Consensus By Professional Engine Builders - Page 5

Chuck Rayburn · 10-06-2010, 05:39 PM

Larry,
Let's do a simple physics example. If you take the weight of one of the faster A/SA cars and divide it into its known flywheel horsepower, you get a weight to flywheel horsepower ratio. In order to level the playing field, this ratio should be applied to the new/unknown combo. For example, if the fastest 426 Max wedge goes across the scales at 3500lbs. and makes 630 hp at the flywheel, you get a ratio of 5.55. If you want to get a ball park "level playing field" weight of the new car combo, you multiply the known ratio by the known flywheel horsepower and you get the "level playing field" weight. If the new car makes (this is a conservative estimate) 750hp, the "level playing field" weight comes out to 4160 lbs. It appears that the new cars in A/SA are a bit light in the weight department.
I have to ask, do you think these guys are going to be able to control the mix of ego and adrenaline when they get to the track? If I owned one of these new "smart cars", I'd be lobbying NHRA for a FX type category...by the time their egos get done with them, those cars will be 4000 lbs. by this time next year. Like you said, the laws of physics don't change.

Robert Swartz · 10-06-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN

And to think you NHRA racers used to complain about the IHRA "Crate Motored" cars..........LOL. At least they ALWAYS ran from the very begining in their own class and off their own index's and they havent invaded Super Stock. .

Yep, since NHRA won't adopt this class. I'll probably never again race at Indianapolis. Which is only 30 miles or so north of my home. Sure bet I'll never grace the field at the points meet or the US Nationals again.

Robert Swartz

RPinoski1 · 10-06-2010, 07:25 PM

Hey Tommy Boy!

You didn't mention that Jimmy D has a mustang.

paul · 10-07-2010, 04:16 PM

So i guess someone should have told John Armstrong not to bother showing up for class at the US Nationals with his 1969 SS/AA corvette since he could only qualify third in that class behind two of the new cars. Oops wait a minute he did win class!!! I guess thats why we race on the track and not on paper!!

Mike Fahie

Dgal · 10-07-2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul

So i guess someone should have told John Armstrong not to bother showing up for class at the US Nationals with his 1969 SS/AA corvette since he could only qualify third in that class behind two of the new cars. Oops wait a minute he did win class!!! I guess thats why we race on the track and not on paper!!

Mike Fahie

You are absolutely correct! But there is more to the story and paper didn't apply in your example. Downing looked like he broke according to DRC and Hopkins went red by .005 against Armstrong. By the way Hopkins ran a 8.601 @ 155.97 to Armstrong's 8.836 @ 150.25.

Don

Larry Hill · 10-10-2010, 10:40 AM

Does any one think any B/SA car with a carb or carbs, or LT1, LS1 can run 135 mph or a 9.80 ET.

I bet Dottie "THINKS" she can.

"It's been so wrong for too long" Unknown

Bruce Noland · 10-10-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul

So i guess someone should have told John Armstrong not to bother showing up for class at the US Nationals with his 1969 SS/AA corvette since he could only qualify third in that class behind two of the new cars. Oops wait a minute he did win class!!! I guess thats why we race on the track and not on paper!!

Mike Fahie

Yes he won, but it was a complete fluke. Both of the new cars in the class had starting line issues and the crowd went wild when they lost. But, just like you, we all knew the truth and so did John. I spoke to him at Indy.

Alan Roehrich · 10-10-2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Hill

Does any one think any B/SA car with a carb or carbs, or LT1, LS1 can run 135 mph or a 9.80 ET.

I bet Dottie "THINKS" she can.

"It's been so wrong for too long" Unknown

Remember when a B car that ran ten-teens was a bad ride?

FINESPLINE · 10-10-2010, 11:49 AM

Allen, Great article you did on competitionplus. Glad to see some people are working on solving the problems with the the NHRA factoring system . I hope your time and effort are appreciated by the other racers.---John

Bob Pagano · 10-10-2010, 12:46 PM

Good job Alan, what I would like to know is what happened at the big meeting at the Grove that were to have S & SS racers evolved in the discussion ? Did it take place or was it more smoke from nhra? Anybody ?

10-06-2010, 05:39 PM	#41
Chuck Rayburn Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26 Likes: 21 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders Larry, Let's do a simple physics example. If you take the weight of one of the faster A/SA cars and divide it into its known flywheel horsepower, you get a weight to flywheel horsepower ratio. In order to level the playing field, this ratio should be applied to the new/unknown combo. For example, if the fastest 426 Max wedge goes across the scales at 3500lbs. and makes 630 hp at the flywheel, you get a ratio of 5.55. If you want to get a ball park "level playing field" weight of the new car combo, you multiply the known ratio by the known flywheel horsepower and you get the "level playing field" weight. If the new car makes (this is a conservative estimate) 750hp, the "level playing field" weight comes out to 4160 lbs. It appears that the new cars in A/SA are a bit light in the weight department. I have to ask, do you think these guys are going to be able to control the mix of ego and adrenaline when they get to the track? If I owned one of these new "smart cars", I'd be lobbying NHRA for a FX type category...by the time their egos get done with them, those cars will be 4000 lbs. by this time next year. Like you said, the laws of physics don't change. __________________ Chuck Rayburn 7426 SS

10-06-2010, 07:25 PM	#43
RPinoski1 Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: PLACERVILLE, CA Posts: 182 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders Hey Tommy Boy! You didn't mention that Jimmy D has a mustang.

10-07-2010, 04:16 PM	#44
paul Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 7 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders So i guess someone should have told John Armstrong not to bother showing up for class at the US Nationals with his 1969 SS/AA corvette since he could only qualify third in that class behind two of the new cars. Oops wait a minute he did win class!!! I guess thats why we race on the track and not on paper!! Mike Fahie

10-10-2010, 10:40 AM	#46
Larry Hill Live Reporter Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Hickory, Ky Posts: 10,646 Likes: 1,941 Liked 10,746 Times in 2,235 Posts	Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders Does any one think any B/SA car with a carb or carbs, or LT1, LS1 can run 135 mph or a 9.80 ET. I bet Dottie "THINKS" she can. "It's been so wrong for too long" Unknown __________________ IHM Used Parts https://ihmusedparts.com 888-821-1817

10-10-2010, 11:49 AM	#49
FINESPLINE Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Island of high taxes, N.Y. Posts: 541 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders Allen, Great article you did on competitionplus. Glad to see some people are working on solving the problems with the the NHRA factoring system . I hope your time and effort are appreciated by the other racers.---John

10-10-2010, 12:46 PM	#50
Bob Pagano VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Holland, PA Mooresville,NC Posts: 1,163 Likes: 241 Liked 16 Times in 11 Posts	Re: Consensus By Professional Engine Builders Good job Alan, what I would like to know is what happened at the big meeting at the Grove that were to have S & SS racers evolved in the discussion ? Did it take place or was it more smoke from nhra? Anybody ? __________________ Bob Pagano A/SA