Nhra no bigger than stock cam journals

[astikhossw]

http://www.nhraracer.com/content/gen...416&zoneid=132 So does this mean next year they will be checking for these big 55 and 60 mm cam journals.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by astikhossw

http://www.nhraracer.com/content/gen...416&zoneid=132 So does this mean next year they will be checking for these big 55 and 60 mm cam journals.

Probably not.

[Alan Nyhus]

Check out this older thread, specifically post #23:

http://classracer.com/classforum/sho...nal+cam&page=3

[MR DERBY CITY]

Originally Posted by astikhossw

http://www.nhraracer.com/content/gen...416&zoneid=132 So does this mean next year they will be checking for these big 55 and 60 mm cam journals.

This didn't last long, it has been removed from the site.......

[PJ305]

Originally Posted by MR DERBY CITY

This didn't last long, it has been removed from the site.......

Yeah Mr Derby City, NHRA must have figured 95% of their stocker fields would not be in compliance!...lol

[John Duzac]

In 2010 Pat Cvengros wrote: The cam shaft may be of the larger journal design. Must use babbitt type cam bearings. Non-roller design.

Based on the above letter, you would think it would be permissible to run a big base circle cam. When considering all the changes to stock NHRA has made today with stocker heads, why would NHRA enforce a stock base circle cam. Pat Cvengros caused plenty of people to utilize the larger base circle cam which I believe would be very costly. A clarification needs to be made so racers know which way to go. The other question is how much could the big base circle cam help. It may not help at all!

[Jason]

Originally Posted by John Duzac

.The other question is how much could the big base circle cam help. It may not help at all!

But it sure would be an expensive way to find out.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by MR DERBY CITY

This didn't last long, it has been removed from the site.......

Well, it was pretty stupid to rescind approval, long after the fact, of a relatively expensive modification to a pretty expensive part.

Further, given the other absurd rules for Stock valvetrain, allowing those cam cores helped re-level the playing field that was thrown way out by the other rules.

I'm not necessarily in favor of ANY of those rules, but if you're going to allow some to gain an advantage by opening some rules, you create an artificial advantage. And that's the problem with continually loosening the rules.

[Bobby Lundholm]

delete

[west coast]

The reminder on NHRA for this rule also included larger diameter lifters, which i believe there are more of those then large journal camshafts. Either way there are a lot of blocks out there that would be not usable in stock anymore.