The Keir Stocker is absolutely 1st rate craftsmanship - but is it legal?

[Bobby Zlatkin]

I have been under the assumption for many years that the stock elim. section of the NHRA rule book should be interpetted in the negative, i.e. unless it specifically says you are allowed to make a modification, you should assume that it isn't allowed. NOT that if it doesn't say it's not allowed you are to assume that it's ok.

Bill, the rule of thumb I've always used to convert 1/8th mile times to 1/4 mile times is to divide by .65.

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Did you get your record back? Or, would that be asking too much????

The record was 10.72 in E/S, I wouldn't consider that "soft". It dropped to 10.49, an "out of this world" number. NHRA does not give records back when the thief is found to be illegal.

[Ed Wright]

The rule book used to say pretty much "These rules are presented in a positive manor, if we don't say you can do it, you can't." That was in the front of the book, many years ago. Haven't looked for it lately. Doesn't seem to matter anymore.

Seeing the newer GT cars with long chrome plated steering columns, pro stock-looking pedals coming up through the floor and moved back, the driver so far back he could not touch the dash if his life depended on it, etc, makes me glad I don't run GT. According to the rule book that is all supposed to be the same as a regular SS car. Since they now pass tech, it must now be OK. They should probably now fix the rule book. I have my hvac controls. Don't know why.

[bill dedman]

Bobby Zlatkin said, " Bill, the rule of thumb I've always used to convert 1/8th mile times to 1/4 mile times is to divide by .65."

Using that formula, the Kier A/SA car's 6.47 eighth-mile time converts to a 9.955 quarter-mile time, which was my original contention.

Apparently, the NHRA uses that formula to convert eighth-mile indexes to quarter-mile indexes, since that's where I got my original numbers.

I have no dog in this hunt; those numbers seem reasonable to me, but, what do I know???

Ed is right about the language that used to be in the rule book; if it didn't specifically say you COULD do it (legally), you coundn't...

Who knows where that went???

[LNorton]

A solid number to use as a baseline for most combinations is to multiply the 1/8 mile number by 1.57-1.575. But remember that this is different from car to car, but is a great ballpark figure.

That would make the 6.47 run in the 10.16-10.19 range.

[Jeff Lee]

The various formulas are all very interesting but are meaningless in this discussion. It does not matter if the Nova in question runs two seconds under or two seconds above the index.

[Steve Williams]

Originally Posted by herbjr

Enough said, time to end this thread.

x2 AGAIN

[LNorton]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

The various formulas are all very interesting but are meaningless in this discussion. It does not matter if the Nova in question runs two seconds under or two seconds above the index.

They were trying to come up with a number, so I gave them one...

[bill dedman]

Thanks, Lee; I appreciate the input.

The whole gist of this thread was based on the legality of some of the things that were allegedly done to this car. The implication was that they were things that were designed to make it fast.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: is it fast?

The only way to know isto look at its numbers.

Is that not reason enough to apply a critical analysis to its performance in order to determine if there's any legitimate reason to even be LOOKING at what was done to it?

Jeesh... that would seem self-evident to me. If it's a mid-ten second car, who CARES if those mods were "legal" or not?

Doesn't appear that it is, though...runnin' really well for an A/SA car, it would seem.

Insofar as "enough is enough", nobody puts a gun to anybody's head and makes them read these posts; if you don't like it, don't read it. If something's on TV that I don't like, I turn it off...

[Bob]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Thanks, Lee; I appreciate the input.

The whole gist of this thread was based on the legality of some of the things that were allegedly done to this car. The implication was that they were things that were designed to make it fast.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: is it fast?

The only way to know isto look at its numbers.

Is that not reason enough to apply a critical analysis to its performance in order to determine if there's any legitimate reason to even be LOOKING at what was done to it?

Jeesh... that would seem self-evident to me. If it's a mid-ten second car, who CARES if those mods were "legal" or not?

Doesn't appear that it is, though...runnin' really well for an A/SA car, it would seem.

Insofar as "enough is enough", nobody puts a gun to anybody's head and makes them read these posts; if you don't like it, don't read it. If something's on TV that I don't like, I turn it off...

I care if it's legal or not!!!!!!!!!!!

You are assume that all runs are heads up and that the only people who care about this car's legality would be cars of the same class. When in fact class racing is 95% bracket racing and the legality of the car in the other lane DOES matter. It doesn't matter if that car runs two seconds under or two seconds over.

You said, "Jeesh... that would seem self-evident to me. If it's a mid-ten second car, who CARES if those mods were "legal" or not?"...............................So, by your mentality, it would be ok for this ten second car to have a delay box? As long as it does not affect it's 1/4 mile peformance it should be legal?