|
|
![]() |
#1 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 3,048
Likes: 712
Liked 1,608 Times in 585 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
I addressed this rule 10 years ago in many ways and forms with NHRA, including sending pictures and section cuts of the OEM stamped engine crossmembers on late-model RWD cars and engineering analysis when I was trying to build my 1994 SN95 Mustang for SS/CS class. At the time, Bruce Balchelder supported the rule change of the same premise I used; Chromemoly arms and crossmember are structurally stronger than the stamped OEM parts, especially during a wheelstand. However, Danny Gracia shot it down, however, I have an email stating that it would be allowed for Comp Eliminator Super Modified and the reason I build the car for Comp Eliminator SM, which I ended selling unfinished. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#2 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,683
Likes: 3,939
Liked 823 Times in 342 Posts
|
![]()
I went through this with NHRA a while back with my SS/BS Barracuda (still in development and as I age becoming a garage queen).
Basically NHRA approved was stock suspension for cars that were originally RWD. I know there are usually two sides to every story but does anyone think allowing RWD cars to perform front suspension modifications the FWD conversions are allowed is a bad idea? I think the affected classes in Super Stock could be GT, Modified, and Modified Stock Thanks, Bill Lamb SS/BS 4340 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 94
Likes: 42
Liked 183 Times in 48 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
The FWD cars are given a significant advantage over RWDs not only from the standpoint of the front suspension, but changes to the frame, floor, tunnel and firewall. Most importantly, they're small, light and aerodynamic. RWD cars are inherently disadvantaged since they are larger, heavier and less aerodynamic. But we choose to run them. There will always be the Einstein's who say "then, why don't you just build a FWD conversion car?" As though that's a rational response or solution. Under the current rules, our cars are flat out penalized, which makes no sense, never mind creating better parity. Changes to the front suspension not only create a safer car, but removes weight and provides more manageable engine and header clearance. It can also provide room for a belly pan. The rule is bewildering.
__________________
SS/BS 1921 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Auburndale,Florida
Posts: 222
Likes: 30
Liked 71 Times in 38 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Last edited by Mark Ugrich; 01-01-2024 at 09:54 PM. Reason: spelling |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 3,048
Likes: 712
Liked 1,608 Times in 585 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
On the other hand, Bruce thought I had made a strong case, and had provided the technical evidence and even engineering analysis that made sense. In the end, all I got was an email stating it was legal for Comp Eliminator Super Modified but not Super Stock Modified. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#6 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 94
Likes: 42
Liked 183 Times in 48 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Unfortunately, reason and logic are rarely well received and reciprocated. Hope you had a Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year.
__________________
SS/BS 1921 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|