Toyota Supra in Stock Eliminator (Poll)

[goinbroke2]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Why should a new car immediately be able to negate all of the hard work, development, and investment of combinations people have had for a long time?

Reminds me of flathead fords that were 90hp. Bored/stroked/relieved/blown and they get 200hp! Then in 55 the overhead valve sbc was introduced with 200hp in a family car.

Technology is great, but shouldn't replace hard work. So the question becomes, how do you stop newer technology from dumping all over older tech that was messaged to get where it is?
Factor it correctly.

What happened when fwd cars came out? The hp/weight didn't take into account of the natural problem of pulling the car compared to pushing the car so they were factored by themselves (fwd classes)

What happened when turbos became common? Spec's for turbos to prevent "cranking it up and dominating" (buddy ingersol turbo pro stock)

What happened when blowers became common? Pulley dia spec's.

The common denominator is that newer tech is "better" than old tech so adjustments have to be made. Put it in a class that it doesn't immediately dominate or bump it up a class (add hp)

Not against toyota joining the fun, just want it done fairly. It's all a moot point until the first pass is made, then if it's 1/2 sec off the index and has to start like everyone else, fine. If it's -1.00 out of the gate then yes, adjustments need to be made.
You can't factor a 1965 sbc the same as a 5.3ls.

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

Not against toyota joining the fun, just want it done fairly. It's all a moot point until the first pass is made, then if it's 1/2 sec off the index and has to start like everyone else, fine. If it's -1.00 out of the gate then yes, adjustments need to be made.

So, in your world. I can build a 1969 Camaro with a 396/375 that will run 1.20 under and not use one original part in the entire car, that would be OK? But, if I build a new Supra from the ground up using the same rulebook and it runs 1.00, it should be penalized?

[goinbroke2]

Originally Posted by GUMP

So, in your world. I can build a 1969 Camaro with a 396/375 that will run 1.20 under and not use one original part in the entire car, that would be OK? But, if I build a new Supra from the ground up using the same rulebook and it runs 1.00, it should be penalized?

How would you build a -1.2 69 camaro? With the parts that have been proven to work by the people that worked on their car until it was a 1.2 under combo.

My point is that ANY new car toyota or not, that is included in the guide and first pass is -1.2 you have to wonder, was it the person or the factoring?

This is even different than finding a combo that is a ringer that nobody else saw/built. Anybody CAN build a low factored car (my mustang.....) but it's obvious the factoring is soft on 302 2bbls. They were in the guide and nobody built them, hp lowered and they get built with the intent of the ahfs will level it back out.

One person builds a toyota and qual #1. More people build the same car and either (1) they too are also -1.00 which means the factoring is soft, or (2) they are just running the index which proves the -1.2 by another person was the builder not the factoring.

A third scenario is, some guys would run -1.2 regardless of what they build because they have unlimited resources....if so, this would be proven by scenario (2)

If you are in the third scenario department, when someone else builds one, it will be obvious as well. Good luck regardless of how it turns out, you have put in the leg work!

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by GUMP

So, in your world. I can build a 1969 Camaro with a 396/375 that will run 1.20 under and not use one original part in the entire car, that would be OK? But, if I build a new Supra from the ground up using the same rulebook and it runs 1.00, it should be penalized?

How many years, and how much time and money went into making that Camaro that fast? Six or seven prominent engine builders, over a couple of decades, supported by dozens of racers, who also spent years and money testing headers, gears, torque converters, clutches, transmissions, gear ratios, etc.


Never mind the 396 Camaro, the Toyota isn't in those classes, yet. So what about the guy with years and thousands in his Nova, Camaro, Mustang, Duster, Demon, etc., in the class it does run? They don't have the aftermarket parts you seem to use as an excuse. And few of those guys have $100K disposable laying around.

[JP1738]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

How many years, and how much time and money went into making that Camaro that fast? Six or seven prominent engine builders, over a couple of decades, supported by dozens of racers, who also spent years and money testing headers, gears, torque converters, clutches, transmissions, gear ratios, etc.

I can agree with some of this, but it's important to keep in mind that although this Supra is a new combo, GUMP will be applying all of the stuff class racers already know to it to make it fast. Outside of the chassis and the B58 engine, he's not reinventing the wheel. He already knows what to look for in header design, torque converter specs (that still might take a little bit of figuring), gear ratios, etc. I'm sure this car will unload with the best converter and transmission technology, close to perfect header design for the turbo housing, and all the right stuff in the engine that we already know will make it faster.

As much as I'm sure he'd like to be given credit for how fast it runs out of the gate, it will be a culmination of work he's put into the car and the development with combo-specific stuff along with all the tried and true stuff class racers have figured out over the last half century.

[Wayne Scraba]

I for one, would like to see a bunch of photos of the car. Even though I have no dog in the fight and certainly never will, I find it all very interesting…

[JP1738]

Originally Posted by Wayne Scraba

I for one, would like to see a bunch of photos of the car. Even though I have no dog in the fight and certainly never will, I find it all very interesting?

I'm with Wayne, any chances we could get some updated pictures since the HPX? I'm sure you've been hard at work getting the final touches done on the car and I'd love to see what you're working with at this point

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Wayne Scraba

I for one, would like to see a bunch of photos of the car. Even though I have no dog in the fight and certainly never will, I find it all very interesting?

Wayne,

Please understand that this car wouldn't even be public right now if I hadn't promised the HPX that I would have it at their show. On that front, I think that I got the show the attention they wanted.

The car is not finished. I am quite particular about my cars, so I would rather show it again once it is completed. After that, I plan to do a whole "how to build" video on the next one.

Let me add that I still have the articles that you did years ago on how to build a Firebird. They totally changed my perspective on how to build a good chassis. So, I owe you THANKS!

Daren

[Wayne Scraba]

Originally Posted by GUMP

Wayne,

Please understand that this car wouldn't even be public right now if I hadn't promised the HPX that I would have it at their show. On that front, I think that I got the show the attention they wanted.

The car is not finished. I am quite particular about my cars, so I would rather show it again once it is completed. After that, I plan to do a whole "how to build" video on the next one.

Let me add that I still have the articles that you did years ago on how to build a Firebird. They totally changed my perspective on how to build a good chassis. So, I owe you THANKS!

Daren

Awesome ....I'll wait with bated breath! Really looking forward to seeing more.

And hey, thanks for the comps on my old Firehawk (I'm actually shocked and very flattered). In Tim Bishop's hands, it did extremely well I think.

[RevItUpD1]

I'm amazed at all the bickering back and forth about exact specs of a car that will be bracket racing 99% of the time in Stock Eliminator.

I get that the point is to remain as close to a true stock setup as possible, but evolution of the class isn't necessarily a bad thing if well controlled. The statement "they don't make them like they used to" is very true so why not try to evolve and incorporate old and new ideas to keep the class alive and well.