Factory experimental

[Billy Nees]

Wow! I guess that I can die in my sleep and be a happy man! First Bruce and now Greg! Hey guys, while I will agree with you both 100% about "Factory Superstockers" coming into Stock, the "Perversion of the rules" has been going on for so long now (and usually with certain racers approval) that I'm sure that the suits in Glendora just figure this latest perversion is just the norm. We need the OEMs if for nothing else then for the publicity that they can generate. BUT, we need them participating within the "intent and spirit" of the rules. As far as I'm concerned, we all brought this upon ourselves by allowing "the rules" to be stretched and bent (and ignored) to the point that even I (the dumb s**t that I am) know that Stock is not Stock anymore. I feel that the dreaded AHFS was just NHRAs way of telling us"we can't enforce the rules anymore so go ahead and enhance heads and intakes and run parts breaker cams and we'll just tag on some HP". Greg, you and Woodro seem to be driving this runner volume issue and I'm going to guess (and I'll bet that it's a pretty good guess) that it's being driven to just try and make legal some "enhanced" heads that aren't legal now. Oh but let's see, now we've got NO valve seat rule and any steel valve which is going to make our runners bigger. I fail to see a difference between what Ford and Chrysler are doing with engines that never came in cars and what we are doing with valves, heads, brakes, fuel cells, ceramic lifters,wheelie bars, etc that never came in cars. BTW, LT1s never came in 98 Firebirds.

[Greg Hill]

Billy, it seems to me there is a large difference between allowing a small variance in runner volumes because of rule changes over the years and letting a blown aftermarket built race car in stock.

Greg

[Billy Nees]

Greg, they are both "perversions of the rules". Period. I guess that the difference you are seeing is that it's OK to steal a little but it's not OK to steal a lot!

[dwydendorf]

I would like to know what part of these cars makes them Super Stockers? Is it the fact that there are only 50 of them or would it be all right if Ford built 500? Is it the 5.4 engine? Isn't there a 5.4 engine available in the Shelby Mustang? My local Ford Dealer ,in a town of 8000 people, had 2 of them on the showroom floor last year. Is it the Eaton Supercharger that is available on the 600 hp Corvette and previous mentioned Shelby Mustang? I rented a Pontiac Grand Prix at National Car Rental a few years ago that was equipped with an Eaton Supercharger. Is it the 9 inch rear end and 9 inch Goodyear tires and Bogart wheels? Gee, I thought you could do this in Stock. Is it the fact that Ford farmed out the building of these cars to Roush instead of tying up their assembly lines to do it? Isn't that how Chrysler used to build the K car convertibles and Chevy used to build the T top cars by farming the operation to ASC? Is it the lighter shipping weight? Don't you think you could make the car lighter by taking out all of the junk they put in these new cars? Hey, what is stopping you from building one? Instead of complaining about the new cars, how about complaining about the Automatic Horsepower Factoring System, that doesn't work.LOL

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by dwydendorf

I would like to know what part of these cars makes them Super Stockers? Is it the fact that there are only 50 of them or would it be all right if Ford built 500? Is it the 5.4 engine? Isn't there a 5.4 engine available in the Shelby Mustang? My local Ford Dealer ,in a town of 8000 people, had 2 of them on the showroom floor last year. Is it the Eaton Supercharger that is available on the 600 hp Corvette and previous mentioned Shelby Mustang? I rented a Pontiac Grand Prix at National Car Rental a few years ago that was equipped with an Eaton Supercharger. Is it the 9 inch rear end and 9 inch Goodyear tires and Bogart wheels? Gee, I thought you could do this in Stock. Is it the fact that Ford farmed out the building of these cars to Roush instead of tying up their assembly lines to do it? Isn't that how Chrysler used to build the K car convertibles and Chevy used to build the T top cars by farming the operation to ASC? Is it the lighter shipping weight? Don't you think you could make the car lighter by taking out all of the junk they put in these new cars? Hey, what is stopping you from building one? Instead of complaining about the new cars, how about complaining about the Automatic Horsepower Factoring System, that doesn't work.LOL

The same exact thing that made certain cars of the past ineligible for Stock Eliminator. They do not fit the class, at all, not even close. They do not even fit the spirit of the class.

What is stopping people from building one? Well, for one thing, it is January, the racing season here starts in about 3-4 weeks. For another, they already have a $50K plus, or more Stock Eliminator car they have anywhere from 3-5 years invested in, to over 30 years invested in. Finally, how about availability and money?

You can only make the car as light as NHRA allows you to. And of all the ridiculous things so far, comparing sunroofs and convertible tops to a special built supercharged engine is one of the absolute best "stretches" in this thread.

Those of us who understand this sport have been complaining about the AHFS for years. We've even offered complete and well thought out solutions. It's fallen on deaf ears, as always.

[Alan Roehrich]

Billy, on one hand, you are correct in that both instances are a somewhat fundamental change in the current rules.

However, for NHRA to adjust the cylinder head volumes because they told the racers a year ago they could legally do a more radical valve job in no way compares to NHRA allowing an OEM to hire a tuner to bring in a supercharged non factory production car.

The adjusting of the cylinder head volumes, if it happens, is a result of NHRA having to compensate for poor decisions they made, not only is it possible, even likely that their list of volumes has some errors, but before deciding to enact a cylinder head volume rule, they first allowed modifications to the heads long after the volumes were established.

This other train wreck, well, it pretty much speaks for itself.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Billy, on one hand, you are correct in that both instances are a somewhat fundamental change in the current rules.

However, for NHRA to adjust the cylinder head volumes because they told the racers a year ago they could legally do a more radical valve job in no way compares to NHRA allowing an OEM to hire a tuner to bring in a supercharged non factory production car.

The adjusting of the cylinder head volumes, if it happens, is a result of NHRA having to compensate for poor decisions they made, not only is it possible, even likely that their list of volumes has some errors, but before deciding to enact a cylinder head volume rule, they first allowed modifications to the heads long after the volumes were established.

This other train wreck, well, it pretty much speaks for itself.

Alan, when the SS runner volumes were originally posted they were somewhat enlarged at that time. What we NOW have is a specific number for NHRA to use as a tool to better do their job. Too big, too small, it's a number and we can't exceed that number. Just because the rules say that you can "pocket port" your "Stock" head and use a "backcut" valve doesn't mean that you have to. I've been getting told that by the "genuises" in this sport for years. If your head measures too big then I guess that you'd better put a thick valve in it or start fresh and don't get so "piggy" with the bowl hog. I will say again, "we have all brought this on ourselves by allowing a perversion of the rules for years".

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Alan, when the SS runner volumes were originally posted they were somewhat enlarged at that time. What we NOW have is a specific number for NHRA to use as a tool to better do their job. Too big, too small, it's a number and we can't exceed that number. Just because the rules say that you can "pocket port" your "Stock" head and use a "backcut" valve doesn't mean that you have to. I've been getting told that by the "genuises" in this sport for years. If your head measures too big then I guess that you'd better put a thick valve in it or start fresh and don't get so "piggy" with the bowl hog. I will say again, "we have all brought this on ourselves by allowing a perversion of the rules for years".

What we now have is a number. How good is it? I'm not sure we really know. With all due respect to the actual tech guys in the field, and I do have a tremendous amount of respect and yes, admiration for many of them, regardless of this "tool", or any other "tool", NHRA itself will probably not use it to "do a better job". After all, why should it change now? From what I've seen, guys like Travis, Wesley, Dave, and Harry do the very best job they can, given what NHRA actually allows them to do.

Now, with regards to "bowl hogs" and necked down valves, if you race, and you have to face pretty good odds of getting heads up races, or you desire to be competitive in class, then you must take advantage of the rules NHRA gives you. If they say a valve that flows better than the rest is legal, you pretty much have no choice but to run it, again, if you want to go fast and win. If they change a rule to allow more valve job modifications, you don't have a lot of choice, unless you don't mind getting beat. Do you have to do it? No, no one is forcing you. But, you did come to race didn't you?

Have the rules gotten way out of control? Yes, absolutely. Did the average racers really have a choice, or a say in the matter? Not really. Most of the current perversion and looseness is a lot more of a result of NHRA (not to be confused with the tech staff in the field) not wanting to invest the time and effort in tech inspection, rather than a result of racers wanting the rules opened up. Sure, some racers can have the blame for this laid squarely at their feet, because they were the ones who got caught with the cheated up parts to begin with. But it was NHRA that decided to make them legal, rather than have to look at them.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

What we now have is a number. How good is it? I'm not sure we really know. With all due respect to the actual tech guys in the field, and I do have a tremendous amount of respect and yes, admiration for many of them, regardless of this "tool", or any other "tool", NHRA itself will probably not use it to "do a better job". After all, why should it change now? From what I've seen, guys like Travis, Wesley, Dave, and Harry do the very best job they can, given what NHRA actually allows them to do.

Now, with regards to "bowl hogs" and necked down valves, if you race, and you have to face pretty good odds of getting heads up races, or you desire to be competitive in class, then you must take advantage of the rules NHRA gives you. If they say a valve that flows better than the rest is legal, you pretty much have no choice but to run it, again, if you want to go fast and win. If they change a rule to allow more valve job modifications, you don't have a lot of choice, unless you don't mind getting beat. Do you have to do it? No, no one is forcing you. But, you did come to race didn't you?

Have the rules gotten way out of control? Yes, absolutely. Did the average racers really have a choice, or a say in the matter? Not really. Most of the current perversion and looseness is a lot more of a result of NHRA (not to be confused with the tech staff in the field) not wanting to invest the time and effort in tech inspection, rather than a result of racers wanting the rules opened up. Sure, some racers can have the blame for this laid squarely at their feet, because they were the ones who got caught with the cheated up parts to begin with. But it was NHRA that decided to make them legal, rather than have to look at them.

Alan, I've read and reread your last post a few times now and I don't know where you're coming from. Nobody has more respect for the Tech guys than I do. Any racer that would give a questionable piece to a Tech guy to look at is DISrespecting him. Getting tossed by a Tech guy and going over his head is DISrespect. Agreed? They now have a given number to compare specific castings to. You're over, you're out. No more going over his head. Period. Black and white. Agreed? Now with regards to bowl hogs and valves, you will have to go pretty far to find a more competitive person than I am BUT if somebody beats me in a heads up run or bumps me from a full field and is legal then I have no problem with that. Agreed? Have the rules gotten out of control? No doubt. Did the average racer really have a choice? Yes we did. We all knew what rules were being "perverted" and let it happen. At Indy a few years back I got in a heated "discussion" with a young man that told me;"Where I grew up we called guys like you a rat" to which I replied "Where I grew up we called guys like you cheaters". Since then I share my thoughts with my close friends and leave it at that. Average racers have allowed other racers to "pervert" and manipulate the rules to a point that it becomes the norm. Period. Agreed? We have brought all of this on ourselves by ignoring it all. Agreed?

[Alan Roehrich]

At this point, we're getting way off topic here. I think we've pretty much hijacked this thread more than we should. I've enjoyed the discussion, and I do see where you are coming from, we probably agree a lot more than is evident.

The subject at hand, however, is not the rules in general, but the rules as they apply to whether or not a car is eligible for the class.