HTML content option:
VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:19:59 10/03/02 Thu
Author: jeff rytter
Subject: here we go with the comp small blocks & sheet metal intakes i guess those of us with 23 deg. will have to stick to bracket racing i tried already had 4 cars lined up that all run 5.70' to 5.80's & i'm sure there are a lot more out there but i guess i you don't have an old comp motor or an old comp car that weighs 2000 lbs you can't play good luck see you baytown
In reply to: John Harrison 's message, "Tech questions" on 21:43:14 10/02/02 Wed

>Since I am the tech guy, I guess I should answer the
>points that have been raised so far.
>
>As to teching of the cars more closely, all the cars
>that we had at the first race were known to us, and
>the racers aren’t known to cheat or punish the rules,
>so we just let it wing itself. We made sure the
>engines and carburetors (and 1 injector) were what
>they were supposed to be and that the weights were
>correct for the combination.
>
>We will look at the cars more closely at the October
>race and will check for power adders, and fuel
>irregularities. (Alcohol will be allowed with a small
>weight penalty)
>
>We have had a number of inquiries since the race as to
>what we are going to allow in the future. Every racer
>has a slightly different combination than the next,
>and it will be a real challenge to make parity for
>all.
>
>Let me explain how we came up with the first set of
>rules... I have a concept that I call running against
>a brick wall. What that means as simply as I can
>explain it is that with the stock valve configuration,
>a cast intake, and a single carburetor, you can only
>flow so much air. It takes air flow to make
>horsepower, and with these restrictions, there is just
>so much power you can make. The point of the low deck
>block is to limit the cubic inches to a maximum of
>582. This makes it to where nobody can have a real
>engine advantage. We tried to make a class where the
>average motor makes about 900-925 horsepower, and
>weighs 2450#. I know there are exceptions to this
>premise, but most will fall here somewhere.
>
>We decided to let the small block guys join us, and
>gave them a 150# advantage with the same restrictions
>since they are horsepower challenged. (We could have
>made them lighter, but how many cars are there that
>will get that light?) We allowed any inline valve head
>at a 50# penalty, a second carburetor with a 50 #
>penalty, and any tunnel ram intake with a 50# penalty.
>This combination at about 400-434 cubic inches will
>make between 875 and 925 horsepower at 2450#... see
>where this is going?
>
>Conrad has some suggestions that would bring some more
>cars, but when you allow more head freedom, you have
>the problem of how to keep it even. The general answer
>is weight/inch... However, that makes it harder to
>police. That means P&G at every race, and sealed
>engines, and more opportunities for stretching the
>rules for an unfair advantage. What I asked him was
>how many cars would this add to the show, and how many
>would not come if we opened up the head rule? I need
>an answer to this!
>
>I still feel like the simpler the rules, the fairer
>the parity for all, and this makes closer races which
>makes the spectators stay interested, and makes a
>better show. I still feel like the factory valve
>arrangement is the best way to accomplish this, but I
>could be wrong.
>
>I am open to ANY suggestion to make this work, and
>will consider ANY RATIONAL suggestions. I am available
>for YOUR suggestions at profabguy@aol.com or on the
>phone at 713 690 4233.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Jeff, please reread John's post. I believe we're trying to find a combo for the small blocks that will work. Just need a good turnout with some different engine/weight combos to see where we need to go. I wouldn't pack up my toys just yet. If you know of someone who wants to play on the 26th. Have them email John and let's look at it. -- Mark, 17:24:39 10/03/02 Thu [1]

>>Since I am the tech guy, I guess I should answer the
>>points that have been raised so far.
>>
>>As to teching of the cars more closely, all the cars
>>that we had at the first race were known to us, and
>>the racers aren’t known to cheat or punish the rules,
>>so we just let it wing itself. We made sure the
>>engines and carburetors (and 1 injector) were what
>>they were supposed to be and that the weights were
>>correct for the combination.
>>
>>We will look at the cars more closely at the October
>>race and will check for power adders, and fuel
>>irregularities. (Alcohol will be allowed with a small
>>weight penalty)
>>
>>We have had a number of inquiries since the race as to
>>what we are going to allow in the future. Every racer
>>has a slightly different combination than the next,
>>and it will be a real challenge to make parity for
>>all.
>>
>>Let me explain how we came up with the first set of
>>rules... I have a concept that I call running against
>>a brick wall. What that means as simply as I can
>>explain it is that with the stock valve configuration,
>>a cast intake, and a single carburetor, you can only
>>flow so much air. It takes air flow to make
>>horsepower, and with these restrictions, there is just
>>so much power you can make. The point of the low deck
>>block is to limit the cubic inches to a maximum of
>>582. This makes it to where nobody can have a real
>>engine advantage. We tried to make a class where the
>>average motor makes about 900-925 horsepower, and
>>weighs 2450#. I know there are exceptions to this
>>premise, but most will fall here somewhere.
>>
>>We decided to let the small block guys join us, and
>>gave them a 150# advantage with the same restrictions
>>since they are horsepower challenged. (We could have
>>made them lighter, but how many cars are there that
>>will get that light?) We allowed any inline valve head
>>at a 50# penalty, a second carburetor with a 50 #
>>penalty, and any tunnel ram intake with a 50# penalty.
>>This combination at about 400-434 cubic inches will
>>make between 875 and 925 horsepower at 2450#... see
>>where this is going?
>>
>>Conrad has some suggestions that would bring some more
>>cars, but when you allow more head freedom, you have
>>the problem of how to keep it even. The general answer
>>is weight/inch... However, that makes it harder to
>>police. That means P&G at every race, and sealed
>>engines, and more opportunities for stretching the
>>rules for an unfair advantage. What I asked him was
>>how many cars would this add to the show, and how many
>>would not come if we opened up the head rule? I need
>>an answer to this!
>>
>>I still feel like the simpler the rules, the fairer
>>the parity for all, and this makes closer races which
>>makes the spectators stay interested, and makes a
>>better show. I still feel like the factory valve
>>arrangement is the best way to accomplish this, but I
>>could be wrong.
>>
>>I am open to ANY suggestion to make this work, and
>>will consider ANY RATIONAL suggestions. I am available
>>for YOUR suggestions at profabguy@aol.com or on the
>>phone at 713 690 4233.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> mark i'm not packing it in yet i will pester you guy's until it's dead .i am going to rebuild my car this winter with the engine it has & will get my buddies with the 23 deg heads to try at least 2 races at the begining of next season & if we are not competitive then so be it thats fine but we will give it a shot but there is no way we can compete with a 2/4 sheet metal 400 plus in.any head motor .i just want to see a bigger field to draw from & the 14,18 or canted valve motors are rare they do run great & i respect that but most of us are on a budget -- jeff rytter, 19:00:47 10/03/02 Thu [1]

>>>Since I am the tech guy, I guess I should answer the
>>>points that have been raised so far.
>>>
>>>As to teching of the cars more closely, all the cars
>>>that we had at the first race were known to us, and
>>>the racers aren’t known to cheat or punish the rules,
>>>so we just let it wing itself. We made sure the
>>>engines and carburetors (and 1 injector) were what
>>>they were supposed to be and that the weights were
>>>correct for the combination.
>>>
>>>We will look at the cars more closely at the October
>>>race and will check for power adders, and fuel
>>>irregularities. (Alcohol will be allowed with a small
>>>weight penalty)
>>>
>>>We have had a number of inquiries since the race as
>to
>>>what we are going to allow in the future. Every racer
>>>has a slightly different combination than the next,
>>>and it will be a real challenge to make parity for
>>>all.
>>>
>>>Let me explain how we came up with the first set of
>>>rules... I have a concept that I call running against
>>>a brick wall. What that means as simply as I can
>>>explain it is that with the stock valve
>configuration,
>>>a cast intake, and a single carburetor, you can only
>>>flow so much air. It takes air flow to make
>>>horsepower, and with these restrictions, there is
>just
>>>so much power you can make. The point of the low deck
>>>block is to limit the cubic inches to a maximum of
>>>582. This makes it to where nobody can have a real
>>>engine advantage. We tried to make a class where the
>>>average motor makes about 900-925 horsepower, and
>>>weighs 2450#. I know there are exceptions to this
>>>premise, but most will fall here somewhere.
>>>
>>>We decided to let the small block guys join us, and
>>>gave them a 150# advantage with the same restrictions
>>>since they are horsepower challenged. (We could have
>>>made them lighter, but how many cars are there that
>>>will get that light?) We allowed any inline valve
>head
>>>at a 50# penalty, a second carburetor with a 50 #
>>>penalty, and any tunnel ram intake with a 50#
>penalty.
>>>This combination at about 400-434 cubic inches will
>>>make between 875 and 925 horsepower at 2450#... see
>>>where this is going?
>>>
>>>Conrad has some suggestions that would bring some
>more
>>>cars, but when you allow more head freedom, you have
>>>the problem of how to keep it even. The general
>answer
>>>is weight/inch... However, that makes it harder to
>>>police. That means P&G at every race, and sealed
>>>engines, and more opportunities for stretching the
>>>rules for an unfair advantage. What I asked him was
>>>how many cars would this add to the show, and how
>many
>>>would not come if we opened up the head rule? I need
>>>an answer to this!
>>>
>>>I still feel like the simpler the rules, the fairer
>>>the parity for all, and this makes closer races which
>>>makes the spectators stay interested, and makes a
>>>better show. I still feel like the factory valve
>>>arrangement is the best way to accomplish this, but I
>>>could be wrong.
>>>
>>>I am open to ANY suggestion to make this work, and
>>>will consider ANY RATIONAL suggestions. I am
>available
>>>for YOUR suggestions at profabguy@aol.com or on the
>>>phone at 713 690 4233.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> sorry if my remarks offended anyone that was not my intenti'm just frustrated it won't happen again ...for anyone with 23 deg heads or anyone that knows someone please call or e-mail john with your times & weights so he can get a better idea of who's interested & what it would take to be competitive with the 18 & 14 deg stuff......thanks & again i'm not trying to slam tpsa I JUST WANT TO PLAY NOT GET BEAT UP.. -- jeff rytter, 19:59:45 10/04/02 Fri [1]

>>Since I am the tech guy, I guess I should answer the
>>points that have been raised so far.
>>
>>As to teching of the cars more closely, all the cars
>>that we had at the first race were known to us, and
>>the racers aren’t known to cheat or punish the rules,
>>so we just let it wing itself. We made sure the
>>engines and carburetors (and 1 injector) were what
>>they were supposed to be and that the weights were
>>correct for the combination.
>>
>>We will look at the cars more closely at the October
>>race and will check for power adders, and fuel
>>irregularities. (Alcohol will be allowed with a small
>>weight penalty)
>>
>>We have had a number of inquiries since the race as to
>>what we are going to allow in the future. Every racer
>>has a slightly different combination than the next,
>>and it will be a real challenge to make parity for
>>all.
>>
>>Let me explain how we came up with the first set of
>>rules... I have a concept that I call running against
>>a brick wall. What that means as simply as I can
>>explain it is that with the stock valve configuration,
>>a cast intake, and a single carburetor, you can only
>>flow so much air. It takes air flow to make
>>horsepower, and with these restrictions, there is just
>>so much power you can make. The point of the low deck
>>block is to limit the cubic inches to a maximum of
>>582. This makes it to where nobody can have a real
>>engine advantage. We tried to make a class where the
>>average motor makes about 900-925 horsepower, and
>>weighs 2450#. I know there are exceptions to this
>>premise, but most will fall here somewhere.
>>
>>We decided to let the small block guys join us, and
>>gave them a 150# advantage with the same restrictions
>>since they are horsepower challenged. (We could have
>>made them lighter, but how many cars are there that
>>will get that light?) We allowed any inline valve head
>>at a 50# penalty, a second carburetor with a 50 #
>>penalty, and any tunnel ram intake with a 50# penalty.
>>This combination at about 400-434 cubic inches will
>>make between 875 and 925 horsepower at 2450#... see
>>where this is going?
>>
>>Conrad has some suggestions that would bring some more
>>cars, but when you allow more head freedom, you have
>>the problem of how to keep it even. The general answer
>>is weight/inch... However, that makes it harder to
>>police. That means P&G at every race, and sealed
>>engines, and more opportunities for stretching the
>>rules for an unfair advantage. What I asked him was
>>how many cars would this add to the show, and how many
>>would not come if we opened up the head rule? I need
>>an answer to this!
>>
>>I still feel like the simpler the rules, the fairer
>>the parity for all, and this makes closer races which
>>makes the spectators stay interested, and makes a
>>better show. I still feel like the factory valve
>>arrangement is the best way to accomplish this, but I
>>could be wrong.
>>
>>I am open to ANY suggestion to make this work, and
>>will consider ANY RATIONAL suggestions. I am available
>>for YOUR suggestions at profabguy@aol.com or on the
>>phone at 713 690 4233.


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.