Pick basics of new eliminator

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Steve Polhill

My Only Fear with a Heads up class is that it will end up like all the other heads up classes. The guy with the most money Wins..

Me too!

What about starting with a format similar to what Div. 1 did with Top Stock and Junior Stock? There probably needs to be a transition plan to allow people to race what they have in the current environment and also participate in a new eliminator formula. I prefer a heads-up race for both the competitors and the spectators sake. Odds are that a spectator base will not be attracted to an index-breakout race.

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

Me too!

What about starting with a format similar to what Div. 1 did with Top Stock and Junior Stock? There probably needs to be a transition plan to allow people to race what they have in the current environment and also participate in a new eliminator formula. I prefer a heads-up race for both the competitors and the spectators sake. Odds are that a spectator base will not be attracted to an index-breakout race.

Dwight,with the car counts and the amount of different classes here in Div there's no time to run another race in a race.
We used to have a $20 best package race on the final qualifying shot at divisionals a ways back.A lot of fun.Between the increase in classes,entries and no one to keep track of it the race died.
It seems they're draining the fun factor out of us slow but sure.

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

Me too!

What about starting with a format similar to what Div. 1 did with Top Stock and Junior Stock? There probably needs to be a transition plan to allow people to race what they have in the current environment and also participate in a new eliminator formula. I prefer a heads-up race for both the competitors and the spectators sake. Odds are that a spectator base will not be attracted to an index-breakout race.

A few years ago (one of my "I'm bored" weekends) I started playing with desktop dyno just picking engine combos and restricting them. Now I know that isn't the real world but if you restrict the intake and the exhaust enough on almost any combo they all wind up making about the same HP.
It could be interesting (at least to me anyway) to get some Stockers or SSers together and put a restrictor plate under the carb and put on a collector with a 2" outlet, get them to the same weight and see how they run in relation to each other.

[Robert Swartz]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

A few years ago (one of my "I'm bored" weekends) I started playing with desktop dyno just picking engine combos and restricting them. Now I know that isn't the real world but if you restrict the intake and the exhaust enough on almost any combo they all wind up making about the same HP.
It could be interesting (at least to me anyway) to get some Stockers or SSers together and put a restrictor plate under the carb and put on a collector with a 2" outlet, get them to the same weight and see how they run in relation to each other.

I've read all this with some interest. Looking at the above, you're getting real close to what the circle track racers used to (maybe still) do. One of the local tracks around here, allowed to you to pretty much build the motor however you wanted it, as much cam and compression as you please. Here was the kicker, they limited everyone to a cast iron intake, a 500 cfm 2 barrel carbutetor and cast iron manifolds. As you can pretty much figure, everyone was running SBC's. They also mandated a specific size DOT tire, so everyone was equal, on paper.

Ever thought about revisiting the old Modified Production weight breaks? Or maybe Super Modified? Here again, I see alot of BB, SB chevy combinations, which still would be typical of S/SS. Mandate the carb/fi size. Holley makes a 450 cfm mechanical secondary carb. I like the collector restriction idea. I would say, don't allow any flycutting of the valve relief area of the piston, this would limit cam size. Someone that's smart (read that $$$$) would just build a set of pistons that would allow them to supplant this.

Some good ideas here. Limit the amount of air/fuel going in, the exhaust going out and keep everyone on 9" tires. Fitting the 6 and 4 cylinders, gonna take someone smart.

[Tony Curcio]

Restrictors are certainly a lot cheaper than a new set of heads.

I recall now that when I had a 2 bbl. on our G/Pure Stock combo, the same engine that went through the traps at 7000 with a Q-Jet would run out of steam at 5700with the 2 bbl. Bigger ports would only have made the situation worse.

Billy, how would you like to try it out? Do you have the equip to make a restrictor for a Q-Jet? If not, what should the specs be, maybe I can get something made. I'd be willing to try it at the test & tune before the Atco Nat'l Open (Thurs April 1st).

Any small block Ford or Mopar guys interested? We only want to compare how much each combo drops off, and if they start off close in performance, do they remain so.

[Billy Nees]

Tony, I'd love to see how a restrictor plate would react. I can get the plate made. I don't know where to start with dimensions and I'm not sure if a plate would fit under a Q-jet. (throttle blades might hit plate)
Any ideas on plate dimensions?

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Tony, I'd love to see how a restrictor plate would react. I can get the plate made. I don't know where to start with dimensions and I'm not sure if a plate would fit under a Q-jet. (throttle blades might hit plate)
Any ideas on plate dimensions?

Billy....you could start with 3/4 inches. (.750) or (smaller 5/8th or 1/2 inch holes) and use a 1/4 inch thick plate then allow and adaptor an inch thick above that so the carb butterflies will clear. . Thats what we used (1/2 inch) with the 2 barrel class production S/S cars in IHRA. Work from there until you find what works best. Just a suggestion.

[Tony Curcio]

The Q-Jet secondary blades protrude down .75" from the bottom of the base, so the spacer/restrictor needs to be at least that tall.

Holley 4150 rated at 500 cfm has 1.50' diameter throttle bores- all four.
A 600 cfm model is 1 9/16".

Holley makes an adapter intended to mount a Q-Jet or Thermo Quad on a manifold designed for Holley 4150 or 4160 (PN 17-6).

Maybe a 4 hole gasket underneath this adaptor is all that's needed for this test.