shank off the tee.

I'm sure the pin was normalized. Even a golf course superintendant knows better than to heat treat something as important as a pin.

RG

 

[Buzzz Miller]

I'm sure the pin was normalized. Even a golf course superintendant knows better than to heat treat something as important as a pin.

RG

I am going to giggle all the way home. That is some good stuff.

 

[ex-nsp]

Hey, original poster- I have no problem with your quote of the SFI FC spec, fact is tho, your ORIGINAL post stated .049 UPRIGHTS.

I went all the way back my original 10.1 spec- the one we used at race car productions when Jerry Campbell, Walt Meers and I built the winged Super Shops giveaway car and I see no .049" UPRIGHTS ever allowed in the driver's area -the area the spec is involved with. X's, diagonals, K members, yeah.

Please reread your own ORIGINAL post.

Don't turn this into HEDDER FLAMES.

If you need any advice on chassis construction techniques several posters here can get you ahold of me. Or they refer you to several other skilled buliders with 30 plus years experience.

 

[Keith Burgan]

Wow! Really sorry there Norm. Sorry I was so un-informed. I do not have the current 10.1 e at the office with my computer. I only have the 10.1 d at the office, as the "e" is at the shop. I should have done my homework far prior to spewing forth all of this falsified information.
I guess I am totally mis-informed. I thought that I read in the SFI spec that tubing #16 was stated as "Lower frame rails 1 1/4 x .058" And 18B as "Rear diagonal . . . 7/8 x .049", 22A as "Forward side bay diagonal, double bay construction 1 x .049", 22B as "Forward side bay diagonal, single bay . . . 1 1/4 x .049", and 23 as "forward side bay X or K 7/8 x .058 or 1 x .049".

I guess I will need to repent, and go do some real research before I post again. My appologies to you Norm. Also I am so sorry for all of those that went out and acted on my poor undocumented and falsified information.

I also guess that Warren Johnson lied about the NHRAs plans for the future funny-car spec. Grant Downing must have met up with Warren and matched their stories together. Kevin Knowles too. (Why do I trust these people?!)
My car was going to have a 1 1/2" .065 wall tubing lower frame rail. I decided that over a year ago when purchasing the tubing. But according to them, that will not be sufficient. So I am in a panic, and I get to wait it out.

Buzz,
you obviously do not have a clue as to who Norm is and on that basis alone you should get very quiet at this point and quite trying to be a smart arse.
I may have missed something but what does Warren Johnson have to do with this discusssion and who is Kevin Knowles? If you purchased the tubing a year ago and still have not begun constructing your chassis the odds are that the spec could have changed anyway.
As I noted earlier the new spec is unlikely to apply to anything but "big show" nitro burners. Is that what you are planning to build?

Roo

 

[Buzzz Miller]

Weeeell,
Next time I will just post the page and let the reader determine the angles of such, and what would be considered a "Forward side bay diagonal, double bay construction" and what would be an 'upright'. And if a "Motor plate upright" approved at .049 would be sufficient for approval in the 'Mr. first posters' slang, as he never stated anything about the drivers compartment when relating uprights. Looks like I awoke the sleeping Roo as well. So I am going to run off in the sunset with my new cyber date Rosie O'donnell. And when I end my life in my home built car, you can burn 997 white candles and chant your rendition of "We are the champions" in C flat major, to ensure your total victory over everything and everyone. And once again, I am sorry for offending all of the real racers there Roo.

 

[Keith Burgan]

Buzz,
in case you have not figured it out yet Norm builds some of the nicest race cars out there and has for some time so he knows of what he speaks. He may have misinterpreted some of you comments re the 10-1 spec so please forgive him for that.
As for the rest of my last post there was nothing derogatory in it, just some simple questions--why are you so offended? I am not omnipresent so fill me in on the WJ/ Kevin Knowles reference. Do you plan to run the "big show" and if so, good luck as I would not want to attempt it in this day and age and I have been there before. It can be done as my old Aussie mate Robert Schwab proved a Denver a couple of years ago but if some of the proposals for the new chassis spec come to fruition it will be a lot harder in the near future.

Roo

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

Roo and Norm,
Permit me, if I may, to answer some of the concerns as I see them. Since Buzzz is his shop working on the dyno for the day and won't be near a computer for hours, I'll jump in here. Buzzz quoted the spec correctly but the interpretation of uprights was misunderstood. Diagonals lie upright as I see them on our cars. As he stated, that is what he was referring to. From everything stated in the rules, he has yet to err regarding them although other's interpretation may lead one to believe such.
We spoke at length with WJ at Pomona and he brought up the subject of the chassis and elaborated his understanding of NHRA's proposed rule change. Apparently, he hears things outside of Pro Stock and understands their application. Who knew? It was actually quite impressive to hear him elaborate his take on the Funny Car chassis. I'd have to say he must know something.
Now, as for Kevin Knowles, he's a very good friend and an equally good chassis builder. He's not mainstream nor production level but he builds a very nice piece. His craftsmanship was running at Pomona for your info. He's no Keith Burgan nor Norm Porter but I'd trust my sons in his chassis in any class.
To answer your last question in your first post, we do NOT plan to run top fuel. We build our cars to Top Fuel spec however. Hal Canode build a couple cars for us already. We love them. We are a family race team that has never had a single sponsorship dollar but well over 500 passes later, we kinda like it that way. We build all our own engines, fabricate our own components, even lay up our own carbon fiber bodies & race boats.
Your reference to "obviously not having a clue as to who Norm is" was incorrect. NSP chassis have been around for three decades that we know of so your quote came across not only in a condescending tone but insinuating our ignorance incorrectly. This could explain how your post came across as derogatory. I suspect you would react the same way if I told you that you obviously didn't know who Steve Plueger was? By the way, we also put a couple hundred passes on one of Steve's cars. We're not Mr. Porter nor Roo Man but as a father, I'll be first to jump up and say that my sons know of what they speak before they do. When you meet them in person, I believe you will really take to them. Most do, and I seriously doubt you will talk down to them in person.

 

[TJ]

Bobby....I do not think you needed to prove yourself to Roo...Your family is very respected on a personal level..You are top shelf in my opinion and I respect most of your feedback but to stoop to that last post puzzled me as you are not the type that reacts like the way you worded your last sentence about the 'in-person' comment...Now when it comes to performance in running a f/c in CIFCA or whatever your win lights speak for everything in the racing community...
Keep up the good work...

 

[BlueStangGT]

Bobby....You are top shelf in my opinion and I respect most of your feedback but to stoop to that last post puzzled me as you are not the type that reacts like the way you worded your last sentence about the 'in-person' comment...

I guess I don't see what you're reading into this Terry. From my experience, I know that when I met the Millers "in-person" I found them to be very engaging and have come to enjoy their company a great deal. I believe that was Doc's intent here. You apparently interpreted it differently, surely you don't think it was intended as threatening.

 

[Keith Burgan]

Thanks Bobby for the background info, that is all that I was asking for. Buzz' comments re WJ and Kevin were obviously cryptic to me as I was not in on the conversation, nor was anyone else on this board for that matter. The fact that Buzz seemed to ignore Norm's initial post and then take issue with him got me wound up a bit and I probably overreacted a little but with Norm's record I felt that he deserved a little respect.
Regarding WJ's knowledge of things other than Pro Stock, I have always found him to be well up on pretty much everything that is going on.
On the subject of builders like Kevin (who I obviously had never heard of)there are quite a few of them out there and in lots of cases their stuff is way nicer than some of the much hyped builders. I won't name names but I have seen a lot of cars from well known builders that are more flash than substance, especially in the area of basic engineering and correct hardware application. I don't rate myself as a big time builder as we build each car to order and specifically to the customer's needs but we do try to do things right. We use all NAS bolts, not the grade 8 coarse thread hardware store stuff that I see on lots of cars (and hyped in their ads, as in "Grade 8 bolts used on assembly of car"). Just check the flyers or web sites of just about any major sportsman level car builder.
We are lucky to be here in Brownsburg with a large number of the fuel teams and that results in plenty of work for us but there is no magic--it is all basic engineering and fabrication principles- the drivers are just a little higher profile than your average sportsman shoe.

Roo

 

[Draw 3D]

4) Bracket altereds, match race alcohol, top alcohol, aafa, nostalgia, and top fuel are the same SFI spec. Chage the spec and no car on the planet can re-cert. Not one. Including the new one Scelzi has on the jig. Every car funny-car style car that wants to cert quicker than 7.50 seconds is dead. Nostalgia funnies are dead. CIFCA is dead. Northwest IHRA 7.50 class is dead. Altereds that run top dragster, top comp, Q/16 are dead. Top alcohol is dead. Fuel match races and AA/FA are dead. These framerails cannot be simply altered. We are talking new cars around the horn. We cannot afford that. Some of the fuel teams cannot afford that.

Just a point of clarification, SFI has different chassis requirements based on e.t..

My top dragster altered will hopefully get certified to SFI 10.2, 6.00 to 7.49 seconds.

CIFCA 7.50 could be SFI 10.3, 7.50 and slower.

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

Just a point of clarification, SFI has different chassis requirements based on e.t..

My top dragster altered will hopefully get certified to SFI 10.2, 6.00 to 7.49 seconds.

CIFCA 7.50 could be SFI 10.3, 7.50 and slower.

Welcome to the Mater Paul,
I believe you will enjoy being a part of such a diverse conglomeration of great people with great ideas. I appreciate your comments as well but for the record, I'm not aware of any CIFCA cars who certify 7.50 or slower since it is not at all uncommon for them to run right on the number and never want to be DQed or escorted off track for breaking out with an improperly certified chassis.

Terry, you misread my comments. I believe anyone who engages with any of my family will feel comfortable around them, find them completely respectful and consequently have no desire to speak condescendingly toward them. You have your right to read into my comments whatever you will, however.

Tom, thanks for your clarification.

In no way do I intend to speak disrespectfully to Keith or Norm for any reason but given their expertise and contributions, I will give added respect for their valued opinions.