View Single Post
Old 10-19-2015, 05:03 PM   #55
Mark Yacavone
Veteran Member
 
Mark Yacavone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Miles From Nowhere
Posts: 7,815
Likes: 2,904
Liked 5,121 Times in 1,952 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Quote:
Originally Posted by john ancona View Post
Look the spring pressure should have not been changed, if anything NHRA should have just set every motor combo at 140 lbs. max on the seat. With that said why not remove the week link and allow the roller lifter, the rocker were changed to roller rockers because the stock rocker were breaking ,the push rods have been changed ,retainers have been changed ,the cam has been changed to a steel billet, the valves have been changed ,not to mention the oil pan, rods, pistons, aftermarket block, aftermarket crankshaft, heads ,head studs,carburetor, intake manifold, and we are worried about a bunch of self-serving racers. It aperies that with all the changes and the fact roller lifter are used on most 1986 or newer cars, are we really worried about allowing someone to use roller lifter if they so desire ? I am only stating the facts. I wonder how many racers would like to remove any of the above and slow their car down. (Disclaimer I am not a English Major)
EZ Money, The exact same argument was used for the roller rockers.
The $1000 ceramic bottom lifters in Stock Eliminator were not the problem at that time . I am only stating the facts, bro.

Anyone care to look into their crystal ball and tell us what next year's weak link will be, and how much to fix it ?
__________________
"We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers
Mark Yacavone is offline   Reply With Quote