If this is the first step in reeling in the 'excesses', then I think it is a great first step, If it is the only step taken, I will still aplaud the effort.........
Convertor stall? How about not allowing footbraking at the line and be subject to the same launch issue as a stick shift car with no suspension windup or preload? It's easy to see if that's being done or not...or let the stick shift cars use a line lock..... Just a joke, but it definitely is a factor to consider when people are making fastest car lists. Nobody I know ever did much redlight racing with a stick shift, high powered car from a dead stop. Almost always hit it on a roll. Not suggesting that we try either of these suggestions or even consider them. but if we start picking the flys**t out of the pepper..... To me there's nothing more boring to watch than NHRA Sportsman racing where they launch soft, run along for a ways then hit it.....that is the way we used to do it (without the tree of course)........I think too many times the spectators are overlooked in decisions. Without them, we don't have a game without big sponsor $$$...... .....yeah, I know, old people should be seen and not heard.....come to think of it, maybe we shouldn't be seen either......... Meanwhile......:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Herein lies part of the problem...ask 5 people, with 5 different books, and you'll get 5 different numbers. The AMA specs for the '69 Firebirds on >>>this page<<< show both intake/exhaust valve springs having pressures of 107-123 lbs, which jives with my NHRA info...[shows same for '69 RAII] NHRA foreword '69 Pontiac - page 1 '69 Pontiac - page 2 But I'll be the first to admit, I'm "green" in regards to Ponchos, so if I'm misreading the above info, please say so. I'm not sure if our Camaro falls under your "big block juice" heading or not, but according to our Buxton Engineering guage the Yellow Sub is safely under your 140 number... BTW, I don't believe your numbers above are correct...
Rob it does not appear that the NHRA and AMA are meshing well. The NHRA specs from what I have seen on cams and compression is often wrong. Example is '79 400 4spd Trans-AM's and Formula's. All '79 motors were prebuilt left over '78 motors yet NHRA has different cam specs for the two but they are identicle in the real world. From the way it looks many/most of the outers in the NHRA list are higher then the AMA specs but the inners are all lighter. RA II's would not have been listed in those '69 NHRA specs as they are '68's only. When I spoke of juice cams I meant hydrualic cams which your L72 would obviously not fall under. I did not say nor suggest the pressures that it took to max performance should be the measure or guide for the rule makers only what was seen. Plus I guess I need to add smilely faces when making jokes such as ...it will kill the chevys blah blah...move RA II's IV's up...giggle laugh. Some times in print it is hard to tell when someone is joking as you try and read intent. The 180/140 numbers are absolutely correct and came from Dan. As Pete said in the opening post "Dan and I have talked as too what should be allowable over stock." That is the conclusion Pete gave Dan. Again I do not want to get in a debate I am not taking sides and am by standing on this one. I already stated I am not the guy with the answers for this one nor would I want to be. I only posted the AMA specs I had as I wanted to understand how Pete got to 180/140 and why he made that desicion. For me it does not matter if they use the 180/140 or AMA specs my Judge will do just fine in either measure if I were lucky enough to get anywhere near the back end of the Quick 8. Mark
I dont get it how hard is it to get a speedo to work. Asfar as I am concerned ever option in the car SHOULD WORK '''o No:
Sounds about right...kinda like the '98 LT1s that the NHRA allows! ou: Anyway, does your AMA info look different than the '69 Pontiac AMA info on that First Gen Firebird page link I posted above that shows 107-123 lbs? click here Yeah, I know the RA2 was a '68 thing...I may be green on Poncho stuff, but I'm not *that* green! :laugh: I didn't post the '68 page because it showed the exact same pressures for the RA2 as it did the RAIV. Again, those exact numbers aren't jiving, specifically the high one...sounds like those 2 need to chat again, as the exchange rate gets confusing some times! LOL!! Also, about the ballast thing...I don't think the ballast itself is the problem, I think they're worried about crazy-lightened cars using optimally placed ballast to get back to "normal"...
Rob thank you for clearing the ballast up. My mind did not go in that direction when reading it. That is a good idea. The NHRA/AMA numbers seem to total fairly similar to each other for the most part. Plus or minus a bit from each other. It appears that NHRA has higher values for many of the outer springs and lower values for the inner springs but they total somewhat close to each other. Other then the round ports they seem close enough for any various standard and I can not imagine either standard should be a problem for any Pontiac racer. I do not want to get caught up in Pontiac's or Chevy's specs but rather just a reasonable standard that anyone can understand. And a standard that everyone can see the logic that created it. I like how you put it with the "exchange rates". But who would the NHRA talk to as Pontiac is about to be non-existent. Thanks again for clearing up the ballast rule. Mark
Right, nice to see that my friends have my back.:grin: Now, to complete the team, where's John to defend those Pontiac supercharged roller tips?
uzzled: o No: sometimes LURKING is a better word..... Sorry guys, my daughter showed me how to copy and paste
It appears the desired movement by most is to move back in a more properly stock direction and the new rules attached above are apparently to help push that notion I would like to know how the tech staff is going to handle my questions before about trans', suspension and engine blocks. It would seem that with this new direction that these are highly egregous rules to brake. If we are going to cover minor items then certianly the long standing major ones need to be addressed also. In the last two days (but not by the correct official people who should make the ruling mind so the information is second hand) I have heard the incorrect trans are now claimed as safety items. I find that hard to believe as my personal experience with all my Muncies has been very favorable. The Judge's original owner put a mirad of passes on slicks on the car and I have several hundreds of passes on it also. Until last month it had accumulated 77K miles and best we can tell between 500 and 700 passes without a rebuild!!! I have broke the Super T10 in one car twice now in 20K miles and about 30 passes. Plus Richmond does not rate thier T10 replacements anywhere near high enough to handle the torque of our big block bruisers. Makes me think it is only a performance issue to make that choice from my individual expreince. Hopefully someone from FAST or the FS tech squad can help shed some light on the subject before the race starts and confusion rules. Mark
Jody I said the original owner not you. No you were the only one to treat the car without malice and keep it off the track. Mark
I have to say,every once in a while you guys do make me laugh!p I would offer my opinions,but they rarely go over well.Come to think of it,last time i said something,Dave called me a pussy:bglasses: ,Casey made fun of my hair,and my roller tip rockers were the equivalent of Nitrous Oxide.I think i will watch(LURK) from afar:laugh: :laugh:
To my fellow Pure Stock/Factory Stock racers, I will gladly take your unsafe Muncie 4spd's, and I may also be in the market for a boat anchor 409:Brow:
Wish I (or Brian) could run one of those "unsafe" muncies instead of my T-85 or his T-89, with our rubber shift linkage. :Brow:
If the manual trans issue is ratios, let's not forget different ratios are available for automatics. Regarding AMA specs, it sounds good in theory, however it does not seem to be a readily available resource for all makes, and it has to be. While being a proponent of keeping things in check spring pressure has never been a rule in my 12 years of participation. Rocker type has. Despite "never really being in the running" the rules need to apply to all. My Marauder 427 has a factory max closed spring pressure spec of 90lbs, yet it is rated to go 6000+. Because the intended rpm range is on the very ragged edge for those spring pressures, they had what is called "bumper" pistons with two nubs forged in place to push the valves back into the head without breaking the valve. When I built the engine eight years ago, these "bumper pistons" were not available nor required by the NHRA rules as laid out by the PSMCDR folks. I fall below the spring pressure ranges stated earlier and support that idea. However, to require AMA specs for me endangers a very expensive engine, would be too costly, and really, it's just not going to happen. AMA was never a requirement, flat tappet roller like grinds aren't stock, enforce the rules as they were written.
