Topeka LODRS 5-2 Stock Qualifying

[Mike Pearson]

Originally Posted by Marty Buth

I think James has a good question here! With all this talk of "tightening up" by NHRA tech, will it be like this example, put another part on at the same race and go racing, or your out and come to the next race with other parts, or 1 year suspension???? How's this going to work??? Will it be the same in all divisions????

I would think that if the infraction is something simple like this and can be corrected before qualifying is complete then you should be able to fix the car and continue. No harm no foul.

[Lenny5160]

Originally Posted by Marty Buth

I think James has a good question here! With all this talk of "tightening up" by NHRA tech, will it be like this example, put another part on at the same race and go racing, or your out and come to the next race with other parts, or 1 year suspension???? How's this going to work??? Will it be the same in all divisions????

To be fair, this example was more "you're out and come to the next race with other parts" than it was "put another part on at the same race and go racing".

[Marty Buth]

Originally Posted by Lenny5160

To be fair, this example was more "you're out and come to the next race with other parts" than it was "put another part on at the same race and go racing".

Thanks for the correction. I believe it is important to be factual and in this case I wasn't, not intentionally, I just hadn't seen a clarification like this.

[Lenny5160]

Originally Posted by Marty Buth

Thanks for the correction. I believe it is important to be factual and in this case I wasn't, not intentionally, I just hadn't seen a clarification like this.

Easily confused because 'the next race' was the same week at the same track, but it was a separate points-earning event.

[MR DERBY CITY]

Originally Posted by Mike Pearson

I would think that if the infraction is something simple like this and can be corrected before qualifying is complete then you should be able to fix the car and continue. No harm no foul.

If it is WRONG enough to get you tossed, I am not so sure it can be called a SIMPLE infraction...

[Michael K]

While the possibility exists that the 2951666 manifold "may" have found it's way on to some late production 69 motors......it wasn't ever on any 62 - 67 motors, which at the moment is legal. Very strange.

[4spdJohnny]

Originally Posted by Michael K

While the possibility exists that the 2951666 manifold "may" have found it's way on to some late production 69 motors......it wasn't ever on any 62 - 67 motors, which at the moment is legal. Very strange.

Exactly the main point that needs to be corrected

[4spdJohnny]

Originally Posted by James Perrone

Chrysler intake manifold is of the month .
So said intake 666 is illegal soooo I guess Mr Hopkins was ready with another intake in the trailer cause it may be wrong. But I will bet it’s the better piece. So if I show up with wrong intake on my car will I be able to get same mulligan. Don’t think so

Mr. Perrone, Mr. Hopkins did not have an intake "in his trailer" He had to drive and meet some one bringing one to him. Like I stated earlier when the engine was originally built the intake was listed as a correct intake

[Frank Castros]

I expect a correction or clarification will to be posted soon by the N.H.R.A. Technical Department.