Kelly
Nitro Member
Kelly
If it was'nt for you dear, we would still be wondering...
You need anything? A foot rub? another glass of wine?
Thanks so much luv...
lol! Damn, you're easy!
Glad y'all are enjoying them.
Story Behind The Monstrut Controversy (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bobby Bennett
- Start date
lol! Damn, you're easy!
Glad y'all are enjoying them.
Bob
Nitro Member
It just needs a touch of makeup to be beautiful!
Isn't that where you want the extra weight?
...and Bobby may have made a Freudian slip with the title of this thread. Monstrut could refer to monster strut instead of monostrut.
yoda
Nitro Member
From the original Competition Plus story:
Kloeber indicated he would be concerned about liability issues, for the design was not SFI-approved for safety. John Boyce, assistant crew chief for Whit Bazemore, said SFI approved the design three weeks ago. Hadman said, "Technically, nobody has an SFI'd wing. Wings don't have to be SFI'd."
From the 2006 NHRA Rulebook:
Section 13- Top Fuel Dragster
Wings and Supports
FIRST LINE- Rear wing supports must meet SFI Spec 2.3M
Somebody PLEASE tell me that Brad DIDN'T say that in reality. We aren't discussing THE WING here- the subject/controversy is THE STRUTS, or the lack of a pair of them. And because I don't want to assume that, when asked, Brad WAS talking about the whole package- the WHOLE controversial package- my hope is that this wasn't some kind of double-speak from Hadman to toss this comment off about the wing element and get around the fact that an SFI approval MUST be in place for the strut before it meets Rulebook approval. That would make any other comments on the subject from Brad a bit more suspect than is necessary, especially regarding his being "so torn up" when he had to call Klober.
With that, HAS SFI approval been issued for the struts yet? And if not, what was Powers talking about it being an "approved deal"- The wing itself or just getting the deal inked with the potential sponsor because of him having this device?
And I can't wait til Big chimes in with some words of wisdom... This may get good...
Edit- Franklin must be LOVIN this.....
Kloeber indicated he would be concerned about liability issues, for the design was not SFI-approved for safety. John Boyce, assistant crew chief for Whit Bazemore, said SFI approved the design three weeks ago. Hadman said, "Technically, nobody has an SFI'd wing. Wings don't have to be SFI'd."
From the 2006 NHRA Rulebook:
Section 13- Top Fuel Dragster
Wings and Supports
FIRST LINE- Rear wing supports must meet SFI Spec 2.3M
Somebody PLEASE tell me that Brad DIDN'T say that in reality. We aren't discussing THE WING here- the subject/controversy is THE STRUTS, or the lack of a pair of them. And because I don't want to assume that, when asked, Brad WAS talking about the whole package- the WHOLE controversial package- my hope is that this wasn't some kind of double-speak from Hadman to toss this comment off about the wing element and get around the fact that an SFI approval MUST be in place for the strut before it meets Rulebook approval. That would make any other comments on the subject from Brad a bit more suspect than is necessary, especially regarding his being "so torn up" when he had to call Klober.
With that, HAS SFI approval been issued for the struts yet? And if not, what was Powers talking about it being an "approved deal"- The wing itself or just getting the deal inked with the potential sponsor because of him having this device?
And I can't wait til Big chimes in with some words of wisdom... This may get good...
Edit- Franklin must be LOVIN this.....
Last edited:
willy
Nitro Member
Thank you, Bob..for a taste of reality.
And this one spit my beer out!!:
Aww man..foot rub?? (LOL) Another Miller Lite maybe?? (LOL)
Thanks Ray..oh..and thank you Kelly for what you do for us..
And this one spit my beer out!!:
Kelly
If it was'nt for you dear, we would still be wondering...
You need anything? A foot rub? another glass of wine?
Thanks so much luv...
Aww man..foot rub?? (LOL) Another Miller Lite maybe?? (LOL)
Thanks Ray..oh..and thank you Kelly for what you do for us..
yoda
Nitro Member
Still in Top Fuel Dragster section of rulebook 2006 - "Chassis must have manufacturer's name, serial number and date of manufacture. Chassis must meet SFI Spec 2.3M."
Does the "M" designate just material?
Edit- And what about SFI Spec 2.3K (Rear Engined Dragster Chassis Spec, TF (Includes Wing and Rear End Mounting))....1 Year
Last edited:
rosco
Nitro Member
4 years ago Mike introduced me to Brad Hadman, Brad made this remark about Mike, Your son has been the only customer that has stood by me for many years, he has helped me in many ways, he has been loyal with me when others just move on to other Chassis builder's, for that I will always be grateful, you have raised a great Son,
Brad Hadman will learn someday what loyal means, Mike will still be a customer of Brads when others have disappeared, Brad needs to step up with a public apology to Mike, Clay and all Team members of the 104 car.
Bob
Nitro Member
SFI Specs are material ratings. The sanctioning bodies, not SFI, tech the cars according to the rule books.
Doug in the woods
Nitro Member
This whole monostrut idea is NOT Mike Koblers anyway. If anyone should cry "intellictual pritory" it should come from the Godfather of dragracing=Don Garlitts.
Did Garlitts cry foul when other chassis builders started building a rear engine chassis?
For the betterment and safety of the sport, Mike K should just stop crying in his towel, Hadman should make a public appology and then get to racing.
My concern with the design is a vaccum effect in the chute area thus not allowing the chutes to deploy.
Looks like a late 60's design. I recall several dragesters with same chute area features-QUICK call my lawyer! they have stolen someones chute area design.
Did Garlitts cry foul when other chassis builders started building a rear engine chassis?
For the betterment and safety of the sport, Mike K should just stop crying in his towel, Hadman should make a public appology and then get to racing.
My concern with the design is a vaccum effect in the chute area thus not allowing the chutes to deploy.
Looks like a late 60's design. I recall several dragesters with same chute area features-QUICK call my lawyer! they have stolen someones chute area design.
Horsepower & Heels
Nitro Member
I was wondering the same thing... have they checked its stability at different wind combinations?
DrRocket
Nitro Member
A Big Whale Tale???
Oh, I don't know. I sort of like the look. Sometimes, when you get used to the look of something, anything else looks funny. The mile high dual strut arrangement in use today had been around for a looooong time. I'd imagine that if someone who hadn't watched drag racing since the early eighties showed up at a strip today, they'd think the mile high wings in use these days look pretty outrageous.
Wings in 1980.
wings 26 years later.
A lot higher, bigger and more complicated. (That same fan may think that new bug catcher scoop looks pretty outrageous too!!)
After a first look at the pics posted (Thanks Kel!) I'd say that in addition to being a potentially safer design, this may very well provide a chance to perhaps clean up the airflow around what has traditionally been a very "dirty" area, aerodynamics-wise, of a modern T/F dragster. Besides, put a coat of good paint on it, and I think it's going to look good. It somewhat reminds me of the streamlined housings they used to use to cover the parachutes on the Tom Hanna bodied cars way back in the front motored days.
I've seen lots of things through the years, including Garlit's canopy (Geeze, his name just keeps popping up thoughout this discussion, doesn't it?!?!?) the one piece body, etc, and when push comes to shove and the racingbegins in Pamona, they're put back in the trailer to gather dust because A: Teams don't want to be doing R&D during the active season, and B: Yep, you guessed it, that 1,000 ton gorilla, weight.
When all is said and done, I'd think that in spite of what shake out from this, everyone should be able to agree that Don "Big Daddy" Garlits can be credited with running the first workable iteration of this idea. Again.
Oh, I don't know. I sort of like the look. Sometimes, when you get used to the look of something, anything else looks funny. The mile high dual strut arrangement in use today had been around for a looooong time. I'd imagine that if someone who hadn't watched drag racing since the early eighties showed up at a strip today, they'd think the mile high wings in use these days look pretty outrageous.
Wings in 1980.
wings 26 years later.
A lot higher, bigger and more complicated. (That same fan may think that new bug catcher scoop looks pretty outrageous too!!)
After a first look at the pics posted (Thanks Kel!) I'd say that in addition to being a potentially safer design, this may very well provide a chance to perhaps clean up the airflow around what has traditionally been a very "dirty" area, aerodynamics-wise, of a modern T/F dragster. Besides, put a coat of good paint on it, and I think it's going to look good. It somewhat reminds me of the streamlined housings they used to use to cover the parachutes on the Tom Hanna bodied cars way back in the front motored days.
I've seen lots of things through the years, including Garlit's canopy (Geeze, his name just keeps popping up thoughout this discussion, doesn't it?!?!?) the one piece body, etc, and when push comes to shove and the racingbegins in Pamona, they're put back in the trailer to gather dust because A: Teams don't want to be doing R&D during the active season, and B: Yep, you guessed it, that 1,000 ton gorilla, weight.
When all is said and done, I'd think that in spite of what shake out from this, everyone should be able to agree that Don "Big Daddy" Garlits can be credited with running the first workable iteration of this idea. Again.
Last edited:
I may be ignorant, but Big went 323 with his mono-strut car. Now the cars are going 333. It's not like anyone had to re-invent the wheel, I would think just a little beefier version would do it. But again, I'm not a chassis builder. I guess I just get a little frustrated, Garlits has already successfully used this design in the modern era, yet NHRA somehow treats this as an entirely new concept that has to be engineered and proved out before it's accepted. Kind of a big step backwards.
Doug in the woods
Nitro Member
Garlitts and NHRA are not the best of friends as history shows.
I would venture a guess that if say Bernstein came out with a monostrut design NHRA would ok it on the spot. Just because Bernstein is one of IMO an NHRA poster child.
Same with Force.
I would venture a guess that if say Bernstein came out with a monostrut design NHRA would ok it on the spot. Just because Bernstein is one of IMO an NHRA poster child.
Same with Force.
