Schubeck lifters

[Paul Merolla]

I broke a fingernail the other day...I'm gonna petition NHRA to make Lee Press-On Nails legal for Stock.

[Alan Roehrich]

No thanks. Where do we draw the line next? When we put in roller lifters, something else will break. Then the campaign will be on to change the rules to allow something else. Where does it end? I can probably make a fair amount of money on people "upgrading" to roller lifters, so it would probably help my bottom line. But in my opinion, it would be very bad for the class. Maybe it sounds good to some, but this is just another escalation that will lead to something else, and then another, and another after that.

[Bob Mulry]

Here we go again...............................




Just take a look at my posts going back 10 years and you can plainly see the direction that a bunch of self-serving racers want to take Stock Eliminator



Bob

[john ancona]

Originally Posted by Bob Mulry

Here we go again...............................




Just take a look at my posts going back 10 years and you can plainly see the direction that a bunch of self-serving racers want to take Stock Eliminator



Bob

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)

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by john ancona

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 ?

[moparpilot]

Originally Posted by Jeff Teuton

Again I say, I have already sent in the request to CA. Need reinforcement. You gotta wear out Tech in CA and IN and every Division and every SRAC member. I got no flat tappet stuff. I got no dog here, but after very recent identical problems with Sammy Pizzolato and Larry Hill within one month, yall gotta get in the battle.

move to super stock and leave stk alone

[Dan Fahey]

Originally Posted by john ancona

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)

Agree with the 140lb Seat Pressure or something like that.
Racing would be more fun.

d

[Alan Roehrich]

Forget a seat pressure rule. It is NOT seat pressure that creates the need for special lifters, it is the open pressure. I suppose you could try to write a rule covering both seat pressure and open pressure. Then you will force people to spend a ton of money on springs, if they can even find a set to match the rules.

Further, it is nearly impossible to set a spring pressure rule that does not have a disparate effect on various combinations. What works for one engine and allows it to reach maximum potential will not be nearly enough for others. So, who do you handicap, and who do you give the advantage to?

In any event, making a seat pressure (or any spring pressure) rule will only result in people having to spend a ton of money buying several new cam and lifter sets in order to find something to work with the new rule. The current cams that have been in development for years will now be door stops and paper weights. And then there will be more breakage while everyone finds the limits. Some cars will slow down a ton, some not at all.

The high spring pressures are already here as are the cams that work with them. They've been here for a long time, they're not new. We've been dealing with trick lifters for many years, this is not new. We do not need a new lifter rule or a new spring rule.

If you do not want to run ceramic lifters, then buy top quality tool steel lifters and follow the correct procedures. Or, switch to a combination that uses roller lifters with the current rules.

Mark, as far as the crystal ball goes, it is obvious. With roller lifters, the next failure point will be rocker fasteners for those who do get to run shaft rockers. They'll need stud girdles, or shaft rockers. Then what?

But there will always be a fuse, something will always be the next weak link that breaks. It is time to draw the line, and in fact, carve it in stone. The escalation must stop somewhere, or Stock Eliminator engines will eventually be the same as Competition Eliminator engines.

Originally Posted by Jeff Teuton

Again I say, I have already sent in the request to CA. Need reinforcement. You gotta wear out Tech in CA and IN and every Division and every SRAC member. I got no flat tappet stuff. I got no dog here, but after very recent identical problems with Sammy Pizzolato and Larry Hill within one month, yall gotta get in the battle.

So because those 2 guys broke their engine the rules should be changed?
No thanks, sounds like these guys need to look at other things. Trend tool steel lifters? valve springs, cam profiles?
I vote no, and will speak on the other side of this. The 396 guys are not blowing up valve train parts anymore. Maybe try those engine builders.

A few COPO Camaro guys were breaking lifters, and they were roller lifters? Just Ask Dan Fletcher. What is the answer to that?

Dead ON!! LIKE

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Forget a seat pressure rule. It is NOT seat pressure that creates the need for special lifters, it is the open pressure. I suppose you could try to write a rule covering both seat pressure and open pressure. Then you will force people to spend a ton of money on springs, if they can even find a set to match the rules.

Further, it is nearly impossible to set a spring pressure rule that does not have a disparate effect on various combinations. What works for one engine and allows it to reach maximum potential will not be nearly enough for others. So, who do you handicap, and who do you give the advantage to?

In any event, making a seat pressure (or any spring pressure) rule will only result in people having to spend a ton of money buying several new cam and lifter sets in order to find something to work with the new rule. The current cams that have been in development for years will now be door stops and paper weights. And then there will be more breakage while everyone finds the limits. Some cars will slow down a ton, some not at all.

The high spring pressures are already here as are the cams that work with them. They've been here for a long time, they're not new. We've been dealing with trick lifters for many years, this is not new. We do not need a new lifter rule or a new spring rule.

If you do not want to run ceramic lifters, then buy top quality tool steel lifters and follow the correct procedures. Or, switch to a combination that uses roller lifters with the current rules.

Mark, as far as the crystal ball goes, it is obvious. With roller lifters, the next failure point will be rocker fasteners for those who do get to run shaft rockers. They'll need stud girdles, or shaft rockers. Then what?

But there will always be a fuse, something will always be the next weak link that breaks. It is time to draw the line, and in fact, carve it in stone. The escalation must stop somewhere, or Stock Eliminator engines will eventually be the same as Competition Eliminator engines.