2012 Rules Are Posted

[Bob Mulry]

Looks prety simple to me..........

The cylinder head rules in Stock didn't change and that states "The following are permitted: polylocks, jam nuts, screw-in larger-diameter rocker studs or pinned studs, bronzewall valve guides"

The ONLY rule that chaged was the ability to use aftermarket rocker arms and they did NOT have to be (as the old rule was) "Aftermarket rocker arm must be identical to OEM. Either adjustable pushrods or adjustable OEM rocker arms permitted on any application, but not both. OEM roller rockers permitted ONLY if application was originally equipped with roller rockers"

The difference is now the rule says "Aftermarket rocker arm permitted. Either adjustable pushrods or adjustable OEM rocker arms permitted on any application, but not both.

Looks like stud mounted roller rocker arms for the OEM stud mounted engines and T&D's for the OEM shaft type rocker arms.

I don't like the rule but is seems pretty clear on what their intention was.

[Jim Kaekel]

Originally Posted by Bob Mulry

Looks prety simple to me..........

The cylinder head rules in Stock didn't change and that states "The following are permitted: polylocks, jam nuts, screw-in larger-diameter rocker studs or pinned studs, bronzewall valve guides"

The ONLY rule that chaged was the ability to use aftermarket rocker arms and they did NOT have to be (as the old rule was) "Aftermarket rocker arm must be identical to OEM. Either adjustable pushrods or adjustable OEM rocker arms permitted on any application, but not both. OEM roller rockers permitted ONLY if application was originally equipped with roller rockers"

The difference is now the rule says "Aftermarket rocker arm permitted. Either adjustable pushrods or adjustable OEM rocker arms permitted on any application, but not both.

Looks like stud mounted roller rocker arms for the OEM stud mounted engines and T&D's for the OEM shaft type rocker arms.

I don't like the rule but is seems pretty clear on what their intention was.

I wonder what will be acceptable for pedestal mount rocker arms like Olds or some Fords?

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Jim Kaekel

I wonder what will be acceptable for pedestal mount rocker arms like Olds or some Fords?

Paired shafts, like the Harland Sharp offerings, or stud mount conversions.

[7423]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Paired shafts, like the Harland Sharp offerings, or stud mount conversions.

Alan
You mention stud conversions for a small Ford 5.0. IMO, that would take machining the head to accept a stud and milling the pedestal to accept a guide plate, correct??
That would be a no no as I am told............am I wrong and lots of racers have done this and that makes it ok? I would love to go to a screw in stud and a guide plate and toss the dumb azz shims kits in the trash.

[Alan Roehrich]

There are stud conversions that do not require machining.

You are allowed to drill and tap for screw in studs anyway.

The question would be, if NHRA requires the OEM configuration, what does NHRA consider the configuration of the Olds and Ford 5.0 to be? It's not a shaft mount, by any stretch. But neither is it a stud mount.

I'd suggest anyone considering making changes wait until at least after the PRI Show next week in Orlando, and what ever you decide, get approval from Glendora in writing, and keep it with the car at all times.

[SS Engine Guy]

Aftermarket rockers. And more spring pressure. And nothing about ratios which will work much better with different ramp angles on cams which will require more spring pressure. Speeding up opening and closing intervals. And you can only get so much spring without bigger diameter valve pockets. (next change) Sounds reasonable to me------------In SUPERSTOCK. If you can't make a stock rocker live with the mods allowed you probably should be running in a class that already allows aftermarket rockers. Not screwing up a class that is screwed up enough by all the whining, and aftermarket BS that has already been allowed. As many have stated deregulating spring pressures caused this.

Just what we need, or so I'm told, more classes. I thought the manufacturers wanted less classes? Which is it?

[Bernie Cunningham]

Originally Posted by SS Engine Guy

Aftermarket rockers. And more spring pressure. And nothing about ratios which will work much better with different ramp angles on cams which will require more spring pressure. Speeding up opening and closing intervals. And you can only get so much spring without bigger diameter valve pockets. (next change) Sounds reasonable to me------------In SUPERSTOCK. If you can't make a stock rocker live with the mods allowed you probably should be running in a class that already allows aftermarket rockers. Not screwing up a class that is screwed up enough by all the whining, and aftermarket BS that has already been allowed. As many have stated deregulating spring pressures caused this.

Just what we need, or so I'm told, more classes. I thought the manufacturers wanted less classes? Which is it?

X2 , where the heck did this come from ????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

just go ahead and dilute us again cause of a few whinny people (or rich) get there way!!!! sounds like US politics, buggar !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dan Lattimore]

Originally Posted by Jim Kaekel

I wonder what will be acceptable for pedestal mount rocker arms like Olds or some Fords?

Jim, You have a pm.

[keith ohanesian]

I just want to change my seat so when some dude having a mid-life crisis crosses the centerline behind me in his 8.50 9 inch tire car and punts me like a feild goal kicker, my seat doesn't fall apart.. Oh! Or me... But hell everyone else wants roller rockers and pro stock spring pressures.

[Mickey Whaley]

Originally Posted by keith ohanesian

I just want to change my seat so when some dude having a mid-life crisis crosses the centerline behind me in his 8.50 9 inch tire car and punts me like a feild goal kicker, my seat doesn't fall apart.. Oh! Or me... But hell everyone else wants roller rockers and pro stock spring pressures.

The seat must not be important keith just get a nice window net instead