Or ever for the fuel classes. I will....ACCEPT 1000ft...but if we need to push it back more forget it.
Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Teams can make all the 2013 changes he wants...
- Thread starter Rat
- Start date
Or ever for the fuel classes. I will....ACCEPT 1000ft...but if we need to push it back more forget it.
Nick Name
Nitro Member
NHRA should make the fuel classes sleeve em back down to 400 cubic inches (or give them the option of changing the stroke) and cut nitro loads back 15%. I think the crewchiefs could work with that, and given better cylinder sealing, the engines might stay together longer (say, maybe a QUARTER MILE?)
I am sure the valve locations wouldn't accommodate a smaller bore.
stitcherbob
Nitro Member
I was thinking that too, but you could notch the bores for valve clearance, or reduce the valve head diameter allowed. To keep them from melting, the top ring lands in Top Fuel pistons are pretty low compared to other types of engines, so ring interference shouldn't be a problem...
Destroking the motors would drive RPM's sky high, so that wouldn't be better than smaller bore size. If rules were enacted to shrink cubic inches and valve size, then supercharger pulley ratios and fuel delivery would shrink as a result.
They may also have to get in the clutch can and limit some of that stuff as well. You take away clutch discs and clamping power, and will you have to go easy on your combo or risk blowing the tires off.
And I'm sure GoodYear wouldn't mind less stress on their tires...
vegasnitro
Nitro Member
All you gotta do is ask and we'll tell ya. He!!, sometimes you don't even need to ask!
yoda
Nitro Member
SoCal Racer
Nitro Member
I think the point is that if even fans know how to slow the cars down, why after all their "testing" (the 413 spec motor, etc.) can't NHRA figure it out? Surely the guys who make them go fast also know what keeps them from going fast, and could advise NHRA. The answer, of course, is that NHRA doesn't want to slow them down and return to 1320.
What I find pretty funny is this thread started having nothing to do with 1320 vs. 1000 ft and the related. It was only suppose to be about IYO what kind of performance will be needed to finish anywhere near the top ten. Good point made I admit is if everybody was given a "fixed number" before a part can be replaced (unless the part gets destroyed) could even benefit your team. I can only imagine the difference in parts budget between teams that replace for performance edge and teams that replace simply because it's time and can't afford to replace before maximum wear.
stitcherbob
Nitro Member
The first post mentioned how it was nice to see some of the new teams do as well as they did, and the second post mentioned that the "monkey wrench" of the NHRA changing rules to slow everyone down could hurt those teams' progress. My suggestions to slow down the cars were ideas I had that possibly wouldn't hurt those teams as much as major changes to the "tune up" would. Going back to 1320 would just be a nice side effect.....
I really enjoyed watching Steve Torrence do well in TF and AJ winning Pro Stock
Rajunz
Nitro Member
Sorry Patrick.....sure couldn't tell by the thread title what this thread was started for............
The vast majority of the teams don't want to go back to 1320 either. It's never going back for Nitro racing.
vegasnitro
Nitro Member
I disagree ... with all things being equal (costs and safety), I don't think the teams would mind going back to the full quarter. But, I do agree that there doesn't seem to be any groundswell of support from inside the organization to return to the full quarter for the nitro cars, so the thousand foot era will continue for the forseeable future no matter what the teams and fans want anyway.
It's the insurance. That's why we'll never go back. I've talked to many top teams. Many like 1000ft. and many would go back to 1320 as long as it is safe; some will never go back if 1320 returned. Fans are 1/2 and 1/2 on the issue and Lance's comment below unfortunately will continue for 2013. The biggest issue the sport has right now is not 1320 or 1000, it's getting people actually to the nationals. I love nitro cars, I am going to go whether my eyes got stripped of an extra 320 feet or not. This sport needs new fans that go to experience the cars power. Not the distance, but the sound, feel, sight and smell.
Keep all the same everything as is today. Parts, tires , chassis, rules, etc. Give em the full % of the can back to play with. Go back to 1320 slowed down to the 4.70 range 300+.
Do it all with a 'company' issued restrictor plate. Easy to police and catch any 'funny business'. Done for minimal cost of the plate.
Save a ton on parts for everyone, level the playing field immediately.
Speeds increase? Cars get to quick again? Take more air away.
Do it all with a 'company' issued restrictor plate. Easy to police and catch any 'funny business'. Done for minimal cost of the plate.
Save a ton on parts for everyone, level the playing field immediately.
Speeds increase? Cars get to quick again? Take more air away.
You're on to something. Speeds increase you could even take wing outta it.
SoCal Racer
Nitro Member
Agreed, but isn't speed the issue with the insurance company? I believe Shoe's 337 was the fastest 1/4 mile speed, and we saw 334 run this year in 1000 feet. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Leaving the shutdown distance out of the equation for now, what's the difference? (Yes, I know ... 3
) What I'm getting at is if the insurance company deems speeds in the 330 mph range too fast, what difference does it make what distance it is reached in? Or in other words, will they soon say 1000 feet is too long because you can go 330?Agreed, but isn't speed the issue with the insurance company? I believe Shoe's 337 was the fastest 1/4 mile speed, and we saw 334 run this year in 1000 feet. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Leaving the shutdown distance out of the equation for now, what's the difference? (Yes, I know ... 3
I believe the speeds are more of an issue with Goodyear than insurance companies...
