HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-04-2009, 10:29 AM   #1
John Lang
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sheboygan Wi
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Thumbs up Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Keep the tire rule at 9" ! Use the NHRA & IHRA classes alike for stk and ss, my suggestion! John....
__________________
John Lang 365 STK, SS
John Lang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 03:48 PM   #2
Robert Swartz
Senior Member
 
Robert Swartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nineveh, Indiana
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lang View Post
Keep the tire rule at 9" ! Use the NHRA & IHRA classes alike for stk and ss, my suggestion! John....
The fly in the ointment here. Two points, IHRA allows (1) 10.5 tires and (2), they also allow the springs to be moved inboard for tire clearence. NHRA doesn't allow this. My contention, why not allow a maximum of a 10.5 tire, those that have NHRA legal cars, if they can fit them under the fenderwells, can run them.

The view I'm taking, you're cross polinating here, so some cars have already been built under one rule structure. Some might take it that using the IHRA rules makes it more liberal. The 9 inch tire really won't bother me, that's been my plan from the beginning. As I've stated, I'm building a crate motor car. I do want to keep it within the confines of NHRA rules, in case I decide one day to build a 301 Pontiac or 403 Oldsmobile motor.

To me that's another issue, what about those of us that populate these classes, crate motor and GT. Since I can't run NHRA events with this car as a crate motor or GT stocker. My option to use the rules that are allowed, give me a little more leeway than the guy running a car that competes in NHRA. If I chose to take advantage of them.

Robert Swartz
__________________
Robert Swartz - Swartz & Lane 66 Chevy II Pro
95 Achieva EF/SA, 78 Mustang II U/SA (work in progress) #354 stock

Last edited by Robert Swartz; 03-04-2009 at 03:49 PM. Reason: spelling
Robert Swartz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 05:43 PM   #3
Harry 6674
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lang View Post
Keep the tire rule at 9" ! Use the NHRA & IHRA classes alike for stk and ss, my suggestion! John....
I couldn't agree more. If you want fat tires, narrowed rearends and moved in frame rails theres Super stock. It ain't stock. Course you could still run stocker tires but it could be a handfull with the narrow track. Sort of like driving with one of those inflateaspares on.
Harry 6674 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 07:53 PM   #4
X-TECH MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
Cool Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry 6674 View Post
I couldn't agree more. If you want fat tires, narrowed rearends and moved in frame rails theres Super stock. It ain't stock. Course you could still run stocker tires but it could be a handfull with the narrow track. Sort of like driving with one of those inflateaspares on.
This quote just shows how much some dont know what they are talking about. They are not allowed narrowed rears, they are not allowed to move the frame rails and if you want to call a 10,5 (non W ) tire fat then go for it. They are allowed minor movement of the rear leaf springs to clear the side wall. The 10.5 tire was allowed mainly for the higher HP cars in AA and A, etc at the time this came about some of the southern IHRA tracks that these races were held on were not of the highest caliber in the traction dept. Besides have you ever seen how much modification of the wheel house and external fender is required to put a 9 inch slick on something like a 66-67 Chev Nova for NHRA. Oh yeah...its just a "STOCK" bolt on deal.....lol.

Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 03-04-2009 at 08:34 PM.
X-TECH MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 11:21 AM   #5
Harry 6674
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN View Post
This quote just shows how much some dont know what they are talking about. They are not allowed narrowed rears, they are not allowed to move the frame rails and if you want to call a 10,5 (non W ) tire fat then go for it. They are allowed minor movement of the rear leaf springs to clear the side wall. The 10.5 tire was allowed mainly for the higher HP cars in AA and A, etc at the time this came about some of the southern IHRA tracks that these races were held on were not of the highest caliber in the traction dept. Besides have you ever seen how much modification of the wheel house and external fender is required to put a 9 inch slick on something like a 66-67 Chev Nova for NHRA. Oh yeah...its just a "STOCK" bolt on deal.....lol.
I apologize if the frame narrowing is incorrect. I was going from Robert Swartz post. IHRA is not out west so I am not familiar with your rules, sorry. If you believe there are no narrowed rearends in NHRA stocker you may also be mistaken a little bit.
Harry 6674 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 11:42 AM   #6
X-TECH MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
Talking Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry 6674 View Post
I apologize if the frame narrowing is incorrect. I was going from Robert Swartz post. IHRA is not out west so I am not familiar with your rules, sorry. If you believe there are no narrowed rearends in NHRA stocker you may also be mistaken a little bit.
Yes I know that some of the NHRA cars and IHRA cars also have slightly narrowed rear housings. Who really cares as long as it looks correct. I was just saying that the amount they moved the leaf spring for side wall clearence was usually less than 3/4 of an inch on each side. This is in comparison with all of the body work required to fit a 9 inch stocker tire on some body styles. In time I hope IHRA changes the wording in thier rule book. A 9 inch radial is quicker than the 10.5's anyway.

Last edited by X-TECH MAN; 03-05-2009 at 11:56 AM.
X-TECH MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 12:38 PM   #7
XSTOCKER
Member
 
XSTOCKER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 147
Likes: 19
Liked 8 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

IDRA Independent Drag Racer Alliance

Bunch the abc, def, ghi etc. together for the Saturday afternoon class run-offs, no handy capped starts, more heads-up racing. Heads-up format is marketable. Run the class winners off together for the big event braggin rights Saturday night. Bunch everyone together Sunday afternoon for a Stock/Superstock combo bracket race.
My 2 cents, Mike Szcz
XSTOCKER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 04:01 PM   #8
Robert Swartz
Senior Member
 
Robert Swartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nineveh, Indiana
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry 6674 View Post
I apologize if the frame narrowing is incorrect. I was going from Robert Swartz post. IHRA is not out west so I am not familiar with your rules, sorry. If you believe there are no narrowed rearends in NHRA stocker you may also be mistaken a little bit.
Harry,

I too, could have phrased differently the wording. I guess it was a bit misleading. If your not familiar with IHRA rules, there are some differences. I don't see the rule differences being so substantial that we all can't come to some compromises and have a race. As Terry stated, IHRA rules allow minor inboard movement of the springs. And I took that from the rulebook. Here again, the car I'm building, a 1979 Firebird, I have no intention of running anything larger than the 9" tires.

No, you are NOT allowed a narrowed rear end. Now, something I've heard but can't substantiate, is some guys have mini-tubbed stockers in IHRA? Maybe someone currently racing can clear that up for me? Here again, I wouldn't do it because I one day may want to build either a 301 Pontiac or a 403 Oldsmobile engine to run NHRA events. I want my car to retain it's versatility.

On another note, even though I don't presently have a car ready to race. IF I had a say on the name. I like the CRA = Class Racers Association. That's my two jingling penny's.

Robert Swartz
__________________
Robert Swartz - Swartz & Lane 66 Chevy II Pro
95 Achieva EF/SA, 78 Mustang II U/SA (work in progress) #354 stock
Robert Swartz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 04:21 PM   #9
Bobby Lundholm
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Charlevoix, MI
Posts: 452
Likes: 113
Liked 125 Times in 49 Posts
Default Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Mini tub's are for front drive conversion crate motor stockers.
__________________
Bobby Lundholm 3516 G/SA
Bobby Lundholm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 06:10 PM   #10
Michael Beard
VIP Member
 
Michael Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,060
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Default Re: "WHAT IF" part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Lundholm View Post
Mini tub's are for front drive conversion crate motor stockers.
Correct.... ...and which there are only 4 of in the country. Not sure about Wright's Probe and Mace's new Sunfire, but I believe the Ross's Avenger and Sebring fit their 9" tires within the stock wheelwell.
__________________
Michael Beard - NHRA/IHRA 3216 S/SS
Michael Beard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.