CLASS RACER FORUM - View Single Post

james schaechter · 06-16-2012, 07:56 AM

Consistancy in the interpretation of the rules is key.

There are some improvements that can be made in that area by NHRA.

Here are some issues to overcome:

NHRA officials at a high level tell different people different info
NHRA tech officials do not all agree on the interpretation
NHRA has some very knowledgable tech officials, but many have and will be retiring. There is a serious brain drain and the replacements just won't have the knowledge to effectively police these rules as they are, even if NHRA puts a process in place that would support this.
Time constraints and the desire to shave cost by NHRA limits tech opportunities
Machine Equipment has evolved to the point where there are some pretty nice heads that look good, are fast and will pass tech-but are $$$ and out of reach for many.
There are less clean castings to be had for older stockers
No specs for intake manifolds

I don't see NHRA supporting the tech staff any more than they do now.
NHRA does not seem to be able to recruit the new blood now that could learn from the veteran tech officials to transfer knowledge to them
The time constraints for teardowns are only getting worse
NHRA thinks TD and TS will be the future ( although after Joliet last weekend they might rethnk that LOL)

So what could be done?

I know some who think the clock can go back won't like it, but I think we are at a place in time to make a rule change.

My proposal would be to keep the CCs intact for the heads as a spec
Allow porting, but no filling ( weld, epoxy, etc) allow intake port matching, but no filling

Look, I saw a lot of cars pick up .2-.3 over the winter and it ain't from jetting and timing.
I think that the porting won't have the negative effect that many have said. ( as long as it is allowed up front) The price will be less and many racers will try their and learn on their own.

I believe there is more $$$$ being spent covering up the work that is and has been done than the actual port work $$$.

I say we call it what it is and level the field out some. If we don't we will continue to get what we got.

I am not saying it is perfect, but we are at the point where something has to change.

I don't see NHRA putting more time, money and thought into this. If the process of enforcement isn't easy, it won't happen in most cases.

06-16-2012, 07:56 AM	#22
james schaechter VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cumming GA Posts: 1,928 Likes: 1,073 Liked 1,212 Times in 249 Posts	Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads.... Consistancy in the interpretation of the rules is key. There are some improvements that can be made in that area by NHRA. Here are some issues to overcome: NHRA officials at a high level tell different people different info NHRA tech officials do not all agree on the interpretation NHRA has some very knowledgable tech officials, but many have and will be retiring. There is a serious brain drain and the replacements just won't have the knowledge to effectively police these rules as they are, even if NHRA puts a process in place that would support this. Time constraints and the desire to shave cost by NHRA limits tech opportunities Machine Equipment has evolved to the point where there are some pretty nice heads that look good, are fast and will pass tech-but are $$$ and out of reach for many. There are less clean castings to be had for older stockers No specs for intake manifolds I don't see NHRA supporting the tech staff any more than they do now. NHRA does not seem to be able to recruit the new blood now that could learn from the veteran tech officials to transfer knowledge to them The time constraints for teardowns are only getting worse NHRA thinks TD and TS will be the future ( although after Joliet last weekend they might rethnk that LOL) So what could be done? I know some who think the clock can go back won't like it, but I think we are at a place in time to make a rule change. My proposal would be to keep the CCs intact for the heads as a spec Allow porting, but no filling ( weld, epoxy, etc) allow intake port matching, but no filling Look, I saw a lot of cars pick up .2-.3 over the winter and it ain't from jetting and timing. I think that the porting won't have the negative effect that many have said. ( as long as it is allowed up front) The price will be less and many racers will try their and learn on their own. I believe there is more $$$$ being spent covering up the work that is and has been done than the actual port work $$$. I say we call it what it is and level the field out some. If we don't we will continue to get what we got. I am not saying it is perfect, but we are at the point where something has to change. I don't see NHRA putting more time, money and thought into this. If the process of enforcement isn't easy, it won't happen in most cases. __________________ James Schaechter 3163 STK Last edited by james schaechter; 06-16-2012 at 08:01 AM.