GT Rulebook Amendments

[1347]

Originally Posted by CMcAllister

Correct. The 68-71s used different carbs on the same basic engine (mostly). My question was, will a simple carb change to something other than was used in the model year of car, i.e. a 68 Dart with a Thermoquad, make it acceptable for GT. I believe I got my answer.

Thanks.

Looks more than a carb change. A quick glance shows different compression ratios. Of course you could run less compression if its just a head gasket and chamber, But if its a piston cc, then that might be a problem.

[Mike Volkman]

Need to watch Lonnie's post on NHRA with coverage of the PRI show - day 1 @ 9:00 am. Makes interesting point that they realize people will be switching back and forth to "hide" from competitors with specific engine families and made the statement that they "may" find themselves staying in GT for the year. How that comes about who will know.

[Bryan Worner]

Originally Posted by SDS Inc

Need to watch Lonnie's post on NHRA with coverage of the PRI show - day 1 @ 9:00 am. Makes interesting point that they realize people will be switching back and forth to "hide" from competitors with specific engine families and made the statement that they "may" find themselves staying in GT for the year. How that comes about who will know.

Is NHRA going to start to be like other organizations and make fly by night rule changes? maybe if they would open up the quotas in stock and super stock and let more cars in they would get more heads up runs. People should just race their own car and worry about the rules that pertain to their car instead of crying to tech that others have an unfair advantage because they can run more than one class.

[Paul Precht]

Originally Posted by 1347

Looks more than a carb change. A quick glance shows different compression ratios. Of course you could run less compression if its just a head gasket and chamber, But if its a piston cc, then that might be a problem.

68-71 have the same piston, deck height, valve size and head CCs.

[Byron Worner]

I wonder if they are singling out GT with enforcement of rules or will they enforce all class rules in Super Stock Eliminator???
For example a Modified car that is required to run 2 carbs for a specific class but is only using one. Will this still be allowed or will it be corrected???

[james schaechter]

Originally Posted by Byron Worner

I wonder if they are singling out GT with enforcement of rules or will they enforce all class rules in Super Stock Eliminator???
For example a Modified car that is required to run 2 carbs for a specific class but is only using one. Will this still be allowed or will it be corrected???

I think it says a maximum 2 carbs or 3 2bbls in modified. Heck they didn’t really care too much when a well known modified racer raced in a heads up with more carb than allowed a few years ago so I doubt if they will change this.

I think if they did raise the quota just enough to be above the fields instead of defaulting to all run. Too much ladder playing because there is no fear of not qualifying. Why not make the minimum field 64 and let 80 in ? Or if they want a lower quota, make the field smaller, I realize some say that it isn’t fair etc. I would put it this way. Don’t sign up for a National event if you don’t want to try and actually qualify. There are many points meets to race in. There are some that are full fields plus and that means some don’t get in. We all seem to be able to survive when that happens.

I think also they should consider something such as more points for a heads up win and or more points for better qualifying or a record. Just little nuances that would drive racers to performance.

Maybe the SS category indexes should be lowered to reduce the number of stockers that can easily cross over with no mods and easily qualify for the SS field. If we care about SS vs GT, why not look at the easy path to SS by many stockers. Seems odd to push the GT SS deal without looking at that.

The GT rule change just reduces the places to hide. Not for all, for some.

I realize we can’t afford it to become comp. Heck comp racers can’t afford comp, so it has to be a balance. I feel like NHRA has been in support of policies that don’t require them to do the job that truly defines their existence. Anytime you have rules, you need teams to follow up. NHRA has no succession or sustainability plan for their tech dept.
The masters level tech personnel are aging out and retiring. If they don’t make some effort to help that, they will not be relevant.

[Tom Meyer]

What was broke the way it was? They let Hemis go to comp as well as Factory SS cars trying to get more cars there. The slower cars going from reg super stock to GT can go to 1/2 lb weight breaks. My Chevy II to change classes, you will now have to move 233lb yet you can only have 200 removable weight. The old rules made those cars more attractive to own. With Nhras less tech who is going watch out for this stuff any way. Tom

[GTX JOHN]

Originally Posted by Paul Precht

68-71 have the same piston, deck height, valve size and head CCs.

Does the 71 340 not have a thinner head gasket?

[Paul Precht]

Originally Posted by GTX JOHN

Does the 71 340 not have a thinner head gasket?

Yes, .002" equaling about .43 of a cc.

[GTX JOHN]

I thought it was 71 = .028 and 68 to 70 = .035
Did they change it?