SFI flexplate mandatory in all v8s Jan 2024

[Paul Precht]

Originally Posted by mike britt

In this case the flexplate did not break or come out. It was still bolted to the crankshaft. What happened was the ring gear welds came loose and the ring gear started coming apart in pieces. I found one piece about 2 inches long by the accelerator pedal in bills car. It looked like a stock flexplate to me, but the rules did not require the car to have an SFI flexplate.

The ring gear is the issue for sure and yet Mopars that don't have a ring gear or an explosion possibility are forced to be a part of the new rule.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by mike britt

In this case the flexplate did not break or come out. It was still bolted to the crankshaft. What happened was the ring gear welds came loose and the ring gear started coming apart in pieces. I found one piece about 2 inches long by the accelerator pedal in bills car. It looked like a stock flexplate to me, but the rules did not require the car to have an SFI flexplate.

Mike was this a stock case 200, by any chance? Did it sustain a lot of damage too?

This just occurred to me .This, being a Chevy II with fenderwell headers, the car didn't have much in the way under it to absorb and block some of the explosion.
With Jimmy Jr. on the right in the waterbox, it sounds like he was caught in a perfect storm, so to speak..Lucky, lucky ,lucky!

[mike britt]

It pretty much destroyed the bell housing. Most of the parts were about the size of your hand. It was a stock bell.

[nolongerracing]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Duane, NOT being a smart*** about this but did you ever see a 301 Pontiac crankshaft?

Here's a 301 Pontiac stocker crank internally balanced!

Originally Posted by mike britt

In this case the flexplate did not break or come out. It was still bolted to the crankshaft. What happened was the ring gear welds came loose and the ring gear started coming apart in pieces. I found one piece about 2 inches long by the accelerator pedal in bills car. It looked like a stock flexplate to me, but the rules did not require the car to have an SFI flexplate.

So there you go, a 7k plus RPM engine with a stock flexplate. He didn’t do anything wrong, but if he had an ATI or equivalent SFI flexplate there wouldn’t have been an incident. Probably a cast ring gear that wasn’t rated to go that high or for that much power.

[Billy Nees]

But the bottom line still is the fact that a 10.0 bracket car doesn't need an SFI flex plate and there are probably a dozen or more 10.0 to 11.99 of them for every N/S and lower Stocker out there. The SFI deal should be 11.99 and quicker.

Pat, Lonnie, are you listening? Or would you rather that I give you both a call?

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Paul Precht

The ring gear is the issue for sure and yet Mopars that don't have a ring gear or an explosion possibility are forced to be a part of the new rule.

I had a (somewhat) cordial discussion with my DTD at Numidia this weekend and would like to think that I made some inroads into this "all V8s" need an SFI flexplate thing.
I would like to think that this ruling will be aligned with the need for trans and flexplate shields based on E.T.s and not just an arbitrary ruling based off of a "million-to-one" incident.
And I've got a "Billy question" here, since this "issue" involved the starter ring gear and not the actual flexplate itself, are Mopars going to have to have SFI approved torque converters?

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Still not sure if you can add or take away weight on an SFI approved flex.
Anybody?

From what I got out f this conversation, you can't.

[Paul Precht]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

I had a (somewhat) cordial discussion with my DTD at Numidia this weekend and would like to think that I made some inroads into this "all V8s" need an SFI flexplate thing.
I would like to think that this ruling will be aligned with the need for trans and flexplate shields based on E.T.s and not just an arbitrary ruling based off of a "million-to-one" incident.
And I've got a "Billy question" here, since this "issue" involved the starter ring gear and not the actual flexplate itself, are Mopars going to have to have SFI approved torque converters?

I wish I brought this up yesterday while we were talking with the Ford guys, what're their thoughts since they have a GM style flex plate.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

I had a (somewhat) cordial discussion with my DTD at Numidia this weekend and would like to think that I made some inroads into this "all V8s" need an SFI flexplate thing.
I would like to think that this ruling will be aligned with the need for trans and flexplate shields based on E.T.s and not just an arbitrary ruling based off of a "million-to-one" incident.
And I've got a "Billy question" here, since this "issue" involved the starter ring gear and not the actual flexplate itself, are Mopars going to have to have SFI approved torque converters?

To get this important (to me at least) issue back up top, how do all of you 2V/302 FFFFord guys feel about having to spend time and monies putting an SFI flexplate on your cars that may not be as well built as your 50 year old stock unit? And you Mopar guys who don't even have a "starter ring gear" (the main "issue") to fail? Has a Mopar torque converter ever lost a ring gear?
Does NHRA know that a Div. 1 Racer who will go un-named lost a ring gear off of an SFI approved flexplate in Columbus last weekend? Why is that?
I personally believe that I would rather put my faith (and lower extremities) in a 50 year old GM piece over something imported from China! Especially in a 12.0 or slower car!

And NHRA, if you're going to continue pursuing this, when are you going to start with the SFI approved torque converters for the Mopars? If the ring gears really are the issue then it only seems right!