Guess what happened at Pomona...Parity shmarity!!!

I do like racers alot. I hate to see the class go were it is going though. It's like the democrates and republicans fighting here. And it is harder for me to know that our comapnies customer base is getting hurt by what is happening. The oil down situation, and the $$ part is a bigger problem then if the fuel acrs are making the blown cars extinct.

I have opinions to though. I was involved in Alcohol dragsters before I started at Moroso. If I can't come on here and speak up a little, and not have it hurt my job, i'll leave and watch the posts. I was just bringing up a subject that i have heard already.

 

I agree with Marty- Scott has repeatedly trashed alcohol racers as whiners and people who only want free stuff from Moroso- I understand that there are less than 300 alky racers in NorthAmerica and Moroso feels they have little impact on sales- they forget how many people that they influence and how much they are involved with other customers. I have always felt slighted by posts from Scott that say how tiring it is to have owners etc. come by the PRI show etc. lookingfor free stuff. Well, I have been to the PRI show and believe me- I would never go near the Moroso booth, knowing that they feel I am a second class consumer. I do give Scott credit for ditching the Panman identity and posting under his real name- I also appreciate his comments on the controversy, just never appreciated his attacks on peoples character.

[ November 17, 2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: was R4K ]

 

Well, I wanted to reply and say that I my first resmonce was not directed to Marty. I just used his quote. marty was racing UDRA when the small block stuff happened. I have also told marty I would help him on some oil pan issues we had two years ago. Our company does what it can to help racers from all classes with product support at the track.
If the last guy to post hates me for what I've said, i can't do much bout that. I live my life and see things he doesn't. But i know that i do all I can to help out alot of people in racing. They deserve it. But from a business stand point, the investment needs to go both ways.

Back to the original reason this thread was started. The concern about allowing the blown cars to go with newer parts to go quickler is cost of maintaining the increased performance. Racers to often end up going to IHRA F/C, or a Pro-Outlaw racing because they can't afford this.These classes are flurishing because once people race these classes, they go back to enjoying the reason they started racing. It scares me when I hear from certain people that NHRA is really looking at the oil down situation, and causing runs to be lost, and teams having to explain to sponcers that someone else caused them to get less track time at a race.
The quicker the cars go, the more people it takes to support these cars at the track. This causes more money and time for crew guys and owners to be away from jobs, and home. When the "help" can't afford to racing, small errors are made, and ussually cause the oil downs in some cases. NHRA has taken notice of this to.
I have enough sportsman customers trimming their budgets next year. I hope that we don't lose more of the 300 alcohol racers that we have now.

 

Scott, you actually make a few valid posts that deserve consideration by all teams.

But as far as oil downs go, I would have to say that less than 20% are caused by crew error or lack of maintenance.

30-50% are probably caused by parts failure
and the balance is caused by having to rev the engines of the danger zone due to the BAD's having to try an keep up with their injected brothers.

As far as the TAFC contingent goes, they to have been forced to over rev their engines starting 5 years ago, when the OD rule instituted.


The Billet blocks while being substancially stronger, have also given the teams a possible extra sense of security that the rods are not likely to exit the block either which has only partly proven to be true.


Dean

 

We haven't had an oil down in our short three years of racing. At pomona this past weekend , I didn't see any oil downs from the alky class, but saw several from the top feulers. If they oil it down its ok, but if we do it and cause them a delay its time to make US change something?

 

There was an oil down at Pomona in the alky class. An afuel car oiled from the starting line to the finish line one day dont remember which day it was on but we were the next to run and our driver got out of the car for about 20 mins. I do agree with you tho there hasnt been that many oil downs and I dont think they should be jumping up and down on the alky class either. It is a part of racing and is gonna happen sooner or later. Clean it up and go racing.

[ November 18, 2004, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: alkysniffer ]

 

I Run 10 -12 races a year since 97 ihave only oiled the track once.It was a small 10 min cleanup.

 

Some of you guys must be in denial. We do have a problem. True, TF and TFFC are oiling more than our classes but they get fined and have to pay big money $$$$ when they do it. We don't.

Did any of you attend the Scribner race this past year? It was a mess.

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that winding them up to 10,000 to 11,000 RPM is hell on rods, springs, valves, and everything else in the valve train. Hitting the rev limiter just amplifies the problem. RPM is killing the blown cars.

I have seen A/Fuel cars oil the tracks as well but it does not seem that they do it as often as the blown cars. I could be wrong, I'm just not aware of it.

I guess the answer for the blown cars is to budget in about $30,000 a year for rods, and valve train peices and change everything in 10 to 12 passes.

ORRRR NHRA could start the pay for oil program they have for the fuel cars. Either way its going to cost more to race in 2005.

Have fun.

 

ROF i guess ya have to break a few eggs to make a cake!!

 

YEAH LEE, BUT DON'T PUT ALL YO EGGS IN ONE BASKET

[ November 18, 2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: NITROITCH ]

 

bm pull your head out of your ass. have been around alky cars as long as anybody, and there is no magic. nitro cars are not even close to running what they can. hurt them every once in a while and they will go quicker, and show the real advantage. there is no cure to help alky cars other then own class, like it is named Alcohol dragster

 

Seems like bm needs a spanking from his daddy.

[ November 19, 2004, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Pat McGill ]

 

Gophers statement, "have been around alky cars as long as anybody, and there is no magic. nitro cars are not even close to running what they can", is very true, but that being said making the class all TOP ALCOHOL" would kill it completely.

That is just plain assinine. The potential growth of the class is based both types of cars competing, especially for the fans. It is a built in rivalry. It makes rule changing more difficult, but with proper input FROM THE TEAMS and CREW CHIEFS, relative parity could be reached. Give the blown teams some new available technology, don't penalize the A/Fuelers this time

Look what they have done with Pro Mod in the last four years. Two completely different combinations, and this season they're parity is a close as is has been. While the blown guys in that class may be complaining a bit that they are the ones taking the biggest hit, The strength of the class is in both types running. The IHRA will thrive this year for one reason, THE AMS Pro Mod series will be one that filters out the less financed (blown) cars and all the nitrous cars.

Dean

 

Dean I agree with most of what you are saying but NHRA will not listen to any of the proposals that have been presented to them. IE. the gizmo etc. everyone keeps blaming the oil downs on RPM in some cases that is true the other scenerio is that everyone is leaving out is the fact that alot of people have the mtr. to lean causing detonation, causing broken rods etc. I personally know of several instances this past year where that was the cause of some of the biggest oil downs. But NHRA again has the cure put belly pans on everyone instead of going after the people responsible for the problem. As far as the blown cars complaining and I usually don't say a whole lot but we were only defeated twice by blown cars this past season. Once was my own falt red light, the other was a mechanical problem. So I don't have all the answers but if NHRA refuses to let the blown cars to speed up what are the options? In my humble opinion you have to slow down the A-Fuel cars in order to let the class survive. I could go on with my opions but I won't bore you with all of them. As I believe the A-Fuel cars have only bairly tapped their potential. I also believe the blown cars can speed up but at this point probably only to high to mid twenties with any consistency, and only with a lot more expense. just my .02 worth Dave

 

David and others, It certainly seems you are right in them making decisions, but what if a contract of sorts was made up between both sides.

"If the NHRA is so convinced that the gimzo blower would make the oil down worse, Why not make some sort of guarantee. IE: get together and with them and a couple racers at earley season testing. And make 20 to 30 runs with the gizmo. Show the NHRA the data on the runs and the probable lower RPMS which will in fact reduce the chance of oil downs (As I have been told that the Gizmo will allow lower rpms and more efficency).
And if they are still not convinced or want a guaranntee of sorts, have some kind of a assoc. fee for all teams that want to run the blower with each team putting in an oil down fee which the NHRA would use as penalties.

I am probably grasping at the wind, but I think that if the class takes the step forward to prove itself with a performance quarantee, they may be more inclined to consider it.

(obviously, before BADs start to slam my idea by stating that parts break on these cars even when all precautions are taking, That is where the NHRA could look at the run data from the compeuter and see, that "Oh, the car only hit 9600 rpms and it still kicked out the rod, well that is not a penalty, or ya, it hit 9600 but on both shifts you were on the rev chip both shifts and for that you are penalies (with the assoc. fund that was mandated by using a gizmo).
Give the class some responsibility for their actions

I don't know if any of this makes sense, but I am grasping at straws here. Somehow they have to understand that they are not using the people that know these cars. Their competition commitee has to include a cross section of tuners and owners.

Dean

 

The quality of the PSI you can buy today is probably equal to the gizmo of 2000.The gizmo is not the fix.

 

The Gizmo is a better blower than the present D case blower. It has more rotor volume so you would reach the capacity or max flow of the head sooner so you would have more power sooner and at a lower RPM. But you would have to modify the tune up to match the air flow. I talked to PSI
( Norm D) about the Gizmo and he told me if they were alowed to produce the Gizmo they would tighten it up as they have the D case blowers. So they would be even better than they were before.
But in my opinion that would still only get us part way where we need to be. Dave

 

I guess I'm supposed to give the obligatory congratulations to the 5.10 team. congratulations. After all the years of the NHRA feeding me the "cost of racing" line, it's nice to finally have someone inside an operation who's naive enough to tell it like it really is.

 

While venting steam by generating the last reply, I missed David Wells' post. If the NHRA allowed PSI to produce a blower that would SOLVE THE PROBLEM, it would be stupid to not incorporate all the lessons learned over the past 16 years.

Just try to imagine what would have happened at the US Nationals in 1988 if PSI had screwed up the engineering job and had accidently been "too far outside the box" (jab intended), and Mark Niver had dared to run sonething like a 5.99 at 235. The racers and the NHRA would've tarred and feathered Pat and me on the spot, instead of only holding a near riot at Maple Grove because of Gary Southern's having dared to run dastardly times such as 6.12 and 227.96.

I have never seen the slightest sign of detonation in a PSI screw supercharged engine. This means there's still a LOT of BMEP margin left to make more power, and don't confuse detonation with preignition due to a hot spot. There is a 452 cubic inch BA-5 with a Gizmo in a sand dragster that makes 75-80 pounds of boost and has held the T/F ET record on and off for the past year, and has yet to squeeze a bearing .001 inch. (B.A., please be my witness here). This having been said, how much fuel do you want to burn? Just stuff enough low enthalpy air in there and THE PROBLEM WILL BE SOLVED. By the way, it wouldn't have to weigh 146 pounds and be revved to 10,000 engine RPM in the process.

I like thinking outside the box. 150 plus runs on the blacks in Gary Scelzi's Roots blower that won POMONA? Now, that's outside the box. A blown alcohol dragster that could run in the 5.20s at 270 MPH? In 1988, that would have been WAY outside the box. So, how about a blower that would enable alcohol dragsters to run in the 5-teens or 5.0s consistently? You just have to believe in it and have a political climate that will allow it, and it will happen. Norm

 

This "rev it up" concept has really gotten to me. "Revving it up" only improves your ET if the car's foreward acceleration just prior to the shift exceeds its acceleration just following the shift.

Several years ago, I was lucky enough to have been able to go racing with Mike Johnson, who owned the alcohol dragster that was driven by Dale Carlson, Gary Ormsby Jr., Brian Hough, and most recently by his son Brandon. Through everyone's effort, the car became progressively more competitive, and was instrumental in developing the "D" PSI supercharger on-track. Among other things, Mike and I discovered that you could improve your ET by NOT reving it up as much as everyone else thought. His then-new Cygnus Datastar included a foreward accelerometer as a standard feature. We noticed that as the engine RPM exceeded about 9800 RPM in the top of low and second gear, the forward acceleration fell rapidly. By the time the shiftpoint was reached, the forward acceleration was below the acceleration at the bottom of the next gear. Dropping the shiftpoint to between 9700 and 9900 RPM reduced the ET by about .03 seconds. It not only helped the valvetrain, but also refutes the myth that "revving it up as high as you can afford to" will produce correspondingly lower ETs. After Mike parked the car due to the disparity issue, I fed this to Marty Thacker about a year and a half ago, with the same outcome.

So, what causes this economically desirable effect? The rate at which the engine torque falls with increasing engine RPM is determined by the air flow capability of the cylinder heads vs. the air flow delivery of the supercharger. The resulting manifold pressure variation determines the supercharger's power consumption. The air flow across the intake valves reaches the speed of sound at about 9200 engine RPM in a BA-5 with a PSI "D" blower overdriven at approximately 2.15:1. This is the engine RPM at which the boost pressure stops flatlining and heads for the moon. Is this increased boost good? You bet it is, as it really sells superchargers, but unfortunately, it's on the wrong side of the intake valve to produce correspondingly greater power. Don't take this to mean that increasing airflow reduces horsepower, but increasing the airflow all the way across the engine RPM range makes the torque curve of the engine hump way up at low engine RPM, and then fall at higher engine RPM. This characteristic is what the driver feels as the car's forward acceleration "tips over", prompting a gear shift. This is a natural limit that can only occur when the supercharger air flow is greatr enough to challenge the cylinder heads' ability to deliver it to the cylinders efficiently.

Let's test this theory in reverse. If you reduce the airflow, such as by reducing the blower overdrive, you would expect the engine torque to remain much flatter over its operating range because the point at which the airflow reaches the speed of sound has been moved out by 15, which is beyond the useful engine operating range. In this case, the foreward acceleration drops RIGHT NOW when you give up your transmission's torque multiplication by shifting gears. So, hang on baby and rev it up to go quicker. This was the not-so-hidden flaw in NHRA's plan to contain the cost of racing an alcohol funny car by dropping their overdrive from a nice 2.25:1 to 1.92:1. Man, did the parts fly! Talk to anyone whose racing careers spanned this change, and they'll give you an earfull about what it now costs vs. what it used to cost.

Let's stop promoting this fantasy that increasing engine airflow will increase boost, which will increase engine damage and therefore increase oildowns. Get real! Everyone knows that increasing engine RPM is what feeds the aluminum god!

You'd think that someone in a position of power might actually realize that all you have to do to maintain the same peak cylinder pressure, which is the only thing that can posslbly increase with increased boost, is to DROP THE COMPRESSION RATIO! Norm Drazy