This is a crazy long read... but thanks to Comp Plus and Jon Asher for shedding some light on the subject

Torco Racing Fuel's Competition Plus.com - Drag Racing's Internet Magazine - TUBULAR TALES -- AN INVESTIGATIVE STORY

__________________
"The Doctor"
www.wannaberacing.com

You're a little late to the party:

F/C chassis integrity

CompPlus story on the FC chassis problems

Prominant FC chassis builder speaks his mind.

Dragster chassis technology...ignored???

__________________
"I got a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!"

Buell's and Hardley's suck!

Evening Brent...

Printed out a hard copy the day the Asher/CP story broke... shall we go for the finals? I know we've been at least three rounds through this...

d'kid

__________________
Not So Comfortably Numb- Fly Navy, Build SEABEES
A friend helps you move, A Real Friend helps you Move Bodies

I just love the internet and people that are willing to speak out.
With politics and cover-ups of even as little as 15 years ago, this could have been swept under the rug and never reached the light of day. I am just so glad to have what we have in this day of free information.

A number of Military Specifications have been rewritten to SAE and NAS specifications. The mil specs are antiquated and have not kept up with the changes to design aspects of the latest aircraft materials and processes. The difference between a Mil Spec and SAE standards is vastly different and therefore should not be considered as equivalent. SAE/NAS standards are updated/changed using group input from airline and FAA engineering feedback. This occurs on a regular basis. As stated in the article, the quoted mil spec was dated 1965. The military have moved for their specifications to the national standard. That is why mil specs have not changed since the mid 60s. SAE charges for downloading their specifications where as Mil Specs are free. I hope this is not the reason for using antiquated processes during the design and build of race products.