New Eliminator proposition
Proposed "New Eliminator" classes
First of all, in order to attempt to create a new eliminator class, it has to be friendly for NHRA to administer. My most recent "tear down", was a 4-5 hour experience. What I propose is a "New" modified production eliminator. Relatively easy to enforce and administer as compared to the current "stock and super stock" cars…, a "tear down" would amount to pumping the engine for cubic inches, fuel check, measuring the carburetor(s) and weight. This should amount to about 15 minutes, instead of 4 hours. I propose that it works something like this. It would be run CIC like comp. Divided into 2 types of cars. First set of cars, restricted to a certain size carburetor (I recommend a 600 CFM), and 9 inch tires. The second set would be multi-carburetor and maximum of a 14" tire. Every car would be classed based on cubic inches to weight. So, a multi-carburetor car with big tires would be AA/MP, BB/MP, CC/MP and so forth…..while a single carburetor car with 9 inch tire would be A/MP, B/MP, C/MP….and so forth…based on cubic inches to weight…....down to a class for 6 cylinders and 4 cylinders, both having single and multi carb designation. So, very likely, you would have approximately 18-20 different classes competing in one eliminator category. IMO, all cars need to be "door slammers", without any tube frame components. Same engine manufacturer as per car. (Chevy car, Chevy engine, etc.) Absolutely no fuel injection, turbos, or blowers, just complicates the process. Fiberglass components allowed because it is a cubic inches to weight proposition. A lot of details would need to be worked out obviously, but I believe that NHRA would be receptive to an Idea that takes "Man Hours" and expenses out off the process, and keep it simple. What do you think? |
Re: New Eliminator proposition
As long as the goal is for something new and improved, how about making it the first handicap category that will use a “worst” redlight.
The other handicap categories? Let them continue wallowing in the nonsense of “first” redlight. |
Re: New Eliminator proposition
Quote:
|
Re: New Eliminator proposition
I like the idea of new classes, but not the no E. F.I. It's time to come out if the dark ages, cars have not been produced with a carb in 20 years. If you want new blood in racing, you have to cater to what the new generations are accustomed to.
Fuel Injection and no breakouts are something they understand. I agree to no power adders. If the NHRA really wants to attract new blood, have exciting sportsman racing, and keep costs somewhat reasonable, they should explore something similar to NMRA's Coyote Stock and NMCA LS Stock. Corporate bodies, stock type suspension, and factory sealed crate motors and tune ups. Comes down to chassis and driver. Very affordable, and factory involvement to boot. |
Re: New Eliminator proposition
Make it really easy. Make all the cars weigh 3200# plus 170# for the driver. I'd skip the "two types of cars" to keep it simple. Everyone gets one (4150 series) carburetor and 14"x32" tires. Five single carburetor classes, five indexes. Easier to factor and police.
A: 470 cubic inches maximum (440 minimum), canted valves, with a 1050 carburetor. B: 420 cubic inches maximum (390 minimum), inline valve true wedge, with an 950 carburetor. C: 360 cubic inches maximum (350 minimum), inline valve true wedge, with a 850 carburetor. D: 305 cubic inches maximum (285 minimum), inline valve true wedge, with a 750 carburetor. E: 300 cubic inch V6 (minimum 270), inline true wedge, 750 carburetor. Cast iron OE supplied block, any OE supplied cylinder head, cast intake, steel connecting rods. NHRA approved carburetors. Clutchless transmission, maximum 5 forward speeds, 14"x32" tire, back half, fiberglass hood only, factory glass. For automatics, 150# weight break. Pump for displacement, anything suspect comes apart. Any compression ratio, any valvetrain, any porting or polishing allowed. |
Re: New Eliminator proposition
From a year or so ago.
http://classracer.com/classforum/sho...ied+eliminator I think it would be great |
Re: New Eliminator proposition
Does Dick Butler know about this?
|
Re: New Eliminator proposition
I appreciate the alert to this. Seems there are several groups of people who like the idea of return to Modified for ease of tech. Some for lower costs if limited parts use. Refer to our posts regarding Econo Modified to get use of old SS cars with Brodix heads and very basic engine rule at LB/Cubic inchs.
Bottom Line there are MANY reasons to create a basic, cheaper, less tech class. You will find many downplay the positives for fear of losing their current combinations and its advantages. (rule book created). A favorite fear is that money will dominate. If the class rule LIMITATIONS cut basic costs of Motor up front doesn't that count? as an advantage? No One will Have to race a cheaper class, No one would have to give up their Bogus Hp cars but when the factoring Hammer hits there could be a more level place to race based on skills too. Besides there would still be eliminator for bracket style points meets and Nationals but winning or improving on past performance by tune up or skills could become a goal again, to say nothing of friendly competitiveness. I do support a CHEAP SS class with basic Mod changes.... |
Re: New Eliminator proposition
Quote:
If a guy can afford to build and run AA/MP, he should have that advantage... |
Re: New Eliminator proposition
I've got a new idea for a "Heads-up" eliminator that's guaranteed to be inexpensive, easy to police and full of thrills! Any full-bodied car, any engine/trans combo, any suspension, any induction, any weight, any cubic inches, on a .5 pro tree.
After the race, any competitor can buy the winners or runner-ups car for 5K. Biggest purse the market will bear paying to the semis. End of year points fund with big money going to the top 3 places! |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.