stitcherbob
Nitro Member
POLL - YOUR PREFERENCE ON SLOWING NITRO CARS (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter my friends call me Zappy
- Start date
Scott Gaulter
Nitro Member
Going back to 1320' is probably next to impossible due to the speed and length of shutdown at some of the tracks....some of these track were built when the top speed was 200-250 MPH...and there are big obstacles in the way such as highways and buildings to prevent lengthening them....
Here is comment that that I posted on another thread a few weeks ago....it kinda fits this topic too:
This is the first time that I have commented on this subject and it's an idea that our driver Roger "Radar" Lechtenberg (Nitro Madness AA/FA) mentioned to me several months ago regarding oil downs....he works on cylinder heads for a living so he gets to fix a lot of broken engines....Radar said "Just limit the valve lift and they would solve 90% of the oil downs and Funny car body launches".
It's very easy to police this rule and check total valve lift without taking the engine apart....I don't think cylinder heads and/or the valve train were ever designed to handle the valve lift the current top fuel teams are using.....and I'm not sure what the total lift number is, but most of the failures begin with a dropped valve....maybe limit them to .650" or .700"?.....just a random number and if NHRA chose to adopt this rule I'm sure they could come up with something reasonable....this rule might slow the cars a little but with forced induction the crew chiefs will always find a way to make it up....
Just a thought....
Here is comment that that I posted on another thread a few weeks ago....it kinda fits this topic too:
This is the first time that I have commented on this subject and it's an idea that our driver Roger "Radar" Lechtenberg (Nitro Madness AA/FA) mentioned to me several months ago regarding oil downs....he works on cylinder heads for a living so he gets to fix a lot of broken engines....Radar said "Just limit the valve lift and they would solve 90% of the oil downs and Funny car body launches".
It's very easy to police this rule and check total valve lift without taking the engine apart....I don't think cylinder heads and/or the valve train were ever designed to handle the valve lift the current top fuel teams are using.....and I'm not sure what the total lift number is, but most of the failures begin with a dropped valve....maybe limit them to .650" or .700"?.....just a random number and if NHRA chose to adopt this rule I'm sure they could come up with something reasonable....this rule might slow the cars a little but with forced induction the crew chiefs will always find a way to make it up....
Just a thought....
Last edited:
The very easiest to enforce is to reduce the fuel tank size by some number,,,say 35%. Less fuel, less need for ultra large blowers, dual mags giant dual fuel pumps etc. If you think it won't slow down a fuel car you've never seen a fuel motor run outta fuel. They will only let it happen once before they reduce the fuel pump size so the car can get to the end of the track (whatever the distance is) before it runs out of fuel.
Bill, why is a smaller fuel tank a bad idea versus limiting amount of fuel to the engine? Let the crew chiefs figure out the best approach to using what fuel is available. I would think with less total available fuel you would see different approaches taken by the individual crew chiefs.
Smaller tanks are easily enforced, could be weighed in staging lines. I guess in the final analysis either approach results in the same thing but the smaller tank just seems to be eaiser and offers more opertunity for fuel metering at different points in the run based on load and RPM...at least in my feeble mind.
Just Paul
Nitro Member
Too many variables on the run routine for a smaller tank. Someone gets hung up on the burnout and is slow backing up or slow making it off the turn off, whatever. Game over.
People bitch about no throttle wacks, wait till the teams eliminate the burnout so they have a full tank when they stage.
People bitch about no throttle wacks, wait till the teams eliminate the burnout so they have a full tank when they stage.
mick
Nitro Member
......wait till the teams eliminate the burnout so they have a full tank when they stage.
hope not, but watch chad barely scrub the tires, then 4.90
Huge
Nitro Member
You, mean 3.90
Just Paul
Nitro Member
Mike is still recovering from Brainerd I think.You, mean 3.90
Too many variables on the run routine for a smaller tank. Someone gets hung up on the burnout and is slow backing up or slow making it off the turn off, whatever. Game over.
People bitch about no throttle wacks, wait till the teams eliminate the burnout so they have a full tank when they stage.
You think those variables don't exist today with the current fuel tanks? All of that would have to be considered just like it is today.
vegasnitro
Nitro Member
They cut the fuel to F1 cars starting last year. The cars are now allowed only 100kg (about 220 pounds) of fuel for the whole race, and since refuelling during the race is banned, they start the race with that amount in the tank. F1 rules dictate that once a race is over, the car must make it back to parc ferme under it's own power and must have 1L of fuel in the tank for testing. (this is why you never see F1 guys doing donuts)
I do think something of that ilk could be done for nitro cars. Cut them back to say, 10 gallons per run (about a 33% reduction) and dictate they must have enough in the tank for testing at the top end after a run. I am not saying I endorse or support the idea, just that it is feasible.
I do think something of that ilk could be done for nitro cars. Cut them back to say, 10 gallons per run (about a 33% reduction) and dictate they must have enough in the tank for testing at the top end after a run. I am not saying I endorse or support the idea, just that it is feasible.
vegasnitro
Nitro Member
Uhhhhh ... If you reduce the total amount of fuel by a significant number, you will have to reduce the fuel available to the pump. They go hand in hand.
Right now they're burning ~15 gallons of nitro per run, if you reduced that to 10 (arbitrary number) they would have to slow the pumps down or they would run out of fuel before the end of the run. You obviously could not run the same pumps/flow rates with less fuel.
AGAIN, I am not endorsing this idea, just saying that it is (on paper at least) a feasible idea.
Right now they're burning ~15 gallons of nitro per run, if you reduced that to 10 (arbitrary number) they would have to slow the pumps down or they would run out of fuel before the end of the run. You obviously could not run the same pumps/flow rates with less fuel.
AGAIN, I am not endorsing this idea, just saying that it is (on paper at least) a feasible idea.
stitcherbob
Nitro Member
Big Daddy figured it all out for us.....now to implement it
http://www.nitromater.com/threads/great-drag-illustrated-article-with-don-garlits.39159/
http://www.nitromater.com/threads/great-drag-illustrated-article-with-don-garlits.39159/
Rajunz
Nitro Member
Smaller fuel tanks is a horrible idea. "Why don't we go blow up a couple of race cars so we can teach these crew chiefs how to race? "
Racing with no VHT is also a horrible idea. Fans don't want to watch a bunch of up in smoke passes. Think about it, all of the hot, slippery tracks all summer produce less than ideal racing, not good side by side passes.
Jim O has the right solution. Limit the size of the intake valves and everything else falls in place.
Racing with no VHT is also a horrible idea. Fans don't want to watch a bunch of up in smoke passes. Think about it, all of the hot, slippery tracks all summer produce less than ideal racing, not good side by side passes.
Jim O has the right solution. Limit the size of the intake valves and everything else falls in place.
