NHRA Disqualifies Two Competitors during the Chevrolet Perfo

[Troy Pourciau]

NHRA Disqualifies Two Competitors during the Chevrolet Performance U.S. Nationals.


#1 - supercharger pulley did not meet specs.

#2 - false battery installed.

[robzneed4speed]

I spoke to the gentlemen with the false battery. It was a borrowed ride and he
was unaware. He wanted to fix it but NHRA wouldn't let him.

[PontiacManiac]

I had a fake battery in tech a couple years ago they found and we didn't even know it was a fake battery...Bo actually argued with the tech guy about it until we unscrewed it and lifted it up. There were quite a few of us that had them and it was more annoying than anything. I don't understand why they care so much about that. It is still stock appearing. I can't believe they would throw someone out for that.

[Wayne Kerr]

I have it from a good source that the supercharger pulley was larger than the specification.

There is no plus or minus tolerance on the pulley spec's. unlike crank stroke.

The rule needs to be clarified before a competitor gets pitched. Not a good call by the NHRA.

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr

I have it from a good source that the supercharger pulley was larger than the specification.

There is no plus or minus tolerance on the pulley spec's. unlike crank stroke.

The rule needs to be clarified before a competitor gets pitched. Not a good call by the NHRA.

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

I was told the pulley was smaller, by another supercharged CJ racer, and that he should have had another 120 lbs in the car to run that pulley.

[jmcarter]

Originally Posted by PontiacManiac

I had a fake battery in tech a couple years ago they found and we didn't even know it was a fake battery...Bo actually argued with the tech guy about it until we unscrewed it and lifted it up. There were quite a few of us that had them and it was more annoying than anything. I don't understand why they care so much about that. It is still stock appearing. I can't believe they would throw someone out for that.

NHRA had busted a few on this earlier this year and even put a reminder on NHRARacer. So with all those warnings it was probably pretty cut and dry as far as they were concerned.

[Evan Smith]

I believe the pulley was too large and there is a spec on the pulley diameter.

[Mike Schwartz]

Classracerinfo.com shows a spec of 3.5" upper and 8" lower on the pulleys for the 2013 CJ (2014 won't load). If you are using OEM pulleys and wanted to argue that the OEM manufacturing tolerances are unknown, how much deviation from the posted specs should you be allowed? Up to 1%? 5%? 10%? At what point does it become an unfair advantage?

Does anyone know how far off spec the pulley actually was?

[Troy Pourciau]

Originally Posted by Mike Schwartz

Classracerinfo.com shows a spec of 3.5" upper and 8" lower on the pulleys for the 2013 CJ (2014 won't load). If you are using OEM pulleys and wanted to argue that the OEM manufacturing tolerances are unknown, how much deviation from the posted specs should you be allowed? Up to 1%? 5%? 10%? At what point does it become an unfair advantage?

Does anyone know how far off spec the pulley actually was?

Tech inspectors discovered the supercharger pulley did not meet NHRA specifications.

That all it says Mike.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr

I have it from a good source that the supercharger pulley was larger than the specification.

There is no plus or minus tolerance on the pulley spec's. unlike crank stroke.

The rule needs to be clarified before a competitor gets pitched. Not a good call by the NHRA.

See you at the races,
Wayne Kerr

Your good source should have told you that the pulley was from a different year Ford supercharger. Thousandths of an inch had nothing to do with the DQ. Using a different OEM Ford pulley from another year is what got the racer tossed.