roush cars in stock and super stock

[Tim Kish]

To implement boost control as a tech control is actually an unfair regulation on a forced induction engine. As boost is a measure of manifold back pressure you can increase the boost level in the manifold by changing the cam profile - LESS Lift or duration. You have made no changes to the blower/turbo at this point but the boost gauge reading has changed. Relative to performance this may/may not help, higher manifold pressure yields higher airflow velocity but also labors the charger more which creates added heat - its a function of the engine combination. My point is it is not directly indicative of power output. I am working on an application now that runs 8psi boost on the low power variant and 5 psi boost on the high power variant. Exact same supercharger system, drive ratio, etc - the only hardware difference is the cam profile. The low boost version makes 50Hp more.

A regulation on boost level would be no different then to limiting all NA applications to the factory rev limit (Nobody runs higher RPM than the OEM do they?)

[Jeff Lee]

Yes Tim, good points..So if a supercharger or turbo racer wants to run S/SS & the cam, exhaust or other modifications to factory alter boost then the racer will have to deal with it. The racer should still have to run OEM specified boost, not an NHRA arbitrary boost figure, but OEM spec, possibly a +/- boost number. The factory limits boost and the racer should follow those guidelines. If it takes
5K RPM or 8K RPM to see maximum boost so be it.
After all, the factory provides all the other numbers we need, right?

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Tim Kish

A regulation on boost level would be no different then to limiting all NA applications to the factory rev limit (Nobody runs higher RPM than the OEM do they?)

You are too funny!!!

[Mark Yacavone]

You reckon NHRA's gonna buy a bunch of telltale boost gauges and then loan them out for free?

[SPS]

Evan:
I can't believe you think the majority of us are nieve enough to buy your story about blower pressure vs. performance. Just one look at the power adder classes in NMCA, NSCA (defunct), OSCA etc.

I competitively raced in NHRA Modified Eliminator years ago. The racing was fair and very competitive and for the post part, no one or no class had any advantage. That was with two exceptions.

The first was the Mazda rotary. NHRA Tech could not figure out how to measure and calculate the cubic inch to weight ratio (still a problem in sports car racing) , so it dominated for a time.

The second, and relevant case to this thread, was the turbocharged Pinto of Buddy Ingersoll. He ran rampid through Modified eliminator and turned up the wick only when he needed to. No rules as to intercooler, boost pressure etc. He went as fast as he needed to in any weather and took a lot of money from the rest of the Modified racers.( as well as loosing a lot of respect.)

The point is, you cannot race a blown (turbocharged, supercharged) car in the same class as a naturally aspirated one.

Shoe polish race you say? Yes, but someone in the same class will suffer, be non-competitive and get run off. Only strict rules and guidelines (boost pressure, pulley size, blower mods, intercooler specs) will keep this in check. And as I said on another thread, we don't have that ability to tech them.

FJ

[Dick Butler]

Face it even three brands of cars all with Blowers would not be reasonable to tech...The good part of aging is having watched it happen before and recognizing the slippery slope coming on the horizon AGAIN>
The young guys at the manufacturer need better input on this project, or cooperation or....? Recognizing the weakness of our sport on the technical side and the loop holes previous racers have used to exploit the others makes it hard....

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by SPS

Evan:
I can't believe you think the majority of us are nieve enough to buy your story about blower pressure vs. performance. Just one look at the power adder classes in NMCA, NSCA (defunct), OSCA etc.)FJ

I happen to support Evan's quote since I have done lots of research and work on the Series 1 and Series 2 Buick S/C engines and have experienced the same issues. They are generic to S/C engines.

Originally Posted by SPS

The first was the Mazda rotary. NHRA Tech could not figure out how to measure and calculate the cubic inch to weight ratio (still a problem in sports car racing) , so it dominated for a time.FJ

NHRA calculated the CID on the rotary engine in the same fashion it was doen in IMSA, SCCA as determined by FIA with a multiplier factor of 2.2. I always felt Modified Eliminator was terminated due to the Modified Compact cars. It is a known fact that many of the sponsors complained to NHRA about the car too.

Originally Posted by SPS

The second, and relevant case to this thread, was the turbocharged Pinto of Buddy Ingersoll. He ran rampid through Modified eliminator and turned up the wick only when he needed to. No rules as to intercooler, boost pressure etc. He went as fast as he needed to in any weather and took a lot of money from the rest of the Modified racers.( as well as loosing a lot of respect.)FJ

When Buddy Ingersol had his Pinto, intercoolers where not allowed in the class and the class was limited to specific turbo models and parts numbers; which happened to be small sized. By the way, everytime he turned the wick, he had to take the engine apart, either replace it or repair it. About loosing respect...it is quite bold to say so about Buddy. He has always been an innovator and smart guy; he went through the same issues when he showed up with the Buick Grand National. If many were upset about his car, why did not others build a similar car? Too embarrased to race a Pinto with a 4 banger because it is not a "macho" car?

Originally Posted by SPS

The point is, you cannot race a blown (turbocharged, supercharged) car in the same class as a naturally aspirated one.

Shoe polish race you say? Yes, but someone in the same class will suffer, be non-competitive and get run off. Only strict rules and guidelines (boost pressure, pulley size, blower mods, intercooler specs) will keep this in check. And as I said on another thread, we don't have that ability to tech them.FJ

There is the ability to tech them and there is a lot of tribal knowledge out there for NHRA to properly factor these cars. Also, you have, although not perfect, the AHFS. Like I said before, the factoring by the AFHS made the Buick GN and T-Types, 1989 T-Firebird, including the Gallina's cars not a good choice.

All this whinning reminds me when the F.I. cars were incorporated with the carb cars; a lot of people started to read their "Farmer Almanacs" to predict the demise of carbed cars and every heads up race to be a win for the F.I. cars...look at the statistics and see the carbed cars are winning over the F.I. cars on heads-up races.

[Sean Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Tim Kish

To implement boost control as a tech control is actually an unfair regulation on a forced induction engine. As boost is a measure of manifold back pressure you can increase the boost level in the manifold by changing the cam profile - LESS Lift or duration. You have made no changes to the blower/turbo at this point but the boost gauge reading has changed. Relative to performance this may/may not help, higher manifold pressure yields higher airflow velocity but also labors the charger more which creates added heat - its a function of the engine combination. My point is it is not directly indicative of power output. I am working on an application now that runs 8psi boost on the low power variant and 5 psi boost on the high power variant. Exact same supercharger system, drive ratio, etc - the only hardware difference is the cam profile. The low boost version makes 50Hp more.

A regulation on boost level would be no different then to limiting all NA applications to the factory rev limit (Nobody runs higher RPM than the OEM do they?)

If they did limit boost than it sounds like your goal would be to find the best cam and boost combo to make the car run fast with the limitations set. Why would this not be a great way of limiting these cars adn still being a competitive combo in the class? Boost does not necesarily have to be limited to factory, so there could still be room for performance gains.

SSDiv6,

Is there a thread on classracer that you don't pop into and know EVERYTHING about. Or talk like it.

[SPS]

SSDiv6

Since you obviously weren't there competing, the NHRA didn't get the factoring of the rotary right the first time. And at best, it's a guestimate today. (not that I have any fault with the rotary, that wasn't my point)

As for Ingersoll's Pinto, he made enough to pay for the parts he used up. (and yes, I know he didn't have an intercooler on the Pinto). The point is, he COULD turn up the wick when he wanted, the rest couldn't.

I still don't believe the sanctioning body Tech has the manpower to accurately factor these engines and still keep things fair for everybody else.

FJ

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Sean Kennedy

SSDiv6,

Is there a thread on classracer that you don't pop into and know EVERYTHING about. Or talk like it.

...and what's your point?