Seems like some actual suggestions are floating around on the subject
of rules changes.
Like it or not, there WILL be rules changes in our future.
There is not much doubt new records will happen at the March Meet which may or may not bring NHRA into this.
Some suggestions out there being talked about.
Smaller pump
Lower OD of around 10%
Get rid of the Hoosier tire in favor of a true 12" slick.
Either go back to the old M&H or allow another version of the Hoosier with smaller roll out.
If the smaller tire is adopted, allow a change to a 3:70 gear ratio.
For many reasons, I'd personally like to see weight breaks for true chevy powered cars. The NTF class had them in the beginning and they should be brought back.
Every Chevy powered car is carrying ballast to make weight which just makes being competitive even harder.
Permanently take the idea of a 2 speed and bigger pump completely off the table.
There is nothing that is going to change the course of Funny Cars being more popular.
Quicker et's and faster speeds didn't help in 1974 and it won't now. That's just life. However, lower car counts at races will do us in.
It's my understanding that the more modern fuel pumps can be downsized via gears so racers won't have to buy new. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Where the pumps have to be tagged anyway, this might be simple solution.
-------------------------
AA/FD association:
There is a membership drive currently going on but also the very real possibility of an East Coast version.
Personally, I'd like to see the current organization address the issues more on rules and also work harder for the East Coast racers. But with the possibility of an East Coast version, we might get what we need either way.
Bob
Friday, February 03, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Heritage Rules
After talking with several racers, here's my take on the Heritage rules.
1. I'd like to see someone get off their lazy ass and actually publish complete Heritage Series rules COMPLETE, not just amendments.
You have to go back through several years before you can get all the rules as there is no consistency year to year. Items left out or modified without referring to the previous rules.
Amendments are supposed to be last minute changes to existing rules not the entire rules package. Even NHRA's site doesn't publish the complete rules. Please don't point to a specific document from one year and tell me that is the one we go by.
I can easily find something in 2008 or 2009 that isn't mentioned in 2010 as one example, but it's still said to be part of the rules.
2. Why make Bowling Green subject to all of the Heritage Rules when it's not a points Heritage race?
On that subject, why isn't BG a points race?
Many east coast racers make the tow to Bakersfield, shouldn't they be allowed to run for points at Bowling Green?
The west coast racers have approx 4 races to lock up points even if they can't make Bowling Green.
Just seems like the fair thing to do.
Bob
1. I'd like to see someone get off their lazy ass and actually publish complete Heritage Series rules COMPLETE, not just amendments.
You have to go back through several years before you can get all the rules as there is no consistency year to year. Items left out or modified without referring to the previous rules.
Amendments are supposed to be last minute changes to existing rules not the entire rules package. Even NHRA's site doesn't publish the complete rules. Please don't point to a specific document from one year and tell me that is the one we go by.
I can easily find something in 2008 or 2009 that isn't mentioned in 2010 as one example, but it's still said to be part of the rules.
2. Why make Bowling Green subject to all of the Heritage Rules when it's not a points Heritage race?
On that subject, why isn't BG a points race?
Many east coast racers make the tow to Bakersfield, shouldn't they be allowed to run for points at Bowling Green?
The west coast racers have approx 4 races to lock up points even if they can't make Bowling Green.
Just seems like the fair thing to do.
Bob
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Carbon Fiber Rule
Reference: New Nostalgia Funny Car carbon fiber rules for 2012.
It occurs to me that if NHRA had imposed this 240 mph cap and applied it to Nostalgia Top Fuel rears, NTF car counts would not have fallen off a cliff at most events.
It's not too late NHRA, many top fuel cars sitting on jacks right now.
Just saying..................
UPDATE: Thanks to DRO for publishing the above comment in the letters section.
Now if NHRA would only listen. My take? The quickest cars would still win and the increase in top speeds might slow down.
In short, what could it hurt? Larger car count and leave it up to the racers how fast they want to go and at what price.
Where they changed the rule for Nostalgia Funny Cars, it would not be unheard of to
change something that never made any sense.
Sending off all the re-cert stuff in March after returning from watching the March Meet.
Bob
It occurs to me that if NHRA had imposed this 240 mph cap and applied it to Nostalgia Top Fuel rears, NTF car counts would not have fallen off a cliff at most events.
It's not too late NHRA, many top fuel cars sitting on jacks right now.
Just saying..................
UPDATE: Thanks to DRO for publishing the above comment in the letters section.
Now if NHRA would only listen. My take? The quickest cars would still win and the increase in top speeds might slow down.
In short, what could it hurt? Larger car count and leave it up to the racers how fast they want to go and at what price.
Where they changed the rule for Nostalgia Funny Cars, it would not be unheard of to
change something that never made any sense.
Sending off all the re-cert stuff in March after returning from watching the March Meet.
Bob
Monday, November 07, 2011
Just Pluggin' Away
Little by little getting stuff done on the dragster as well as getting the ultralight plane ready for it's inspection to be a legal 2 person experimental aircraft.
I don't know which has been the bigger pain in the butt but for sure the dragster is more expensive. lol
Finished the Leahy device air clys today. Actually much easier than I thought it would be. Now just waiting on the actual controller to show up.
Got the 1/2" parachute mounts done. Just need to run it over to Undercover Chassis to have em welded in.
Started on the new CO2 cooling system for the heads. Should save about 80 lbs in weight over the old water system.
I'm holding off a bit on the carbon fiber brakes as I'm not sure what my work status is for next year. Might not be in the USA to use them.
Stay tuned!
Bob
I don't know which has been the bigger pain in the butt but for sure the dragster is more expensive. lol
Finished the Leahy device air clys today. Actually much easier than I thought it would be. Now just waiting on the actual controller to show up.
Got the 1/2" parachute mounts done. Just need to run it over to Undercover Chassis to have em welded in.
Started on the new CO2 cooling system for the heads. Should save about 80 lbs in weight over the old water system.
I'm holding off a bit on the carbon fiber brakes as I'm not sure what my work status is for next year. Might not be in the USA to use them.
Stay tuned!
Bob
Monday, October 24, 2011
Getting out of Hand? Updated 10/30
Does anyone else see NHRA getting involved soon with the ever increasing speeds and et's?
Here's some misc stuff that was talked about at the California reunion.
1. Carbon Fiber brakes WILL be enforced at the March Meet. You mean they weren't before? Guess not according to some people.
If anyone had known that beforehand, might have been a few more Top Fuelers there!
2. Talk about Top Fuel having the same equipment as Funny Cars. Not sure where that went but was brought up. There's even talk among funny car teams that the class is out of control. Wish Top Fuel would start talking like that.
3. With some reports of speeds (via computer) hitting 275+ mph in Top Fuel, just how long before NHRA steps in?
Wouldn't it be better to do some changes on our terms rather than "big father"?
4. Talk about bringing back "A" and "B" fields. Not a bad idea other than the "A" field might be very short.
Not really a good idea as it wouldn't be 16 car "A" and "B" fields. It would be 8 in each. Considering there would have been approx. 9 cars in the "B" field and 5 in the "A" field, is this really the best solution? Plus there might be even less in the "A" field than the qualifying numbers suggest.
My guess is, and this is a good thing, the "B" field idea might bring out many more racers and become the "most interesting field"?
This has all happened before people. The "A" field becomes the play ground for the "money" guys (maybe 5 of them), the rest go for the "B" field which has more cars than qualifying positions.
The answer before was the only people who could run the "B" field were those that couldn't make the "A" field. This resulted in loss of car count as many didn't bother to show up. Many didn't want to run the "A" field but had to if not enough cars showed up. When racers were given the choice, the "A" field numbers fell off the map. Many of you remember Indy from years back when we watched the implosion of Top Fuel right before our eyes from which it never recovered at Indy.
The only "A" cars that showed up were ones that were paid to come. When that money dried up, so did the car count. The "B" cars found out about the paid in deal and basically said "F--K YOU" and never came back.
What all this tells me is many, many more racers want to run 6.0's rather than 5.70's.
This fact hasn't changed in over 6 years but NHRA has yet to catch on.
I'd really like to know of anyone running fuel who is happy right now?
NHRA, do something before the first March Meet happens with an 8 car field.
While the recent 5.50's were impressive to say the least, what does this do to future Top Fuel and Funny car fields?
The distance between the have's and have not's is growing bigger with each race.
Are you really going to hook up the trailer if you ONLY run a 5.90? 1st round loss almost guaranteed.
1st round winners times: 5.67, 5.84, 5.56, 5.91 (the lone 5.90)
Bartone is running in another zip code! lol
The eliminations ladder tells the story better than I EVER could!
You can even figure out where the A and B fields would come from.
Top Fuel Ladder
Don't get me wrong, we all would be running these numbers if we could afford it and the effort people have put into this is amazing and should be applauded but think about what this is doing to the health of the sport long term?
The Reunion, in Top Fuel, was perhaps the 5th race in a row with short fields. Sure they publicized a full field but we all know that wasn't true.
How long before the field is reduced to an 8 car field? Might be closer than you think.
Bowling Green went from a 16 car field to an 8 car A and B field to just an 8 car field that now is short even at 8.
How many will make the tow to Bakersfield when it will take a 5.80 just to get in?
Many nitro teams attend these races thinking they might? have a shot at going rounds but that "shot" is now out of reach for many.
This situation is not good for the future of our sport.
Here's some misc stuff that was talked about at the California reunion.
1. Carbon Fiber brakes WILL be enforced at the March Meet. You mean they weren't before? Guess not according to some people.
If anyone had known that beforehand, might have been a few more Top Fuelers there!
2. Talk about Top Fuel having the same equipment as Funny Cars. Not sure where that went but was brought up. There's even talk among funny car teams that the class is out of control. Wish Top Fuel would start talking like that.
3. With some reports of speeds (via computer) hitting 275+ mph in Top Fuel, just how long before NHRA steps in?
Wouldn't it be better to do some changes on our terms rather than "big father"?
4. Talk about bringing back "A" and "B" fields. Not a bad idea other than the "A" field might be very short.
Not really a good idea as it wouldn't be 16 car "A" and "B" fields. It would be 8 in each. Considering there would have been approx. 9 cars in the "B" field and 5 in the "A" field, is this really the best solution? Plus there might be even less in the "A" field than the qualifying numbers suggest.
My guess is, and this is a good thing, the "B" field idea might bring out many more racers and become the "most interesting field"?
This has all happened before people. The "A" field becomes the play ground for the "money" guys (maybe 5 of them), the rest go for the "B" field which has more cars than qualifying positions.
The answer before was the only people who could run the "B" field were those that couldn't make the "A" field. This resulted in loss of car count as many didn't bother to show up. Many didn't want to run the "A" field but had to if not enough cars showed up. When racers were given the choice, the "A" field numbers fell off the map. Many of you remember Indy from years back when we watched the implosion of Top Fuel right before our eyes from which it never recovered at Indy.
The only "A" cars that showed up were ones that were paid to come. When that money dried up, so did the car count. The "B" cars found out about the paid in deal and basically said "F--K YOU" and never came back.
What all this tells me is many, many more racers want to run 6.0's rather than 5.70's.
This fact hasn't changed in over 6 years but NHRA has yet to catch on.
I'd really like to know of anyone running fuel who is happy right now?
NHRA, do something before the first March Meet happens with an 8 car field.
While the recent 5.50's were impressive to say the least, what does this do to future Top Fuel and Funny car fields?
The distance between the have's and have not's is growing bigger with each race.
Are you really going to hook up the trailer if you ONLY run a 5.90? 1st round loss almost guaranteed.
1st round winners times: 5.67, 5.84, 5.56, 5.91 (the lone 5.90)
Bartone is running in another zip code! lol
The eliminations ladder tells the story better than I EVER could!
You can even figure out where the A and B fields would come from.
Top Fuel Ladder
Don't get me wrong, we all would be running these numbers if we could afford it and the effort people have put into this is amazing and should be applauded but think about what this is doing to the health of the sport long term?
The Reunion, in Top Fuel, was perhaps the 5th race in a row with short fields. Sure they publicized a full field but we all know that wasn't true.
How long before the field is reduced to an 8 car field? Might be closer than you think.
Bowling Green went from a 16 car field to an 8 car A and B field to just an 8 car field that now is short even at 8.
How many will make the tow to Bakersfield when it will take a 5.80 just to get in?
Many nitro teams attend these races thinking they might? have a shot at going rounds but that "shot" is now out of reach for many.
This situation is not good for the future of our sport.
Friday, October 07, 2011
Time to start building again
Well, things are starting to look a bit better on the financial front so now time to start looking into the updates for the Nitro Central car for Top Fuel in 2012.
Chassis updates are done so it's just a matter of bolting on some carbon fiber brakes and Leahy device.
If we just race Bowling Green this year, that's just the way it is. I'd love to run the March Meet but without major financial help, it just ain't happening.
Anyone interested in helping out, let me know. Plenty of ad space available.
You just know the March Meet NEEDS a small block SMILE
I'm seriously thinking about adding the Young Blood graphics we've talked about for a couple of years now.
Time will tell.
Bob
Chassis updates are done so it's just a matter of bolting on some carbon fiber brakes and Leahy device.
If we just race Bowling Green this year, that's just the way it is. I'd love to run the March Meet but without major financial help, it just ain't happening.
Anyone interested in helping out, let me know. Plenty of ad space available.
You just know the March Meet NEEDS a small block SMILE
I'm seriously thinking about adding the Young Blood graphics we've talked about for a couple of years now.
Time will tell.
Bob
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Top Fuel Revisited yet Again
UPDATE:
I've received a few phone calls, in short, saying I'm beating a dead horse and I agree with you guys completely.
One person or even two or three, is not going to have any impact on the current situation with rules.
Currently the AA/FD group is only a name. Honestly, I have no idea what exactly they do but it's obviously not doing much.
Increasing performance changes, less races, more costly safety add-ons. Not exactly what you'd expect from an association that should be working to grow the sport, not oversee it's demise.
Listen to all the racers that wish Good Guys were still in charge? Who would have ever thought we'd be hearing that?
I've heard that Sacramento is also a short AA/FD field which makes this the second race in a row with a short field. AND this is on the West Coast. Just how much evidence does anyone need?
Fix it people, while you still have some time!
Doesn't matter if it's what I've suggested or some other idea. Doing nothing is not an option.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've noticed of late there are several threads related to approx. what I was talking about several months ago.
Basically 2 ways you can run Top Fuel.
Either with all the new requirements which will allow any mph and et.
OR
Run a more basic setup but have a 6.0 et cap.
Some recent races have shown less than full fields in both Funny Car and Top Fuel with many racers not being able, financially, to meet the new requirements.
I often ask, who would this change hurt?
The answer I most often get is a 6.0 car beating up on a "fully legal" car.
Is this the best answer any of you can come up with?
If so, it's a poor one at best.
Some have said that if you can't meet the rules, just quit or bracket race.
An equally poor response. We need more cars, not less.
Too many have quit already.
Currently if you show up, you're in at most nitro races. How does this lack of car count help anyone? It doesn't and you know it.
Racers sit out qualifying sessions simply because there is nobody to race against to get in the show. Might as well save your fuel and parts.
And this helps the overall show how?
Some races now insist that a car make at least one qualifying round during prime time spectator watching times. Who would have thought a few years ago that this rule would even need to be implemented?
While it's pretty obvious nobody at NHRA has any interest is stepping back in performance, it's only a matter of time before more and more teams call it quits or just race locally for fun.
Idaho and Bowling Green were both short fields due to rules only. Yes, finances played a part but rules were the major stumbling block. We can all name teams that would have been at either race but for rules.
How many tracks are going to tolerate these short fields or worse "Chicago Format" races before pulling the plug on the classes?
My guess is it's already happening. Sacramento comes to mind.
The recent changes to allow 2-spds in Top Fuel is going to come back and bite a lot of racers. While the change is all about "saving the clutch", does anyone believe that this is where it ends?
The 2-spd was the secret recipe in the 70's that first got cars into the 5's. Apply the same logic to now and you have NTF going low 5's and well over 280mph.
Now you will have owners complaining that with the 2-spd, the current tire isn't big enough. Given NHRA's total lack of control, the obvious next step is bigger rear slicks to help out the 2-spd. When will it end. Answer, it won't. The mind boggles at just where this could go. If you've got the 2-spd, why not drop down to a 3:20 gear?
The other argument is spectators won't go along with lessor performance. Bull Shit!
NASCAR has actually grown since restricting it's races and mandating smaller motors.
Most fans could care less than a 1970 stock car is actually WAY faster than the current cars at places like Talladega. More cars/teams can actually win in Nascar than ever before and the fans love it.
Somehow this entire escalation of costs has to stop or none of us will have anyone to race against. Most just sit on their hands and will worry about it next year.
Don't expect NHRA to do anything as they've proven over and over again they have zero interest in racers other than supporting the companies that benefit from the rule changes. I'm still smarting over $650 foam seats that have $40 in parts LOL
When it's gone folks, it's really gone! We've only ourselves to blame for letting this spiral out of control.
There is an old business adage that applies here.
Company's with no clue are happy to see other companies go out of business.
Successful ones want to see everyone doing well.
Bob
I've received a few phone calls, in short, saying I'm beating a dead horse and I agree with you guys completely.
One person or even two or three, is not going to have any impact on the current situation with rules.
Currently the AA/FD group is only a name. Honestly, I have no idea what exactly they do but it's obviously not doing much.
Increasing performance changes, less races, more costly safety add-ons. Not exactly what you'd expect from an association that should be working to grow the sport, not oversee it's demise.
Listen to all the racers that wish Good Guys were still in charge? Who would have ever thought we'd be hearing that?
I've heard that Sacramento is also a short AA/FD field which makes this the second race in a row with a short field. AND this is on the West Coast. Just how much evidence does anyone need?
Fix it people, while you still have some time!
Doesn't matter if it's what I've suggested or some other idea. Doing nothing is not an option.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've noticed of late there are several threads related to approx. what I was talking about several months ago.
Basically 2 ways you can run Top Fuel.
Either with all the new requirements which will allow any mph and et.
OR
Run a more basic setup but have a 6.0 et cap.
Some recent races have shown less than full fields in both Funny Car and Top Fuel with many racers not being able, financially, to meet the new requirements.
I often ask, who would this change hurt?
The answer I most often get is a 6.0 car beating up on a "fully legal" car.
Is this the best answer any of you can come up with?
If so, it's a poor one at best.
Some have said that if you can't meet the rules, just quit or bracket race.
An equally poor response. We need more cars, not less.
Too many have quit already.
Currently if you show up, you're in at most nitro races. How does this lack of car count help anyone? It doesn't and you know it.
Racers sit out qualifying sessions simply because there is nobody to race against to get in the show. Might as well save your fuel and parts.
And this helps the overall show how?
Some races now insist that a car make at least one qualifying round during prime time spectator watching times. Who would have thought a few years ago that this rule would even need to be implemented?
While it's pretty obvious nobody at NHRA has any interest is stepping back in performance, it's only a matter of time before more and more teams call it quits or just race locally for fun.
Idaho and Bowling Green were both short fields due to rules only. Yes, finances played a part but rules were the major stumbling block. We can all name teams that would have been at either race but for rules.
How many tracks are going to tolerate these short fields or worse "Chicago Format" races before pulling the plug on the classes?
My guess is it's already happening. Sacramento comes to mind.
The recent changes to allow 2-spds in Top Fuel is going to come back and bite a lot of racers. While the change is all about "saving the clutch", does anyone believe that this is where it ends?
The 2-spd was the secret recipe in the 70's that first got cars into the 5's. Apply the same logic to now and you have NTF going low 5's and well over 280mph.
Now you will have owners complaining that with the 2-spd, the current tire isn't big enough. Given NHRA's total lack of control, the obvious next step is bigger rear slicks to help out the 2-spd. When will it end. Answer, it won't. The mind boggles at just where this could go. If you've got the 2-spd, why not drop down to a 3:20 gear?
The other argument is spectators won't go along with lessor performance. Bull Shit!
NASCAR has actually grown since restricting it's races and mandating smaller motors.
Most fans could care less than a 1970 stock car is actually WAY faster than the current cars at places like Talladega. More cars/teams can actually win in Nascar than ever before and the fans love it.
Somehow this entire escalation of costs has to stop or none of us will have anyone to race against. Most just sit on their hands and will worry about it next year.
Don't expect NHRA to do anything as they've proven over and over again they have zero interest in racers other than supporting the companies that benefit from the rule changes. I'm still smarting over $650 foam seats that have $40 in parts LOL
When it's gone folks, it's really gone! We've only ourselves to blame for letting this spiral out of control.
There is an old business adage that applies here.
Company's with no clue are happy to see other companies go out of business.
Successful ones want to see everyone doing well.
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)