|
|
![]() |
#1 |
Live Reporter
|
![]()
Dave -- you're allowed crossmember cutting for pan removal but not the rad support .....
__________________
Jack Matyas 1547 FS/C 2015 Camaro COPO # 62- 2012 Camaro Convertible COPO |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]()
Dave,
Maybe it's an example of one of thoise cars that is so well set-up that it has inordinately fast 60-foot times (high 1.20s?) and because of that, covers the first eighth really quickly (for its type of car), but doesn't run on the big end like a SS/A car would, so the performanxce falls off, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, the last half. Maybe it's only running 128 mph, or so... That would explain its slightly incongruous eighth-mile vs. quarter-mile times. Bill
__________________
Bill |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aberdeen SD
Posts: 645
Likes: 30
Liked 112 Times in 31 Posts
|
![]()
Awhile back, I bought a car from Division 1. It had passed tech MANY times over MANY years. Unfortunately, the car came with several things that weren't legal according to the rule book. In order to run in Division V, I had to CORRECT them. So apparently, the rule book used in Division V is written more clearly than the one used in Division 1.
On our Superstock Olds, The guy we sold the car to was required to completely re-do the rear suspension because part of the bracing protruded into the rear seat floorpan. That was in Division 3, and the car had originally come from Division 3. He changed it because that's what the rule said. So apparently the Division 3 rule book is more specific regarding protrusion than the rulebooks in Division 1 or 4. The problem isn't THE RULES. It's the Divisional tech people who have neglected to grow a pair to tell their buddies NO! Do you think Division 1 has a lock on HIGH-TECH? Take a look at some of the Division 6 & 7 Stockers??, if you can call them that. There is way too much liberal interpretation going on here. EVOLUTION - MY *****. Jerry Last edited by JRyan; 06-06-2009 at 02:51 PM. Reason: left out almost a complete sentence - reads better now |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 271
Likes: 54
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Yep both Stock & Super Stock has gotten way out of control as far as what is legal (and what little isn't). This Keir car is an awesome piece of mechanical artwork there's no doubt about it, and there is no questioning Ken's talent. But the question was "is it legal" as an NHRA Stocker? If this car is accepted as legal, then it is definitely going to set the standards for everyone else to follow. Larry Fulton Last edited by Larry Fulton; 06-06-2009 at 02:01 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aberdeen SD
Posts: 645
Likes: 30
Liked 112 Times in 31 Posts
|
![]()
Hi back Larry,
You're right! Where is it going? Give me an original 1968 - 1972 Nova and an early Camaro (for comparison purposes), a tape measure and some authority, and I'll scare the crap out of a large number of Stockers drivers at any NHRA event. Yeah!! It'd be that easy. Jerry |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Whittier, Ca
Posts: 830
Likes: 94
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
![]()
My 1957 Chevy Bel Air had the radiator core support cut. Two tabs were welded on the ends and it was bolted back in. I went 68 and 71 Winters an the 70 Supernationals and it was never questioned.
__________________
Tony Janes 7941 STK, SS |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: eastriver
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
![]() Quote:
Yeah, what he said! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|