NHRA 2020 Rule Amendment SS Intakes???

[bykr]

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

The volumes are measured without the adapters.

That's my point. If you mill the head at a severe angle won't the cc's of the cylinder head runner be reduced? You can then open the runner up in other areas to bring the head back spec. cc's. The whole point of doing it.

[Bobby DiDomenico]

Originally Posted by bykr

That's my point. If you mill the head at a severe angle won't the cc's of the cylinder head runner be reduced? You can then open the runner up in other areas to bring the head back spec. cc's. The whole point of doing it.

That's what I thought. Besides a better intake you're gaining CC's to work with and possibly changing the entry angle somewhat.

[Mike Gray]

Originally Posted by bykr

That's my point. If you mill the head at a severe angle won't the cc's of the cylinder head runner be reduced? You can then open the runner up in other areas to bring the head back spec. cc's. The whole point of doing it.

I don't understand the problem if porting, polishing, welding and epoxying is already permitted?
From rule book SS heads -
Must be correct casting number for year and horsepower claimed, per NHRA Technical Bulletins or NHRA-accepted. Cylinder-head casting must also be on NHRA runner volume list as published on NHRARacer.com. Porting, polishing, welding, epoxying, and acid-porting permitted.

[bykr]

Originally Posted by Mike Gray

I don't understand the problem if porting, polishing, welding and epoxying is already permitted?
From rule book SS heads -
Must be correct casting number for year and horsepower claimed, per NHRA Technical Bulletins or NHRA-accepted. Cylinder-head casting must also be on NHRA runner volume list as published on NHRARacer.com. Porting, polishing, welding, epoxying, and acid-porting permitted.

Look at it this way.If a cylinder head had 200 cc port volume and you mill away 20 cc's with this angle milling. You now have a head with 180cc's that you can open up to the 200cc spec. which then could perform like a non angle milled 220cc head. Why else would they do this?

[Sean Cour]

Originally Posted by bykr

look at it this way.if a cylinder head had 200 cc port volume and you mill away 20 cc's with this angle milling. You now have a head with 180cc's that you can open up to the 200cc spec. Which then could perform like a non angle milled 220cc head. Why else would they do this?

“��”

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by bykr

Look at it this way.If a cylinder head had 200 cc port volume and you mill away 20 cc's with this angle milling. You now have a head with 180cc's that you can open up to the 200cc spec. which then could perform like a non angle milled 220cc head. Why else would they do this?

Get off the pipe. Your statement shows the lack of knowledge of porting cylinder heads.

It is not about volume, it is about CSA, volume and shape of the port. You can have a 230cc port volume that is outperformed by a 200cc port volume.

[bykr]

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

Get off the pipe. Your statement shows the lack of knowledge of porting cylinder heads.

It is not about volume, it is about CSA, volume and shape of the port. You can have a 230cc port volume that is outperformed by a 200cc port volume.

You can, but with equal port configurations which will flow more? Duh. Why do think they're doing this angle milling, to make the intake fit better-lol

[Mark Yacavone]

I don't race Super Stock anymore. I have enough trouble racing Stock, lately. I don't care what you guys do, and not going to suggest anything here.
I can tell you this.
I realize they didn't measure port volume in the old days.
So you guys can call this stuff cheating, being innovative, gettin' competitve, whatever you like but , if Farmer, Greg X , or Marty Barrett were still with us, the first time they laid eyes on this stuff, they would have called it ..
"buh bye"

[Jeff Niceswanger]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

I don't race Super Stock anymore. I have enough trouble racing Stock, lately. I don't care what you guys do, and not going to suggest anything here.
I can tell you this.
I realize they didn't measure port volume in the old days.
So you guys can call this stuff cheating, being innovative, gettin' competitve, whatever you like but , if Farmer, Greg X , or Marty Barrett were still with us, the first time they laid eyes on this stuff, they would have called it ..
"buh bye"

Mark,
The "First" word is the key. They would never have passed this stuff as you call it, then after multiple passing's,and multiple years,change their mind and say " to all those guys we told it was Ok..... please junk your stuff"

[Tom Broome]

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

Get off the pipe. Your statement shows the lack of knowledge of porting cylinder heads.

It is not about volume, it is about CSA, volume and shape of the port. You can have a 230cc port volume that is outperformed by a 200cc port volume.

Well....He may not be a "renowned head porter", but he has enough common sense to understand that if you lose volume by drastically milling the intake surface, you gain the ability to change the "CSA, Volume and shape of the port".....To use your phraseology.

Perhaps you shouldn't take his statement as an absolute.