Congrats to Charles Blossom

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Jack Matyas

Ed -- The actions you suggest -- well they are exactly what we had before the AHFS --- committee and all it just didn't work because of the human factor -- whatever we end up with it must be mathmatics and performance based only - because math has no feelings ..............and you may talk about "ties" all you want but i've never been accused of being biased .Ever ...........And Ed -- here's the thing - folks like us who care deeply about what goes on must continue to toss ideas around in order to someday have the problem solved .

The mathematical equations they're using now don't work.The system is broken.
I mention the ties because you were dismayed about my comments about the current
director of competition,who you said was associated with you for 40 years.That's fine.But it still doesn't take away from the fact that his,and the others in Glendora,are so far from solving the problems with S/SS in particular and the organization general,that a clean sweep is the only way to save NHRA.The old regime should go into high cost retirement.
As far as disagreeing,the forum is a good place to get these problems straightened out,
if everyone would put hidden agendas aside.
Jack we can still disagree,I still love ya.:>):>)

[bill dedman]

I humbly relinquish my former position as "KING OF THE THREAD HIJACKERS" to the people trying to solve the "New Car Crisis." There's not a lot of progress being made, but it sure is entertaining!!!

Keep on keepin' on!

[Scott North]

Some of you guys may remember me, most of you won't...

I haven't made a pass in Stock Eliminator in 7 or 8 years, but when I did, I was usually banging my index like a screen door in a hurricane. ie: I've essentially been in Charles Blossom's shoes... I ran a turbo car in the old AF/SA, and BF/SA class, before they combined, and redistributed. I ran as high as Bandimere, and as low as Topeka.

Here are a couple of things I would consider, based on past experience, if it were me...

A) Boost gauges read differently depending on what altitude you're running at. As such, a tell-tale boost gauge doesn't (in my opinion) reach the desired goal - a level playing field. It may DQ a perfectly untouched boost level depending on weather/altitude conditions. It also may allow an advantage under other weather/altitude conditions.

B) Factory turbochargers that pass tech are not an unlimited source of horsepower. They have a limit to their ability just like a naturally aspirated combination. That limitation has an unusual effect that some of you may not be aware of... If you are pushing a turbo to the edge of its efficiency range it essentially becomes like a naturally aspirated combination when at altitude. Correction factors are surprisingly accurate.

If a level playing field is the ultimate goal, the turbo cars need to be able to push the edge of performance the same way the naturally aspirated combos can. Limiting the amount of boost they run, sets up a whole new set of problems. If you allow the turbo car people to max out that turbo under all altitude conditions, you can now confidently factor it just like any other car. If you can factor it like any other combination, it makes putting it in the right class much easier. AHFS flaws aside, as that's a completely different ball of wax, that my opinion won't matter much on...

For anyone that cares, I may make a comeback with the old Buick someday soon. It's sitting out in the shop looking strikingly similar to the last time it was out.

[Jimi B]

One other thing guys. Boost means nothing to power. Airflow does. Boost is not a measurement of airflow. Its a measurement of restriction in the intake system. You take a set up and leave the boost controller alone, and change other parameters that will increase airflow and the boost level will be lower. Add lift and or duration the boost will be lower. Add overlap the boost will be lower. Make the ports larger(obviously not allowed in stock) the boost will be lower.

[Run to Rund]

Don't forget your old Chemistry course where PV=nRT. Boost Pressure P is a function of the number of moles n of air and Temperature. As you get closer to the end of the efficiency range, most of what you get is more T instead of more n. the n helps of course, but the T hurts. Presence and design of a wastegate, vs. no wastegate, and air flow capacity of the turbo matter a lot, and of course vary from one application to another. One model car may have a turbo that can do a lot more for power than it does in stock form, while another might be close to maxed out in stock configuration.

[Jimi B]

Exactly. Its not limitless power.

[GarysZ24]

Scott, I'm glad to know you still have your car, and will bring it back out to play again someday, but you (and the others) talking about turbos and altitude racing had me being thankful for "Drag Race Central". Back in 2003 at the Mile Highs I had to run class against a Turbo-charged Daytona, that in spite of his car being nearly 400lbs heavier than my car/driver combo, he plastered my car by running a 15.574 @ 85.95mph (with a .249rt), against my 16.788 @ 79.08mph (with a .061rt), against an altitude corrected DF/SA index of 16.82! Needless to say he qualified 3rd in the 77 car field, and I was 76th...the only reason I wasn't dead last was Toby Lang was there, and he wanted to be the last on the list (I know him well enough now to know that he does that on purpose, because his car is much quicker than he qualifies it, and it shows during elim's)! I wish I could be that savy to be able to do such a thing, but with a fwd stocker I wouldn't even feel it wise to try....

My point in this, is if I someday get to go to Indy my focus will not be to win class (especially since class doesn't pay but $100 to my car anymore), it would be to make it into the final 128, and I need nearly .45 sec to give myself a chance to make that work!! What I'm curious about is how could a car with a 14.13lbs per hp be able to run in DF/S anyway, when my lbs per hp is 20.09, for the same class???

[Mike Carr]

As of the Class Guide, the car received 6 HP today, giving it a weight break of 17.42, making it a natural BF/S that can run A and C now. No more D.

[Jim Wahl]

Originally Posted by Mike Carr

As of the Class Guide, the car received 6 HP today, giving it a weight break of 17.42, making it a natural BF/S that can run A and C now. No more D.

It will still run -1.70 under in C. Jim

[GarysZ24]

Originally Posted by Jim Wahl

It will still run -1.70 under in C. Jim

That's fine and dandy Jim, but for you and Mike, I'm just glad that his combo can't run in DF/S anymore...if I read the classification guide right (and I'm sure I did), only the non-turbo charged 146 had a weight to hp factor that allowed it to run in DF/S anyway, so I'm puzzled as to how he got to run that class with a turbo to begin with? Well it doesn't matter for two reasons, one I wasn't even there, and two he won't be running my class with that combo anymore!!!

Oh Jim, I hope he does run 1.70 under in C, because he'll get more hp, and have to run either A or B, w/o even being able to run C again! He might rethink that ideal of yours if it's crossed his mind???