Factory experimental

DK FRAZIER · 01-19-2009, 11:26 PM

Gump, I see your point but the CJ with a 425 rating and a 720 potential I dont think the factor on Bruces camaro was quite that soft ever!!!!!!!! Jim Baileys post should show the potential of where this combo may be headed.

Jim Bailey · 01-19-2009, 11:49 PM

Cylinder pressure could be a problem ....Pushrod failure!!!...OH, we don't have any...cool, that solves that. Wonder why the McGee and all over head cam engines are banned in the Ultimate Classes in Drag Racing, Top Fuel and Fuel Funny Car? I think it had something to do with cost to the racers?

GUMP · 01-20-2009, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bailey

Cylinder pressure could be a problem ....Pushrod failure!!!...OH, we don't have any...cool, that solves that. Wonder why the McGee and all over head cam engines are banned in the Ultimate Classes in Drag Racing, Top Fuel and Fuel Funny Car? I think it had something to do with cost to the racers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bailey

Hey Bud, no need to wonder. I'm in the mood to build a new car (or "two"). Yes, one just might be a new Challenger. JB.

I would just love to see these cars go down the track one time!!!

bill dedman · 01-20-2009, 01:06 AM

In regards to the McGee DOHC T/F motor "ban", Jim Bailey said, "I think it had something to do with cost to the racers?"

Are you kidding me?

If NHRA had ANY concern for the racers' pocketbooks, they would have allowed compressed air valve springs, screw compressors, and 2.80:1 rear gearsets in these cars years ago.

ALL F-1 cars have used nothing BUT compressed air valve springs for many years now; steel valve springs won't hold up at 20,000 rpm in a F-1 engine for very long... and, the compressed air springs only have to be bought ONCE. T/AD and Alky Funny car racers, particularly, spend a FORTUNE on valve springs, unnecessarily, because of NHRA's insistence on steel springs. Ask yourself, why would NHRA do that if they were seriously interested in keeping the cost of racing down? Who has convinced them that steel springs are a good thing in a 10,000 rpm Hemi (the alky engines turn that fast, routinely, killing expensive "battleship" springs in just a few runs.)

From what I've heard, screw-type compressors don't require the maintenance that GMC-style Roots blowers do... another cost savings.... but you can't (legally) put one on a Fueler. Why????????

At 335 mph, a Fuel motor is wound up like an 8-day clock with the requisite 3.2:1 ring gear and pinion... spitting pieces of valves and pistons out at the finish line due to the excessive rpms that wouldn't be at all necessary if NHRA would let the racers choose a numerically-lower final drive ratio.

Is that supposed to save money for the racers? I don't see how...

If NHRA is trying to keep the cost of running a Fuel car down they sure have a funny way of doing it (no pun intended.)

Jim, I know you ran a Fueler for a long time, and probably know a LOT more about this stuff than I ever will, but am I off-base with this, or what? What do you think about the foregoing? Am I nuts, or is NHRA deliberately ignoring some ways they could be saving the racers some dollars, here?

Thanks for any information...

Blown Stockers' boost numbers would be easy to police with a tamper-proof telltale boost gauge read by the fuel check Tech guy. But, getting the Ford factory guys to come up with a legitimate boost number for the Tech inspector to observe might be the hard part.... with NHRA on their side.... and, you can bet they are.

Jim Bailey · 01-20-2009, 02:07 AM

Bill, # 1.... yes I am kidding.... # 2..... Safety..... #3...... It's not about boost, it's about how efficiently you make the boost (ie:screw blowers). Point; which is better, If it takes 300hp (from the crank) to make 40# boost, or if it takes 150 hp (from the crank) to make 40# boost? How do you monitor that will a tell tale?

bill dedman · 01-20-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bailey

Bill, # 1.... yes I am kidding.... # 2..... Safety..... #3...... It's not about boost, it's about how efficiently you make the boost (ie:screw blowers). Point; which is better, If it takes 300hp (from the crank) to make 40# boost, or if it takes 150 hp (from the crank) to make 40# boost? How do you monitor that will a tell tale?

Thanks for the response, Jim; I appreciate it!!!

On #2, I am curious as to what the safety issue is with compressed air valve springs (or, did I get the numbers wrong?) Formula 1 cars race around CORNERS at 200 MPH and the F.I.A deems these springs as safe to use (they've been on all F-1 cars for years), so what's the problem with straight-line racers' safety isues with them? I don't understand what "safety issue" of concern is, here.

And on #3, your answer of "How do you monitor that will a tell tale?" relative to boost didn't really explain anything RE: why screw superchargers are banned. They have a reputation as being more efficient than Roots blowers, and I'm sure somebody's "blower dyno" has all the answers about how much power it takes to drive any of the popular configurations to X-pounds of boost, but the question was, "Why are they banned?" I'm certain NHRA doesn't ban them because they're inefficient...

I have my own ideas, but you having been "in the business," would have a much better idea than I would.

Thanks again for your response. Is your A/SA car a Stage III Wedge? Good luck in 2009!!!

Bill

Jim Bailey · 01-20-2009, 09:10 AM

Bill: this would probably be better addressed in a "new" Thread. Or if you want to PM me. Valve Springs are more of an issue with Alky than they are with Fuel Cars. And the mere Size/Mass of a Screw Blower,(Case and Rotors both), Filled with Almighty Nitro - BANG - You can't have that much energy flying around in specator seating. In an effort to Slow these Cars, NHRA has to really keep a handle on New Proto Type Parts. Today's Fuel Motors are more of a SPEC motor than any in drag racing. Including stock elim.
But, with that said, and the popularity of this thread....Give NHRA Tech just a little more credit, watch and see what happens, I don't look for the New Fords to be way outta line within current rules. It'll be when the Racers begin to "tweek" the combo (and rules), especially the supercharger, that we'll see an unfair advantage.

01-19-2009, 11:26 PM	#1
DK FRAZIER Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bogart GA Posts: 117 Likes: 2 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Gump, I see your point but the CJ with a 425 rating and a 720 potential I dont think the factor on Bruces camaro was quite that soft ever!!!!!!!! Jim Baileys post should show the potential of where this combo may be headed. __________________ Doug Frazier D/SA 2038

01-20-2009, 01:06 AM	#4
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Factory experimental In regards to the McGee DOHC T/F motor "ban", Jim Bailey said, "I think it had something to do with cost to the racers?" Are you kidding me? If NHRA had ANY concern for the racers' pocketbooks, they would have allowed compressed air valve springs, screw compressors, and 2.80:1 rear gearsets in these cars years ago. ALL F-1 cars have used nothing BUT compressed air valve springs for many years now; steel valve springs won't hold up at 20,000 rpm in a F-1 engine for very long... and, the compressed air springs only have to be bought ONCE. T/AD and Alky Funny car racers, particularly, spend a FORTUNE on valve springs, unnecessarily, because of NHRA's insistence on steel springs. Ask yourself, why would NHRA do that if they were seriously interested in keeping the cost of racing down? Who has convinced them that steel springs are a good thing in a 10,000 rpm Hemi (the alky engines turn that fast, routinely, killing expensive "battleship" springs in just a few runs.) From what I've heard, screw-type compressors don't require the maintenance that GMC-style Roots blowers do... another cost savings.... but you can't (legally) put one on a Fueler. Why???????? At 335 mph, a Fuel motor is wound up like an 8-day clock with the requisite 3.2:1 ring gear and pinion... spitting pieces of valves and pistons out at the finish line due to the excessive rpms that wouldn't be at all necessary if NHRA would let the racers choose a numerically-lower final drive ratio. Is that supposed to save money for the racers? I don't see how... If NHRA is trying to keep the cost of running a Fuel car down they sure have a funny way of doing it (no pun intended.) Jim, I know you ran a Fueler for a long time, and probably know a LOT more about this stuff than I ever will, but am I off-base with this, or what? What do you think about the foregoing? Am I nuts, or is NHRA deliberately ignoring some ways they could be saving the racers some dollars, here? Thanks for any information... Blown Stockers' boost numbers would be easy to police with a tamper-proof telltale boost gauge read by the fuel check Tech guy. But, getting the Ford factory guys to come up with a legitimate boost number for the Tech inspector to observe might be the hard part.... with NHRA on their side.... and, you can bet they are. __________________ Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 01-20-2009 at 01:14 AM.

01-20-2009, 02:07 AM	#5
Jim Bailey Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 674 Likes: 15 Liked 584 Times in 94 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Bill, # 1.... yes I am kidding.... # 2..... Safety..... #3...... It's not about boost, it's about how efficiently you make the boost (ie:screw blowers). Point; which is better, If it takes 300hp (from the crank) to make 40# boost, or if it takes 150 hp (from the crank) to make 40# boost? How do you monitor that will a tell tale?

01-20-2009, 09:10 AM	#7
Jim Bailey Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 674 Likes: 15 Liked 584 Times in 94 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Bill: this would probably be better addressed in a "new" Thread. Or if you want to PM me. Valve Springs are more of an issue with Alky than they are with Fuel Cars. And the mere Size/Mass of a Screw Blower,(Case and Rotors both), Filled with Almighty Nitro - BANG - You can't have that much energy flying around in specator seating. In an effort to Slow these Cars, NHRA has to really keep a handle on New Proto Type Parts. Today's Fuel Motors are more of a SPEC motor than any in drag racing. Including stock elim. But, with that said, and the popularity of this thread....Give NHRA Tech just a little more credit, watch and see what happens, I don't look for the New Fords to be way outta line within current rules. It'll be when the Racers begin to "tweek" the combo (and rules), especially the supercharger, that we'll see an unfair advantage.

01-19-2009, 11:49 PM	#2
Jim Bailey Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 674 Likes: 15 Liked 584 Times in 94 Posts	Re: Factory experimental Cylinder pressure could be a problem ....Pushrod failure!!!...OH, we don't have any...cool, that solves that. Wonder why the McGee and all over head cam engines are banned in the Ultimate Classes in Drag Racing, Top Fuel and Fuel Funny Car? I think it had something to do with cost to the racers?