Curious how the T.A.R.A. meeting went?

I have a few, ok a lot, of points to make since this seems to be the parity thread. (Although I would like to see the notes from the TARA meeting as well.)

1)To all the people that bring up Santos when the subject of Blown to the A-fuel performance disadvangage is mentioned.

A)Santos had the technology 4 years ago that most competitive teams have today. (And possibly more than is available today)

a)Because the team was presented with the newest and the best products.

b)Because the technology has not been allowed to progress due to the NHRA's restrictions.

B)Also a quote from Mr. Grimes himself states, "We had that thing so close to the edge every run. That thing would hurt itself all the time. Thats kind of how we got a tune up, go just til' it blows up, then back it up a notch." Now I know of teams that don't have the ability to carry a few spares to just throw in when they lose they're on the edge and fall off. That team did have that ability and therefore were able to dominate the class at that time.

C) Santos had a budget. A real budget. Better than many pro teams have today. For example, I've heard he ran those light Strange 9" rear ends because of weight. (That team did everything because of weight) The problem with those rear ends was that every time the car shook the tires, the gears would crack and be junk. However, I heard (from a fairly reliable source) that the team had a $60,000 a year budget just for the rear end.

Now don't take that last one like I am making stuff up for dramatics, it's what I heard. That team should have no comparisons to the teams running the BAD combos then or now.

2) 5.2's...(I chose 5.2 instead of 20's because a 5.26 is a mile from a 5.20) No blown car consistantly (there's that word again) can run 5.2's

A) Haley hauled butt in Chicago. A 5.299 is great. However the MPH was 250. That, along with a another outside source tells me he hurt it. I heard it was hurt bad!

B) Wells did it last season and was quote, "Pulling the chip out and running it well past 11,500." Although I don't have much experience with a motor going to 12 grand, I don't expect them to live long like that. (Please inform me if I'm wrong)

C) Duane Shields ran 5.26 to set the national record. However, the next season he ran low 5.4's to mid 5.3's. When asked why, he said it costs alot to run a 5.2. Now for Duane to say it costs a lot it means... ALOT! He had no reservations about blowing up an engine putting in another, and doing it again, at a test session! (I saw that one myself) Just a testament to what a serious racer he is.

So, the blown cars stepping up and running 5.2's is just not going to happen. Especialy if the goal is to keep costs down.

3) The big bad "C" blower.
Santos wasn't the only one that ran that thing. I believe it was 7 or more cars experimenting with that "cure all to the blown cars dilema." None of those cars ever ran 5.2's 4-5 years ago. Norm didn't do anything illegal he just read the rules differently than the NHRA. And technically it was a legal blower until NHRA made a specific rule to ban it. However, the NHRA will probabaly avoid that thing due to the cost issue.

4) This is the point that will open the can of worms so I will give as many reasons to support my point as possible. A-fuel weight. Everybody forgets about that possibility since there was little effect the last two times the rule was imposed. However, I see it as a forward movement.

A) The weight addition has been said to have "sped the A-fuelers up." This can't be the case since the 5.1's that Gary Ormsby Jr. and Alan Bradshaw ran haven't been eclipsed since the rules inception.

B) The consistancy of the A-fuel contingent has been improved since the last minimum weight raise. Isn't that what we're looking for any way? (The blown cars are consistantantly a tenth slow, The A-fuelers are inconsistant and fast.) If the minimum weight is raised again would this increase consistantcy and even up the E.T's between the two contingents?

C) I can also see the problems involved, such as an unstoppable 2300 lb car going 270 MPH.
(Please mention any others you may see.)
I know that Randy Meyer strugled with the new weight revisions at the begining of the year, he found how to overcome the tuning dilema, and now is in the hunt for the championship. Would adding another 100 lbs. be the worst or the best idea possible?

D) Another idea I support is the rear gear ratio proposal. That is unless the competitive teams are already running 3.20's. Once again outside input is needed for me to know the full story.

E) I originally thought the lowered nitro % would be a good solution to the parity issue, however the NHRA's appearent reluctancy to enforce the rule due to increased costs for them led me to think of other solutions. The lowered % would probably accomplish the goals of increased consistancy and lowered E.T's in a cost effective manner, to the racers at least. Once again, is any competitve A-fueler doing this already? If so it may prove to be a pointless pursuit which only speeds up the A-fuelers, which would certainly put the last sword in the Blown Bull. (Random bull fighting reference)

5) Speeding up the Blown cars is unknown territory. What will more blower, a small nitro percentage, bigger displacement, etc. actually do in terms of on track performance. There still exists the persisting problem of A-fuel inconsistancy. This hopefully is not the direction the NHRA is looking. It will result in more unhappy people than there are now.

So I personally support the weight proposal, although its not the perfect solution its a cost effective, dually productive solution.

1)Increases A-fuel consistancy

2)Minimizes the performance deficit of the Blown cars.

----------------------------------------------
All of this was said with the utmost respect for every racer/tuner mentioned in this post. If anything is taken as an insult, the meaning of this post was misread. (Hey this is an Internet message board. Everything is misread.)


.

 

Kid, I see some of your points...Question, do you drive, own or are you just a TAD fan?

Just wondering what your status and level of involvement is...

Thanks, Kevin

 

Kid, I see your points. However, I don't agree with most of them. First of all The technology has only gotten better since Santos ran 20's. His budget was great but it was not more than a lot of the top ten cars are running today. Nhra hasn't taken anything away from the blown cars since then. They have disallowed some new things but if it was there when Santos was doing it it is still there now. The biggest point is this: The rules are what they are. If you think A/fuel has an advantage you are allowed to run one.

 

Mr. Brown,

I purposely didn't sign my name to the post because in alcohol racing everyone knows everyone. As soon as the post has more than points of a discussion, (when a name and reputation are added) the replies quickly become personal attacks rather than posts related to the topic. I have seen the way some people reply to your posts, as well as other strongly opinionated racers such as Mitch Myers and Rob Wendland, and rarely do they avoid an opinion based comment about the individual and not what they're saying. No matter what you post people will hear what they want. If that makes sence that is my position on this message board.

CH3NO2

I see your points all the time and I have not agreed with one yet. I understand you are pro A-fuel, however, I hope you understand that the TAD class will probably die before it becomes a strictly A-Fuel class. If given the choice to change from BAD to A-fuel or TAFC most racers would choose the latter. Do what you know and that is blown alcohol. Why would a budget minded racer throw away all the knowledge they ever gained with their combo.

So the fields that exist now are nearly 50/50
(Eample 10 AF 10 BAD @ a National)

If all of the blown guys decide they want to switch or quit, maybe 25% would choose to go A-fuel. (I'm guessing that's on the high end) 25% would go TAFC and the rest would quit. Then there's only 62.5% of the fields that exist now.

So now at our Make believe race there's 13 inconsistant cars for a 16 car field. That spells bad racing.

Once again, regarding your comment about Santos, the technology has remained the same. Exactly, no team will run faster until something is changed or some miricle part sneeks through the NHRA time warp.

Remember this is Sportsman racing and keeping costs down is an important part of it. So just switching combinations is not going to be an answer for most competitors.

 

I don't know where or who told you that I ran the motor to 11,500 but they have no idea what they are talking about. The only time it gets that high is if something goes wrong or breaks. I won't tell how high I run it because it's know one else's business but what I will tell you is at Joliet last week we put one pan gasket in one upper rod bearing, oil, fuel, and a clutch pack every run now if you can run low 30,s every run and do that with a Blown car then you have something to talk about.

 

Mr.Wells

Thank you for informing me that I was wrong. I must have heard wrong. (I did ask if I was wrong didn't I) You definitely have something to talk about. You have my respect as being one of the only cars to run competitively with those A-fuelers in their environment.

 

Help for the BAD cars may soon be on the way. In a conversation at Reading with NHRA tech, I was told the NHRA is now strongly considering 95% for the A/FD cars.

 

Seems to me that AFD gets kicked in the pills more than anyone else!

Kevin

 

Sort of what happened to Santos a few years ago hey Kevin.

Dean

 

Dean, true.....

See ya soon..... Kevin

 

It was posted that NHRA was going to tell everyone at Vegas what they were planning to do.............

Anyone hear anything or?

Edit: I noticed NHRA posted some rule changes for 2005. Does this mean the class is having no changes performance wise?

[ November 02, 2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Dragster503 ]