Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

Larry,
Let's do a simple physics example. If you take the weight of one of the faster A/SA cars and divide it into its known flywheel horsepower, you get a weight to flywheel horsepower ratio. In order to level the playing field, this ratio should be applied to the new/unknown combo. For example, if the fastest 426 Max wedge goes across the scales at 3500lbs. and makes 630 hp at the flywheel, you get a ratio of 5.55. If you want to get a ball park "level playing field" weight of the new car combo, you multiply the known ratio by the known flywheel horsepower and you get the "level playing field" weight. If the new car makes (this is a conservative estimate) 750hp, the "level playing field" weight comes out to 4160 lbs. It appears that the new cars in A/SA are a bit light in the weight department.
I have to ask, do you think these guys are going to be able to control the mix of ego and adrenaline when they get to the track? If I owned one of these new "smart cars", I'd be lobbying NHRA for a FX type category...by the time their egos get done with them, those cars will be 4000 lbs. by this time next year. Like you said, the laws of physics don't change.

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

Yep, since NHRA won't adopt this class. I'll probably never again race at Indianapolis. Which is only 30 miles or so north of my home. Sure bet I'll never grace the field at the points meet or the US Nationals again.

Robert Swartz

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

Hey Tommy Boy!

You didn't mention that Jimmy D has a mustang.

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

So i guess someone should have told John Armstrong not to bother showing up for class at the US Nationals with his 1969 SS/AA corvette since he could only qualify third in that class behind two of the new cars. Oops wait a minute he did win class!!! I guess thats why we race on the track and not on paper!!

Mike Fahie

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

You are absolutely correct! But there is more to the story and paper didn't apply in your example. Downing looked like he broke according to DRC and Hopkins went red by .005 against Armstrong. By the way Hopkins ran a 8.601 @ 155.97 to Armstrong's 8.836 @ 150.25.

Don

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

Does any one think any B/SA car with a carb or carbs, or LT1, LS1 can run 135 mph or a 9.80 ET.

I bet Dottie "THINKS" she can.

"It's been so wrong for too long" Unknown

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

Yes he won, but it was a complete fluke. Both of the new cars in the class had starting line issues and the crowd went wild when they lost. But, just like you, we all knew the truth and so did John. I spoke to him at Indy.

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

Remember when a B car that ran ten-teens was a bad ride? :eek:

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

Allen, Great article you did on competitionplus. Glad to see some people are working on solving the problems with the the NHRA factoring system . I hope your time and effort are appreciated by the other racers.---John

Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders
 

Good job Alan, what I would like to know is what happened at the big meeting at the Grove that were to have S & SS racers evolved in the discussion ? Did it take place or was it more smoke from nhra? Anybody ?