Why did nhra change the cam and valve spring rule in 1985?

[Casey Miles]

NHRA told the prostock teams "NO EXOTIC MATERIALS IN THE ENGINES" , why is it allowed in stock eliminator? Schubeck lifters are made from an exotic material the last time I looked. You can't buy them at any local auto parts store that I know of.
NHRA doesn't want to do their job on policing rules and for that matter what we pay for from them when we buy our memberships. NHRA is streamlining for their benefit not to have to enforce rules that should have been kept up with, like valve spring pressures. The cars in stock would not be running 1.0 under if the valve spring pressures where set to factory spec. for sure. The valve spring spec on my 302 engine was 96 lbs on the seat and 204 lbs open pressure, no way could you get the motor to 8k rpm. Now, they are changing gears at 8200 rpm.
My vote is to go back to enforcing an across the board valve spring pressure so that you have to use stock (buy in any auto parts store) lifters again.

Casey Miles
248H

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by Casey Miles

NHRA told the prostock teams "NO EXOTIC MATERIALS IN THE ENGINES" , why is it allowed in stock eliminator? Schubeck lifters are made from an exotic material the last time I looked. You can't buy them at any local auto parts store that I know of.
NHRA doesn't want to do their job on policing rules and for that matter what we pay for from them when we buy our memberships. NHRA is streamlining for their benefit not to have to enforce rules that should have been kept up with, like valve spring pressures. The cars in stock would not be running 1.0 under if the valve spring pressures where set to factory spec. for sure. The valve spring spec on my 302 engine was 96 lbs on the seat and 204 lbs open pressure, no way could you get the motor to 8k rpm. Now, they are changing gears at 8200 rpm.
My vote is to go back to enforcing an across the board valve spring pressure so that you have to use stock (buy in any auto parts store) lifters again.

Casey Miles
248H

Yepper......But how are you going to get the associations to change that rule? If I was still working the IHRA deal I woud push for it but I know it would be shot down. That would eliminate just about every NHRA car that wanted to cross over and the car counts are low enough already. NHRA would have to mandate it then IHRA would follow the rule change. All one can do is send letters to the powers that control this stuff and complain and try to reason with them about the cost and potential oil downs. With a head off already for a CC check and the valves out for a size check the checking of a couple of valve springs would take only a few moments. Let the stockers keep their crazy overlap and duration specs as that was a pain in the ***** to check.

[Billy Nees]

[QUOTE=X-TECH MAN;195663] That would eliminate just about every NHRA car that wanted to cross over and the car counts are low enough already.

I think that you'll find that NHRA doesn't want Stockers "crossing over" to SS!

[X-TECH MAN]

[QUOTE=Billy Nees;195742]

Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN

That would eliminate just about every NHRA car that wanted to cross over and the car counts are low enough already.

I think that you'll find that NHRA doesn't want Stockers "crossing over" to SS!

I meant if the NHRA stockers wanted to run IHRA stock....... If IHRA changed the valve spring rule to a max seat and open pressure for stock IHRA would loose ALL of the NHRA stockers wishing to race with them unless they ran S/S because of the NEW valve spring pressure rule. .

[Dwight Southerland]

I am with you guys on this one. The current valve spring rule was the most expensive hit NHRA has done to Stock Eliminator racers. I agree with you, Terry, that if they would set a max of say 135-140lbs on the seat and 350 or so at .500" compression the cost of an engine would decrease, the reliability and down-time would increase and the smart guys would have another avenue to snooker people with.

If someone would start a referendum, maybe we could exert some pressure on them. Lots of people would benefit.

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

I am with you guys on this one. The current valve spring rule was the most expensive hit NHRA has done to Stock Eliminator racers. I agree with you, Terry, that if they would set a max of say 135-140lbs on the seat and 350 or so at .500" compression the cost of an engine would decrease, the reliability and down-time would increase and the smart guys would have another avenue to snooker people with.

If someone would start a referendum, maybe we could exert some pressure on them. Lots of people would benefit.

Thank you.......RPM is the main killer and cause for expense not to mention all of the other "Stuff" that is being done to take advantage ot the RPM ranges the stockers are being run in today,

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

I am with you guys on this one. The current valve spring rule was the most expensive hit NHRA has done to Stock Eliminator racers. I agree with you, Terry, that if they would set a max of say 135-140lbs on the seat and 350 or so at .500" compression the cost of an engine would decrease, the reliability and down-time would increase and the smart guys would have another avenue to snooker people with.

If someone would start a referendum, maybe we could exert some pressure on them. Lots of people would benefit.

That would take all the street Hemi's and send them to the old cars home. The stock ( as came on the car) springs are higher than that.
They already have Super Chevy races Do you want to make them all that way?

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by art leong

That would take all the street Hemi's and send them to the old cars home. The stock ( as came on the car) springs are higher than that.
They already have Super Chevy races Do you want to make them all that way?

The 69,70, 71 Street Hemi had single springs with a damper at 150 lbs on the seat and 320 open pressure specs. I have my old NHRA/IHRA engine spec book right in front of me as I type this. The 68 Street Hemi had 131 lbs on the seat and 280 open. The 66-67 Street Hemis had dual springs with the rating of 114 lbs outer and 53 lbs for the inner spring on the seat with 189 lbs outer seat pressure and 96 lbs for the inner open pressures (add them together) with solid lifters.The 68 and 69s had solid lifters also while the 70, 71s had hyd. lifters. The 68-71 had single springs with a damper. This was good for 7000 RPM operation. The street Hemis with an OEM oiling sytems and pans dont take to kindly to 8200+ RPM shift points for very long. I would think most all of the brand of engine combos would be OK with 150 lbs seat pressure and about 320 to 350 lbs open pressures unless they are running a cam with square lobes on it. By the way the 1969 440 six pack had a 150/320 lb pressure spec also.

[Mark Yacavone]

You guys are forgetting the fact that many of the current crop of racers would have trouble just getting the valve covers off. Forget about monitoring spring pressure.
Not banging on anyone in particular. That's just a fact of life.

[Michael Beard]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

You guys are forgetting the fact that many of the current crop of racers would have trouble just getting the valve covers off. Forget about monitoring spring pressure.
Not banging on anyone in particular. That's just a fact of life.

Bad memories.... changing a rocker arm SIX times in one weekend in a Super Stocker. I knew when the owner handed me a box full of rockers and instructions on how to change them before sending me on my way that it was going to be a long weekend... LOL

But anyhoo, I agree... get that party started, Mr. Bell! I'm questioning my sanity, but for some silly reason, I've been daydreaming about building a "traditional" Stocker motor for the Volare.