7.5 lb class for GT

[Just Observing]

Originally Posted by Dick Butler

The minimum Wt for front wheel car is 2500 + driver. The only problem is BB are legal in them too. Will they fit? Dont know. One of the positive possibilities of Higher GT might be New Mustang , Camaro or Charger with early Motors.

That is the "problem" witha lighter Gt class. You will not get any of the cool old hi-po stuff. People will take the small cavalier,cobalt cars and stuff a smog motor 454 in them and be lighter and faster. The yawn factor kicks in.

Also Dick if the GT cars ever get a 7lbs or lighter class they will run out every old muscle car from TOP SS, including the ultra trick, modern AH cars. The only way to keep any appeal is to keep Top SS old Muscle Cars entirely. No GT stuff in Top SS!!!!!

[Just Observing]

Originally Posted by Dick Butler

There are two Thunderbolts coming out soon built to match or exceed the Hemi Cuda and Gt stuff. We will wait and see but I expect them to be awsome. People working at the intensity and dedication seen in SS/AH so far.

Didn't Paquet just get his thunderbolt updated? He is still slower than Depillo ancient,outdated stuff though.

[Just Observing]

Originally Posted by Dick Butler

Unfortunately SS has seemed to be the place people moved out of so they could have the newest, slickest NEW cars. That has a lot to do with the index differences and records too. If SS classes were as heavily populated by more guys agressively developing them like GT could they be faster ?. Probably. If SS is allowed to come up to GT technology we know that will help also. The Vettes of Arts racers Kenny and Brandon are ALL moving up in technology.Eddie Smith too. Dave Thomas has been highly tech for several years. Thats why they go faster this year.
I feel if SS classes were given more ink and had a reason to upgrade more we would see the et improvement too. Not all of SS/AH is motor. The chassis upgrades allow the power to the pavement we see as et.

Yeah tell this to Brian Mclanahan,Jim Weakland, Darren Smith, Brett Voges, Jeff Dona, Angelo Ditocco, Bob Harrison, Robin Brown, Larry Stewart, & the Worner Bros. Just to name a few. All these guys are ducking the real competition of the GT classes.

Dick you are drinking from the same Kool-Aid cup as Harry Holton was a couple years ago when he said in a article anyone with a SS/IA could run as fast as them(under the index) if they just worked as hard!

You continue to underestimate the talent,skills, and dedication of the Traditional SS'ers. Maybe this why you seek to force them out of NHRA drag racing by combining classes! I for one perfer watching the old traditional SS over the Gt cars.

[Lynn A McCarty]

Originally Posted by Just Observing

That is the "problem" witha lighter Gt class. You will not get any of the cool old hi-po stuff. People will take the small cavalier,cobalt cars and stuff a smog motor 454 in them and be lighter and faster. The yawn factor kicks in.

Also Dick if the GT cars ever get a 7lbs or lighter class they will run out every old muscle car from TOP SS, including the ultra trick, modern AH cars. The only way to keep any appeal is to keep Top SS old Muscle Cars entirely. No GT stuff in Top SS!!!!!

Agree should be 413 cubic inch rated or larger, with a minimum HP rating like 390HP at 6.0. GT/AH should be a separate class. One where all the old hypo engines with higher HP ratings be used. All reasonable aftermarket castings accepted. A Hemi Sebring, Buick Stage II Apollo, Tunnel Port Pontiac 428 Grand AM, Boss 429 Mustang LS7 Camaro, 440 6 PAC Daytona, AMC dual quad Jeep. It would make Super Stock more exciting other than watching cloned combos. I would also venture to say the 7 second barrier would be shattered! (without a turbo).

Lynn

[Dick Butler]

Great points guys.The problem that keeps popping up is the factoring issue. Just look at the current 350 chevy motors being run. Smart people keep finding underfactored motors and NHRA keeps being slow to catch on or adjust because of the weak link of the AHFS. Just another 400 motor issue.
I know a lot of people are working hard in SS and I think you missed that I believe if "allowed" the same chassis changes, 4 links, lowering of chassis as GT they would go even faster. In no way do I minimize the hard work of the racers you listed.
An awful lot of ways to go wrong on S and SS racing if Factoring isnt efficient, quick and using a human factor.(FI motors) In other words we cannot ASSUME things will correct themselves by AHFS or tech if combining classes were to occur.
I also would hate to see classes become only one car or brand allowed though like AH. A great show, killer cars and major hard work being done but missing Brand rivalry. Maybe TOP/SS needs a single Motor for each brand to run or combination. T-Bolt, Belvedere or Corvette/Camaro Only one motor choice for each.Then factoring would be EASY.
Thanks for the great wake up on the factoring problems. It could work IF .....

[Fishlips]

Dan,

The front wheel drive conversions like Grossi's won't fit into a 7.5 lb class because it would be more than the allowed 250 lbs above or below their factory shipping weight.

You can not factor a car for aero drag since it increases as the square of the speed. This means a 10 mph head wind will have twice the effect on a on a dirty car as it would on one of the new jelly bean shaped cars. On a calm day your factoring would be fine, but at tracks like Las Vegas, Sonoma, Tucson, Fontana, Fallon... Well you see what I mean, everywhere we race, it wouldn't work equally. At Vegas I have had to dial the Monte Carlo up 2.5 tenths for the head wind. How much have you had to add in your Camaro? See what I mean.

Maybe I should build a new Monte Carlo and take advantage of the new designs, Ah hell no. If I build anything it is going to be slippery!

[Lynn A McCarty]

Originally Posted by Fishlips

Dan,

You can not factor a car for aero drag since it increases as the square of the speed. This means a 10 mph head wind will have twice the effect on a on a dirty car as it would on one of the new jelly bean shaped cars. On a calm day your factoring would be fine, but at tracks like Las Vegas, Sonoma, Tucson, Fontana, Fallon... Well you see what I mean, everywhere we race, it wouldn't work equally. At Vegas I have had to dial the Monte Carlo up 2.5 tenths for the head wind. How much have you had to add in your Camaro? See what I mean.

Maybe I should build a new Monte Carlo and take advantage of the new designs, Ah hell no. If I build anything it is going to be slippery!

I agree with your thought process here Fish, but it isnt true. Most people have a very false impression of the affects of aerodynamics of a drag car. I used software and wind tunnel coefficients to compare my 90 TA which has a .35 drag coefficient from wind tunnel testing to my 69 Firebird that has a .45. We calculated them both on a 9.90 run at 135mph. There was only a .04 difference. While that number is significant, it is not nearly what most people think. Like many issues it gets exaggerated way out of proportion.

The differences are many things not just aerodynamics. My brother's car built by MPR is closer to a Pro Stock car than it is to my old Gen 3 Firebird. He has less rotating weight, more room for straight headers, more carb spacer, more hood. I guarantee he can support traction on a 12.2 radial way better than me. His rotating weight on suspension is way lighter to reduce parasitic losses.

My Gen 3 firebird is much better than old firebirds, but there are many items that are not. The old Firebirds can fit way more spacer. We show definite HP loses on the dyno without spacer. A 69 Bird has ram air of which our motors all were rated with, but in a GT car we dont get it. The 101 wheel base of a Gen 3 Firebird is much harder to control than with the new Grand Am or the old 69 bird. I did back to back testing for my 1980 Sunbird, and we lost an average of 40HP from a 4 inch spacer verses setting the carb flat on the intake. It was so bad we must scrap the Victor intake for the Sunbird. A short runner intake with a spacer is now done and ready for testing, but we definitely are losing power due to losses in cross sectional area.

My best 60 foot is 1.29 at 2500 feet corrected. It is very hard to maintain that without the monstrous wheel stand effecting ET. The Grand Am with MPR's design and the 69 Alf Weibe Firebird will be much better in that department (especially with 70 lb cranks, 800 gm rods, and counter balances that arent pendulum cut ).

I have a program with several drag coefficients published by the Big 3 automakers. If anyone wants an estimate I will try to calculate it for you. However, if you analyze the numbers, a .35 verses a .45 drag coefficient represents a 28.6 increase. This calculates to .04 seconds and about 1 mph. We could easily calculate wind resistance correction within a reasonable margin for a GTAH class. Then, if someone wants to run 48 Packard refinement could be made. I would argue the Ram Air, carb spacer, wheel base advantage of a 69 Firebird equalizes or out does losses in aerodynamics if the suspension is the same level of technology.

Lynn
lmc3470@aol.com
317-839-8378

[Dick Butler]

Aerodynamics is in the picture but I agree with Lynn, probably less than people think.. All cars have some problem with head wind. Having raced at TOPEKA with an 89 camaro SS/AA and Beretta GT/GA and Sunbird GT/FA we ALL lost et and mph into the wind. I will not guess what it was but in the range of .1 to .15. I am checking with the kids for their memory.
With a rapid factoring system like the comp C.I.C. major differences might be corrected very early in the year if more class heads up racing were done.

[Bryan Broaddus]

Lynn,

You left out part of the equation. Frontal Area.
The combination of frontal area and coefficient of drag are combined to yield total drag.

[Fishlips]

Lynn,

Here is the equation for total drag.

Total Drag:

D=CDA p/2 V2

Where
CD= Coefficient of Drag

A= Frontal Area

p= density of ambient air

V2= vehicle speed squared

This is a big difference when you compare a Cobalt or somthing little to the Older Super Stockers with a big wide front and tall roof line.

I believe your calculations used cars with similar frontal areas.