30+ years ago, there was a whole lot less refinement than there is now for the NHRA pro classes. At some point, any combination will reach its endgame under a rules package, where productive innovation just isn't going to be there anymore. The innovation that you and many others want today comes more from new classes entirely, where rules are much more lax from not being updated and amended for decades.narrative or not, there was a period starting in the late 80's where the nhra enjoyed tremendous success due to innovation
Or Garlits, Coil and Fedderly?Can anyone imagine Dale Armstrong being in handcuffs like the thinkers are in today's NHRA?
What if JFR was the manufacturer ?In this particular case, the notice says that injector hats were altered. The rulebook specifically says "Any NHRA-approved modification must be performed by the original manufacturer only." If JFR modified a hat, then they broke the rules, plain and simple. It's not innovative to give yourself an unfair advantage that is outright prohibited.
The configuration of the part itself is approved by NHRA. If any adjustment is made, the manufacturer has to go back through the NHRA for approvalWhat if JFR was the manufacturer ?
30+ years ago, there was a whole lot less refinement than there is now for the NHRA pro classes. At some point, any combination will reach its endgame under a rules package, where productive innovation just isn't going to be there anymore. The innovation that you and many others want today comes more from new classes entirely, where rules are much more lax from not being updated and amended for decades.
In this particular case, the notice says that injector hats were altered. The rulebook specifically says "Any NHRA-approved modification must be performed by the original manufacturer only." If JFR modified a hat, then they broke the rules, plain and simple. It's not innovative to give yourself an unfair advantage that is outright prohibited.
If JFR was the MFGR. the part still has to go to NHRA and be approved again. Any modification requires re-certification before it can be run in competition. Alan Johnson had a situation like this on his heads a few years ago. Not only does it have to be approved it has to be available to everyone weather or not they run those parts - UNLESS - it is (was) for a certain Motorcycle company with the initals H. D. It appears that everyone has an equal chance, some just have a little more equal chance. Also - they did not specify any particular car just JFR so most likely they as well as everyone else have been checked now that the Tech people know about it.What if JFR was the manufacturer ?
What was said on TV was that what they did improved the launch and the reaction times, not the HP so much. A few Thousants or even more so a Hundredth is BIG in today's world.Along those lines I think an interesting conversation would be, what was done and why was it done? Any system, even highly refined ones, are not perfect and innovation yields small gains - but gains nonetheless. Realistically a fuel car makes more power than it can use and the trick to getting it down the track lies in power management, so making more power isn't really necessary. I have no information that this is what or why, just thinking out loud... but what if they modified the hat to provide better fuel/air distribution? While that could be construed as something to increase power, it also could be argued that it helps the longevity of the engine (as in no ka-boom) if it prevents wet or lean cylinders. After all, making it to the finish line under power is a good way to get a win - although not a competitive advantage unless no one else can do it.
I do agree that rules are rules however, so if JFR wanted a change to the hats they needed to go though the proper channels. And that's why they got spanked.
That's why I worded it the way I did. There are certainly ways to improve any existing product. However, if it costs $100,000 in R&D to gain .01, I think most would agree it isn't worth it. It goes back to ROI. Up to now, most of that discussion has revolved around sponsors, but it applies to team expenditures, too.Any system, even highly refined ones, are not perfect and innovation yields small gains - but gains nonetheless.
To Me - That is exactly why it is wrong for NHRA to not allow trying things on Qualifying or Race Day or even Monday after instead of spending 100 K and then trying to get something approved. If grinding on the Hat works notify NHRA that you ground on the Hat and let everyone else figure out where - Because you can only keep a secret in Drag Racing if you keep your team members all locked up forever with out any phones or social media anyway. Just like in the Navy "Loose Lips sink Ships (Secrets)".That's why I worded it the way I did. There are certainly ways to improve any existing product. However, if it costs $100,000 in R&D to gain .01, I think most would agree it isn't worth it. It goes back to ROI. Up to now, most of that discussion has revolved around sponsors, but it applies to team expenditures, too.
This is true, unless there is a good reason the rule was implemented in the first place. Maybe it was a response to people modifying hats and making them structurally unstable. I don't know the origin of this one in particular, but think about the laid-back headers. If that didn't get regulated, teams would have to either choose to be uncompetitive or run a car that was very unstable at speed. Without knowing the real purpose of the hat rule, I can't make a judgment.To Me - That is exactly why it is wrong for NHRA to not allow trying things on Qualifying or Race Day or even Monday after instead of spending 100 K and then trying to get something approved. If grinding on the Hat works notify NHRA that you ground on the Hat and let everyone else figure out where - Because you can only keep a secret in Drag Racing if you keep your team members all locked up forever with out any phones or social media anyway. Just like in the Navy "Loose Lips sink Ships (Secrets)".