Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed - Page 2

blkjack · 11-10-2014, 09:24 PM

blkjack · 11-10-2014, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Curcio

I have an old friend who still has his 331" Truppi-Kling engine from a B/SM he raced in the late 1970's. Throw on a set of spec heads, and he could be back in business for a while

are you kidding?

randy wilson · 11-10-2014, 09:39 PM

Technically he ain't kidding. A good bottom end will run with a newer good bottom end. If you take in the factor of not allowing a vac pump, you partially eliminate the benefit of super light rings. Someone may have a better take on this, but that's what I think most engine builders believe. I believe the cam, carb, and car setup will be the difference between winning, and losing.

buzzinhalfdozen · 11-10-2014, 09:41 PM

Out of line costs this are certainly an issue, however not sure it's the cost of building the engines that's the biggest issue. You can easily find a decent piece on the cheap (outdated comp or S/S engine) that will get you in the game. The real issue is the game. The expenses have increased, entry fees, fuel and travel costs, this and that new rule, chassis certs, physicals, seat belts, lic. fees, lost work days (3 day points meets). There will always be some that will do it no matter the costs, just look around the pits at the new cars and combos, however most are current racers. Some merely shrugged their shoulders and went to the next race, while some chose to maybe skip this or that race and eventually found themselves parked for any number of reasons from lack of money, desire, or other interests. The next generation, isn't exactly beating down the door, except for a few 2nd or even 3rd generation racers, it's pretty lean as far as new blood. The reason is easily found, just go to your local race track and talk to the racers, explain the classes, rules, expenses, and payout and watch their faces. Most of the Next generation have little interest (other than the idea of just driving one) in class racing, it just doesn't make sense financially. Most all the "kids" I know plan their racing on the PAYOUT that is the first thing they concern themselves with, with location and entry fee being the 2nd and 3rd. It's obvious that you're looking for a way to increase participation but in my opinion you will not lure new or parked racers by bringing back 20 year old rules. My 2 cents

Ed Wright · 11-10-2014, 09:54 PM

I can only imaging policing the ceramic rear end bearings.

randy wilson · 11-10-2014, 10:29 PM

it was just a thought Ed. Nothing more. To those who want it to happen, it won't happen overnight. To those who don't want it to happen, don't run it. Real simple. It may never happen, but what the heck. It ain't 20 year old technology. It's just cutting back on the technology allowed. Some don't want it because they like what they're doing now. I say Fine. Some don't like it because they would have a hard time without today's technology. But I can't for the life of me figure out why the ones who don't want a class like this, really care if there is one.

Geerhead55 · 11-11-2014, 12:20 AM

I guess I must be missing something. I've followed this "evolution" of the rules regarding this class for some time now,, counting the other threads that have dealt with this too, and heres what I don't get: I'm paraphrasing here, but you'll get my drift.
Rods: ANY length or type.Pistons: ANY type or pins.
Valvetrain: ANY cam or lifter-- under.904 & .700 max lift.
Intake: ANY cast aluminum available to the public.
Carb: ANY Holley "type" 750.
Exhaust; ANY header. Oil: ANY pan.
ANY factory rear end,,,, ANY factory automatic,,,, ANY this and ANY that. If that's the case,, then WHY are you joined at the hip to BRODIX heads every time this comes up? You've already established valve sizes,, why not put a maximum runner size,, 180, 200, 210, 220 whatever,, and let any, sorry, ANY manufacturers' heads play along? Is there a problem with AFR,, Edelbrock, World Products, Trick Flow, or others? Are you guys Brodix stockholders or part owners? It just seems when ever this topic comes up you've stuck with Brodix. I admit they have a fine product but why not open it up to the others?
Any cam could be Crane, Comp, Bullet, Erson, Elgin,, etc. etc.
Any intake could be Holley, Edelbrock, Weiand,, etc. etc.
Any carb "Holley type", is that a Demon,, Quick-Fuel, etc. etc.
I guess I just don't understand why this has to be a set in stone rule. If you guys are "in bed" with Brodix,, I get it,,, if not, then something stinks. I'm just looking for an explanation,, that's all. Thank you for your response.
Danny Durham

FireSale · 11-11-2014, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geerhead55

I guess I must be missing something. I've followed this "evolution" of the rules regarding this class for some time now,, counting the other threads that have dealt with this too, and heres what I don't get: I'm paraphrasing here, but you'll get my drift.
Rods: ANY length or type.Pistons: ANY type or pins.
Valvetrain: ANY cam or lifter-- under.904 & .700 max lift.
Intake: ANY cast aluminum available to the public.
Carb: ANY Holley "type" 750.
Exhaust; ANY header. Oil: ANY pan.
ANY factory rear end,,,, ANY factory automatic,,,, ANY this and ANY that. If that's the case,, then WHY are you joined at the hip to BRODIX heads every time this comes up? You've already established valve sizes,, why not put a maximum runner size,, 180, 200, 210, 220 whatever,, and let any, sorry, ANY manufacturers' heads play along? Is there a problem with AFR,, Edelbrock, World Products, Trick Flow, or others? Are you guys Brodix stockholders or part owners? It just seems when ever this topic comes up you've stuck with Brodix. I admit they have a fine product but why not open it up to the others?
Any cam could be Crane, Comp, Bullet, Erson, Elgin,, etc. etc.
Any intake could be Holley, Edelbrock, Weiand,, etc. etc.
Any carb "Holley type", is that a Demon,, Quick-Fuel, etc. etc.
I guess I just don't understand why this has to be a set in stone rule. If you guys are "in bed" with Brodix,, I get it,,, if not, then something stinks. I'm just looking for an explanation,, that's all. Thank you for your response.
Danny Durham

Ditto. I read the first post and said "I'm out". I have 1500 bucks sunk in AFR heads on a 302 SBF that won't give that 3000 lb. weight based on 9 lb. per CID. And how is this an entry class when I can spend cash on stuff I can't run in GT like a 750 QF and light body parts?

Dale

randy wilson · 11-11-2014, 09:03 AM

I ain't in bed with Brodix. I'm for ANY suggestions of a limited cylinder head. Show me another company that builds heads for the big three with same flow numbers for each casting, and spec cast into the intake and exhaust port, and I'm all for it. I think it would be great to have all 5 casting companys present a legal head. Does that answer your question?

buzzinhalfdozen · 11-11-2014, 09:10 AM

To be clear I didn't say 20 year old technology, I said 20 year old rules they are not the same thing. A lot of the tech used today has actually been around a long time but was cost prohibited or rules prohibited. I'm in no way against your ideas, just stating my opinion as to the lack of new or parked competitors.

11-10-2014, 09:24 PM	#11
blkjack Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Belle Vernon, PA Posts: 281 Likes: 25 Liked 51 Times in 16 Posts	Re: Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed

11-10-2014, 09:39 PM	#13
randy wilson Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: N/A Posts: 882 Likes: 0 Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts	Re: Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed Technically he ain't kidding. A good bottom end will run with a newer good bottom end. If you take in the factor of not allowing a vac pump, you partially eliminate the benefit of super light rings. Someone may have a better take on this, but that's what I think most engine builders believe. I believe the cam, carb, and car setup will be the difference between winning, and losing. __________________ don,t have one

11-10-2014, 09:41 PM	#14
buzzinhalfdozen Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bellevue Ohio Posts: 985 Likes: 0 Liked 12 Times in 9 Posts	Re: Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed Out of line costs this are certainly an issue, however not sure it's the cost of building the engines that's the biggest issue. You can easily find a decent piece on the cheap (outdated comp or S/S engine) that will get you in the game. The real issue is the game. The expenses have increased, entry fees, fuel and travel costs, this and that new rule, chassis certs, physicals, seat belts, lic. fees, lost work days (3 day points meets). There will always be some that will do it no matter the costs, just look around the pits at the new cars and combos, however most are current racers. Some merely shrugged their shoulders and went to the next race, while some chose to maybe skip this or that race and eventually found themselves parked for any number of reasons from lack of money, desire, or other interests. The next generation, isn't exactly beating down the door, except for a few 2nd or even 3rd generation racers, it's pretty lean as far as new blood. The reason is easily found, just go to your local race track and talk to the racers, explain the classes, rules, expenses, and payout and watch their faces. Most of the Next generation have little interest (other than the idea of just driving one) in class racing, it just doesn't make sense financially. Most all the "kids" I know plan their racing on the PAYOUT that is the first thing they concern themselves with, with location and entry fee being the 2nd and 3rd. It's obvious that you're looking for a way to increase participation but in my opinion you will not lure new or parked racers by bringing back 20 year old rules. My 2 cents __________________ Joe Buchanan SS/BX 3117

11-10-2014, 09:54 PM	#15
Ed Wright Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sand Springs, OK Posts: 8,132 Likes: 896 Liked 389 Times in 168 Posts	Re: Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed I can only imaging policing the ceramic rear end bearings. __________________ Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA

11-10-2014, 10:29 PM	#16
randy wilson Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: N/A Posts: 882 Likes: 0 Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts	Re: Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed it was just a thought Ed. Nothing more. To those who want it to happen, it won't happen overnight. To those who don't want it to happen, don't run it. Real simple. It may never happen, but what the heck. It ain't 20 year old technology. It's just cutting back on the technology allowed. Some don't want it because they like what they're doing now. I say Fine. Some don't like it because they would have a hard time without today's technology. But I can't for the life of me figure out why the ones who don't want a class like this, really care if there is one. __________________ don,t have one Last edited by randy wilson; 11-10-2014 at 10:32 PM.

11-11-2014, 12:20 AM	#17
Geerhead55 VIP Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Tacoma, Washington Posts: 1,632 Likes: 0 Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts	Re: Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed I guess I must be missing something. I've followed this "evolution" of the rules regarding this class for some time now,, counting the other threads that have dealt with this too, and heres what I don't get: I'm paraphrasing here, but you'll get my drift. Rods: ANY length or type.Pistons: ANY type or pins. Valvetrain: ANY cam or lifter-- under.904 & .700 max lift. Intake: ANY cast aluminum available to the public. Carb: ANY Holley "type" 750. Exhaust; ANY header. Oil: ANY pan. ANY factory rear end,,,, ANY factory automatic,,,, ANY this and ANY that. If that's the case,, then WHY are you joined at the hip to BRODIX heads every time this comes up? You've already established valve sizes,, why not put a maximum runner size,, 180, 200, 210, 220 whatever,, and let any, sorry, ANY manufacturers' heads play along? Is there a problem with AFR,, Edelbrock, World Products, Trick Flow, or others? Are you guys Brodix stockholders or part owners? It just seems when ever this topic comes up you've stuck with Brodix. I admit they have a fine product but why not open it up to the others? Any cam could be Crane, Comp, Bullet, Erson, Elgin,, etc. etc. Any intake could be Holley, Edelbrock, Weiand,, etc. etc. Any carb "Holley type", is that a Demon,, Quick-Fuel, etc. etc. I guess I just don't understand why this has to be a set in stone rule. If you guys are "in bed" with Brodix,, I get it,,, if not, then something stinks. I'm just looking for an explanation,, that's all. Thank you for your response. Danny Durham Last edited by Geerhead55; 11-11-2014 at 12:49 AM.

11-11-2014, 09:03 AM	#19
randy wilson Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: N/A Posts: 882 Likes: 0 Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts	Re: Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed I ain't in bed with Brodix. I'm for ANY suggestions of a limited cylinder head. Show me another company that builds heads for the big three with same flow numbers for each casting, and spec cast into the intake and exhaust port, and I'm all for it. I think it would be great to have all 5 casting companys present a legal head. Does that answer your question? __________________ don,t have one

11-11-2014, 09:10 AM	#20
buzzinhalfdozen Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bellevue Ohio Posts: 985 Likes: 0 Liked 12 Times in 9 Posts	Re: Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed To be clear I didn't say 20 year old technology, I said 20 year old rules they are not the same thing. A lot of the tech used today has actually been around a long time but was cost prohibited or rules prohibited. I'm in no way against your ideas, just stating my opinion as to the lack of new or parked competitors. __________________ Joe Buchanan SS/BX 3117