These questions are for current or prospective All Motor / Pro Stock / Pro Street competitors. In the interest of fair play I have suggested these rule changes to the sanctioning bodies that will be involved for the 2008 and beyond seasons. Like I have said these are <U>only suggestions from one man’s opinion</U> that has had the misfortune of watching 4 different series rise and fall. I have seen that perception is reality and if a competitor feels he has no chance to compete he will stop showing up and a class dies. I have been and will always be a firm believer that standardizing the rules, basically giving everybody the same parts to play with promotes good side by side racing while not inhibiting innovation of race teams. This has been proved in the NHRA Pro Stock class where less than a tenth of a second separates #1 and the #16 qualifier at any given race. So give me your thoughts as I feel these would be good for the longevity of the class.

1. Weights – Two standard weights,
1. 1750 (158 c.i.) for all cars tube chassis or unibody w/ 2.6 liter maximum.
2. 1650 (146 c.i.) for all cars tube chassis or unibody w/ 2.4 liter maximum.

2. Fuel – We must standardize the fuels we are able to use. Some cars use race gas, some use methanol. As we all know there is a definite performance advantage to running methanol but that comes at a maintenance cost. I feel it would be better for all involve if those of us using methanol return to using race gas. Sure we would slow down BUT it would level the playing field for the racer that does not have a high dollar sponsor. It would also promote more side by side racing that would be good for the fans and television.

3. Aftermarket Transmissions – Last year the teams that I competed against all had transmission woes. It is EXTREMELY expensive to build a race transmission within a stock OEM case and even harder to get parts made when they break. My suggestion would be to allow aftermarket boxes in the class for front drive but at a smaller weight penalty graduating to no penalty in future seasons as teams are able to budget for these items. As we all know the technology we already use in the OEM cases is the same as their aftermarket counterparts so we as racers would be buying reliability to put on a better program. An example would be 50 lbs for aftermarket transmissions in 2008 and no penalty in 2009 and beyond.

All I ask is you give positive pros and cons to these thoughts and try to see BIG PICTURE and look 5 years down the health of Normally Aspirated Sport Compact Drag Racing. How neat would it be to see 16 cars of all brands all within a tenth battling it out door to door!

 

Where are you getting these rules? Nhra nor NDra have came out with rules yet!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by B18c1turboedEK &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Where are you getting these rules? Nhra nor NDra have came out with rules yet!</TD></TR></TABLE>
Its what he has proposed.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Arturbo &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Its what he has proposed. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Damm, my bad forgot glasses at home today~!

 

all though it does sound good to level the playing field, i think all motor still needs to progress a bit further. 8.90's-.70's is where i think the class should be

 

your rules are biased towards FWD
ironic you have made a 180 turn from your roots

 

Scott,

If long term class health is the goal, then shrink the motor size, and limit the tire size. Run a maximum engine size, and a minimum weight that all competitors can reach without exotic materials...

I would say something along the lines of 2.0L or 2.1L, and 1800lbs. This may cause the class leaders some heart ache now, but most of the class is better served this way. Also, by shrinking the engine size, drivetrain abuse will get cut down. Coming from a company that sells aftermarket FWD transmissions, THE PRICE SCARES PEOPLE enough that it will limit class growth in the future. I agree, that it would be a better solution to the needs of the class, but at this point, cost is nowhere near what a gearkit for the stock case is!

You're on the right path though!

 

I like methanol.

I like not worrying about breaking my transmission.


The only thing to worry about is that some competitors have already made the financial investment for max displacement of 2.6L. Thats a lot of cranks, pistons, rods to throw away.

 

Ron,

I understand that it will add to the financial hardship for some teams to shrink the motors down that much. I was looking more at the long term class health, than the short term. How many teams are running engines larger than 2.1L? Probably only the few that have run in the 9's? Those same people are the ones hurting their transmissions too. How many transmissions were hurt when people were running the small motors?

Again, I understand that it may hurt some teams, but isn't it better to have competetive full fields over the next few years... or keep going at the pace everyones going, and have the field be less than 8 competetive cars because entry costs are waaaaay to high for the people (the cars that are run with no financial partnerships - $$$) that really support the class.

Please don't think I am picking on you guys, just trying to offer my jaded views, however wrong they may be.

 

I think if anything is to see what automobile manufacturer offer right out of the box and go from there. Hmmmmm......I'm gonna wing this one. Of course, this is the displacements that come stock or have aftermarket parts available for them to make larger displacement motors (Stroker Kits on the shelf):

Honda
B- Series: 1.8-2.2L
H-Series: 2.2L-2.4L
K-series: 2.0-2.6L (I know BC has cranks on the shelf)

One thing to remember.......I think the B-series owners are transitioning to K-Series Motors slowly but surely. K-Series is like the new B-series.

Scion TC Motor: 2.4L
Toyota 3TC: 2.7L

Mazda 2.3-2.52L

Ecotec: 2.2L-2.6L


I could be wrong but here is my two cents: At least for displacement and ease of aftermarkets parts is whatever displacement MOST of these motrs come stock make that the cap for displacement or a little higher. I dunno but I'm going throw out there maybe a cap of 2.4L I dunno. I have no problem making the cap 2.6L

Please add to this if there is anything I got wrong or could be improved.

 

Like I said these are ideas only NOT rules and I value your opinions in this area.

Mr. Parks - 8.70 - 8.90 ???

Lofty goals at the current weight breaks, not saying it cant be done BUT would it be good for the class long term to have 1-2 cars break into that zone? Right now there are only a handful of cars in the nation that are even capable of running 9's let alone 8's. Currently it takes 420 h.p. to go 9.30's @ 1750 that breaks down to 2.65 h.p. per inch. To go 8.90 would take another 35 or 2.87 h.p. per inch that would be .15 more than the current NHRA pro stock cars that have multi million dollar R & D programs with factory backing.

 

Misfertech ...

Ah ha, I was waiting for this type of response. It actually allows other groups of cars that use carbs to be a little more competitive in the class. As you know it is next to impossible to run methanol through a carb set up thus negating the methanol advantage ...


Modified by Toyotakid714 at 5:26 PM 12/19/2007

 

all motor is a cut throat class. hence why everyone is so secret when it comes to making power.

is it possible to go 8.9xx? hell yes it is. how soon is the big question.

 

Wow! This is the last class that needs adjustments. I am always proud of this class when I see everyone whining and complaining about rules in other classes when someone gets a few tenths ahead. All motor guys just show up and race and don't complain when people are running 1/2 second faster.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

1: Weights: What is wrong with the way NHRA had it? It was a more sophisticated weight per displacement chart with years of racing under those rules. It worked, why change it?

2: Fuel: Methanol is no harder to run than gas. Easy to tune, easy on motors, and it costs $3.00 a gallon. We switch to race gas and the price of fuel goes up to $15-30 a gallon and would cost us a ton to switch to an optimal engine setup for gasoline. Most of the cars are on methanol, so it seems like a step backwards. This is a pro class...not a street class.

3: Trannies: I am biased on this because we can't afford the $30,000+ it would take to put one trans in the car. I know NOT having these trannies hurts those of you who went out and dropped $18K x 6 on a trans inside your stock cases. Above, you are talking about making the class cheaper and easier by switching fuels and engine displacement rules, but now we want to add $30-60,000 for aftermarket trannies? What is REALLY the goal here. I'm cool with a 50lb. penalty for an aftermarket box, and wouldn't complain about no penalty even if I disagree with it. It is a pro class afterall. We would just run stock boxes and replace gears every few passes...it is still cheaper to do that and have a 3 or 4 trans rotation than it is to buy ONE of the trannies some are using.

2.0 or 2.1 max engine displacement? Most manufacturers don't even make 4 bangers that small anymore. That is just silly. A 300hp 2.1L B series costs WAY more to build and maintain then a 300hp 2.5L K series. That is a fact.


This class is healthy and there are LOTS of up and coming cars. Lets see where it goes rather than trying to reinvent a wheel that already rolls smoothly.

 

Sounds good to me. "If it ain't broken why fix it."

I would of course like the 50lb weight penalty for aftermarket transmission.

I agree, I like methanol and it is way cheaper. C-16 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much money. I hate paying for it.

Look how many people were goin for it at this years Finals:


Honda Tuning All Motor

Order for Qualifying Round 3


POMONA, Calif. - SUMMIT FastNews - Final order after 3 rounds of qualifying in Honda Tuning Magazine All Motor at the NHRA Xplod Sport Compact Drag Racing Series, Seventh Annual NHRA Sport Compact World Finals:

Psn Driver Vehicle ET Speed

1. Jeremy Lookofsky DVS Shoe Company '06 Civic SI 9.518 142.82
2. Leslie Durst-Armenda SCION '06 tC 9.558 141.83
3. Norris Prayoonoto Clutchmasters 2006 Honda Insig 9.649 13795.00
4. Saul Salceda Clutch Masters '00 Integra 9.794 133.07
5. Scott Kelley TRD Toyo Tires Bullet '07 Coro 9.870 135.32
6. Bisi Ezerioha '06 Insight 9.923 137.46
7. Roger Crawford '8 Ghia 10.030 132.82
8. Doug Parks '07 3 10.358 126.73
--------- Not Qualified ---------
9. Ryan Warner '98Dodge 10.526 130.03
10. Chad Barber '92 Civic 10.601 123.42
11. Mike Michelson '89 CRX 10.835 128.40
12. Mike Escamilla '95 Integra 11.310 115.69
13. Rene Franco '85RX7 11.565 113.75
14. Not on File 12.232 102.82
15. Mike Thomas '92Honda 22.771 33.28
16. Julie Stepan Lucas Oil '06 Cobalt NT

 

Ron are you guys campaigning the all motor car again?

And thanks for posting that list. This class is bangin and there are many more cars coming out. You can count on one more that would comfortably slide into that field.

 

I would like to see full tube chassis rwd cars allowed in All Motor with some restrictions.

 

yup i'm still in

 

rules are pretty good the way they sit. Everyone is capable of making almost any motor a 2.6L(unless your still running a B)Although just for the sake of argument if there were a 2.4L cap on the class and a minumum weitght of 1675 regardless of tubechassis or not you would get alot more guys still running Bsereis motors (maybe maybe not) The future for us honda guys is a k(thats why i got about 4 in the garage that im slowly slowly trying to put together.) transmisson wise myself if i could afford it, it would'nt bother me one bit to take a 100lb penalty. Methonal needs to stay Ron said it best,. The class has always been close your always gonna have 1-4 guys or girls that will be faster. As far as rear wheel drives i don't think they should compete against front wheel drives (not hating on rear wheels)just that you can never find a happy medium between the too.But who knows i've been racing bikes for last 2 years and probably don't know anything. But i hope i get a chance to line up with all of you sometime in the next year.

 

It's tough to group all cars into two weight groups. The engine combinations possible can be very diverse. I see how NHRA had the weights was pretty good.

There are so many B-series builds that could be competitive in the class. In my eyes making it enticing for those to show up would be a better solution than to 'step up'.

Me personally, I would like to see the entire class as close to 9.99-10.0 as possible. To assist that, what do you think of a small weight penalty for running methanol?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4piston &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Wow! This is the last class that needs adjustments. I am always proud of this class when I see everyone whining and complaining about rules in other classes when someone gets a few tenths ahead. All motor guys just show up and race and don't complain when people are running 1/2 second faster.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


2.0 or 2.1 max engine displacement? Most manufacturers don't even make 4 bangers that small anymore. That is just silly. A 300hp 2.1L B series costs WAY more to build and maintain then a 300hp 2.5L K series. That is a fact.


This class is healthy and there are LOTS of up and coming cars. Lets see where it goes rather than trying to reinvent a wheel that already rolls smoothly. </TD></TR></TABLE>

well said

 

First off let me just say there is no whining going on here, just a guy looking to make a class that I have participated in for the last 8 years a little better for all the folks that want to compete today AND tomorrow. I have NO PROBLEM leaving them just the way they are BUT given the history of what I have seen in the past 18 years I have raced they are due for "some minor" tweaking as you will see below just in regard to weight breaks.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bserious &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It's tough to group all cars into two weight groups. The engine combinations possible can be very diverse. I see how NHRA had the weights was pretty good.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

The NHRA weight breaks were a flawed and favored the guy that build a 2.6 liter engine, hence WHY ALL the current players in the class all run 2.6 and here is the example ...

up to 2.2 liter (134.25 c.i.) - 1625 = 12.12 lbs per inch
2.21 - 2.3 liter (134 - 140.35 c.i.) - 1650 = 11.78 lbs per inch
2.31 - 2.4 liter (140 - 146.46 c.i.) - 1675 = 11.47 lbs per inch
2.41 - 2.5 liter (147 - 152.56 c.i.) - 1700 = 11.18 lbs per inch
2.51 - 2.6 liter (153 - 158.66 c.i.) - 1725 = 10.91 lbs per inch

By definition the smaller 2.2 engine has to carry 1.21 lbs more per inch than the big motor or a whopping 162 lbs of excess baggage ... what would you build to be competitive?



Modified by Toyotakid714 at 10:53 PM 12/19/2007

 

ooooh I like the math logic behind that.

 

That says alot right there... WOAH!!

 

For what its worth, I dont think that slowing the class down is the right thing to do .

Its a PRO class, its expected to be a fast class. Not to hi jack this thread by any means or start any drama but there should be a " slower" sportsman class that is in that 10- 11 sec range that would allow more people to progress to the pro level, where there isnt that now. Putting rules in place that slow the cars down enough to run 9.9- 10.0s doesnt really sound like a PRO class to me.

slowing the class down is not what a pro class should be about - thats just my $.02