2007 rules Power to weight

[MikeP-99Z]

I'm fine with the motor rule the way it is.

 

I run a stock motor with better springs/push rods/timing chain/oil pump/and ARP rod bolts.

[Raybob9289]

The Keith Kraft motor broke the crank in a big way a long time ago, the motor listed is the motor I ran for the last half of 03, from Lowes on.

 

The motor that was sold with the car I ran for all of 2002 and the first half of 2003. It was an AS short block with a steel crank after the cast one broke the first race of 2002, it did not hurt anything else. The heads were Edelbrock performer with stud mount rockers that had been milled to raise the compression. This motor made 317hp and 320ftbs.

 

When I say an engine costs between 15k and 20k it is a complete engine including the clutch, pulleys, water pump…just go through a Summit catalog and start adding up the prices, you will hit 10k just in parts.

 

Guy

 

I think thats why we (my Family) has always been GM people.

We are just simple Carpenters and don't have the cash flow to run with Ford guys.

I think you can buy an LS7 new crate motor for 12K and it looks like it would do the job right out of the box.

Thats why there won't ever be a GM F-body on the podium at the National championships. At least not untill a GM guy is willing to spend alot more money, or until John Heinrency decides to come over to NASA.

I officially have 20K in my 96 Camaro and if I spend 15K on a new motor

My wife will have me livin in a van down by the river.

I gotta figure out what you Mustang guys do for a livin cuz I ain't makin it in the house building Bussiness.....

 

Leave the Rules alone.

[Pat L.]

LOL @ "Livin' in a van down by the river"...

 

I vote for leaving the rule the way it is. Unless there are enough people to support running a whole new AI class with a lower weight:power (similar to what CMC has recently done).

[Rustic]

I'd leave the rule alone... at least for a couple more years.

 

It does seemt that GM power is cheaper and more reliable... but I'm not sure if I've seen a representative sample. I spent around 6K on my motor (LT1 with a stroker crank, 383ci)... and it puts about 400hp to the wheels. I could have done it cheaper but overbuilt it for reliability.

 

Places like Golden http://www.golenengineservice.com/html/lt1_lt4.html

sell similar mills for similar prices.

[D Algozine]

I think we are off topic. The point of this proposal is not to make engine building cheaper, or to change the power to rate ratio. The point of the proposal is to make it easier and more cost effective for cars to be legal and competitve. And also, make it easier to be legal if engine repairs or mods are needed during the season.

Some guys have had great success with simple engine builds that closely meet the 9:1 and 9.5:1 ratio without much tuning. However, the majority of cars have either spent many hours tuning or just are not near thier peak perfomance level, meaning one ratio is at the limit and the other is far off. So, by averaging the two, you allow for this situation.

I have seen cars Dq'd for being 2hp over, but were 25 ft lbs under. I know, build or tune a better engine. Simple and cheap for some, but not for many.

Again, this appears to be a minor adjustment which would benifit many. However, if there are some exotic drivetrain combinations that will allow a huge loop hole, then they either need to be addressed in the rule modification or, if it becomes to complicated then leave it alone. A simple addition to averaging the two limits is to create an exteme limit or limit on the difference between the two.

[white_2kgt]

Again, this appears to be a minor adjustment which would benifit many. However, if there are some exotic drivetrain combinations that will allow a huge loop hole, then they either need to be addressed in the rule modification or, if it becomes to complicated then leave it alone. A simple addition to averaging the two limits is to create an exteme limit or limit on the difference between the two.

 

That has already been pointed out, someone builds a low RPM high TQ engine or a low TQ high RPM engine, both can be done with big enough $$$ and destroy everyone that has 'normal' engines. While the spirit of the averaged TQ/HP numbers is a GREAT idea, in implementation it can cause nightmares that are unforseen. The current rule prevents this and therefore, as much as I would rather average the 2 numbers for ease, I think it is best to leave it along in terms of cost.

[b_tone]

I think we are off topic. The point of this proposal is not to make engine building cheaper, or to change the power to rate ratio. The point of the proposal is to make it easier and more cost effective for cars to be legal and competitve. And also, make it easier to be legal if engine repairs or mods are needed during the season.

Some guys have had great success with simple engine builds that closely meet the 9:1 and 9.5:1 ratio without much tuning. However, the majority of cars have either spent many hours tuning or just are not near thier peak perfomance level, meaning one ratio is at the limit and the other is far off. So, by averaging the two, you allow for this situation.

I have seen cars Dq'd for being 2hp over, but were 25 ft lbs under. I know, build or tune a better engine. Simple and cheap for some, but not for many.

Again, this appears to be a minor adjustment which would benifit many. However, if there are some exotic drivetrain combinations that will allow a huge loop hole, then they either need to be addressed in the rule modification or, if it becomes to complicated then leave it alone. A simple addition to averaging the two limits is to create an exteme limit or limit on the difference between the two.

 

What's next, create a rule that all cars with a full Griggs/MM suspension system have to run 7.5" wide wheels to allow the cars that can't afford the 8k it could cost to upgrade to be competitive? Afte that how about we penalize the guys that always seem to be up at the front for simply being fast?

 

If you are looking for parity for all the cars it simply won't happen unless one would like to run CMC. AI has always been more open, more expensive and more allowing of innovation.

 

Why should that be taken away simply because people either choose not to spend or cannot afford the additional money to run up front.

[D Algozine]

I think we are off topic. The point of this proposal is not to make engine building cheaper, or to change the power to rate ratio. The point of the proposal is to make it easier and more cost effective for cars to be legal and competitve. And also, make it easier to be legal if engine repairs or mods are needed during the season.

Some guys have had great success with simple engine builds that closely meet the 9:1 and 9.5:1 ratio without much tuning. However, the majority of cars have either spent many hours tuning or just are not near thier peak perfomance level, meaning one ratio is at the limit and the other is far off. So, by averaging the two, you allow for this situation.

I have seen cars Dq'd for being 2hp over, but were 25 ft lbs under. I know, build or tune a better engine. Simple and cheap for some, but not for many.

Again, this appears to be a minor adjustment which would benifit many. However, if there are some exotic drivetrain combinations that will allow a huge loop hole, then they either need to be addressed in the rule modification or, if it becomes to complicated then leave it alone. A simple addition to averaging the two limits is to create an exteme limit or limit on the difference between the two.

 

What's next, create a rule that all cars with a full Griggs/MM suspension system have to run 7.5" wide wheels to allow the cars that can't afford the 8k it could cost to upgrade to be competitive? Afte that how about we penalize the guys that always seem to be up at the front for simply being fast?

 

If you are looking for parity for all the cars it simply won't happen unless one would like to run CMC. AI has always been more open, more expensive and more allowing of innovation.

 

Why should that be taken away simply because people either choose not to spend or cannot afford the additional money to run up front.

 

 

I don't follow your logic at all. This is not about parity, and people can and will spend away until their wallets ache. And this will have no effect on the top running guys, or anyone whose engines are built to the limit of both rules. If written properley, this gives no one an advantage, if anything it allows cars at a disadvantage to be legal. If written properly this will help bring new drivers into the group and will help existing drivers who either don't have the money, time or interest in building an engine to the limits of both HP and TQ, but still want to be fairly competive. It will however allow them to join in the racing, with either their current engine package or one that they pieced together, because they really want to run in AI, and aren't necessarily obsessed with winning. This isn't about limiting the top drivers, although it can elminate some DQ's for minor overage, which if I'm not mistaken Brian, you are advocating. Everyone knows that dyno's can be inconsistant. I've seen several DQ's over a couple points. By averaging the numbers you are less likely to have people DQ'd over a few points. And everyone knows a couple points over is not going to win races, but it will get you DQ'd.

 

By averaging HP and TQ and then setting limits of the difference between them, I think it makes sense to look at. Hell it's not my idea, but I think it's worth investigating, especially if it can help bring in more racers. Again, not everyone has the win or go home mantality. Most guys love racing hard and having fun. It doesn't mean they don't want to win it just means that racing has a limit for them. I'm still waiting for my price money.

 

edit for clarity

[gr42ai]

Dave, thank you for explaining the intent of this rule better then I could.

 

Guy

[Rustic]

I've seen several DQ's over a couple points. By averaging the numbers you are less likely to have people DQ'd over a few points. And everyone knows a couple points over is not going to win races, but it will get you DQ'd.

 

I wouldn't be so sure that this would be the case. As long as you have a "target number"... wether it's a single number or an average of 2 numbers... you will still have those guys that will build their motors to the limit of the rules. These people will still run the risk of being a few Hp or ft/lbs over... even if you average the 2.

 

Could we gather the data on the guys that were DQ'd and do the math just to see what history tells us.

[RichardC]

I'll go first with the examples because I'm guilty of a small HP overage and by the way I think this averaging suggestion deserves further investigation.

 

Last year at Putnam I was dyno'd and found to be 4hp over and was DQ'd. I had no issue with that at all. However I was also 28lbft under my allowable limit. At a track like Putnam I would consider the lack of torque to be a big disadvantage.

 

That is the motor combination I have and chose to continue with it this year and add ballast for the 4hp. The alternative is to spend more money on another cam and dyno tuning.

 

Richard.

[Grizlbits]

Bob Denton can tell you that this rule would have given him the Midwest championship in 2005, not that Brian Groth didn't deserve it. Instead the current rule gave him a non-droppable DQ and cost him the championship. I believe he was 3 lt/lbs over on torque but under on H.P. Bob probably remembers the numbers better than I.

 

Oddly enough, Bob is in this thread against this rule. Hmmm.

[b_tone]

Dave, I'll explain myself better now that I understand yours (and Guy's apparently).

 

And this will have no effect on the top running guys, or anyone whose engines are built to the limit of both rules. If written properley, this gives no one an advantage, if anything it allows cars at a disadvantage to be legal.

 

Those cars are already legal, they are simply not optimized. This rule has nothing to do with legality rather it has to do with bringing up the performance of the cars that are not optimized.

 

If written properly this will help bring new drivers into the group and will help existing drivers who either don't have the money, time or interest in building an engine to the limits of both HP and TQ, but still want to be fairly competive.

 

The same reasoning could be used for giving those with a full griggs/mm setup, as I stated, narrower wheels. They both "help" to level the playing field for those that don't/won't use additional resources to optimize their particular car (by upgrading to a 3L, TA/PB etc.).

 

It will however allow them to join in the racing, with either their current engine package or one that they pieced together, because they really want to run in AI, and aren't necessarily obsessed with winning.

 

This is already happening with the current rule set. No one is forced to run a front running car or an optimized car. Hell, I'll be running a car that will be well under the hp:tq limits next year because I simply want to run, that being said I should not be allowed to run at a lower weight because I can only make 1 of the numbers.

 

This isn't about limiting the top drivers, although it can elminate some DQ's for minor overage, which if I'm not mistaken Brian, you are advocating. Everyone knows that dyno's can be inconsistant. I've seen several DQ's over a couple points. By averaging the numbers you are less likely to have people DQ'd over a few points. And everyone knows a couple points over is not going to win races, but it will get you DQ'd.

 

I agree dyno's are variable to a point, but as plenty have suggested I'll just run the car heavy and try to avoid being DQ'd. (again )

 

By averaging HP and TQ and then setting limits of the difference between them, I think it makes sense to look at. Hell it's not my idea, but I think it's worth investigating, especially if it can help bring in more racers.

 

I don't understand how it can help bring in more racers.

 

Again, not everyone has the win or go home mantality. Most guys love racing hard and having fun. It doesn't mean they don't want to win it just means that racing has a limit for them.

 

That is true at every level but I don't see how this rule would not penalize the front running cars.

 

Here is my example that this rule is more about parity than anything else in comparison to the existing rule:

 

The car that makes 321hp and 341ft.lb has the following weight limits 3049.5 and 3069 respectively. (this being the case the car has to weigh in at something over 3070lbs.)

 

Under the current rules the car that makes 321hp and 300ft.lbs has to weigh in at 3049.5lbs. (based on the HP number being higher)

 

Under the average&9.25:1 example the car that makes 321/341 has to weigh 3062lbs.

 

The car that makes 321/300 (like K. Bortons example) can weigh as low as 2872lbs.

 

This proposal is simply one that will benefit the cars that don't hit the numbers. To me that penalized the folks like Jeff F. that have spent the time and resources to hit the targets based on the rules as they have been written for the past 3 years.

 

Let's call it what it is, an evening of the playing field for those that don't have optimized powerplants.

 

This is why I used the example of the wheel width for the fully prepared TA/PB/5L/3L cars.

 

I'll follow whatever rule is written but don't penalize the guys that have worked very hard to build their cars to the rule while others have not.

 

Respectfully,

 

bpt

Edited October 11, 2006 by Guest

[D Algozine]

There will always be guys who push the limit of the numbers, no matter what system. This is not about them. Re-read my post. However, it can smooth out inconsistencies in dyno pulls, and possibly minimize DQ's for being a few points over.

 

It may sound like I'm 100% in favor. I'm not, but I think it's worth exploring. Against my better judgement, I'll run some numbers (tech guys feel free to jump in at anytime)

 

Curretly

3200 lb Max- HP 336.85 TQ 355.56

 

Combined ratio 4.63:1 with a max difference of 18.71

 

Crack at new rule: Ratio 4.63:1 combined HP and TQ with a maximum difference between the two of 35 points.

 

Have at it.

[SD007]

Well, as a guy that has been in the build process for just over a year or so I would have to say that I am not suppportive of changing the horsepower/torque rules at all.

 

I did my homework and researched combination that I thought *HOPE* would get me close to both the horespower and torque numbers. Had I known that this idea of creating an average of the two numbers were an option I would have built a different motor rather than the small stroker motor much like Jeff F describes.

 

To summarize: I vote against changing of the rule in any way.

 

SD

[King Matt]

I think Tone hit the nail on the head with the above examples. While I can understand the appeal of making it easier to hit the target numbers, this really sounds like an attempt by people who want to build big-bore, short stroke, high-compression, 8,000-plus-rpm engines to be able to run at significantly lower weight than the current rules allow.

[D Algozine]

Well, as a guy that has been in the build process for just over a year or so I would have to say that I am not suppportive of changing the horsepower/torque rules at all.

 

I did my homework and researched combination that I thought *HOPE* would get me close to both the horespower and torque numbers. Had I known that this idea of creating an average of the two numbers were an option I would have built a different motor rather than the small stroker motor much like Jeff F describes.

 

To summarize: I vote against changing of the rule in any way.

 

SD

 

I know I should sit tight and let the number guys tear into this, but I have a few comments about your statements.

Firstly, what are you going to do if your calculations are off and either your HP or TQ are over, but the other is not?

 

Also, why would you change your set up? Even if this average system was used, I still think that's an execellent set up.

 

Brian, based on your calculations, you may have found the chink in the armor. Anyone..Anyone....

[D Algozine]

Unless someone has something else to add, this appears to be one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but doesn't hold up in the real world.

Get the custom cam guy on the phone and then call and schedule some dyno time.

[gr42ai]

Tone, did you ever find out what the engine combinations were at the nationals.

 

My intent on this rule to make more engines competitive, you have to remember that the best combination is a injected 327 Ford, and Ford hasn’t had that motor, 5.0, in production for 10 years.

 

This rule would make the 4 valve and maybe even the three valve competitive with minimum modification, and would also help the Chevy guys since they are over torque and under horsepower

 

Guy

[SD007]

I know I should sit tight and let the number guys tear into this, but I have a few comments about your statements.

Firstly, what are you going to do if your calculations are off and either your HP or TQ are over, but the other is not?

 

Also, why would you change your set up? Even if this average system was used, I still think that's an execellent set up.

 

Brian, based on your calculations, you may have found the chink in the armor. Anyone..Anyone....

 

Well I used the simulation program Virtual 4-stroke to design my engine, including CI's, CR, Bore, Stroke, Cam, intake, cylinder head and exhaust headers and I have run enough combinations that I feel pretty good about being over my number on both sides, after that it's a matter of running a restrictor to hit my actuals.

 

Based on my research the restrictor will bring both numbers down (or up) and not one or the other.

 

As Mr. King stated, if you want lots of HP and not much torque it's easy to accomplish. Have you ever seen some of the numbers produced by the vintage mustang/shelby guys with their 289's? I can assure you that it's possible to build a motor that rev's to 7k, makes less than 300ft.lb but over 390 hp......

[nape]

That has already been pointed out, someone builds a low RPM high TQ engine or a low TQ high RPM engine, both can be done with big enough $$$ and destroy everyone that has 'normal' engines. While the spirit of the averaged TQ/HP numbers is a GREAT idea, in implementation it can cause nightmares that are unforseen. The current rule prevents this and therefore, as much as I would rather average the 2 numbers for ease, I think it is best to leave it along in terms of cost.

 

It isn't even a factor of money, necessarily. I can build a motor that makes 275HP/400TQ at the rear wheels for the same as an optimized motor. It's just a matter of a different cam and intake. High HP, low torque is a little harder, but with Nextel Cup rotating assemblies on ebay for less then $1000, it wouldn't be too hard to build one.

 

If written properly this will help bring new drivers into the group...

 

If new driver's want to join the group, they'll build towards the current rule set (myself included) or run whatca brung. Maybe it's oversimplified, but how many new guys come out with equipment spot on and run up front right off the bat? Pretty sure I won't be...

 

...will help existing drivers who either don't have the money, time or interest in building an engine to the limits of both HP and TQ, but still want to be fairly competive.

 

I think there are plenty of guys running in the Midwest who are fairly competitive on non-optimal motors. While a perfect motor helps, let's not kid ourselves on the fact that the driver is still the #1 component of the equation. If you don't have the time or interest to build an engine, then spent it on seat time and beat someone on skill instead. If you don't have the money to build a Ford motor, come race a GM product in the land of $2000-4000 motors instead of 2x-5x that.

 

b_tone: Thanks for hitting the nail on the head.

[roadracerwhite]

I vote no change.

 

I don't see how this could bring in new people. If they really wanted to race in the first place, they would build their car to the rules.

 

 

Bryan

#18 Firebird

[JWL]

Guys-

 

While this discussion is an interesting one to consider, I have to let you know that I am not in favor of changing our approach on power-to-weight at all. The uncertainty is far too great and you can see from this discussion that there is no clean or realistic way to implement a change without someone getting a serious helping of the shaft. I also am loathe to being screwing with something that has worked pretty well for five years now in the interest of perhaps achieving a theoretical "maybe".

 

So, I'm going to lock this one down and we'll consider the matter submitted for consideration by the directors but unlikely to pass without some serious math, testing, and proof that this is a good thing for the series.

 

Thanks for the thoughts and we'll get the rules out in the next few weeks.

 

-JWL