Some thoughts on the reasons for existing NHRA rules... (1 Viewer)

[none]

Bill,
You keep talking about back in the day. And you are correct, back in the day a lot of different combinations were being tried. But the point of the exorcise is, that nothing proved to be better than the basic design of the Chrysler HEMI, so everyone eventually gravitated to that design. And at this point, so much time effort and money has been spent on perfecting it why would you want to start over?

Let's say that hypothetically you come up with the Dedman Nitro Engine. It's better and faster than what's out there now. Schumacher would buy them, Kalitta would buy them, Force would buy them, and maybe a couple of others. But, Wilk, Cruz, Diehl, Dunn, McMillen, Millican, etc, without a budget that allows them to make the change are out of business. Would it make the racing better? Would that make the sport better? If you told those guys that "All your stuff is obsolete, you have no chance of competing until you buy all new stuff" What do you think they would do?

When I was living in the Pro Stock world a few years back it was very interesting to chat with others about what had been tried. Physics is pretty consistent, there's a best way and every other way. Given time and a stable rules package as we had in Pro Stock everyone came to the same conclusion. Bore and stroke? Yup. Header design? Yup, Manifold runner length? yup.

I never recall seeing a Nitro car with turbos, that might have been before my time, but I don't believe that with the fuel volume that the are running now. With the exhaust temperature they are running now, and with the amount of force coming out of the headers that any turbo could live in the environment. And I could certainly be wrong, I'm no turbo expert, but I don't see it.

The headers are largely responsible for the jump in Funny Car performance going back to last summer. Laying the pipes back uses the thrust to drive the car forward instead of providing downforce as they have been (mostly) doing in the past. The tires are better, the track prep is better so why not try to utilize the thrust for another purpose.

But, it's not free. Beckman in Phoenix testing did a half-track wheelstand and ruined a car because of it. Del almost did the same last week in E-town. Putting a cylinder out now has a much better chance of hitting a wall than it used to. Every week someone is building the next set that are laid back another degree if they are fast, then all the teams have to build new headers just to stay even, If there was a rule that said Stop Here! everyone would save a pile of money on headers and start looking for the next thing, whatever that is.

I don't know enough about pneumatic valve controllers to have an informed opinion, so I'm staying away from that. I might not know enough about the rest of this either, but I think I do! LoL

My opinion,
Alan

P.S. VERY Interesting discussion.

 

[camaro]

A question from a layman. While I do have a basic understanding of a 4 stroke engine operation and I do know that, what we see coming out of the headers is a result of the exhaust stroke, which is burned gases being evacuated from the cylinder. My question is, how is all this thrust being generated ??? its just a piston displacing gases and air. I figure there's some thrust, but nothing that would be of concern!

 

[flapjack]

A question from a layman. While I do have a basic understanding of a 4 stroke engine operation and I do know that, what we see coming out of the headers is a result of the exhaust stroke, which is burned gases being evacuated from the cylinder. My question is, how is all this thrust being generated ??? its just a piston displacing gases and air. I figure there's some thrust, but nothing that would be of concern!

Nitromethane is still burning when it comes out of the headers. That's why you see the flames.

Edit: what I meant to write is I wonder how much effect nitromethane still burning when exiting the headers has.

 

[sdwarf36]

A question from a layman. While I do have a basic understanding of a 4 stroke engine operation and I do know that, what we see coming out of the headers is a result of the exhaust stroke, which is burned gases being evacuated from the cylinder. My question is, how is all this thrust being generated ??? its just a piston displacing gases and air. I figure there's some thrust, but nothing that would be of concern!

That has expanded significantly in the compressing/igniting/expelling process.

 

[Bill]

Bill,
You keep talking about back in the day. And you are correct, back in the day a lot of different combinations were being tried. But the point of the exorcise is, that nothing proved to be better than the basic design of the Chrysler HEMI, so everyone eventually gravitated to that design. And at this point, so much time effort and money has been spent on perfecting it why would you want to start over?

Let's say that hypothetically you come up with the Dedman Nitro Engine. It's better and faster than what's out there now. Schumacher would buy them, Kalitta would buy them, Force would buy them, and maybe a couple of others. But, Wilk, Cruz, Diehl, Dunn, McMillen, Millican, etc, without a budget that allows them to make the change are out of business. Would it make the racing better? Would that make the sport better? If you told those guys that "All your stuff is obsolete, you have no chance of competing until you buy all new stuff" What do you think they would do?

When I was living in the Pro Stock world a few years back it was very interesting to chat with others about what had been tried. Physics is pretty consistent, there's a best way and every other way. Given time and a stable rules package as we had in Pro Stock everyone came to the same conclusion. Bore and stroke? Yup. Header design? Yup, Manifold runner length? yup.

I never recall seeing a Nitro car with turbos, that might have been before my time, but I don't believe that with the fuel volume that the are running now. With the exhaust temperature they are running now, and with the amount of force coming out of the headers that any turbo could live in the environment. And I could certainly be wrong, I'm no turbo expert, but I don't see it.

The headers are largely responsible for the jump in Funny Car performance going back to last summer. Laying the pipes back uses the thrust to drive the car forward instead of providing downforce as they have been (mostly) doing in the past. The tires are better, the track prep is better so why not try to utilize the thrust for another purpose.

But, it's not free. Beckman in Phoenix testing did a half-track wheelstand and ruined a car because of it. Del almost did the same last week in E-town. Putting a cylinder out now has a much better chance of hitting a wall than it used to. Every week someone is building the next set that are laid back another degree if they are fast, then all the teams half to build new headers just to stay even, If there was a rule that said Stop Here! everyone would save a pile of money on headers and start looking for the next thing, whatever that is.

I don't know enough about pneumatic valve controllers to have an informed opinion, so I'm staying away from that. I might not know enough about the rest of this either, but I think I do! LoL

My opinion,
Alan

P.S. VERY Interesting discussion.

 

[Bill]

 

[Bill]

Sorry for the multiple pictures... I couldn't figure out how to get rid of them... Moderator HELP???

Alan, I shot these at Fremont in 1981. They show 240-Gordie's Flo-Rite turbo funny which he and Jerry Verheul collaborated on. The second picture shows how the car reacted to Nitro Turbo horsepower. Horsepower was never problem for that car, as you can see... Nowadays, I dunno.... but, we'll never know, because, in their infinite wisdom, the power-brokers at NHRA have banned forced-induction by turbo in the Fuel classes... and, it makes me wonder...

The compressed-air valve "legality" situation is more complicated, I think, because the ruling, banning ALL pneumatic valve springs applies to sportsman cars as well as Pros... That effectively precludes anyone running an alcohol dragster/funny car from experimenting with, or giving a protorype system even a test to see how well it works... and discourages aftermarket manufacturers from developing hardware that MIGHT work.

I can't see how that is beneficial to the racer...

Thanks for your interest; your comments are always pertinent and well-grounded...

 

[ironpony]

Just read an interesting article on engine labs and the insurance companies that insure the tracks have a great deal of input on what is allowed. they are pushing hard to keep speeds below 330 mph.

 

[mltdwn12]

Who had the twin turbo boss 429 mustang back in the early 70's? I read a recent article that said they were just getting the car to really make big power and it was legislated out of competition, I wonder if that was really the case. I always enjoyed the alcohol classes back in the 80"s and 90's you'd have variety blown hemi small block chevys nitrous twins etc!

 

[flapjack]

Just read an interesting article on engine labs and the insurance companies that insure the tracks have a great deal of input on what is allowed. they are pushing hard to keep speeds below 330 mph.

Do you have a link? Thanks in advance

 

[Nunz]

Alan, you mentioned something that I agree with and have posted before; racers eventually gravitate to the most efficient design. Racing of all types has been around for decades, and is mature to the point that there is no more low hanging fruit. Years ago, a racer could try something and gain a tenth, or much more, on the field. Not anymore. And that's why there was so much variety, guys were just dreaming up all kinds of combos. Now we're at a point where rules makers have to try and ratchet things back, and watch the teams overcome and move forward again. And not just in drag racing. A good example is Pro Comp, one of my favorite classes of all time. In the beginning, there were a ton of combos, such as AA/A, BB/FC, A/FD. AA/DA, and twins. I believe the reason it eventually became TAFC and TAD was the dragsters were proving to be the most efficient, consistent car to win with. There's a reason that all NASCAR cars, Indy cars, and Formula 1 cars all look the same except for paint. Like everyone else, I miss the "good old days" with so much variety, but that's evolution. At least, now we have Pro Mod!

 

[none]

A question from a layman. While I do have a basic understanding of a 4 stroke engine operation and I do know that, what we see coming out of the headers is a result of the exhaust stroke, which is burned gases being evacuated from the cylinder. My question is, how is all this thrust being generated ??? its just a piston displacing gases and air. I figure there's some thrust, but nothing that would be of concern!

Do you remember Jeff Diehl blowing a header off the car in Chicago a few years back? It had enough thrust from the exhaust to pick the car up off the ground. And remember that the gasses are still burning, still expanding, it's not just spent gasses being expelled. I'm told the the amount of thrust is #800 per pipe. That's 6,400 pounds, if you're counting....... LoL
Alan

 

[TooTall999]

Do you remember Jeff Diehl blowing a header off the car in Chicago a few years back? It had enough thrust from the exhaust to pick the car up off the ground. And remember that the gasses are still burning, still expanding, it's not just spent gasses being expelled. I'm told the the amount of thrust is #800 per pipe. That's 6,400 pounds, if you're counting....... LoL
Alan

Didn't Tony Pedregon have a similar incident in testing some titanium headers while he was with JFR?

 

[T.Smith]

Sorry for the multiple pictures... I couldn't figure out how to get rid of them... Moderator HELP???

Alan, I shot these at Fremont in 1981. They show 240-Gordie's Flo-Rite turbo funny which he and Jerry Verheul collaborated on. The second picture shows how the car reacted to Nitro Turbo horsepower. Horsepower was never problem for that car, as you can see... Nowadays, I dunno.... but, we'll never know, because, in their infinite wisdom, the power-brokers at NHRA have banned forced-induction by turbo in the Fuel classes... and, it makes me wonder

Well Bill, why don't you build one and show everyone what a great idea it is.

 

[Bill]

Well Bill, why don't you build one and show everyone what a great idea it is.

Tony,

You KNOW I don't have that kind of money... LOL!

But, we do what we can... Right now, I have a 1964 Valiant with a turbocharged slant six in it, that is a clone, pretty much of this car;

I have had a lifetime if V-8 race cars and thought it might be time for a six. I like the fact that slant sixes are so strong that you can run boost-levels that would not be possible with most other engines... The owner of that '66 Valiant in the video has experimented with boost as high as thirty-seven pounds, with no apparent engine damage. His engine was making about 500 horsepower (on gasoline) at 28 pounds in the attached Youtube video. Looked like fun to me...

Here are a couple of pictures of my "exercise.". ..

Of course, NHRA doesn't seem to have a class for this car, so, I just take it for test-n-tune activity and will eventually run brackets with it, I suppose, but, it's really not a very good combination for a "bracket car."

Just an old guy, havin' a last-gasp... LOL!

 

[Dave]

Sorry for the multiple pictures... I couldn't figure out how to get rid of them... Moderator HELP???

Alan, I shot these at Fremont in 1981. They show 240-Gordie's Flo-Rite turbo funny which he and Jerry Verheul collaborated on. The second picture shows how the car reacted to Nitro Turbo horsepower. Horsepower was never problem for that car, as you can see... Nowadays, I dunno.... but, we'll never know, because, in their infinite wisdom, the power-brokers at NHRA have banned forced-induction by turbo in the Fuel classes... and, it makes me wonder...

The compressed-air valve "legality" situation is more complicated, I think, because the ruling, banning ALL pneumatic valve springs applies to sportsman cars as well as Pros... That effectively precludes anyone running an alcohol dragster/funny car from experimenting with, or giving a protorype system even a test to see how well it works... and discourages aftermarket manufacturers from developing hardware that MIGHT work.

I can't see how that is beneficial to the racer...

Thanks for your interest; your comments are always pertinent and well-grounded...

Man that FC is cool as hell! There's one of the 50 years of Funny Car celebration!

 

[Bill]

Who had the twin turbo boss 429 mustang back in the early 70's? I read a recent article that said they were just getting the car to really make big power and it was legislated out of competition, I wonder if that was really the case. I always enjoyed the alcohol classes back in the 80"s and 90's you'd have variety blown hemi small block chevys nitrous twins etc!

Craig,

I think that was "OHIO" George Montgomery's Mustang. He built a variety of race cars "back in the day" when he was moving on from his '33 Willys A/GS car. He also built one of four (nationwide) turbocharged 2000-cc Pinto AA,MC cars along with Division six racer, Butch Ball... and Buddy Ingersoll had one he had bought from two FORD engineers after it had won the "Gas Coupe and Sedan Nationals" at Rockford or Cordoba in the late '70's. There was, I heard, yet another of these 9-second Pintos in Division IV, but, I am not sure whose it might have been. NHRA cancelled the class sometime in the 1980's (I think) for lack of partipation, but those cars were fun to watch; they ran 5-speed transmissions and pulled the wheels on every gear-change. Looked like a 4-cylinder Pro Stocker.... LOL! Ingersoll got his down into the mid 9-second range, eventually...
NHRA instituted weight-breaks for turbocharged engines that required more weight than the positive-displacement supercharged engines, to achieve parity. Turbos were THAT much more efficient.
I don't know why Ohio George's combination disappeared, but, it MIGHT have been legislated away... Somebody needs to ask him.

 

[buddy1012]

I find some NHRA rules to be irrational and difficult to justify.

I see it strictly from the standpoint and perspective of a fan not a participant, so that may be the reason for my confusion.... but, certain edicts are not easy to understand from a practical standpoint. I have several areas of concern that I'd appreciate having explained here. I try to have an open mind about rules, understanding that I don't always know the full story behind their rationale, so, if you see something that needs explaining here, please help me out; I'll appreciate it!

These will all be questions I have had when looking at a current rulebook:

1. The rules specify that turbochargers are banned in the FUEL classes. I remember that years ago, Gordie Bonin and Jerry Verhuel raced a turbocharged FUEL funny car for Flo-Rite, and the bigest problem that car seemed to have was that it made too MUCH power... a problem easily rectified with today's technology as regards improved improved tires and clutch-managment systems. So, why are they illegal?

2. The cost of frequently replacing valve springs on acohol dragsters and funny cars is egregious... and, this is in a class where big money is not rampant... a "sportsman" eliminator, if you will... I'm no expert on Formula !, but, I have been told that those engines turn 20,000 rpm for extended periods of time.... making metallc valve springs not a viable choice. So, they use pneumatic valve springs, which, ostensibly, don't wear out. Pneumatic valve springs are verboten on any engine in NHRA racing. Why?

3. Back in the "FUEL-ban" days (1957-1963) th dual-engine cars were a big spectator draw and did a very good job of filling in for the nitro cars. I am not sure about the rules regarding twin-engne cars, but I han't seen one for a long time. Are they in fact, illegal now, and if they are, why?

4. Since making horsepower doesn't seem to be a problem for the Top Fuel and Fuel Funny Car partipitants, (the Chrysler-design Hemi doesn't seem to suffer from a lack of grunt,) why, then is an overhead cam engine from Ford (or, Reed(sp.?) in Australia) or any Chevrolet motor,not legal in those classes?

It doesn't seem to be rooted in reality...

In my opinion the way NHRA has reduced the variety of powerplants and created a "spec," cookie-cutter scenario in those classes, has seriously damaged the fan experience, and that has resulted in smaller gate revenues and TV appeal.

Can somebody explain these quizzical situations to me, please?

I'll appreciate eny information...

All of these questions can be answered if you realize that NHRA Pro racing has grown into a show put on for TV and fans in the stands. It is a compromise of pure racing and an entertaining show. Beyond controlling the costs for the low budget teams and safety considerations, all these variables you list add to the oil downs, breakdowns, up in smoke runs, single runs, etc. that most spectators don't like. It's about the show now.

 

[buddy1012]

Do you remember Jeff Diehl blowing a header off the car in Chicago a few years back? It had enough thrust from the exhaust to pick the car up off the ground. And remember that the gasses are still burning, still expanding, it's not just spent gasses being expelled. I'm told the the amount of thrust is #800 per pipe. That's 6,400 pounds, if you're counting....... LoL
Alan

I was there to see Diehl's car. Scary at the time. Also, I don't remember the year but I remember Al Hoffman breaking off the headers on both sides, the car shot up and all 4 tires were a foot off the track.

 

[flapjack]

This talk of headers blowing off makes me wonder what the lifespan on nuts, bolts, and studs are. I am guessing they have a short life based on the stress they endure.