Lencos in SS

Mike Voth · 10-27-2009, 03:35 PM

Why not? I know dad is tired of replacing gears, shafts, forks, sliders, and more gears all the time. Not from breakage, necessarily, just abuse.

While we're at it, titanium valves would be a good idea, also.

But there's a million things you could change. Where would you draw the line??

Myron Piatek · 10-27-2009, 03:42 PM

History keeps repeating itself. Mostly tube chassis and Lencos started to be used in Pro Stock in the early-mid-'70's. And those cars originally started as SS's.

To put things in perspective, the Pro Stock records in the late '70's were in the low to mid 8 second range!
(Before the 500" limit.)

bill dedman · 10-27-2009, 05:21 PM

And, the last car to hold the lbs./cu.in. Pro Stock MPH record (with MPH arguably being the most reliable HP indicator) was a 383" Hemi, run by John Hagen.

I think the Ford Cleveland was pulling more weight per cube than the Hemi at that time, though, so there's not really any way to compare engines; it's all apples and oranges...

Jeff Lee · 10-27-2009, 05:28 PM

I hear rumor of "clutchless" manual transmissions, not planetary (Lenco type) transmissions.
My understanding is a planetary will probably slow down when compared to a Jerico / G-Force type transmission.
I would be all for it. The transmission looks identical to it's clutch type twin. It's only the internals that are different. Automatics can change everything, look at a Pro-Trans and all of their modifications. Then there are e-shifts, trans-brakes, etc.
Stick racers should have the same benefits and that includes clutch releases comparable to trans-brakes.

SuperStockDodge · 10-27-2009, 07:11 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, I don't like where this is leading to (just my opinion)

It's bad enough as it is, just taking more and more "drive" out of the "driver" What happened to manual transmission drivers in Stock & Super Stock that actually had to use their coordination skills after they dropped the clutch on the starting line. Might as well allow clutchless transmissions (since most drivers don't use the clutch anyhow) but as far as lencos, give me a break! I could just see a few more years down the road, air shifters would be allowed for the lencos and we would have to start certifying the harness/bracket that holds the CO2 bottle.

I LOVE Super Stock, we don't need to take anymore of the (stock) out of Super "Stock". There is plenty of "Super" in the class already. Clutch/Transmission technology has come along way in the last 10 years, whoever said a (clutch assisted-manual transmission) car was less work than a automatic car? We need to just keep things the way they are and if someone wants a lenco-go run Comp or P/S...

SSHemi364 · 10-30-2009, 06:43 PM

This is pure insanity . For those who don't understand, a clutch assisted box can be shifted without a clutch, at a cost of between .015 and .020 sec per gear change. that is the time spent in neutral between gears. It also limits your clutch tune up as the flair in engine speed applies more counterweight. Do the math, a clutchless will be at least .05 to .06 quicker. Not to mention the ability to tune the clutch in a larger window.

All this does is escalate the cost of racing. Not a smart move given our present economy.What could possibly be the reason for this? Too hard to police? I don't think so, I can show you how to identify the cheaters in a New York min..
I think we need a explaination. The sportsman classes are not the place for highroller experiments. How about stapling the rule book closed for a few years and letting us catch our breath.

buzzinhalfdozen · 11-01-2009, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSHemi364

This is pure insanity . For those who don't understand, a clutch assisted box can be shifted without a clutch, at a cost of between .015 and .020 sec per gear change. that is the time spent in neutral between gears. It also limits your clutch tune up as the flair in engine speed applies more counterweight. Do the math, a clutchless will be at least .05 to .06 quicker. Not to mention the ability to tune the clutch in a larger window.

All this does is escalate the cost of racing. Not a smart move given our present economy.What could possibly be the reason for this? Too hard to police? I don't think so, I can show you how to identify the cheaters in a New York min..
I think we need a explaination. The sportsman classes are not the place for highroller experiments. How about stapling the rule book closed for a few years and letting us catch our breath.

Yes I agree it would run cost up however I can't agree with your estimate or .05-.06 E.T. gain. I've tested both styles of trans. in my own car and .02 was the most gain I saw of course results may vary. Yes you can use a more favorable clutch tune however for my money IF allowed I'd jump on the clutchless in a second. Here's why, the initial cost is basically the same the durability of the clutchless unit is far greater, anyone who's ran a clutchassisted and not used the clutch can tell you that the wear is drastically increased with a "small" repair costing $500-$700. With my trans.that translated to about 30 to 40 runs.Racers will always gravitate towards"the fast" stuff, look at the auto trans deal you can run a $1500 Powerglide or you can run a $6000. 3 speed. So with the great price difference of the autos why would cost even be a concern with the manual trans. Joe

Tony DePillo · 11-01-2009, 06:08 PM

So Joe, what the hell do I do with my three clutch assisted boxes, anybody want to buy them eh? I didn't think so. If you study any data download, you'll see why a clutchless is faster, it has to be, look at your g meter when you make the gear changes. As far as the clutch set up being the same, you need to work on your stuff dude.
Now the million dollar question--------WHY?
Rumor has it that a AH car from the west coast, a car that hasn't even been on the track yet, with a driver who's father works for the Glendora bunch, wants it. Now thats a hell of a price to pay for the rest of us idiots. This is the biggest bunch of BS to come down the pike in quite a while.
As far as I'm concerned they have turned this deal into bracket racing with the correct carb.

10-27-2009, 03:35 PM	#1
Mike Voth Live Reporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Buhler, KS Posts: 527 Likes: 5 Liked 57 Times in 14 Posts	Re: Lencos in SS Why not? I know dad is tired of replacing gears, shafts, forks, sliders, and more gears all the time. Not from breakage, necessarily, just abuse. While we're at it, titanium valves would be a good idea, also. But there's a million things you could change. Where would you draw the line?? __________________ Mike Voth 5189 GTN - 5188 GTO Voth Racing

10-27-2009, 03:42 PM	#2
Myron Piatek VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 1,542 Likes: 34 Liked 138 Times in 51 Posts	Re: Lencos in SS History keeps repeating itself. Mostly tube chassis and Lencos started to be used in Pro Stock in the early-mid-'70's. And those cars originally started as SS's. To put things in perspective, the Pro Stock records in the late '70's were in the low to mid 8 second range! (Before the 500" limit.) __________________ LOCOMOTION Racing Last edited by Myron Piatek; 10-27-2009 at 03:49 PM.

10-27-2009, 05:21 PM	#3
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Lencos in SS And, the last car to hold the lbs./cu.in. Pro Stock MPH record (with MPH arguably being the most reliable HP indicator) was a 383" Hemi, run by John Hagen. I think the Ford Cleveland was pulling more weight per cube than the Hemi at that time, though, so there's not really any way to compare engines; it's all apples and oranges... __________________ Bill

10-27-2009, 05:28 PM	#4
Jeff Lee VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Anthem, Arizona Posts: 2,766 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Lencos in SS I hear rumor of "clutchless" manual transmissions, not planetary (Lenco type) transmissions. My understanding is a planetary will probably slow down when compared to a Jerico / G-Force type transmission. I would be all for it. The transmission looks identical to it's clutch type twin. It's only the internals that are different. Automatics can change everything, look at a Pro-Trans and all of their modifications. Then there are e-shifts, trans-brakes, etc. Stick racers should have the same benefits and that includes clutch releases comparable to trans-brakes. __________________ Jeff Lee 7494 D/S '70 AMX

10-27-2009, 07:11 PM	#5
SuperStockDodge Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stickville USA Posts: 261 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Lencos in SS Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, I don't like where this is leading to (just my opinion) It's bad enough as it is, just taking more and more "drive" out of the "driver" What happened to manual transmission drivers in Stock & Super Stock that actually had to use their coordination skills after they dropped the clutch on the starting line. Might as well allow clutchless transmissions (since most drivers don't use the clutch anyhow) but as far as lencos, give me a break! I could just see a few more years down the road, air shifters would be allowed for the lencos and we would have to start certifying the harness/bracket that holds the CO2 bottle. I LOVE Super Stock, we don't need to take anymore of the (stock) out of Super "Stock". There is plenty of "Super" in the class already. Clutch/Transmission technology has come along way in the last 10 years, whoever said a (clutch assisted-manual transmission) car was less work than a automatic car? We need to just keep things the way they are and if someone wants a lenco-go run Comp or P/S... Last edited by SuperStockDodge; 10-28-2009 at 07:16 PM.

10-30-2009, 06:43 PM	#6
SSHemi364 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 74 Likes: 39 Liked 22 Times in 13 Posts	Re: Lencos in SS This is pure insanity . For those who don't understand, a clutch assisted box can be shifted without a clutch, at a cost of between .015 and .020 sec per gear change. that is the time spent in neutral between gears. It also limits your clutch tune up as the flair in engine speed applies more counterweight. Do the math, a clutchless will be at least .05 to .06 quicker. Not to mention the ability to tune the clutch in a larger window. All this does is escalate the cost of racing. Not a smart move given our present economy.What could possibly be the reason for this? Too hard to police? I don't think so, I can show you how to identify the cheaters in a New York min.. I think we need a explaination. The sportsman classes are not the place for highroller experiments. How about stapling the rule book closed for a few years and letting us catch our breath.

11-01-2009, 06:08 PM	#8
Tony DePillo Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dayton Ohio Posts: 41 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Lencos in SS So Joe, what the hell do I do with my three clutch assisted boxes, anybody want to buy them eh? I didn't think so. If you study any data download, you'll see why a clutchless is faster, it has to be, look at your g meter when you make the gear changes. As far as the clutch set up being the same, you need to work on your stuff dude. Now the million dollar question--------WHY? Rumor has it that a AH car from the west coast, a car that hasn't even been on the track yet, with a driver who's father works for the Glendora bunch, wants it. Now thats a hell of a price to pay for the rest of us idiots. This is the biggest bunch of BS to come down the pike in quite a while. As far as I'm concerned they have turned this deal into bracket racing with the correct carb.