Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jeff,
After many months of work, we just completed our first stage of the paper work that may help put an end to this nonsense. Undoubtedly there will be more for us to do in the future. But, for now this problem rests in the hands of folks who are pretty good at cutting through murky issues.

Will post more on this issue in the coming months.

I trust your finger has fully recovered. Good luck with your crate motor car.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jeff
Spoken like a true car salesman
You went 10.50 I don't care if it was testing or not
It shows what that car can go
And as many have said that makes them want to quit
I have 15 k in my engine alone and over 50k in the car and I cant run within 7 of that
The car doesn't belong where you ran it and I will say what only one other person has said It is up to you since NHRA wont, you need to decide how and what you did to pervert and change the rules to slide that car in
Jeff you are a very long time racer doesn't it bother you what other racers feel about you?
Was it worth what you did to cause doubt in your fellow racers?

Spoken by someone who put way to much money in what I do to accept what is an unfair advantage by someone on the advisory committee
Jeff I am sure this will fire you up but please think on it before you post
What is your worth as a long standing class racer?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jim
With all due respect I do hold it against the racer
Since NHRA wont police the class we as racers have to, and be honest as to how we race
And in this case he (jeff )wasn't
And thats why he is playing games he knows what he did
And it isn't working as racers a lot smarter then me are calling him out on it

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Already reduced to childish and petty name calling. :rolleyes: Not surprising at all given you have no basis for argument.

You can type "precedent" all you want. But you should understand how precedent actually works before you try to use that for a basis to argue from. Precedent requires very similar facts and circumstances. What you claim as precedent, is not.

Your first example you claim as precedent (the 98 LT-1 F body) involves a car and an engine that are both already in the guide AND already certified for street use, but never sold together. NHRA would call that a "GT" combination, the precedent being the "GT" classes in Super Stock, where a certified car, and a certified engine may be joined in the rules even if they were not sold as a unit, and it will fit into a "GT" class as opposed to a traditional class. An example would be a 454 LS-6 in a 1980 Malibu.

That, however is NOT precedent for a car AND an engine that were not ever certified for street use, nor were they previously in the guide. The closest precedent for that would have nothing to do with NHRA.

Previously, the ONLY sanctioning body to certify any engine never sold or certified as a production engine was IHRA, those are called "crate motors". But even then, they were required to be installed in a car that was sold and certified for street use. The Drag Pack cars are not production vehicles, and are not sold or certified for street use. So they don't even meet the standard for crate motor classes. At least the Ford crate motors installed in Mustangs that are in the guide as production cars meet the crate motor class standard.

The problem with that for your repeated claims of "precedent" is that NHRA doesn't HAVE crate motor classes. And they never have had them. NHRA accepted what amounted to a "GT" combination with the 98 LT-1 F body. But until now, they've never accepted a crate motor, ever. So, despite your baseless claims to the contrary, no precedent exists, and the only person "spinning" anything here is you.

Good luck with the name calling, and the failure to produce any facts to back up your argument. The two tactics fit well together. :rolleyes:

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Alan, sorry for the name calling, however, you are not making sense. Relax, take a breath and learn the facts.

Fact Number 1: GM did not build a 1998 F-body with an LT-1.
Fact Number 2: GM obviously submitted paperwork saying it did build such car.

So, if what you are saying is correct, this is OK, because the engine was already in the guide and the car in question is similar to the prior years car? That is a joke and would set precedent for allowing any engine in the guide to be used in a similar body car with the same name? you are right on one account, we have a place for this and it is called Super Stock GT.



Why not just allow an LS-1 in any year Camaro? The engine is in the guide and it came in a Camaro. Is that cool?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

No matter how much you beat a dead horse, in the morning he is still dead. The 98 Firebird should not have been allowed with the LT-1. Correct ( and I am a GM fan) The Cj's and DP's are grossly underated and build up is questionable at best. Correct. Will this change the fact that all of the above mentioned cars are acceptable by NHRA in stock? Nope! Racers and engine builders have found many secrets for many years to make their combo faster, have combo's in cars that they never came with and have guarded those secrets like it was an issue of national security. Does it suck that somebody is faster? Sure but somebody will always be faster. As far as a CJ or DP owner taking responsibility to own up to problems with the car he just paid 100K to build, that would sound just as crazy if you took 100K out of your pocket and threw it out of the window going 70mph on the interstate. There is no way that a person would go to NHRA and say " Hey I love my new car but it really isn't legal for competition so I think you should throw it out". The fact is the people that could afford the new cars did. Those of us that couldn't didn't. Just like when people could afford the new FI cars. Just my .02 worth

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Other than laughing hysterically at your twisted logic, I'm perfectly relaxed. I never said the 98 LT-1 should or should not be in the guide. That was 12 years ago and not even remotely relevant to the current situation.

I'll keep this incredibly simple.

98 GM F-body = certified for production and street use by GM and the Feds.

97 GM LT-1 = certified for production and street use by GM and the Feds.

Drag Pack Challenger = NOT certified for production or street use by Mopar or the Feds, and sold incomplete.

Drag Pack Challenger "crate" engines = NOT certified for production or street use by Mopar or the Feds.

Ford Mustang = certified for production and street use by Ford and the Feds.

Ford Mustang "crate" engines = NOT certified for production and street use by Ford or the Feds.

As such, the 97 LT-1 in the 98 F body could be seen as precedent for a "Stock Eliminator GT" class, as it combines to certified pieces for racing that were not combined for sale for street use. However, it does not even remotely set any sort of precedent for any sort of "crate motor" cars to be accepted.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Maybe the point is the car never should of been built knowing the rules had to be bent to get it in
And your right I am sure it costs 75-100k to build a paper car like that
Must be nice to have money and influence to get deals like this done...

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Mark, you really aren't going to like it when Jerry Hatch from you home state comes out with his DP. Some of your comments are a little close, but I am a true car salesman, and have been for 42 years and the 325 people I employ like me being a true car salesman. You really don't know me very well, but that's ok. I'm a big boy and can take the heat. I have been squabbling with people over combo's for years, and plan on doing some more. And you might check around. Over the many years I have probably tried to help the Sportsman and especially Stock and Super Stock as much as anyone. If you feel your can cannot compete, the do as I did, get another combo. Maybe you can check with Bob Lang, your division directory as to my involvement with the SRAC. If you don't like it, get me unelected. That's the American way. It's sorta thankless anyway. As to the 'perversion' of the rules, I didn't do anything at all. Mopar asked and got approval from NHRA to make 100 special Drag Pak cars, with 3 engine combos that are outlined in the guide and approved before the first one was built. I own and race #16. As it turns out, Mopar will build an additional 50 DP cars. We also got 3 Hemi Cudas, which I guess they got 'perverted' in l968, which is the year I became a true car salesman.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Mark the plain fact is that the car WAS allowed by NHRA and that decision was between them and Mopar. Just like the CJ was between them and Ford and the FI Gm were between them and NHRA. I am a racer on a budget. I know I will never be as fast as the new cars but I will have fun no matter what car I line up next to. As far as bashing someone because they have money that is just wrong. I am sure all of these guys have worked just as hard or maybe harder than most to get where they are today. You cannot fault a person for doing well in their lives. They chose a career that suited them as I am sure you chose a career that suited you. I think Jeff has done a great job at making his business what it is today and he should be proud to be a CAR SALESMAN.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Well one thing is for sure if Scott Gove builds it it will be fast

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Yes, I'm a Mopar guy. Yes, I think the DP's are underated. Yes, I'm building a 5.7 for SS/GT but I am slower than the AHFS so by the time I'm running the HP may be in line.
That said, I have a couple questions.
Bruce, you stated that this debate will be going on next year if the racers don't come to a "reasonable compromise" on this issue. What would that be? Reasonalbe compromise is like affordabe healthcare. Very different meanings to different folks. I don't think anyone has stated that the DPs and CJs are factored correctly, but beating each other up over it solves nothing. Any changes will come thru NHRA, not racer compromise, and I think you are addressing that..
Mark, what rules were bent to get these cars in the class guide. Someone tried to make the point earlier that the rule of 50 was put in recently to allow these cars but that was written into the rulebook in the 90's.
A good debate is an enjoyable mental exercise but when it sinks to character assassination, comments based on emotion rather than fact and name calling (another thread on this topic) in serve little purpose other than a place to vent frustration and emotion. For that I use a speed bag.
Lets play nice. It's nobodys fault on this forum that these cars were built by the OEMs and in the case of the DPs I think most of them were purchased before the specs even hit the class guide in 3/09.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Is the horse dead yet ? We all know its not right but the character assassination has to stop,bad mouthing another racer just is not right based on what car or class he runs. Stewart you are right on.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Good posting Stewart.
We have fourteen pages of posts with finger pointing and blaming racers, and probably the topic will continue on.
Let's be real and point the fingers in the right direction: NHRA

Bruce, the debate will continue as long as people keep adding coal to the fire. On the same token, I do not understand your statement of "reasonable compromise" either.
Are you implying that "reasonable compromise" would entail racers with CJ's and DP's parking their cars until NHRA re-factors the engines?

I know that many of the people that have complained, if they had the funds, they would also join the fray and would purchase a CJ or DP. And if GM offered an equivalent, many of them would be buying one too and probably we would not be having these postings.

Also, I feel that attacks on people like Jeff Teuton are out of line. Jeff has been one of the biggest supporters of the sport in many ways.

It is tiring to read the same rhetoric again and again; let's aim the energy to the real culprit of the problem: NHRA

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

jeff... i know your a nice guy but it is ok to tell them to kiss your *****...then go have a beer, hell have two, one for me...

no one gave a **** when the caddy was discovered in the nhra class guide book cause i was the only one getting his ***** kicked but now when the guys who have cars in the "early" alphabet classes get the short end of the class guide this post gets written like it should be a federal crime...

anyway have a beer , ill have one here, and good luck with your new car... should'a painted orange like the super bee :)

your kentucky buddy
captain jack

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Guys,
A reasonable compromise would be to simply put the crate motor cars in their own classes within Stock and Super Stock. Nobody has ever given a reason why this wouldn't work for everybody. Sure the guys with the new cars want to think of them as new Stock Eliminator cars and they want to take every advantage that is made available to them. But we aren't dicussing advantage. An avantage is when you need a 2 pound hammer and walk over to the tool drawer and whip out a 3 pound hammer. This is a 28 pound sledge hammer that we are discussing. Nobody disagreed with my thoughts about privileged rules in other sports. SO, yes we could come to a decent compromise. And thanks to the Internet this debate will continue to roar well into the future.

An OEM executive was quoted during the Las Vegas race - "we were not going to come back to drag racing unless we enjoyed certain advantages." Well they got their advantages. Let's see how it works out for them.

One more thing. What makes you guys think we have no rights? Is it written down some where that we don't have rights?

Thanks to Kenny for allowing me and others to post our thoughts on this issue. I know first hand that this is a difficult experience and I appreciate his tolerance. We always come out of these debates with more knowlege and understanding of the issues that effect our sport. The weary old horse may be on life support but he ain't dead.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jeff
I have thought about this thread all afternoon
I feel very strong about this as you can imagine and see
As I look over what I typed I feel some of what I said was harsh
I am sorry for that, I still feel very strong about this but I am done posting on this issue

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Jeff
I am not happy that your combo is KILLER FAST.
You are running in a class I run with a 69 Nova ,
But I gotta give you applaues and credit for PICKING THE RIGHT COMBO.
Wish I could sell my 2 cars and build one like yours..
It not your fault NHRA has SCEAWED UP BIG TIME
These cars SHOULD BE IN Super Stock or GIVE THEM A CRATE MOTOR CLASS
Also not one person posting on this thread Other than Mark and I run this class.
Now Mark don't take this personel
But you have about zero chance of running one of these cars .
You dont race a whole lot anymore..And the only why to get at this combo HP is to chase after these cars at A CLASS RACE AND TAKE SOME LUMPS,
But I havent seen one yet at a CLASS RACE [ THANK GOD] .But the problem is every one will run and hide [ME INCLUDED} But again NHRA SCEAWED UP MOVING THE INDEXES..
NHRA SHOULD HAVE MOVE THE TRIGGER DOWN UNDER THE OLD INDEXES
Well guess what folks we race in NHRA THEY MAKE THE RULE THE WAY THEY WANT, IT SUCKS
But Im TOO STUPID TO QUIT..
Also to everyone THANKS FOR YOUR CONCERN DONATIONS ACCEPTED..

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

There is no need for animosity towards people running the new cars, and I don't have any, some of them are friends of mine.

It was NHRA that allowed this to happen, Ford and Chrysler are all too willing participants. GM may have joined them had they had the money and the parts, or they might not have.

It's really sad that an OEM (or OEM's) had to be lured back with promises of being able to write their own rules and their own factors, at the expense of the majority of the racers. That it happened is a sure sign of the type of people involved in the process, on all sides.

Thanks to Ken for providing a place for, and for allowing, civil discourse about this and other issues. Unfortunately, there are some people with whom you cannot have a civil discussion, they spoil it for everyone else.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Ah James, I run this class also, that is one of the reasons I voiced my opinion several times. Thanks for the recognition. Jim



.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Instead of complaining about the new car's with the bogus hp ratings, maybe the old iron should get factored down a class or two?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

So, 20 or so combinations (or more) should be adjusted instead of the 1/2 dozen or so new cars being correctly factored, or put in their own classes? And when you "factor the old iron down a class or two", what happens to the cars already in those classes?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Alan, I'm kinda stuck between a hard place and a rock right now. Catch 22. I'll always have a spot in my heart for the old iron, but thats what they are...old iron. Back in 69, I set our high school track record in the 120 high hurdles. Today I'd be lucky enough to hurdle over a shoe box. lol

NHRA has already accepted these new cars in Stock. It is what it is. Maybe create a new AAA/S class and save the old records and classes?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

It's fix the current problem not make more problems, the least they should do is reinstate the F.I. classes. but these cars should be in super stock, they are not for sale to the public the are parts counter cars- no vin, no reg, no lic plate, not stock production veh. and lets not forget waaaaay under rated!!!!!

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Give them their own classes. Call it FX, call it FI, call it what you will. But you can't factor every other combination in the guide down a class, or three. It just isn't practical.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

These car were offered to the public. All you had to do was to fill out the application and submit it. The factory then decided who was to get one and who wasn't. Don't care if they classed the car in SS or not, it'll still go down the 1320 as planned.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Greg, help me out here. I don't have the time to fuddle around the engine guide, how many of these "new combo's" are injected or carb'd ?????????? Can they go both ways? Thx. B

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Bernie, they are all fuel injected. Just to give you an idea the 352 Ford I started talking about on this thread compared to your LT! has more compression, better heads, larger solid roller cam, 1000 cfm throttle body, better intake and is rated at 285hp compared to your LT! at 346hp. I truly think most people are not aware of how these crate motor combos are going to affect them yet. Take a look at the 2010 Ford specs and the 2009 Chrysler specs.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the LT1 start out at 275hp?

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Made a mistake.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Me to....when I got married 38 years ago....lol.

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Sorry Jim
Since when did you get a car with 8 spark plugs?
Again you don;t race NHRA anymore
By the way my name is James not Jim

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

James, sorry my name is James also but I go by Jim. I bought George Widuch's '78 Road Runner last year and have been running it since then. I sold the Spirit but still have the A/FS Neon. I have run NHRA (H/SA) all last year with the Volare (check out Nitro Joe's stats) and also run the SSSSA races in addition to the IHRA race in Immokollee where I set the I/SA 1/8 mile record. Jim

Re: Once again a bogus combination
 

Chuck it sure did. How do you likw running against a couple of combinations much better at 275 and 285? The bogus ratings on the LT! and the LS1 were the reason fuel injected classes were created. The lack of proper factoring for those motors were the reason for the creation of the fuel injected classes. it seems to me that I don't remember you racing a lot when the LT1's were so soft. I sold my 67 Camaro because of that.