Ideas for safer, more efficient fuel cars (2 Viewers)

[Nitrohaulic]

Rod and piston racks with seals around them that go through the wrist pins?

 

[Mooseman]

if they go down the low compression ratio route they will have to set a maximum compression ratio rule because not all teams are running the setback blower so some teams are still running 4 different ratios in the engines .

 

[clwill]

... They interviewed people involved in the sport and they all said that the people in charge were never competitors and are just business people.

One of the people in charge of the horse racing world was Michael Brown -- of FEMA/Katrina fame ("heck of a job, Brownie").

 

[Nitrohelper]

One mag and 8 spark plugs would solve most of the problem. Without the ignition to burn the extra fuel they would have to decrease fuel volume which would decrease horsepower.

This is where to start, no tech members to measure things (and get it wrong), also less parts to use, and/or go bad.
Plus they will have spare parts already purchased.
Also move the maximum blower speed back to 39% over , easy to tech.
Then they could run 100%, (no tech needed) that adds tuning ability plus the sound!

 

[hellfirejim]

Simple equation: Fuel = Power Not a difficult concept. If there was a spec fuel pump that everyone had to use it would be easy to slow down the cars. It was posted that less fuel would be a bad thing and destroy motors.

Looking at it the other way as these current motors were developed, we had smaller fuel pumps which meant the we couldn't run higher compression and we couldn't run the boost that they run now. Simply not enough fuel to keep these motors cool. The result was we tuned the motors to the volume of fuel that we had and they stayed together a lot better than now.

Using less fuel means slower cars... Also besides nozzles and jets there would not be anymore expense. All the motor parts would still be ok and pistons are replaced after a run anyway.

Less fuel would result in lower compression and slower blowers accomplishing what people want and would be easy to tech. I have run a Nitro motor with less pump and 8 plugs and usng todays equipment these motors start becoming very strong. If you use parts designed for 7000+hp and only run them at 5000 they will last longer.

 

[Muddy]

8 plugs, one mag and a smaller blower are all visible changes. No tech questions and no protests. These 3 changes will force smaller fuel pumps etc. At that point who cares what the percentage or compression is because the power will be limited by the ability to ignite and burn the fuel. They didn't start running the dual high volume pumps until they added a second mag and 8 more plugs. Its simple but it will requires the crew chief change their tune up and to adjust to the changes. One of the things everyone seems to be concerned about is the need to aquire new or different parts. These guys aquire new part all the time. They would just have to get different new part the next time.

 

[Nitrohelper]

.........If there was a spec fuel pump that everyone had to use ....... It was posted that less fuel would be a bad thing and destroy motors.

With a spec pump your back to tech problems, and variables in equipment. Look at the VRA dragsters , they are hurting pistons & bearings.
I ran fuel cars with one pump (~ 18 gals) in the '80s before Waterman developed the "big red" vane pump that was around 26 gallons.
All our piston problems went away instantly with that pump. Of course as as Nitro burners then will do, things got stepped up ,
mostly better blowers and heads. And then we need more pump. (this cycle repeats thru the 90's)
We had the pump pressure drop problem at the "step" . Two small pumps will spool up faster than one large one.
So that's why we went to dual pumps , not for more volume. This is why they run multi- chamber pumps today.
People that call for one pump on current big show cars haven't run one, or like to kill ring lands.

The less tech inspection that is needed is then fewer inspectors ,and their MooPoo from the sanctioning bodies.
We need air, fuel, and spark to make these aluminum killers run. Control the air & spark only,
let the tuners vary the fuel volume and percentage to their own combination.

KILL THE REV - LIMITERS.........FREE THE NITRO

 

[clwill]

Instead of a spec pump, how about just a limit on the diameter of the fuel line? Easy to check, hard to cheat, no parts to change...

 

[Toejam]

One of the people in charge of the horse racing world was Michael Brown -- of FEMA/Katrina fame ("heck of a job, Brownie").

What does Michael Brown have to do with NHRA?

 

[clwill]

What does Michael Brown have to do with NHRA?

The original poster brought it up... (see his post http://www.nitromater.com/nhra/17298-ideas-safer-more-efficient-fuel-cars-2.html#post166733)

 

[Nitrohelper]

.......... just a limit on the diameter of the fuel line? ........

The fluid dynamics of any pump design says to never restrict the inlet for less than the amount of volume that the pump is designed to move.
That causes random cavitation, that kills the pistons, and/or blows the blower off. (pumps can also gall )
It's good to have 30% more inlet volume available.
When we started to go to larger pumps on the dragsters they had feed problems with the long fuel line from the tank on the front axle.
Now they use an oversize line that uses the G-forces to help push the fuel into the pumps.
F/C's didn't have as big a cavitation problem when the pump size grew ,because of the tall tank & short line.
They didn't have the spiral core flow problems either.

Please repeat after me, " Reduce the Air & Spark" , , , "Free the Nitro "

 

[Toejam]

I'm still shaking my head here! Everybody has taken this bait that if we just slow the cars down, everything's going to be honky dori! I'm the only one here who's even brought up shut down and Sand trap requirements, Like FINDING OUT WHY CHUTES AREN'T OPENING! Imagine how much safer this sport would be if Chutes came out. Yet on and on all we ever here is these cars are TOO fast, the Shutdowns are too short! What a waste of time!

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Joe the topic is "safer, more efficient fuel cars". One way to improve safety IS to slow them down. Now I do agree the stopping of these cars needs to be looked at, as does the shutdown areas. (length + methods).

I think all ideas need to be heard.

 

[clwill]

The fluid dynamics of any pump design says to never restrict the inlet for less than the amount of volume that the pump is designed to move.
That causes random cavitation, that kills the pistons, and/or blows the blower off. (pumps can also gall )
It's good to have 30% more inlet volume available.
When we started to go to larger pumps on the dragsters they had feed problems with the long fuel line from the tank on the front axle.
Now they use an oversize line that uses the G-forces to help push the fuel into the pumps.
F/C's didn't have as big a cavitation problem when the pump size grew ,because of the tall tank & short line.
They didn't have the spiral core flow problems either.

Not into the pump, the line out of the pump...

 

[Muddy]

I'm still shaking my head here! Everybody has taken this bait that if we just slow the cars down, everything's going to be honky dori! I'm the only one here who's even brought up shut down and Sand trap requirements, Like FINDING OUT WHY CHUTES AREN'T OPENING! Imagine how much safer this sport would be if Chutes came out. Yet on and on all we ever here is these cars are TOO fast, the Shutdowns are too short! What a waste of time!

What do you propose for about half of the current tracks that don't have the room for expansions of the shut down area. We all know that nobody wants to eliminate Pomona for example

It starts with things that can be done somewhat quickly. Slowing the cars down, making them safer (opening the chutes etc.) and fixing the sand traps.

I don't think anyone thinks there is just one solution. It's going to require many changes to get where we need to be. Change takes time especially when it calls for massive amounts of money to purchase additional land or cancel races at tracks who have current contracts and commitments.

 

[Toejam]

What do you propose for about half of the current tracks that don't have the room for expansions of the shut down area. We all know that nobody wants to eliminate Pomona for example

It starts with things that can be done some what quickly. Slowing the cars down, making them safer (opening the chutes etc.) and fixing the sand traps.

I don't think anyone thinks there is just one solution. It's going to require many changes to get where we need to be. Change takes time especially when it calls for massive amounts of money to purchase additional land or cancel races at tracks who have current contracts and commitments.

John alls I've seen on this thread is Motor changes, Cube changes, Fuel Pump changes! Fact of the matter is Scott would be alive if he had just one chute blossum! Yet I have only heard one driver or crewchief (Del Worsham) address the chute problem as the culprit. I think fixing the Chute failures we've seen lately would be a far cheaper resolution in all of this.

Does anyone wonder why NHRA got away from Catch nets?? They worked plenty well 20 years ago....

 

[Muddy]

I'll say it again..there's no one solution for this problem. It won't matter what they do if they continue to lose the motor in the last 400 feet.

Catch nets may be part of the solution as well as improved nets but they also have to get away from the rev limiter because thats what's taking out the motors. Let's face facts, the old short tracks aren't going away anytime soon.

As an old time fuel racer I want to see innovation and the elimination of rules as much as anyone but IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

The fact is we are going to have limitations put on the cars among other things so lets get started and get back to 100% and 1320 feet.

 

[Nitrohelper]

Not into the pump, the line out of the pump...

Then you would also have to control the pressure. That would be a big tech headache.
The tune-ups are based on system pressure,depending on the pressure you would limit ,some people could be fine, but others might be screwed.
It would be like the rev-limiter, when it loses it's mind you have boomer.
I think no one would agree on restricting line size.

Again ,,Don't let the tech guys near the fuel system. One Mag is easy for tech ,and they can measure blower pulleys ,if that's needed, without unbolting anything

K.I.S.S. for the tech !

 

[JHOLE]

I'm still shaking my head here! Everybody has taken this bait that if we just slow the cars down, everything's going to be honky dori! I'm the only one here who's even brought up shut down and Sand trap requirements, Like FINDING OUT WHY CHUTES AREN'T OPENING! Imagine how much safer this sport would be if Chutes came out. Yet on and on all we ever here is these cars are TOO fast, the Shutdowns are too short! What a waste of time!

I'm going to agree with you to a point. The myopic, singular views of everyone from professional drivers to BB posters gets a little old.

How slow do you have to go?

I have an experience in my past of an alcohol FC, on a 1/8 mile track, turning into a runaway, and piercing hundreds of feet into the woods ( once it hit the ground again).

There is no way that you can slow the cars down enough to cover all of the issues that could arise.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

I agree we need to keep the changes, cheap, and easy to police. Has anyone mentioned adding weight?? How about front brakes on dragsters??

As for the sand traps.....maybe pea gravel would work better. Has that been tried yet???