Which FC teams are running 3 rail chassis? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cstarns
- Start date
turbo ken
Nitro Member
You have two options on building the new "big show" F/C chassis (I have the sfi book with the specs) on a 3 rail car like JFR uses the three rails can be make from 1 1/2" dia x .083" thick tubing for the 3 main rails, or you can build a conventional 2 rail chassis that has built for over 30 years using 1 1/2" dia x .095 thick tubing for 2 main rail chassis, along with the other more, or bigger and or thicker tubing throught the drivers compartment.
a better question might be which chassis's still have heat treated tubing in them.
turbo ken
Nitro Member
Probably every chassis that McKinney builds.
turbo ken
Nitro Member
Everybody, they have a choice between the 2 and 3 rail chassis (they are both the same sfi 10.5 spec with the new main rail specs I listed earlier).
of that I am quite sure............however its a little harder to tell who is running what chassis in a F/C vs at TF car, because the car is listed as the body "brand" not the chassis. I hate to ask, but i wonder if Kalitta's chassis was a McKinney piece
I beleive that is correct, and I thought that I heard from someone that Capps has been running a 3 rail car all year. Wilk is running and old car isn't he?
turbo ken
Nitro Member
Wilkerson is or we can now say was running a patched old car.
All 3 of the Kalitta's dragters are all Attac chassis, I would imagine Scotts F/C might have been an Attac chassis also.
Last edited:
I believe (please excuse me if I'm wrong) that Scott's chassis was an Attac. I read somewhere that the Attac TF and FC chassis are almost exact McKinney clones.
Its pretty obvious that the chassis did not fail and the track record of the Attac cars has been real good. They seem to build a real good piece.
And I hate to answer, but after research and talking to Don Long, yes it was a heat treated McKinney.
I honestly hope that was not a factor, although it did appear that shrapnal went everywhere. Not to say that wouldn't have happened otherwise. It makes me really wonder about the heat treated chassis. The engineering side of me says that just doesn't work. Then part of me says that i should leave that to the pros
It makes me sick that some ******* has posted pictures of Scott's chassis after the wreck. I was floored and disgusted when I came across those pictures on another website a few days ago. I hope the NHRA (who has the rights over pictures taken at the races) finds whoever the owner is of these pictures are and make sure they are destroyed (IMO). I don't care if Scott was in a tank, the speed he went into the trap was too fast for survival at E-Town.
I have seen the pics as well, thats one of the things that prompted my question about the manufacturer of the chassis, as it appeared to be shattered (which would be very possible heat treated or not).
I spoke to Don Long the other day and he told me that Scott Kallitta's chassis was indeed a small tube heat-treated Mckinney.
Long also mentioned Prudhomme's statement "went into a million pieces".
Also received this in an email from Long;
"Would the more ductile normalized tubing have made a difference? of course. but the question is, would it have made THE difference? The opinions that I have received are that it would not have...
Regardless, Bent...but not broken' should still be all chassis builders' quest".
Long also mentioned Prudhomme's statement "went into a million pieces".
Also received this in an email from Long;
"Would the more ductile normalized tubing have made a difference? of course. but the question is, would it have made THE difference? The opinions that I have received are that it would not have...
Regardless, Bent...but not broken' should still be all chassis builders' quest".
"Dr. Dirt"
Nitro Member
