Bigger Pushrods & Guideplates Legal in Stock now

[Alan Roehrich]

You're a little high, on several of your prices.

You left out 8620 bar stock rocker shafts found in more than a few of the shaft rocker engines.

You ignore the fact that roller rockers, especially on engines with shaft rockers, will allow ANOTHER escalation in tappet velocity, increasing both performance AND strain on other parts, especially for engines with larger diameter lifters.

Where does it end? $1K Jesel or T&D systems? Any tappet diameter? Roller lifters? No lift rule?

[Jeff Lee]

If I'm off on total pricing, it can't be more than 10%.

If you fix the "wobbly" end of the spectrum (the stud mounted rocker arm; as found on GM / AMC / FORD), I really don't see that it will increase strain to a point of breakage anywhere else on the engine. If the goal is limiting the performance or adhering to "Stocker Purity", i.e., valve-train limitations, then everything mentioned in my list should be banned outright and all components should resort to OEM parts and specifications only.

But I've always been lost on the concept of allowing full-bore race modifications and parts as listed below, but keeping one breakage prone part which can (and does) lead to complete engine failure.

I guess the wording of a rule would read something like "mounted in same configuration as OEM"

Where does it all go? I've often thought Stock will (regarding engine) eventually be limited to restrictions on factory valve lift, factory carb, intake, valve sizes, piston configuration, bore and stroke. If I missed something, I 'll assume you get my meaning.

[Dwight Southerland]

A cheaper alternative for all this would be to go back to old time stocker specs of OEM duration, overlap and valve springs specs. The problem, and thus the explanation, was always that the tech people were not trained well enough to measure all that intricate stuff. Well, I dare say that we have all spent way more money than it would cost to have developed a management, education and certification system for NHRA tech people to do their job. I would easily agree to addition fees for setting records or tear-downs to fund better administration in the tech department for Stock and Super Stock.

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

A cheaper alternative for all this would be to go back to old time stocker specs of OEM duration, overlap and valve springs specs. The problem, and thus the explanation, was always that the tech people were not trained well enough to measure all that intricate stuff. Well, I dare say that we have all spent way more money than it would cost to have developed a management, education and certification system for NHRA tech people to do their job. I would easily agree to addition fees for setting records or tear-downs to fund better administration in the tech department for Stock and Super Stock.

I totally agree with Dwight, and it would require a lot of the specs issued by the OEM to be realistic!!! If can recall correctly,I remember the Chrysler 440 and 340 cam specs having something like 240 degrees of overlap and unreal durations specs. The same applied for other makes.

[Jeff Lee]

I totally agree with Dwight, and it would require a lot of the specs issued by the OEM to be realistic!!! If can recall correctly,I remember the Chrysler 440 and 340 cam specs having something like 240 degrees of overlap and unreal durations specs. The same applied for other makes

If you built an engine with the old Pontiac duration numbers (in the area of 324 degrees duration), I doubt you could even get the engine to start!

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

I totally agree with Dwight, and it would require a lot of the specs issued by the OEM to be realistic!!! If can recall correctly,I remember the Chrysler 440 and 340 cam specs having something like 240 degrees of overlap and unreal durations specs. The same applied for other makes

If you built an engine with the old Pontiac duration numbers (in the area of 324 degrees duration), I doubt you could even get the engine to start!

I agree...like I said, if the old rules are implemented...and enforced properly...there would be a lot of cars out.

[james schaechter]

I think the rule changing should stop during the racing season unless some immediate safety need arises. Think about the HP factor requests. They come in 2 times a year I think. Maybe there should be a specific time for requests and a process that is more transparent to the reps and the racers. It could mean that NHRA tech gets all requests and then the committee should then review then with reps once a year. After all that, the requests along with explainations get posted prior to giving a thumbs up or down. That way there is input from all to help with the committee decision.

The problem with the committee and system now is that it seems that the unintended consequences are not considered.In the current state of the rules, if you are afraid or unwilling to accept breakage, turn the rpm down, lower the pressure, etc. I have also seen many times even on this forum, the racer opinions of slow cars that are just thinking that if only they had this part or that part, then they would move up on the qualifying sheet or perhaps win class. The problem is that they don't often consider that everyone else faster will also benefit from the rule changes.
The rocker arm deal is one I understand, but is still is a limiting factor in engine design and cost. It should have been allowed and the spring pressure could have been limited, but it wasnt' so...We push our stuff as far as we think it will go. If we want to go quicker, we push it a little farther. That increases our risk of breakage. That is a decision each one of us makes and one that each one of us is responsible for. If roller rockers are made legal, It won't be that I just bolt them on, I will order cams and guidelplates and pushrods too. You think that the cam is square now, wait until the rocker arms are legal. The 396 cars will really put the sprng pressure on too.Someone mentioned that then Jesel rocker shafts are next $$$. Many others will push it. I guess the point is that there is no need for a mid season rule change in most cases. Maybe our reps should be part of a redesign of the rule change process. That really is the issue. Some of the committee members in NHRA tech could benefit from modern racer input too. This could be an opportunity to help everyone overall.

BTW, who was pushing for the guideplate pushrod deal? Curious on that one? Jim.