Bigger Pushrods & Guideplates Legal in Stock now

[Alan Roehrich]

The 8.1 doesn't really have 9/16" studs. It has a 3/8" stud on the bottom and a shouldered nut that goes through the rocker to create what GM called a "net lash" system, which in plain terms means "non adjustable".

The limit to how "square" a flat tappet cam can be is lifter diameter. A Ford with an 0.875" lifter, a Chrysler with a 0.904" lifter, or an Olds with a 0.921" lifter can generate more tappet velocity (what makes a cam lobe "square") than any Chevy with an 0.842" lifter, regardless of spring pressure. It does not matter how much spring, or how good a rocker you put on it, the lifter diameter is the limit.

I saw 0 HP increase with the bigger stuff on the dyno. If your engine turns above 7500 it might work but did nothing for me. I only see about 6400. I ended up putting back the 5/16 stuff so I could use the factory guide plates.

[james schaechter]

Look, the real issue isn't what is being duscussed now, it is that there is no formal process from NHRA. We don't need any mid year changes for non-safety items period.

Remember when Top Stock took off in IHRA. Those guys were as hard core as it comes and even they got worn out on their own rules changes.

This is not Comp Eliminator. I agree that we have what we have now and going back is not going to happen, but there are too many doors to slip these rule changes under. It appears that there is not careful consideration or control by NHRA.

Any Division reps care to take this on? I think there needs to be a defined process for any rule change proposals. I don't see it now and that is a concern. There are guys boring the cam journals and running roller cam bearings, wait until someone decides we should all have the mopar diameter lifters or who knows what.

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by james schaechter

Look, the real issue isn't what is being duscussed now, it is that there is no formal process from NHRA. We don't need any mid year changes for non-safety items period.


This is not Comp Eliminator.

. . . there needs to be a defined process for any rule change proposals.

That would require that there would be accountability for decisions. Do you really think they will do that???

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely.": The failing of socialism.
"Assuming that more than half of the people are right more than half the time." The failing of democracy.

I agree with Jim.

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by james schaechter

. . .there needs to be a defined process for any rule change proposals. I don't see it now and that is a concern.

Jim, it's not that there isn't a defined process for rule changes. It is that we cannot see it and thus do not know how to influence it. We think we can influence change by using reason with our tech directors, whining on the internet or making a ruckus. By observation it seems that sometimes something works and sometimes it doesn't. So it follows a pattern that indicates the same rules apply that are prevalent in politics - good ole boy networks, what's in it for me, or fear of lawsuits.