What's new

McMillen gets new chassis (1 Viewer)

roscoe37

Nitro Member
too bad they dont open up rules a little,so we can see some a little different, like that crazy af/d that the driver sits way out front,well maybe not that different.
 

TD5023

Nitro Member
too bad they dont open up rules a little,so we can see some a little different, like that crazy af/d that the driver sits way out front,well maybe not that different.
I don't think the rules are really all that closed. It's more that everyone has found a general design that they're comfortable with and there is no motivation to try anything all that different because any potential gains wouldn't be worth the setbacks of R&D. And that's if there is even anything to be gained. It's the same with bracket dragsters: a 2020 dragster looks closer to one from 2000 than one from 2000 looks to one from the early/mid 90's. Well-refined designs leave little room for innovation.
 

mike

Nitro Member
I don't think the rules are really all that closed. It's more that everyone has found a general design that they're comfortable with and there is no motivation to try anything all that different because any potential gains wouldn't be worth the setbacks of R&D. And that's if there is even anything to be gained. It's the same with bracket dragsters: a 2020 dragster looks closer to one from 2000 than one from 2000 looks to one from the early/mid 90's. Well-refined designs leave little room for innovation.
chassis rules are from the evolution of previous crashes leading to what would need to be changed to making them safer
 

TD5023

Nitro Member
chassis rules are from the evolution of previous crashes leading to what would need to be changed to making them safer
Sure, there are plenty of rules for safety on the cars. I'm just talking about general design (that still falls within the safety parameters). For example, you can choose to run a front-engine dragster in TAD. The rulebook even has provisions for it. However, nobody who values being competitive is going to choose that route. You can also run a 150" wheelbase shorty. Again, it will never be done unless someone wants to be a novelty.

Looking at the rules, it seems that TF is more restrictive than I realized. Especially since it says right in the beginning of the section that it is the intent of NHRA that no future performance-enhancing design changes will be implemented.
 

Nunz

Nitro Member
Sure, there are plenty of rules for safety on the cars. I'm just talking about general design (that still falls within the safety parameters). For example, you can choose to run a front-engine dragster in TAD. The rulebook even has provisions for it. However, nobody who values being competitive is going to choose that route. You can also run a 150" wheelbase shorty. Again, it will never be done unless someone wants to be a novelty.

Looking at the rules, it seems that TF is more restrictive than I realized. Especially since it says right in the beginning of the section that it is the intent of NHRA that no future performance-enhancing design changes will be implemented.
Hey Brad, you think a long wheelbase, altered/FC chassis similar to the Boggs deal from early '90s would work today? By work I mean be competitive.
 

TD5023

Nitro Member
Hey Brad, you think a long wheelbase, altered/FC chassis similar to the Boggs deal from early '90s would work today? By work I mean be competitive.
I'm not one to ask because I have no experience with anything front-engined or any wheelbase shorter than 235". I just know that I wouldn't have any interest in being the one to try it out (even in TD, much less TAD). Mike would have a much more valid opinion on the matter.
 

mike

Nitro Member
I'm not one to ask because I have no experience with anything front-engined or any wheelbase shorter than 235". I just know that I wouldn't have any interest in being the one to try it out (even in TD, much less TAD). Mike would have a much more valid opinion on the matter.
In TAD all the cars I built for myself have progressed to the300 limit and worked very well
 

roscoe37

Nitro Member
Hey Brad, you think a long wheelbase, altered/FC chassis similar to the Boggs deal from early '90s would work today? By work I mean be competitive.
i heard that austin coil wanted to build a front motor funnycar style top fuel car.
 

Cliff

Nitro Member
That might have been Dale Armstrong. Read article that said Armstrong wanted to build a front motor car for T/F, w/ a canopy for the driver. He thought the idea would have worked but they never built it. I believe Armstrong was thinking of using F/C technology in the car. Would have been interesting.
 

mike

Nitro Member
A short wheelbase care would not be to a advantage- that's is why the rules limit 300in.yes it would be interesting to see a short front engine tf but why do it when the dragsters have a handling problem advantage, longer easier to go straight short wheelbase bad handling- fc one class tf another
 

Just Paul

Nitro Member
i heard that austin coil wanted to build a front motor funnycar style top fuel car.
John and Austin thought about building a rear engine funny car during John’s prime fire seasons in the mid 90’s. I’m pretty sure they went so far as to have one drawn up. Off memory, they would have had to have a one off rear end built due to where they wanted to locate the engine. Besides that, they realized they would have problems keeping the front end down. It was right around that time they built the body ejection system.
 

Butch

Nitro Member
Armstrong wanted to build a front motor car for T/F, w/ a canopy for the driver.
Why do I have visions of, Flaming Frank Pedregon in the Chicken Coupe. LOL
I believe AA had a hand in rebuilding or build a replica for the Pedregon Boys.
 
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)


Top