Some thoughts on the reasons for existing NHRA rules... (1 Viewer)

[Bill]

I find some NHRA rules to be irrational and difficult to justify.

I see it strictly from the standpoint and perspective of a fan not a participant, so that may be the reason for my confusion.... but, certain edicts are not easy to understand from a practical standpoint. I have several areas of concern that I'd appreciate having explained here. I try to have an open mind about rules, understanding that I don't always know the full story behind their rationale, so, if you see something that needs explaining here, please help me out; I'll appreciate it!

These will all be questions I have had when looking at a current rulebook:

1. The rules specify that turbochargers are banned in the FUEL classes. I remember that years ago, Gordie Bonin and Jerry Verhuel raced a turbocharged FUEL funny car for Flo-Rite, and the bigest problem that car seemed to have was that it made too MUCH power... a problem easily rectified with today's technology as regards improved improved tires and clutch-managment systems. So, why are they illegal?

2. The cost of frequently replacing valve springs on acohol dragsters and funny cars is egregious... and, this is in a class where big money is not rampant... a "sportsman" eliminator, if you will... I'm no expert on Formula !, but, I have been told that those engines turn 20,000 rpm for extended periods of time.... making metallc valve springs not a viable choice. So, they use pneumatic valve springs, which, ostensibly, don't wear out. Pneumatic valve springs are verboten on any engine in NHRA racing. Why?

3. Back in the "FUEL-ban" days (1957-1963) th dual-engine cars were a big spectator draw and did a very good job of filling in for the nitro cars. I am not sure about the rules regarding twin-engne cars, but I han't seen one for a long time. Are they in fact, illegal now, and if they are, why?

4. Since making horsepower doesn't seem to be a problem for the Top Fuel and Fuel Funny Car partipitants, (the Chrysler-design Hemi doesn't seem to suffer from a lack of grunt,) why, then is an overhead cam engine from Ford (or, Reed(sp.?) in Australia) or any Chevrolet motor,not legal in those classes?

It doesn't seem to be rooted in reality...

In my opinion the way NHRA has reduced the variety of powerplants and created a "spec," cookie-cutter scenario in those classes, has seriously damaged the fan experience, and that has resulted in smaller gate revenues and TV appeal.

Can somebody explain these quizzical situations to me, please?

I'll appreciate eny information...

 

[Treeshaker]

They are all rooted in reality:

1. Watch a turbo charged pro mod or street outlaw car stage and then imagine the results of a nitro car doing the same. Should answer your question why they are banned in nitro classes.

2. Compare the size of valves, the pressures on each side of the valve (runner and chamber) and the cost of developing a pneumatic system to handle the load. Compare the budgets of a Formula 1 team to any drag race team.

3. Look at your question 4, and then ask yourself why you would want the headaches of a twin engine car.

4. The 426 Hemi design has proven to be the easiest to make power with, the most reliable and the easiest for maintenance between rounds. Rules are just saving the teams R&D costs by banning designs that have proven not to be competitive in today's nitro classes. The nitro motors are specialty designs and nothing can be bought at your local dealership. The fans in the stands cannot tell the difference, nor do they probably care what specialty motor is in the nitro cars because very few of them have the inclination of going out and buying one like them.

 

[Bill]

Virfil, thanks for your reply. I appreciate the perspective from someone who has "been there."

On the other hand, I am wondering why, if it just won't work, why it would be necessary to ban it?

1. They wouldn't be doing the same. The Pro Mod cars all have torque converters for launch considerations, which create the staging problems. Top Fuel and Funny Car drivetrains have no such items, but the people who design those slipper, timed, multi-disc clutches have moved heaven and earth to make them effective; who's to say they couldn't/wouldn't do the same to ensure that a more efficient forced induction system could be used? Might be worth the trouble...

2. Air pressure is infinitely-adjustable, as is the size of the components used to implement it in this case. Since the bulk of the R & D in developing these F-1 systems was done years ago (and iwas amortized long ago,) it should be possible to adapt the technology to an alcohol motor without undue expense... especially in view of the tremedous amount of money already being spent on steel valve springs,, and you'd only have to buy this pneumatic system ONCE... whereas steel valve springs are an ongoing and significant expense.

3. Good answer; the twins of the sixties(?) were the answer to the Fuel ban, and no such situation exists, today.

4. If your contention that NHRA has banned " designs that have proven not to be competitive in today's nitro classes," It makes me wonder why Pete Robinson. Connie Kalitta, et al, spent so much time and effort on the Ford SOHC motor. You would think that if a design is just not competitive, nobody would choose to run it. Why would they? It wouldn't be necesssary to ban it; the problem would take care if itself. If I remember correctly, that motor won some significant races before it was "banned." The Australian motor didn't have the support of a maga-bucks automotive facttory behind them, so it showed lots of promise but langushed, eventually, for lack of financial backing... but, was banned, anyway. Go figure...

Then, there's the perplexing situation with, "Why aren't the Pro Mod cars given their own, comprhensive, Pro series, running all races?" As popular as they are, with Pro Stock having trouble filling the fields, you'd think that NHRA would jump at the chance to give some real ligitimacy to this burgeoning category. I think it may be coming (like TRUSTART,) but,t the inertia is hard to understand. I think the powers-that-be may be reluctant to implement a category that has varying parameters (like different engine sizes for different induction systems,) remembering the can of worms that Pro Stock was back before they were all 500 cubic inches. They are not looking forward to a repeat of that debaccle... with them responsible for the viability of it.

Who knows???

Thanks again for your comments!

 

[none]

Bill,

Sometimes racers need to be saved from themselves. Just a couple of examples.

When the "new" screw blowers the Whipple and the PSI started taking the alcohol classes by storm in the 90's the pro racers went to NHRA and said "Please ban them in the fuel classes" They didn't want them, didn't need them and if they weren't banned someone would try it forcing everyone to spend a fortune that didn't need to be spent. NHRA banned the blowers.

Just last week in E-town, I had three Championship caliber Funny Car crew chiefs tell me they wish NHRA would hurry up and make a header rule. They told me they were basically building new headers every week and there was no point to it. These are guys with a solid budget that aren't concerned about the money aspect, they just don't see the point in having to build new headers every week just to stay even. When a simple rule would put a stop to it. But without a rule, if one guy does it everyone else has to do it.

As for the turbos, I may be wrong buy I don't believe a turbo could handle the heat or pressure of the exhaust coming out of a Nitro car. And how would you get the boost up on the starting line? You certainly couldn't rev it up against a centrifugal clutch. Maybe there's a way, but I can't see it.

The 427 SOHC was viable at the time, as time went on it proved not to be. As far as guys who spent the time and effort for a while Connie was backed by Ford so he pretty much had to run them. There was a time when Big Block Chevys were run in the Fuel ranks as well, but as Virgil said they couldn't keep up.

When the McGee Quad Cam was running (I think that'a what you were referring to) they had plenty of people try to make it work including Kenny Bernstein and Dale Armstrong. They spent considerable time, money and effort on it. In the end it proved not to be as good as what they had. By banning it it keeps anyone else from wasting the time, money and effort again.

One BIG reason that Pro Mod is so strong is that it doesn't run the full schedule, I can name at least ten guys who would quit if the season was 24 events. Most of them are businessmen who can't take the time away from the office. A ten race season is what they want.

As always, this is my opinion. I'm not speaking for NHRA

Alan

 

[Usual password less 1]

Also since we have basically spec engines now, the smaller independent teams have access to good used parts from the bigger teams at a small percentage of the original cost.

 

[SundayNiagara]

When the big dogs were running 2:90 gears and lunching rear ends on the starting line. NHRA stepped in and helped the racers help themselves by requiring 3:20. End of problem. ​

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

When the big dogs were running 2:90 gears and lunching rear ends on the starting line. NHRA stepped in and helped the racers help themselves by requiring 3:20. End of problem. ​

To me, this is a good example of why the pneumatic valve train needs to be at least explored. It's not just blown alcohol; it's Pro Stock and many Competition Eliminator combinations. And the RPM reduction in Pro Stock will see marginal gains in spring life at best.

The source for rod good enough for performance valve spring use is very small and they're all essentially getting the base rod from the same place. That makes the differences between the manufacturers come down to processing, which is not only at the point of diminishing returns, it HAS been for quite some time. And if we're at the point where the spring manufacturers aren't much more than keeping up, then it's time to explore some options, even if there is an initial investment. The amount these teams are spending on springs in some cases is astronomical already, and they sure as hell aren't going to start putting smaller camshafts in there. And if modifying an already existing system to fit to our applications of larger valves can potentially take a nearly 6-figure cost off the bottom line completely, let's have a look.

Sean D

 

[JON]

Didn't I read somewhere that somone had already built and tested pneumatic valve springs for PS (WJ?) years ago.

 

[none]

To me, this is a good example of why the pneumatic valve train needs to be at least explored. . . .

Sean, are you advocating a design where the valves would still be actuated via a camshaft, or a cam-less design?

 

[sdwarf36]

Another reason for the death of the Ford SOHC motor was the complexity of service. To remove the heads, you had to pull the front cover-balancer-anything driven off it-a couple of very long cam chains-cams--before you even get to the head bolts.

 

[DrRocket]

I also seem to remember that toward the end, those long cam chains were starting to run into reliability and durability issues. Can you just imagine the bang that would happed if a chain broke as the car was approaching the finish line?

It would be epic!

 

[Bill]

SOMEBODY, maybe Sneaky Pete, devised a gear-drive for that SOHC engine's cams; I saw a picture of it. Frankengear... downright surreal...

Jeff; the pneumatic valve arrangement I contend might be useful is nothing more than a compressed-air spring... no cam replacement or revolutionary valve actuation... just a spring-replacement. Old technology in F-1...Not rocket science. And, yes, W.J. once did some research on these, I believe, for Pro Stock.

But, the real need is in Alcohol dragster and Alcohol funny car, (and, to a lesser-extent, Comp cars that could use them,) because Pro Stock doesn't have the budget constraints that the Alcohol cars do, and their valvetrains are not as heavy. The valvetain on a Chrysler-design "426" Hemi EATS exhaust valve springs because the rocker arms on that exhaust-side are long and heavy and 1. They have cams with a LOT of lift and 2. They turn those engines a LOT of rpm's... They HAVE to have good valve springs! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


RE rear axle ratios and breakage: The pinion gear in a 2.90 rear end is physically bigger (should be stronger) than the pinion gear in a 3.20-ratio rear end. Please tell me how the 3.20 can be stronger if it's smaller... I don't understand that at all... Seriously.

And, Alan, please filll me in on the desired "header rule." What kind of rule do they want? How complicated can it be; it's a piece of pipe...

And, Alan, did you ever see that Gordie Bonin turbo funny car run? It had so much power that the clutches and tires of the day (mid-eighties, I think,) just couldn't handle it, it would invariably blow the tires off the car in a big way... I don't think that making power was a problem with it...

Thanks also, Alan, for the explanation of what happened to both the McGee (I got the name wrong; sorry.) and the SOHC Ford motor. I just figured they both had an edge rpm-wise, on the (pushrod) Hemi, so NHRA just banned them to keep parity with the majority of racers who had Mopars...

One final question/comment: Yes, we have, basically. "spec" engines in TF, FC and, to an extent, Pro Stock. I can remember (1961) when the top dragsters might have had any of a half-dozen different makes of engines and it was a lot more interesting and exciting to watch. It seems that NHRA has attempted to pattern the face of their competition after N.A.S.C.A.R. in this way...

I'm not so sure it was a good decision. My 2-cents, and worth every penny...

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

Sean, are you advocating a design where the valves would still be actuated via a camshaft, or a cam-less design?

The F-1 stuff like Bill said; nothing trick. Although I wasn't aware that WJ had explored this idea. I would be interested to hear some more about that research, like the results of his research and projected cost.

I will, however have to respectfully disagree with you, Bill on the Pro Stock issue. I hear what you're saying in comparison of budgets, but the fields are short in Pro Stock for a reason, that being expense. And they were trending that way before the move to EFI. For that matter, there are WAY more blown alcohol cars between dragster and funny car than Pro Stock cars, so I'm not so sure how bad their budget constraints are.

I don't know the specifics about the cam profiles to make any comparisons between the two combinations, but that's really irrelevant. As a springmaker by trade, I can tell you that many combinations, both blown alcohol and top-level normally aspirated, have exceeded the ability of a steel spring having any sort of longevity a long time ago.

Sean D

 

[glofria]

Me thinks if someone wants to try new things such as suggested here, the NHRA is not a good starting point. Better to go to the SCTA and take it to El Marage or Bonneville.

Just my worthless 0.02 cents.

 

[SundayNiagara]

RE rear axle ratios and breakage: The pinion gear in a 2.90 rear end is physically bigger (should be stronger) than the pinion gear in a 3.20-ratio rear end. Please tell me how the 3.20 can be stronger if it's smaller... I don't understand that at all... Seriously.

The 2:90 gears were putting too much strain on the driveline. As usual, as I have in the past, I'll trust my source on this one.

 

[Bill]

Me thinks if someone wants to try new things such as suggested here, the NHRA is not a good starting point. Better to go to the SCTA and take it to El Marage or Bonneville.

Just my worthless 0.02 cents.

Maybe not, but the problems I alluded to don't exist in most of those organizations. NHRA is the area of concern, and that's where it needs attention, I think.

 

[Bill]

The F-1 stuff like Bill said; nothing trick. Although I wasn't aware that WJ had explored this idea. I would be interested to hear some more about that research, like the results of his research and projected cost.

I will, however have to respectfully disagree with you, Bill on the Pro Stock issue. I hear what you're saying in comparison of budgets, but the fields are short in Pro Stock for a reason, that being expense. And they were trending that way before the move to EFI. For that matter, there are WAY more blown alcohol cars between dragster and funny car than Pro Stock cars, so I'm not so sure how bad their budget constraints are.

I don't know the specifics about the cam profiles to make any comparisons between the two combinations, but that's really irrelevant. As a springmaker by trade, I can tell you that many combinations, both blown alcohol and top-level normally aspirated, have exceeded the ability of a steel spring having any sort of longevity a long time ago.

Sean D

Sean, thanks for the information.

My contention was based on the fact that as a category, the "professional" racers have deeper poclets thn the Sportsmen, Or, they should, it seems. That's all I thought...

 

[DG]

Looks like a great retirement scheme is to find a use for used valve springs!

There must be thousands of them out there! I know we have a bunch!

 

[DrRocket]

... And, yes, W.J. once did some research on these, I believe, for Pro Stock.

And I'll bet dollars to donuts that as soon as someone in Glendora got wind of the project, they called him up and told him to quit wasting his time on them

 

[DrRocket]

In the summer of 1971, right after I graduated from high school, I visited my aunt and uncle in Milpitas California, a suburb of San Francisco. As luck would have it, Fremont Raceway was right down the highway from the house. You can bet this kid spent a lot of time there.

One weekend, the Mallicoat Brothers had this car there.

Quite the beast. Compared to a normal supercharger type car, this thing was eerily quiet. When they did the burnout, you could heat the slicks squalling.

Here's a picture of the engine installation: