Wondering what stock racers think

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

But I'd be willing to bet that Casey's is "Stock".

I agree Billy 10000000000000000%

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Casey Miles

I know that there are several 302 cars that fly, but there is difference of just how much money I'm willing to spend on mine. I can tell anyone that there is no lack of effort on my part working towards bettering the performance of the car. There is also the factor of trying to preserve the originality of the Z/28 as a Stocker.

It makes me wonder that all the advantages that a solid lifter engine had which got lost with the valve spring and hydraulic lifters rules. A hydraulic based engine didn't get an increase in HP and the solid lifter based engines didn't get a reduction in HP. The factory didn't make the true performance cars hydraulic lifter, they came as solid lifters with mandatory disk brakes.

So as hard as I work on my combo, power is given away by NHRA to the lower powered engine families. Give them the HP they should be rated like a solid lifter engine.

Casey Miles

Casey,
Nothing personal, but you're making several choices to render yourself less than competitive, and asking everyone else to accommodate you. And you're complaining about other combinations.


Time doesn't stand still for any of us, and progress doesn't stop for any of us, either.



Honestly, who has been racing an original Z-28 (and the most rare of them) longer than Dave and Ben? And they're pretty competitive. A small journal crank and rods aren't worth that much in ET. Brian Rogers goes fairly quick with a 69 Z-28, and there are few people more low buck than he is.



You're flat out saying "I CHOOSE not to be competitive" and then saying "I want HP added to the other guys" and finally "I want all of the class held back to let me keep up".


We ALL got the enhancements, whether we wanted them or not. And I've argued against several of them. I wouldn't complain if the rules were turned back about 30 years or so, actually.



I'm not even arguing for lower the indexes.



With all due respect, that ain't racing. Sorry if you're "taken back", but facts are facts.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

But I'd be willing to bet that Casey's is "Stock".

Yeah, Billy, but those ain't the rules anymore. Whether any of us like it or not. How "Stock" it is doesn't matter anymore. They ain't turning back time, or rolling back the rules. It is what it is. If you want to race, and go fast, you keep up with the rules, whether you like them or not. If you choose to refuse to keep up with the rules, you pretty much can't complain if you can't be competitive.

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

But I'd be willing to bet that Casey's is "Stock".

I wasn't questioning that. As Alan has stated, if you aren't running by the current rulebook, you are leaving performance on the table.

When I started running Stock things were much "stocker". I liked it better back then. For one, it was way cheaper!

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I wouldn't complain if the rules were turned back about 30 years or so

Alan, I know what Casey's doing. And I can see both sides of this discussion. You're right, he's not competing, but at the same time you can't fault a man for having an emotional attachment to his car. He's doing the best that he can with what he's got.

Now about "if the rules were turned back about 30 years or so", the only rule that we need to turn back would be the valve spring rule. And we really don't need to go back to the original valve springs. I think that 160 on the seat for a conventional cam placement and 110 for an OHC would bring everything back to reality in a hurry. And I think that even the Millennial Tech guys could use a valve spring tester, quick and easy right after fuel check.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by GUMP

I wasn't questioning that.

I didn't think that you were.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Alan, I know what Casey's doing. And I can see both sides of this discussion. You're right, he's not competing, but at the same time you can't fault a man for having an emotional attachment to his car. He's doing the best that he can with what he's got.

Now about "if the rules were turned back about 30 years or so", the only rule that we need to turn back would be the valve spring rule. And we really don't need to go back to the original valve springs. I think that 160 on the seat for a conventional cam placement and 110 for an OHC would bring everything back to reality in a hurry. And I think that even the Millennial Tech guys could use a valve spring tester, quick and easy right after fuel check.

I'm not faulting anyone. I don't have a thing against Casey. I'm just saying that he is making his choices to not be competitive. It's just plain completely unrealistic to even bother to complain about the HP factor of other cars, or the indexes, or to be offended by any of it, if you choose not to be competitive.


We can all wish for a lot of things. But if you want to race, you have to deal with reality.

[B Parker]

I said it back several post ago. Stock is just a name that are class has. The real Stock left the building years ago. It reminds me of a saying we had at the Fire Dept. Lead follow or get left behind. Casey hydraulic lifters haven't been real hydraulic lifters for a long long time. We shimmed are lifters back in the 70's. There was no gain in HP using solids. My car came with solids my brother still uses hydraulics. Barry

[Casey Miles]

I understand stock is no longer stock, and nhra ihas allowied the class to become modified product cars with something that resembles a stock car.
As far as hydraulic lifters, if there was no power gain why were they schimmed to act like solid lifters and now that they have to have only .010 movement it doesn't change the performance of an engine over a standard factory hydraulic? The valve lash was then built in to the lifters versus adjusting at the valve.

Nhra doesn't want to do their jobs that we "all" pay for, police the cars and HP factoring. That's what it comes down to.

Because someones car doesn't perform like other people's cars doesn't mean that they don't work hard at their combo.

BTW, the Chevy 302 is factored to 309 HP, that's 1.023 Hp per cubic inch. How many hydraulic lifter engines are even close to that?

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Casey Miles

I understand stock is no longer stock, and nhra ihas allowied the class to become modified product cars with something that resembles a stock car.
As far as hydraulic lifters, if there was no power gain why were they schimmed to act like solid lifters and now that they have to have only .010 movement it doesn't change the performance of an engine over a standard factory hydraulic? The valve lash was then built in to the lifters versus adjusting at the valve.

Nhra doesn't want to do their jobs that we "all" pay for, police the cars and HP factoring. That's what it comes down to.

Because someones car doesn't perform like other people's cars doesn't mean that they don't work hard at their combo.

BTW, the Chevy 302 is factored to 309 HP, that's 1.023 Hp per cubic inch. How many hydraulic lifter engines are even close to that?

How many of them have 11.0:1 compression, 2.02"/1.60" valves, 0.485"/0.485" lift, a high rise aluminum intake, and a 750 carburetor on a 302 cubic inch engine? Or the RPM capability of that combination? The Wentzels are fast, Duzac and Peterson are fast, Brian Rogers is pretty quick, too.


It's cool that you race an icon, and one you've had for a long time.


But the rules are the rules, and NHRA is what it is.