Mitch Meyer-Steve Boggs

This is a great topic and I hope not to step on any toes.

The evolution of the BAD tune-up has reached close to the saturation point in my opinion. The ability to make these cars go faster are determined by a couple scenerios

1. Ability of the tuners to improve on existing technology.
2. availability of new technology

With #2 being out of the equation then it all comes down to #1. and with the Santos team being the benchmark you had a team that was probably two years ahead of their competition, but in their last full year, the competition was only 2-4/100ths behind.
One thing they were able to do, was adapt to tracks all over the country better than any other BA team. In hot conditions they had close to 5-8/1000ths edge on their BAD brothers.
By looking at their history, the improvements made even for them was only 1/100ths a year from the time they ran their first 5.29 (testing in Phoenix, with parts that were possibly beyond the NHRA rule book, 1999)

Fast forward to today. I will use TAFC for comparision. Not too many can argue that the top TAFC teams (Manzo, Chesterman, B.Austin, Payne and Newberry)are equally as talented as the O'Bannon group. All have spent as much time in their class (except for Payne but he has his TAD history to fall back on) as neccessary to get the most out of their ride.
How much has their performance improved in the last four years.
It has improved a total of 4/100ths at most.
(I went four years back only because of the OD rule change. I gave them the first two years grace to fine tune the rule change)
I think their improvement should mirror the BAD's improvement, and it has in my opinion, if you take away the O'Bannon team.

When you are down to the last bit of potential in a given combination, performance improvement gains are baby steps.
I actually disagree with Marty when he says that the Santos group would of run low to mid 20's. I think it would of been a mid 20 at best. 5.24-5.26 in conditions he mentions and in a perfect run.
Like he stated and what every A/Fueler that has run an awesome number so far has stated, "There was lots left in our tune-up, or it was not a perfect run". And that can be quoted to all fast a/fuel teams.

I may end up being wrong, but this year we will see with the return of the team, minus the best drive the class has ever seen and minus the Santos family. That will factor in the results as well.

Why hasn't anyone hired them??????

Oh ya, Darren Smith the rules change would of happened anyway. They had rule changes when they were in the class

Dean

[ January 25, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: The Zone ]

 

O'Bannon/Grimes/Santos would still be the quickest BAD. Would they be in the teens? I think so. If not, you could have been reasonably sure that they would be trying stuff endlessly to get there. However, if they could not have gotten there,I am sure they would have switched to AFD.

Again, opinion only. However, backed by a bunch of winning history...

 

In response to the funny car comparison, all three of the fast cars have run 5.51 at over 262 mph.
The season the new OD rules came out the cars ran low sixties and barely got in the 50's.
Thats about 8 to 9 hundreths. That might put Santos very close to the teens by now, especially since he would not have had to deal with that new OD rule.
I think the problem with the tad's is their too worried about what they can't change instead of thinking about what they CAN change.
When you have 4 or 5 people all running the same it doesn't mean they're all brilliant. It means they're better than average but not very innovative.
And if you disagree with that, perhaps you can explain Greg Andersons ability to show up and terrorize all of the brilliant Pro Stock tuners.

 

Great post, Mike.

[ January 25, 2005, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Randy G. ]

 

How many BAD runs under 5.30 have there been? I can only think of 3-4 at the Most? Correct me if I'm wrong, but running a Blown TAD in the teens what kind of RPM's are we talking here?

[ January 26, 2005, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Darren Smith ]

 

Are the 4 or 5 AFDs (Reichert, Meyer, Lucas, Darien, and possibly Shields) that all run the same better than average, but not very innovative since Boggs went 5.10?


Nitro % issue -
Maybe, the problem with most AFDs is their too worried about what they CAN'T (or need JFR pulling for them to change) change instead of thinking about what they CAN change.

 

With this talk about all the "good" teams switching to a-fuel a question popped into my head. If they are the smartest men in TAD then why did these men switch to a-fuel? Do you think it could be because a-fuel had the greatest opportunity for performance? I wouldn't think racers like Sheilds, Gunderson, Howard, Darien, etc... would make the switch if they felt that the BAD's had the same opportunity for performance as the a-fuel cars. Do any of you? So when making statements like "the reason that a-fuel dominates is because all the great minds of TAD are running a-fuel", is that an incomplete statement? Shouldn't the satement be "the reason all the great minds are running a-fuel is because there is a greater opportunity for performance." Maybe we should ask racers like Gunderson, Sheilds, Howard, and Darien why they made the switch. I would bet it wasn't because they thought the blown cars had the advantage.

 

HEY PAT, MAYBE THEY SHOULD THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. LOL

 

Alkyfan...good post, too.

 

Pat,
Yes, my opinion applies to AFD just the same as TAD. I do think it was great that Boggs did something different and he certainly deserves a lot of credit. I also think he and Darrien both deserve a lot of credit for achieving much better consistancy. But are they really thinking outside the box or just making minor improvements on the same old thing. Isn't Boggs just improving on Darriens injector and tune-up.
No matter what group you hang around in racing, AFD, TAD, TA/FC and even Pro Stock, there are always just a few innovative thinkers and the rest mostly play follow the leader. Neither drag racing or motors are anything but basic physics that you learned in high school. One is just traction and horsepower, and the other is cubic inches and rpms.
Pro stockers are a great example of inside the box (can't instead of can) thinking. They almost all run 50/50 weight distribution. Then they spend countless hours and dollars tweaking bars and shocks to improve traction. Do you think 45/55 weight distribution might help a little!!!! Duh!
The formulas for weight transfer make no mention of bars or shock absorbers. To make matters worse pro stockers mount lots of weighty items too high in a car that has a 105" wheelbase and then hang weight off the front of the car to get consistancy. Since drag racing is traction and power isn't adding weight to the front backwards?
Mention any of this to these crew chiefs and they say the cars wont handle with weight on the back.
It's amazing how well Formula 1 Ferrari's handle with 60% on the back.
Lossers tend to make excuses for not improving there cars, while winners don't need any excuses!