parity or parody? bad vs a/fuel

Discussion in 'System One Pit Buzz' started by Will Hanna, May 8, 2003.

  1. Will Hanna

    Will Hanna We put the 'inside' in Top Alcohol
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,393
    Likes Received:
    64
    yes, i know this has been rehashed over and over, but with several races under our belts what are yalls thoughts?

    lets keep this objective and rational. not meant to be a $hit storm. a few questions for both sides to throw out there.

    if you are a blown racer, what do you think could be done to speed your combination up? what are your thoughts on such things as:
    125 od
    c blower
    more cid
    lock up clutch
    ???

    if you are an a/fuel racer, regardless of your thoughts of parity or not, if nhra did say that they were going to change the class by slowing the a/fuel combination down, what in your best opinion would be the best move.
    less nitro? how much?
    more weight?
    less wing?
    no injector scoop?
    gear ratio?
    1 mag?
    pump size?
    tire size?

    i know i've been promising this, but my thoughts will be in next weeks No Shake Zone column.

    let it fly. :D
     
    #1
  2. paalexander

    paalexander New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will: Sorry, but 125 over is out for BADs -- not allowed by SFI -- Pat at PSI
     
    #2
  3. LEN COTTRELL

    LEN COTTRELL Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    ANY CHANGE SHOULD NOT RESULT IN EITHER TYPES GOING FASTER. AT 270 MPH WE ARE ALREADY NEAR THE SAFETY LIMITATIONS AT SOME OF THE DIVISIONALS TRACKS. I WOULD NOT WANT TO ELIMINATE ANY OF THEM FROM OUR CURRENT DIVISION SCHEDULES.
     
    #3
  4. Will Hanna

    Will Hanna We put the 'inside' in Top Alcohol
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,393
    Likes Received:
    64
    pat: why is 125 od out for dragsters and was safe for tafc?

    len: i agree with you on the track safety bit, but that's a whole other issue. see the other post for that.
     
    #4
  5. paalexander

    paalexander New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will: good question. It's because the bigger engines, which have a longer stroke, fail the connecting rods at lower engine RPM than smaller engines. For blower safety, you want the rods to exit the engine at a lower speed than the blower would get into trouble -- that's the theory behind the SFI test. And, for the record, that change in overdrive wouldn't get you as much as you might think -- less than half the improvement you'd get by switching to a C -- not nearly enough to solve the problem. (And, before anybody gets too excited, I'm not campaigning for people to get new blowers -- Will just asked.)
     
    #5
  6. R4K

    R4K New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Pat- We are happy with the PSI that we run now! Things like wing changes are not a safe way to go for an A/FD and less nito, less cu in and more weight will only help the A/FD. (although it is unfair that the min weight for TAD is less than top fuel = less weight equals higher costs!!) I want the A/FD in the other lane to have a safe car and I know that he wants my BAD to be equally safe.I guess none of by babble has helped solve the problem, but we just want to race. It's a horrible addiction and being an underdog does not cure us of the disease! [​IMG]
     
    #6
  7. Will Hanna

    Will Hanna We put the 'inside' in Top Alcohol
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,393
    Likes Received:
    64
    bob,

    why do you think less wing for a/fd would be unsafe? just make them run the same type wing as b/ad...no more than 999 square inches. just a response to that scenario...
     
    #7
  8. R4K

    R4K New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    don't you feel that a smaller area wing will just make a 270+ MPH car less stable as opposed to slowing down the car? Yes drag = load = more power for a fuel car BUT they will solve that tuning problem as did top fuel cars and then the wing becomes a safety issue instead of a tuning issue. I am likely wrong here as I run a BAD, but we are a budget team running out of our own pocket so we are happy with consistant 5.5s with minimal breakage- our agenda will not be the same as Shields, Hentges or Thacker or Shelly. When it costs 400 thousand for a decent transporter/support vehicle etc. just to sit in the pits and then spend money on the car for testing etc. This is no doubt PROFESSIONAL racing and the above named racers are very good at what they do- maybe your idea of separating national events from divisionals has some mertit - that said - I really like to compete against the best even if we lose- they are class guys, treat us well and do share information which has certainly increased our knowledge and ability. For us DRAG RACINGis still a SPORT. Maybe we should get more businesslike, but you will never here us whine or cry. We feel privledged to be part of it all and we love it. (still waiting for Pat Alexander to send us some of her surplus blowers though. lol) [​IMG]
     
    #8
  9. R4K

    R4K New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    still would loveto see a workable solution posted here and give TARA something to bring forward.
     
    #9
  10. tjenna

    tjenna Top Alcohol

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has Tara proposed a solution?

    The cars are unsafe at many Divisional Tracks.
     
    #10
  11. alkysniffer

    alkysniffer New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well there is something that needs to be done here for sure no matter what ppl think about it. I dont think you will ever see a BAD car hold either end of the national records again unless it is done and then it will be a few years to do it unless they come up with a way to give the BAD cars more power and I am not sure how that is gonna be done. I know ppl think that limiting the nitro is not the answer but I do think it is and would make for better racing in the end. If it was cut back to 90 or 85 percent it would not only bring them back to the BAD cars it would probably help make them more consistent too which is the only reason that they are not winning everything. With the consistency it would make for better racing and also would give the BAD guys a reason to think that they had a chance to win every race too and not to have something happen to them like happened to David Wells in Houston were he ran a great run only to be completely blown away in that run by a run that there was not a BAD car in the world that could have touched it. I think that would solve the problem without hurting either car and would make for better racing.
     
    #11
  12. T.Smith

    T.Smith Top Dragster

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've said this on some other websites.
    Apples vs. Oranges!
    How can you get an Apple to kinda taste like an Orange...and vice versa?
     
    #12
  13. Rapid Transit

    Rapid Transit New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tony, think for a minute, you don't REALLY have to get the apples to taste kinda like the oranges, or vice versa, ALL you HAVE to do is convince all the the people that they DO taste the same, then when they disagree with you, tell them they are uninformed and have no "taste"!!!! LOL Kim :D ;) [​IMG]
     
    #13
  14. Funnycarbob

    Funnycarbob Top Dragster

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about 399 CID for A/FD and 1 Mag

    The new MSD mag for TAD ?
     
    #14
  15. R4K

    R4K New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    REMEMBER Ches Bushey- smaller cubic inch was a big advantage- the pioneers of a/fd tried a lot of stuff and less inches was a keeper! [​IMG]
     
    #15
  16. Rapid Transit

    Rapid Transit New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh Come On!!! That was funny!
     
    #16
  17. ROF

    ROF Top Dragster

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    I laughed....
     
    #17
  18. Lee Callaway

    Lee Callaway The Gov

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    PARITY??? The only parity between the two is the alcohol cars are getting injected literally just my 2 !!
     
    #18
  19. Mad-Mic

    Mad-Mic New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will this might hold alittle insite that was being passed out to the B/AD cars a few months back.

    2-13-2003

    Everyone,

    There are a handful of us that have had lengthy, and extremely disappointing conversations recently with the NHRA personnel including Bob Devour and Len Imbrogno. Here is how one of the conversations with Len Imbrogno went yesterday, concerning the issues of parity between the Blown Alcohol Dragster and the A/Fuel Dragster (as told by Scott Nelson/Hentges Productions).

    "Len told me that the Competition Committee met and reviewed the issue and has decided to not make any changes to the Top Alcohol Dragster class. He told me that they will review the issue again in 2004, and MAY take some action then." When I asked him what their reasoning was, given the compelling proof that there is a performance disparity, he gave me a number of excuses, most of all which were easily discounted. (Listed are the excuses that Len came up with along with some of the responses that I gave him so that we can all work to help show that their reasoning is seriously flawed.)"

    1. The car count in Top Alcohol Dragster is higher than it has been in past years, and they don't want to jeopardize that.

    I asked what the numbers were and was told that in 2001 there were 125 competitors in TA/D and in 2002 there were 128, an increase of 3. I pointed out that his list of 128 competitors for 2002 most likely included Brian Hough and Brandon Johnson, two drivers that competed in the same car. Same goes for Paul Jones and Morgan Lucas. So, while there were 4 competitors, there are only two cars. If Brian Hough and Morgan Lucas would have continued to drive throughout the year, the number of competitors for 2002 would have been 126, an increase of 1. Then I pointed out that if he were to look at th enumber of races that each racer attended, he would see there was a sharp decrease from 2001.

    2. Every time they have "dicked" with the rules, the car count has gone down. He noted the early to mid 1990's and how the Top Alcohol Dragster class wnet from more than 160 cars down to 120 or less.

    I questioned how they determined that it was the rules changes that actually made the car count go down. I pointed out that when the weight was added to the A/Fuel cars in the past, did they confirm that there was a decrease in the number of A/Fuel cars the next year, or was there a decrease in the number of Blown Alcohol Cars, and what type of Blown car, roots or screw. He did not have an answer for this. I remember back then that the A/Fuel cars were very hit and miss, yet were running numbers that were much quicker and faster than the Blown Alcohol cars. Many people were frustrated and were not sure as to which way to go, just like today. I think that the fall off of the roots blower cars is what was more of the cause of the decrease vs the rules changes that NHRA made. I would say that NHRA’s in-attention to the differences between the roots and the screw cars during this time did more harm than the rules changes that they did make. On a side note, NHRA chose not to adequately protect the roots cars, and we all know how they fallen by the way side. The exact same thing is going to happen again, this time the screw blowers cars will be the ones falling by the way side.

    3. You cannot change the rules for a whole class because of a couple of fast A/Fuel cars.

    I told him there are more than a couple of A/Fuel cars that are fully capable with running better than the best Blwon Alcohol cars, and game him exaples. I also asked how this is any different than the rules changes that they made that affected 1 car, a Blown Alcohol car driven by Rick Santos?

    4. They have reviewed a list of the 16 quickest runs by Blown Alcohol cars and the 16 quickest runs by A/Fuel cars and the AVERAGE is only off by .040, so the disparity is not nearly what we think.

    I told him that using the 16 quickest runs flaws his average number because there are not 16 A/Fuel cars that are running real well. There are 16 Blown Alcohol cars that are running fairly well, and fairly close to one another because there are more cars competing, and there is more knowledge, by more people, and the combination has been pretty much the same over the years. There are fewer people out there that have a good handle on the A/Fuel combination, but that is changing. Just because the #16 A/Fuel guy runs two tenths worse than the # 16 Blown Alcohol guy, should that negate that the #1 A/Fuel guy runs two tenths better than the #1 Blown Alcohol Guy?

    5. Why is it fair to slow down the whole A/Fuel class because of a handful of fast guys?

    Just because you put some sort of limit on the A/Fuel car, it does not mean that it will affect every car the same. We don’t know why one car can run 5.13 while another can only run 5.50, for example. But, maybe part of the problem that the 5.50 guy has is getting his car to run when it is dropping cylinders, or overpowering the track. Is it not possible that some changes could actually help some of those who are struggling? Back in 2001 many of the A/Fuel teams were struggling a bit as they were trying to perfect running increased fuel volume. Those who have figured it out are running very well, those who have not are not running as well. If the fuel volume went back to where it was a few years ago, those that are now trying to run 5.20’s and struggling, might easily be back to running low 5.40’s and high 5.30’s like they used to. This is just an example

    6. If we make a change based on Pomona, what will happen when the weather gets hot.

    I gave him several examples of how well the A/Fuel cars ran last year when the weather was very hot. As the A/Fuel cars have perfected running the fuel volume, they are being less and less affected by the weather.

    Several times Len said “Well, you can switch to A/Fuel” and I asked him if that is what NHRA wanted, an all A/Fuel class and he said “No”. He also said that two years ago the racers said, “Leave the rules the same and let the strong survive”. I asked him who said that, he did not reply. I remember hearing that they were going to leave the rules the same for the next two years and then re-evaluate them. That was back in 2001. We have all been patient and here we are now in 2003. WE have depended on NHRA to do what they promised, but it’s been two years and it appears that they are standing by, allowing the BAD’s to die a slow death.

    These are just a few of the reasons that Len brought up, and will likely be brought up again. We all need to be knowledgeable about these issues, so we can show them they are flawed. Len did say that he thinks there is a performance disparity, but does not know what do about it.

    WE can take this decision by NHRA to not make any changes and do one of two things.

    1. We can sit and do nothing and the situation will continue to go the direction it has been going. The A/Fuel cars will continue to run numbers far superior to what the BAD’s are capable of running, and they will do it more often. Consistency is becoming less and less of an issue. After yet another year of being out qualified, and beaten by numbers that we cannot compete with, some of us will quit racing, some will choose to switch to A/Fuel or another class. All the while, the investment you have in your Blown Alcohol Dragster will fail like a rock. When 2004 rolls around, maybe there will be a change, but if there are even less people racing Blown Alcohol combinations then, why would they listen, when they are not listening now?

    2. We can ALL send letters, e-mails and make phone calls to NHRA. Contact must be made by as many people as possible, to everyone from Bob Devour and Len Imbrogno to Jim Collins, Cary Menard, Graham Light and Tom Compton, and anyone else that you can think of. WE need to show them that this decision will hurt Top Alcohol Dragster racing. We need to come up with examples of how their reasoning is flawed, and give them examples of how they can correct the problem. We need to show them unity just like the A/Fuel guys did when NHRA was considering eliminating the A/Fuel cars from the Top Alcohol Dragster class. And , we need to do it NOW.

    We cannot give up. Please forward this information to as many Blown Alcohol Dragster racers you can, and ask them to take action to save the Blown Alcohol Dragster!

    Following is some contact information

    Len Imbrogno
    limbrogno@nhra.com


    Bob Devour
    bdevour@aol.com

    Jim Collins
    jcollins@nhra.com

    Graham Light
    glight@nhra.com

    Tom Compton
    tcompton@nhra.com

    Cary Menard
    cmenard@nhra.com

    Danny Gracia
    dgracia@nhra.com

    NHRA
    2035 Financial Way
    Glendora, CA 91741
    Ph# 626 914 4761
    Fax# 626 963 5360
     
    #19
  20. tjenna

    tjenna Top Alcohol

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eliminate the AFD cars.
     
    #20

Share This Page