to all 85-92 efi racers

[art leong]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Art Leong said, "The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective." in relation to getting sufficient air flow on the intake side, without expensive cylinder head modifications.

Thank you, Art!!!

FINALLY, someone with more than a modicum of knowledge, and with a lot of common sense, has agreed, in principle, with my ORIGINAL CONTENTION. which was that limiting the boost on turbocharged cars to their OEM boost spec (through the use of telltale gauge monitoring by NHRA) might could solve the problem of having two or three percent of the cars at national events (turbocharged cars) nailing down over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots, as has been the case annually, for the last four years.

Without the boost levels they're currently able to run, they'd likely not be turning e.t.'s so far under their respective indexes.

I seem to be the only human being on earth who sees this as a problem, however, so I will no longer beat what seems to be a very dead horse, by now.

But, I think Art just validated my simplistic, but direct, line of reasoning about how this happens, with his explanation of why acid-ported (or, whatever) heads are not needed with a turbo.

Thanks, again, Art... that was a VERY well-writtten and interesting explanation, especially the part about the SRT-4 turbo motor.

You missed the point totally, and spun what said around (you must be an Obama suporter)
I said that increasing airflow leads to horsepower no matter how you accomplish it. You complain about boost while remaining quiet on ported intakes and heads, cams, carbureator mods, valve springs etc
Well!! Guess what!! I guarantee you nobody has qualified number one without some of the things I mentioned.
So what's your point. Are you saying we should chop off the arms of anyone who isn't right handed?
If you want to run pure-stock go do it. If not PLEASE get a life

[bill dedman]

Art Leong originaly posted:

>"The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective."<

Look; Art, YOU said that... I did not. But it certainly supports my contention.

If you don't mean it, don't say it...

Insofar as my not mentioning the other mods that you point up, none of them are specific to normally aspirated cars. There's nothing they do, engine-wise, that a turbo car is prohinited from doing, so, it would seem to me that that is a non-iissue, so don't muddy the water here with extraneous B.S., okay? Obfuscation through the introduction of impertinent issues into the mix doesn'r serve to clear the air.

But, thanks again for verufying what my original contention was; ""The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective."

Your words, not mine. But, I agree, totally.

[art leong]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Art Leong originaly posted:

>"The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective."<

Look; Art, YOU said that... I did not. But it certainly supports my contention.

If you don't mean it, don't say it...

Insofar as my not mentioning the other mods that you point up, none of them are specific to normally aspirated cars. There's nothing they do, engine-wise, that a turbo car is prohinited from doing, so, it would seem to me that that is a non-iissue, so don't muddy the water here with extraneous B.S., okay? Obfuscation through the introduction of impertinent issues into the mix doesn'r serve to clear the air.

But, thanks again for verufying what my original contention was; ""The point I was getting at is, the turbo cars do it with boost very cheap and effective."

Your words, not mine. But, I agree, totally.

Some cars run C16 for fuel others run C10. If a car runs C10 and qualifies number 1 should they be forced to run C16
A lot of things give cars an advantage or a disadvantage. That's the way it is.
If someone chooses to run a turbo and not spend a wheel barrel full of money. You are trying to penalize them. If you go to fast they factor you anyway. So what is your point

Bill I think you need to attend another Obama rally. You need a fix,you're Jonesing

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by art leong

Some cars run C16 for fuel others run C10. If a car runs C10 and qualifies number 1 should they be forced to run C16
A lot of things give cars an advantage or a disadvantage. That's the way it is.
If someone chooses to run a turbo and not spend a wheel barrel full of money. You are trying to penalize them. If you go to fast they factor you anyway. So what is your point

Bill I think you need to attend another Obama rally. You need a fix,you're Jonesing

Artie;
Why bother,you may as well argue with a coconut.Just got a bunch of old drag rags and there you are with Tex.He's holding a Winchester "94 to your head and you had a mop on top.Rememember the article?
Hope you come back up in "09.

Ed

[bill dedman]

Art Leong wrote: "Some cars run C16 for fuel others run C10. If a car runs C10 and qualifies number 1 should they be forced to run C16?"
Well, since turbo cars can run the same fuel as everybody else,, there's no point to this question that I can see. The subject here is BOOST... try to stay with the subject, Art. You can't justify what is going on, so you try to change the subject... It won't work.

Art also said, " A lot of things give cars an advantage or a disadvantage. That's the way it is."

DUH.... but, thry are legal, by-and-large. Now, perhaps ANY BOOST you can engineer into a Stocker and get away with it is LEGAL, the way things stand. If that's true (and, it may well be), then I have no argument.

But, since boost to a large degree, equals horsepower, it seems to me that if it's not regulated to stock specs, then you should just let EVERYBODY bolt on a turbo and see how fast they can go.


Of course, that makes NO sense, but neither does "unrestricted" boost on Stockers. That's like a license to steal.

Just one more thing...

What is a "wheel barrel?" I know what a wheel tub is...

[art leong]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Art Leong wrote: "Some cars run C16 for fuel others run C10. If a car runs C10 and qualifies number 1 should they be forced to run C16?"
Well, since turbo cars can run the same fuel as everybody else,, there's no point to this question that I can see. The subject here is BOOST... try to stay with the subject, Art. You can't justify what is going on, so you try to change the subject... It won't work.

Art also said, " A lot of things give cars an advantage or a disadvantage. That's the way it is."

DUH.... but, thry are legal, by-and-large. Now, perhaps ANY BOOST you can engineer into a Stocker and get away with it is LEGAL, the way things stand. If that's true (and, it may well be), then I have no argument.

But, since boost to a large degree, equals horsepower, it seems to me that if it's not regulated to stock specs, then you should just let EVERYBODY bolt on a turbo and see how fast they can go.


Of course, that makes NO sense, but neither does "unrestricted" boost on Stockers. That's like a license to steal.

Just one more thing...

What is a "wheel barrel?" I know what a wheel tub is...

You don't even own a car and you are deciding on how the rules should be.
Don't go away mad Just Go Away

[bill dedman]

Art,
I ain;t mad at ANYBODY!!!

But, that's pretty non-responsive... ("Just go away.")

"You don't own a car," is the reason I am posting on THIS forum.

There is a different forum for people who have a current race car in operation.

This forum is, ostensibly, for the rest of us... the folks who love drag racing, have friends who race, and who possibly have raced in the past, and may, again. I happen to fit all of those categories, and I enjoy tremendously, the give-and-take exhibited here. The free exchange of concepts and ideas relative to racing, and how it is done, is a wonderful thing, I think.

I have learned a lot about how people think,what their opinions are like, and am better off for having read the posts on this board, whether I agree with them, or not.

During my fifty-three year involvement with this sport, I've run Stockers, Gassers, E.T Bracket cars, been a Tech at four different drag strips, have written several published articles (Super Stock and DRAG Illustrated) about race cars and the technology they utilized, moderated a drag racing website (Prodigy), and have finally built a street car with a blower on it, something I've always wanted.

Two of my close friends are actively campaigning two very different NHRA Stockers, and I try hard to keep up with their operations by monitoring their activities on DRC, if I can't go with them to the races.

I am only telling you something about me so that you may have a better idea of why I do what I do. Not that you care... but, sometimes, it's nice to know who you're "talking to."

Drag racing has held my fascination for a long, long time. I love it, and when I see things that I think are wrong with it, things that can be fixed easily, I can't help but run my ideas by the people involved.

All I've done here, is seems, is piss people off... ,mainly the people most affected by what I have suggested, but not always.

Since I went to my first race in 1955, I've seen a lot and done a lot, but I SURELY don't know it all, and don't claim to.

But, isn't this forum for just that? A place where we can talk about ideas, and maybe try out new concepts without actually going to NHRA and hitting THAT wall, first?

I think the racers' forum, the one for active racers with a current competition number, might be more restrictive, but this forum, I think, should be open to anyone who wants to post.

If he's an idiot, so be it. People wil find out, soon enough.

My ideas on restricting boost to stock levels in Stock Eliminator didn't sit very well with some of the guys who race the cars in question. (No surprise, there.) I thought that maybe the rest of the readers might have an opinion about this subject matter, but there wasn't much said, except by you, Art.

I applaud you for sticking up for your forced induction buddies...

The bad news is, I probably won't be going away anytime soon, but this subject is no longer an issue I wish to pursue. Like the double red light issue I tried to get some support for (I couldn't even get the S-L-O-W cars' owners to go for that, and they're the ones who'd benefit most often), I nust be the world's worst communicator, because I have not been able to explain this VERY simple issue in such a way that folks can readily see the obvious (to me) inequity that's ongoing.

So, I'll shut up about this, now.

Good luck with the Neon; those are cool little cars! My daughter just bought a new Caliber, supposedly, the Neon's replacement. Pug-ugly, and a weirdo CVT tranny that emulates a Turboglide in operation.

Go figure...

[BobOrme]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Art,
I ain;t mad at ANYBODY!!!
So, I'll shut up about this, now.

Never shut up Bill!

All I wanna know is, will I see you at Thunder Valley?

[bill dedman]

Hi, Bob.
I really wanted to go to Noble, and still may, but my mobility problems after that skin graft surgery have not improved as quickly as I had hoped, so the jury us still out RE the trip to Oklahoma.

It's not much fun to go to the drags and end up sitting in one place, all day (and, I don't mean in the tower... lol!)

I'll let you know sometime this week whether I can make it, but, it doesn't look likely, from this point. Maybe 50/50....

Thanks for asking. It'd be great to see you!!!

Bill

[Mike Carr]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

"... the problem of having two or three percent of the cars at national events (turbocharged cars) nailing down over fifteen percent of the #1 qualifying slots, as has been the case annually, for the last four years."

15-20 percent is perceived to be a "problem"? If the statistic were that turbo cars (or any particular type of car/combination) were qualifying #1 at sixty-percent or more of the races, that I could see. But 15-20%? What if there were a statistic that read "1966 Chevy Nova 327/275 F/SA cars qualified #1 at twenty-nine percent of the time" during that same stretch? Would you still have the same objections towards those cars? Or, like Art had stated, quite a few #1 qualifiers may have had something not 100% legal on there cars. So what's the point. I would have a stronger objection to a Stocker qualifying #1 with an illegal camshaft or cylinder heads two-percent of the time than I would to a turbocharged Stocker producing more boost than factory specs (which, by the way, is permitted in Stock Eliminator rules) 15-20% of the time.

B.D.