HP Adjustments on NHRA.com

[Paul Precht]

Originally Posted by SPS

So NHRA has done it again.

First, Michael is absolutely correct in that an engine does not know what chassis
it's in. The HP factors for straight SS and GT have never made any sense to me, or any competent engine builder for that matter.

Now you want to say it matters if it's a RWD or FWD conversion???

Having been involved in the sport from the inset of GT, (and anyone that was) will remember that in the beginning, the GT cars were considerably slower than the straight SS cars.
Where did the difference come from??
WORK!!!!
These cars were owned and raced by people that worked on their stuff and made it fast.

I suggest the same thing is today with the conversion cars.

Back In the old modified days (yea, I'm old), when you got outrun, you went home and worked on your stuff. No crying on the internet, no emails, and certainly no AHFS.

I suggest the rest go work on their s##t and low and behold, be just as fast.

FJ

FJ, no matter how hard you work, a 70' 383 is not going to run as well in a 64 Belvedere as it will in a 2004 Stratus. Many of the current GT factors are based on the potential of an engine combo in a very small late model car, and most are FWD.

[countrypuppy4865]

Bernie, with the new request form on the nhra website they had a lengthy list last year as well.

[Bernie Cunningham]

Where this rule bugs me the most is in Stock that a HP in a firebird/camaro, circa '93 - '98 LT1 does not apply to a corvette platform, these are obvious sports cars yet NHRA separates 'em, WHY ????
We're not talking about station wagons to sedans here. OOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!~! "Shelby"

Thx. Cooter, I reckoned it was longer than usual. Seems there a are more crybabies out there than I thought, My bad

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by SPS

So NHRA has done it again.

First, Michael is absolutely correct in that an engine does not know what chassis
it's in. The HP factors for straight SS and GT have never made any sense to me, or any competent engine builder for that matter.

Now you want to say it matters if it's a RWD or FWD conversion???

Having been involved in the sport from the inset of GT, (and anyone that was) will remember that in the beginning, the GT cars were considerably slower than the straight SS cars.
Where did the difference come from??
WORK!!!!
These cars were owned and raced by people that worked on their stuff and made it fast.

I suggest the same thing is today with the conversion cars.

Back In the old modified days (yea, I'm old), when you got outrun, you went home and worked on your stuff. No crying on the internet, no emails, and certainly no AHFS.

I suggest the rest go work on their s##t and low and behold, be just as fast.

FJ

Sorry FJ, but I am not buying your premise. Also Michael is incorrect on his statement. Race car building is a science and FWD cars have many advantages over the RWD cars in the same class in many ways.

The type and style of vehicle used has an effect on the performance of the car in the class, especially with the allowances given in the construction of FWD cars in both Super Stock GT and modified classes.

For starters, a strut suspension FWD will be lighter and have an advantage over a RWD car in the same class that must maintain the OEM upper and lower control arms, shock absorbers and cross member.

Let's also add engine placement and aerodynamics and a multitude of other factors.

Sorry, but I am not drinking the Kool Aid!

[Stang_Bang]

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

Sorry FJ, but I am not buying your premise. Also Michael is incorrect on his statement. Race car building is a science and FWD cars have many advantages over the RWD cars in the same class in many ways.

The type and style of vehicle used has an effect on the performance of the car in the class, especially with the allowances given in the construction of FWD cars in both Super Stock GT and modified classes.

For starters, a strut suspension FWD will be lighter and have an advantage over a RWD car in the same class that must maintain the OEM upper and lower control arms, shock absorbers and cross member.

Let's also add engine placement and aerodynamics and a multitude of other factors.

Sorry, but I am not drinking the Kool Aid!

I completely agree. If you look at the construction of a FWD conversion vs a RWD, the front end of a FWD has a definite advantage . I say to make it fair and get rid of HP factors for FWD vs RWD they should give the RWD the same rules. Let them run tubular K-members, tubular control arms and struts so then it will be apples to apples. Just my 2 pesos

[GTX JOHN]

SSDiv6 = You are absolutely correct!

We are consistently beaten by FWD cars in our class.

We purchased an engine out of one of our friend and
competitors car and immediately went .015 to .020 slower than he
ran.......... although our car was better sorted and had a superior
transmission.

[fredjohnston]

Why does every HP adjustment for the last two years or so include reductions for the big block Mopars? These cars were obviously fast at one point so what's the problem now? Is it because the Mopar racers know how to work the system better?

[Dick Butler]

I agree with Micheal on the main issue. Micro factoring is creating part of the problem. FJ also is correct. Many aggressive racers move to the newer more efficient combinations. Effect the FWD cars get these people. Some by finances tend to keep the car they started with and try to upgrade to compete. Wont Happen. The loop holes in GT rules for construction add to the problem. As for front end wt, motor position, etc that is not there on these cars. Check a corvette motor position compared to a FWD. The Vette is the car and not really used as often as it could due to cost and build restrictions.
Suggestion:1) Add 50 lb for ALL FWD combinations. (If not enough refactor)
Problem is not all racers created with Equal skills or budgets. You have a problem factoring money invested and time dedicated to being #1 in your class.
Many more problems caused by poor factoring of the motors themselves.
ANSWER: Limit the combinations available to race, Limit the chassis being used or create a Spec type combination for those who are tired of the factoring or lack of it.

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Dick Butler

I agree with Micheal on the main issue. Micro factoring is creating part of the problem. FJ also is correct. Many aggressive racers move to the newer more efficient combinations. Effect the FWD cars get these people. Some by finances tend to keep the car they started with and try to upgrade to compete. Wont Happen. The loop holes in GT rules for construction add to the problem. As for front end wt, motor position, etc that is not there on these cars. Check a corvette motor position compared to a FWD. The Vette is the car and not really used as often as it could due to cost and build restrictions.
Suggestion:1) Add 50 lb for ALL FWD combinations. (If not enough refactor)
Problem is not all racers created with Equal skills or budgets. You have a problem factoring money invested and time dedicated to being #1 in your class.
Many more problems caused by poor factoring of the motors themselves.
ANSWER: Limit the combinations available to race, Limit the chassis being used or create a Spec type combination for those who are tired of the factoring or lack of it.

Dick, I am a little bit confused with your statement.

First you say that Michael and FJ are correct, however, at the same time, you infer that a FWD conversion car is an advantage and they should be given a 50lbs penalty.

Michael's stated the engine is not a factor between a FWD and a RWD car.
FJ stated that a FWD car is not a factor and stated it is do to lazy racers that don't want to work on their cars.

When you state the engine location on the Corvette, there is more than engine placement when building a FWD conversion car within the current rules, especially when many of them relocate the firewall.

But at the end, like many of your previous posts, you keep pushing for a Spec Car class like you have done for the past years.

[Ed Wright]

Uh, not supposed to move the firewall, right?