Massey 332.18! (3 Viewers)

[Nitrohelper]

..... a 454....

I don't think that's a big enough change ,like Joe said - soon they would be in the same place as now...
If it's a cubic inch change , I say make it a stock 426 + 4 for over honing say 430 max...They could keep the same bore and pistons as now - with a new crank and rods, that they change weekly now...

My vote is a smaller blower , they use billet rotors now that could be shortened and a insert in the back of a shortened case to support the bearings... All the "special" machining in the front would be preserved...
This was proposed by Coil maybe ten years ago - but the other tuners were afraid of starting over with a new combination...

Of course the overdrive max could be cut in half tomorrow by simply changing pulleys ,and the fuel volume would become less too... Do that for July 1st 2012, and then with more changes and back to 1320 for next season...

 

[TSK]

What happens if you don't have any cars left for the last two rounds, how do you deal with the TV show?
To limit the engines for an entire weekend a "break rule" would have to come into play during eliminations...

The impetus would be on the crew chiefs to make sure their tune ups don't blow up two engines.
I bet you'd see the speeds drop drastically.

 

[Nitrohelper]

..... don't blow up two engines.....

As crew chiefs we don't try to blow-up engines because that loses races...
Parts failures cause more problems than tune-ups...
Lets say that the four semi finalist hurt engines during qualifying to get into the show...
Then what happens when those three second round winners smoke the rear main bearings due to clutch heat and you have one car out of four in the semi-final?
How do you propose to solve that problem for the TV show?

 

[Shaggy]

As crew chiefs we don't try to blow-up engines because that loses races...
Parts failures cause more problems than tune-ups...
Lets say that the four semi finalist hurt engines during qualifying to get into the show...
Then what happens when those three second round winners smoke the rear main bearings due to clutch heat and you have one car out of four in the semi-final?
How do you propose to solve that problem for the TV show?

Easy... You have a winner as long as that 1 car in the semis can make both runs to win the event... If they cant then nobody gets awarded the win... What better drama then that... Eventually you would have 2 cars in the finals...

No matter what is done, it comes down to NHRA finally having the stones to change the rules no matter what teams it pisses off.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

They said they'ed never go 200mph. Then never 250, then 300. Dragracing CC's have always made progress, and always will. Doesn't mater what rule change you make, you'll be changing rules soon again.They will keep goin quicker & faster.
Set a max top speed for TF, and one for FC, let the CC's slow their cars down by what ever method they want. Problem solved.

 

[Nitrohelper]

.....NHRA finally having the stones to change the rules no matter what teams it pisses off......

That sums up all this discussion, stay tuned for the next episode...

 

[Paul]

No matter what is done, it comes down to NHRA finally having the stones to change the rules no matter what teams it pisses off.

Good point, as long as the tires are holding up and Goodyear isn't concerned I don't think you will see any changes in the near future.

 

[Whipster]

Make them drag beer kegs. The sparks would be great at night.

 

[Porkchop]

That makes alotta sense to me, but what's next? I don't know, but money aside crew chiefs adapt and I would not be worried one bit.





Well, i'm not in any position to say, but from a fans perspective no. I would like someone to release an analysis of what these cars are doing at 1320. We are racing 1320, but could the speed clocks still register these cars at 1320? I would love to know what Spencer's 332 run speed at 1320 was, I am going to guess 290. All i am trying to say is sure we avoided a sandtrap with 1000ft, but minus Scott, (RIP) we have lost all our drag racers in the pro classes with 1000/1320 not being a factor.

I know im bringing up a very very touchy issue, but Blane Johnson and Darrell Russell did not lose their lives over the distance of the track. Scott was only going 300 at 1320 when he lost his life and isn't that the speeds we are almost back to at 1320. All i am saying is after 2009 and 2010, I no longer am convinced we are racing 1000 feet for the right reasons. We should be back at 1320 in an improved way. I feel the only plus of going 1000feet was that safety became as big a part as performance. Since performance has caught back up and the cars a safer, why not test 1320 somewhere?

I just wanna know why YOU keep saying I???? Dont think i've seen you driving one of these things!!! And yes the extra 320 ft indeed helps. Heres a thought,why dont YOU go to NHRA and tell them. Let me know what they say. LOL

 

[Porkchop]

I honestly think they are just way to heavy, you don't even need to race one to know that. Look at anything that moves at speed take a car and a truck for example, a car doing 100mph will stock quicker then a truck doing 100mph. Adding more weight actually I think makes things worse as the heavier something is the longer it takes to stop. Look at trains those things don't stop on a dime.

Agree on the weight,hell,look at P/S Bike and the harleys/buells add weight and still the class of the field.......But harder to stop.

 

[JON]

As any schoolboy knows, the kinetic energy "waiting to cause crash damage" is 0.5mv^2, so from that perspective, putting weight up in the name of safety sounds a bit daft.

Lowering power will cost $$$$$ (re-design, re-development ...) and doesn't feel right for a fuel dragster ... to me, "8000 HP" is part of our 'ultimate horsepower brand'.

There is already an rpm limiter available which limits maximum speed - but not very effectively (e.g. engine damage)

One idea would be to fit an accurate, engine-friendly and effective speed limiter.

 

[Larry]

I doubt it, about 15 years ago Goodyear warned NHRA that the current tire carcass design was only good to 340 mph with no safety factor...
Because Goodyear continued complaining about the rapid increase in speeds more than 10 years ago, they finally gave the ultimatum that the first time a car goes 340 the sale of 36.0 tires by Goodyear will cease that day...
They wanted to keep speeds under 330 so that there would be a safety factor...
So then the 1000' tracks came to be, and testing of engine combinations to slow them down - the major teams don't want change because of all the data they have developed under the current rules...
What's next ? ...

And what if the safety factor they have at speed is dependent on track conditions ?
If track is pealing up or chunking concrete all bets are off !

The track is the key to those cars going faster / quicker !
Dang if you do and dang if you don't ! The old catch 22 !

 

[Nitrohelper]

.... safety factor they have at speed is dependent on track conditions ....

One of the concerns has been the centrifugal loading on the sidewall...
Due to the distance from the bead to the tread the current tire has limitations,
especially when designing sidewall flex...
A major problem with the sidewall tearing started happening in a new tire design before the Russell event...
That sidewall was much stiffer, and the tire was heavier...

Years ago the tire engineers created a new design with a taller sidewall on a bigger wheel...
They believed this would have permitted a bigger safety factor for faster speeds...
However the design of all the fuel car chassis would have had to been changed...
The Glendorans felt that was too radical an impact to the current racing,
much like their hesitation to make a major engine combination change now...

 

[Rat]

I just wanna know why YOU keep saying I???? Dont think i've seen you driving one of these things!!! And yes the extra 320 ft indeed helps. Heres a thought,why dont YOU go to NHRA and tell them. Let me know what they say. LOL

Maybe it's because it's MY OPINION! Can you offer me a subsitute for the word I when it's expressing my personal belief? What the hell is your point and/or problem. Did I ever say I driven or anything even related? It is a discussion. Go laugh up a storm being a moron.

 

[d'kid]

"Now, Alan Johnson is correct. Of course you are going to be killin more parts if you have more traction than power, (tho we blow alot up because we make more power than the availiable traction, so it's not too different) so the answer is these cars need to be less powerful. We have to stop using the best technology available and roll back the clock. Isn't there a way these cars could stick around 4.70-4.80 at 1320 and run the way they did in 1995, 1996? Yeah every drag ran wants to see the 4.420/337 numbers again, but I think every fan has accepted that seeing a 4.40 TF car to 1320 was something we will never see again."

Pat,

Hate to say it, but this IS, ET wise, with in a tenth where the cars were running, before the cut back to 1000 feet, (Roberts 4.63 1320 at Phoenix was 3.96 1000) yet the cars are several hundred pounds heavier, which wound incress the stopping distance.

And you've got to remember, the sport was almost twenty years old before Low ET became more important than Top Time (Speed)

d'kid

 

[none]

Hey Karl,

I'm confused. You say the AJ is correct, then you say lower the power. If you wanted to slow them down the two most effective ways are reduce power, or reduce traction. AJ wouldn't reduce the power.

Alan

 

[Nitrohelper]

......YOU keep saying I.....

This is an internet racing enthusiast posting board ,not a technical expert giving testimony on a witness stand under oath...
Picture a group of people standing around in the pits talking about drag racing during a rain storm ,or after the races having some adult beverages...
It would probably be a mixture of knowledge filled individuals,interested uninformed fans,and a few opinionated idiots...
You can decide who's statements to place any value on, maybe contribute to the conversion ,or walk away and find a group with your intelligence level...
The amount of alcohol a person has had might determine that group level...

 

[d'kid]

Hey Karl,

I'm confused. You say the AJ is correct, then you say lower the power. If you wanted to slow them down the two most effective ways are reduce power, or reduce traction. AJ wouldn't reduce the power.

Alan

Nope Alan, I was Quoting Patrick's First Post back to him....

What I'm seeing is we,re within .010 off where we were when five years or more ago ET wise, at least with floppers....

So the real issue is, do to glue or not to glue, and how much, how far


Karl

 

[none]

Gotcha, I'm new here. Give me some time and I'm sure I'll figure it out.....

Alan

 

[Toejam]

Gotcha, I'm new here. Give me some time and I'm sure I'll figure it out.....

Alan

Alan, check your PM's!