Att: Will Hanna

A/F history

A/Fuel started off as a class designation in Comp Eliminator, believe it or not, as well as the AA/DA, now referred to as a B/AD. So did BB/FC (TAFC).

I don't remember the exact year, but around 73-74 I think, NHRA started Pro Comp for the faster Comp Eliminator classes to run heads up based on weight breaks for different combo's. My dad and Jimmy Meyerdirk ran the 'Sugar Valley Express' A/FD from 76 to 80 in D4 Pro Comp. I think the weight break was 2.2 lbs per cube for A/FD back in the day.

Just trying to remember all the classes Pro Comp had back in the day...
AA/DA (Big Block Blown Alky Dragster)
A/Fuel - Big Block Injected Nitro
BB/DA? Small Block Blown Alky Dragster
B/Fuel - Small Block Injected Nitro
?? Twin Engine Nitrous
?? Turbo Dragster?
BB/FC - Big Block Blown Alky FC
AF/FC - A/Fuel FC Big Block
AA/A - Big Block Blown Alky Altered
AF/A? - A/Fuel Altered?

I'm sure someone will correct me on my classes, but in the early 80's, NHRA wanted to get away from chasing weight breaks (you think parity now is a prob). From what I remember hearing, the Funny Cars had a hard time running with the dragsters. So in 81, TAD and TAFC were formed. Most of the existing dragster combos at the time were allowed into TAD, but TAFC did not include A/Fuel. It's been that way ever since.


We'll take a short break for trivia: Who won the first national event in TAD and TAFC?

In the mid '90's, NHRA dropped many of the class designations and weight breaks. That's when you saw Santos' potent small block combo go by the wayside because they were lumped into the same weight break as a hemi.

There have been a couple of movements over the past few years to allow A/Fuel in TAFC. The concensus is that there is no parity problems in TAFC like TAD, so the stance has been to keep them out of TAFC.

Hope that helps....some of the vets may be able to elaborate on the Pro Comp days a little better.

 

tafc

there are quite a few racers in tafc that would be quite disgruntled by having to deal with the a/fuel combo.

as far as the whole a/f cheaper than blown thing, i've openly invited an a/f team owner, tuner, driver, etc. to jump on here and let's get into the numbers game to prove where it's cheaper.

if you blew up motors with a blown car and now you run fast without blowing up motors, well hell yes it's cheaper. trying to make up the performance disparity probably has lead some to hurt more motors than they would in reasonably equal competition, so this is not a knock to some tuners.

in a perfect world, no parts breakage from either side the a/fueler may be marginally cheaper on the operational side. increased rod life and valve spring life/material has significantly lowered the operating expense of the blown side over the past few years. the rotating assembly gets a lot more life in an a/f. valve springs are a once a year deal. however, nitro costs way more, they use up more clutch parts and have twice the ignition expense (plugs). don't forget to throw in the cost of your favorite tuner (except for a few). tires and heads don't seem to last like they used to either.

that's my opinion, and until someone steps up and shows me numbers to prove me wrong, i'm standing on my position. i've conceded it may be MARGINALLY cheaper, but comparing apples to apples, saying it costs half is based on the assumption parts carnage is inherent to the blown combination.

that being said any moves made to bring a/fuel into tafc on the premise it will be significantly cheaper is based on erroneous hearsay rather than fact. if you have a tafc that's hurting parts, i can assure you it will be way cheaper to buy a tuneup that doesn't hurt parts for the blown combo rather than switch to a/f.

that's my take on the 'budget' argument.

now regarding fan appeal, participation, development etc., those are different debates entirely. however, i think tafc participation is very strong right now. IMO, I don't see where A/F FC would bring enough to the table to justify jeopardizing it's success right now.

 

competitive & percent budget

randy,

first off, this is a debate, so don't take these comments personal. (disclaimer)

your assertion of the cost of a competitive blown alcohol combination vs a competitive a/f is based on the assumption a competitive blown alcohol combination hurts parts. i disagree based on first hand experience with competitive bad and tafc teams.

i am fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to be the understudy of many smart alcohol tuners. this year and part of last, i've had the pleasure of working with steve harker's tafc. his team is one of the most competitive teams i've worked with and probably has the best parts life. knocking on wood, i've seen pistons go 30-40 runs w/o cracking. rods 20-25 runs. i think we've replaced one sprag in 10 events this year. rear end 25-35 runs (ultra case light weight). cranks 50-70 runs. the only motor change was this year in memphis due to a cracked main cap. (close to 70 runs on block/crank)

i have no idea how often frank manzo cycles parts, but the motor he starts qualifying with is usually the one he finishes with. he may have hurt some parts to get the knowledge he has now, but he is proof you don't have to kill a blown alky motor to run fast.

i crew chiefed for jason cannon's b/ad. it was a conway program that we ran with. we were the fourth bad in the 5.30's. right before we quit we were the fourth fastest in mph with 267 mph in 04. parts failure more often than not was a result of one off parts failure that can happen to ANY racecar.

i also crew chiefed for the team after their transition to a/f. once again, a conway program. we did get the car into the 5.3's our second trip out. i've also worked closely with several other a/f teams along the way, so while i've never signed a check to buy the parts, i have a very good understanding of how much money is spent where.

i've brought this up a number of times. yes, the a/f gets much better life out of the rotating assembly and valvetrain. the added fuel expense, the added clutch expense, the added ignition/plug expense add up in a hurry. how many sets of heads does a competitive a/fueler carry?

randy, i don't mean to undermind your accomplishments. we've run a best of 5.55 in harker's car and you did that several years ago. you really had the world on it's ear that year with marc behind the wheel. the same for duane. he made some great runs in that b/ad.

another example...running a competitive top fuel team and top alcohol team are night and day different when it comes to how much it costs. yes, the parts bill is more, but the big difference is personnel costs. point being parts are only a portion of the budget. fuel and personnel costs are a big part of the equation.

any real or percieved savings of the combination will be more than overshadowed by the costs of a switch from bad or blown alky fc to a/f. the cost of new equipment even after the sale of existing equipment will more than offset said savings! how good of a bargain is it to spend $100k to "potentially" save $15-$40k a year?? again, if your current car is killing 10 motors a year and you switch to a car that uses 1 or 2, well, maybe its worth it.

if nhra and/or racers are to make a decision to bring a/f into tafc based off percieved savings, i don't think the argument holds water.

as said earlier, fan interest, new teams, development, etc., are other subjects, but i still don't think it's significantly cheaper***. of course, that statement comes with an *** meaning apples to apples in parts breakage.