What does 10,000hp cost ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman


I wasn't advocating going back to 1320 ft with the current engines. My main beef was that the races are over too quick. So I suggested going back to 1320 ft, and decreasing the engine power (smaller displacement, smaller blower, less nitro) to keep top speeds from going out of sight. I'd rather see close finishes between two cars that run all the way down the track and only go 300 MPH than one car going 340 MPH all alone. I think the only rule that effectively limited engine failures was the Oildown Rule: if your engine dumps oil on the track, you are penalized points in the season championship.

Other rules I could think of to improve the show:
1. No rebuilds between rounds. Only setting valve lash and changing spark plugs allowed.
2. Only two engines allowed per event.
3. If you change an engine during eliminations, it's an automatic time penalty at the start of the next round.

These rules would make the crew chiefs very conservative in their tunes, and vehicle performance would be limited. Limiting the number of engines and not allowing rebuilds would help the small-budget teams compete with the big-budget teams.


I know I said I wouldn't reply to this thread again. Make that I won't waste my time entertaining someone that is apparently intentionally trying to be annoying.

Not you, A_Harman.

Anyway, the good news is the racing class you desire, already exists. It is called Super Comp. They are still Dragsters, but they are tame enough to meet all of the regulations you would like to see implemented. The racing is very close, and you'll have plenty of time to watch them as they run down the track. The racing is also cheaper, so more people can compete.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: used_0il
Obviously I need to learn more about delusional disorder than top fuel racing.


Seriously, what is your problem? After my first reply in this thread, you accuse me via PM, of this:

Quote:
I figured shannow put that post up and you on my tail, just to see
my reaction.


Buddy, I don't know or care what you have going on with Shannow. I don't know him or you. I never even noticed your board name until this thread, after you PM'd me. I answered your question in this thread that there are various theories concerning spark plug gap, when it comes to Fuel Cars. As such where to set spark plug gap will vary amongst tuners, and they will not share that info as a rule of thumb.

I continue to answer your questions, without posting critical tuning info on the WorldWideWeb. Apparently, my replies don't satisfy you, and you come up with this:

Originally Posted By: used_0il

There is nothing more annoying than an armchair quarterback.


It becomes clear to me you are bored, and derive some weird pleasure from attempting to be an 'annoying armchair quarterback'.

Thankfully, I have better things to do with my time, then to let you get me too wound up.

Originally Posted By: used_0il

The 2.90 gear could be changed to 2.56
for a price.


I'll help you out here. With all of the figures you post as if they were fact in respect to TF, I would think you would know that 3.20:1 is the mandatory axle ratio. As I already said.



Good luck with thinking the world is out to get you.
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: A_Harman


I wasn't advocating going back to 1320 ft with the current engines. My main beef was that the races are over too quick. So I suggested going back to 1320 ft, and decreasing the engine power (smaller displacement, smaller blower, less nitro) to keep top speeds from going out of sight. I'd rather see close finishes between two cars that run all the way down the track and only go 300 MPH than one car going 340 MPH all alone. I think the only rule that effectively limited engine failures was the Oildown Rule: if your engine dumps oil on the track, you are penalized points in the season championship.

Other rules I could think of to improve the show:
1. No rebuilds between rounds. Only setting valve lash and changing spark plugs allowed.
2. Only two engines allowed per event.
3. If you change an engine during eliminations, it's an automatic time penalty at the start of the next round.

These rules would make the crew chiefs very conservative in their tunes, and vehicle performance would be limited. Limiting the number of engines and not allowing rebuilds would help the small-budget teams compete with the big-budget teams.


I know I said I wouldn't reply to this thread again. Make that I won't waste my time entertaining someone that is apparently intentionally trying to be annoying.

Not you, A_Harman.

Anyway, the good news is the racing class you desire, already exists. It is called Super Comp. They are still Dragsters, but they are tame enough to meet all of the regulations you would like to see implemented. The racing is very close, and you'll have plenty of time to watch them as they run down the track. The racing is also cheaper, so more people can compete.


I'm not trying to turn Top Fuel and Funny Car into bracket racing. Preserve the sight and sound spectacle of the nitro classes, but dial back the performance about 20 years' worth. Do you think the fans would lose interest if the Top Fuel cars were "only" running 5.20 @ 290 mph? That's the kind of performance level I'm thinking of. From this reset of performance, it would be newsworthy when racers break the 300 mph and 4 second barriers again.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: A_Harman


I wasn't advocating going back to 1320 ft with the current engines. My main beef was that the races are over too quick. So I suggested going back to 1320 ft, and decreasing the engine power (smaller displacement, smaller blower, less nitro) to keep top speeds from going out of sight. I'd rather see close finishes between two cars that run all the way down the track and only go 300 MPH than one car going 340 MPH all alone. I think the only rule that effectively limited engine failures was the Oildown Rule: if your engine dumps oil on the track, you are penalized points in the season championship.

Other rules I could think of to improve the show:
1. No rebuilds between rounds. Only setting valve lash and changing spark plugs allowed.
2. Only two engines allowed per event.
3. If you change an engine during eliminations, it's an automatic time penalty at the start of the next round.

These rules would make the crew chiefs very conservative in their tunes, and vehicle performance would be limited. Limiting the number of engines and not allowing rebuilds would help the small-budget teams compete with the big-budget teams.


I know I said I wouldn't reply to this thread again. Make that I won't waste my time entertaining someone that is apparently intentionally trying to be annoying.

Not you, A_Harman.

Anyway, the good news is the racing class you desire, already exists. It is called Super Comp. They are still Dragsters, but they are tame enough to meet all of the regulations you would like to see implemented. The racing is very close, and you'll have plenty of time to watch them as they run down the track. The racing is also cheaper, so more people can compete.


I'm not trying to turn Top Fuel and Funny Car into bracket racing. Preserve the sight and sound spectacle of the nitro classes, but dial back the performance about 20 years' worth. Do you think the fans would lose interest if the Top Fuel cars were "only" running 5.20 @ 290 mph? That's the kind of performance level I'm thinking of. From this reset of performance, it would be newsworthy when racers break the 300 mph and 4 second barriers again.


Well, I know that I and most of my colleagues would lose interest in campaigning a Top Fuel car, which has been watered down to 'Mediocre Fuel' status. Most of the fans I've talked to while at the races, have also stated that they feel the same way.

Even the performance of 20 years ago, required rebuilding the engine after every pass. Dialing back the performance to that of an 8.9 second pass such as in Super Comp, MIGHT be attainable without rebuilds between rounds, but it definitely WOULD eliminate the sight and sound spectacle of the Fuel cars.

I hate to see the premier class in any form of racing watered down until it is a shadow of it's former greatness. F1 and MotoGP come to mind.

The current Top Alcohol Dragsters are right there at the performance level you're seeking.


Shannow, the Rapisarda team has been over here in recent years, campaigning in TF. Great people.
 
Last edited:
I wonder though if the top fuel vehicles don't really move but turn the earth! They are impressive to watch and hear and feel.
 
When the American Top Fuelers come to Oz, and have to run the full quarter, how do they react ?

4.5 seconds and 332mph is a bit different to what's "normal" to them...same gears and tuning ?
 
Pretty much everyone that is tuning a Fuel car currently here in the US, was around when we were still allowed to run the full 1320.

The current mandatory 3.20:1 axle ratio was the TF standard for years before the NHRA 1000 ft rule was enacted.

Just as changes are made for varying track and atmospheric conditions, there would be some adjustment in the set-up for a full 1320 ft pass.
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Whoa...$200,000 for one minute of operation! I'd like 45 seconds worth to pay off my house, please.


It's like the most expensive prostitute ever
 
How about reducing CID with a 1/2 inch shorter stroke
and 1/4 inch longer connecting rods?
All other engine parts remain the same.

We get 1,320.
 
I read somewhere that they were experimenting with 410 CID engines. Doesn't seem like that would slow them down much unless they limit blower size.
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: A_Harman


I wasn't advocating going back to 1320 ft with the current engines. My main beef was that the races are over too quick. So I suggested going back to 1320 ft, and decreasing the engine power (smaller displacement, smaller blower, less nitro) to keep top speeds from going out of sight. I'd rather see close finishes between two cars that run all the way down the track and only go 300 MPH than one car going 340 MPH all alone. I think the only rule that effectively limited engine failures was the Oildown Rule: if your engine dumps oil on the track, you are penalized points in the season championship.

Other rules I could think of to improve the show:
1. No rebuilds between rounds. Only setting valve lash and changing spark plugs allowed.
2. Only two engines allowed per event.
3. If you change an engine during eliminations, it's an automatic time penalty at the start of the next round.

These rules would make the crew chiefs very conservative in their tunes, and vehicle performance would be limited. Limiting the number of engines and not allowing rebuilds would help the small-budget teams compete with the big-budget teams.


I know I said I wouldn't reply to this thread again. Make that I won't waste my time entertaining someone that is apparently intentionally trying to be annoying.

Not you, A_Harman.

Anyway, the good news is the racing class you desire, already exists. It is called Super Comp. They are still Dragsters, but they are tame enough to meet all of the regulations you would like to see implemented. The racing is very close, and you'll have plenty of time to watch them as they run down the track. The racing is also cheaper, so more people can compete.


I'm not trying to turn Top Fuel and Funny Car into bracket racing. Preserve the sight and sound spectacle of the nitro classes, but dial back the performance about 20 years' worth. Do you think the fans would lose interest if the Top Fuel cars were "only" running 5.20 @ 290 mph? That's the kind of performance level I'm thinking of. From this reset of performance, it would be newsworthy when racers break the 300 mph and 4 second barriers again.


Well, I know that I and most of my colleagues would lose interest in campaigning a Top Fuel car, which has been watered down to 'Mediocre Fuel' status. Most of the fans I've talked to while at the races, have also stated that they feel the same way.

Even the performance of 20 years ago, required rebuilding the engine after every pass. Dialing back the performance to that of an 8.9 second pass such as in Super Comp, MIGHT be attainable without rebuilds between rounds, but it definitely WOULD eliminate the sight and sound spectacle of the Fuel cars.

I hate to see the premier class in any form of racing watered down until it is a shadow of it's former greatness. F1 and MotoGP come to mind.

The current Top Alcohol Dragsters are right there at the performance level you're seeking.


Shannow, the Rapisarda team has been over here in recent years, campaigning in TF. Great people.
It's like the demise of the old Cam Am unlimited road racing.
 
Last edited:
I think the top level of any racing should be "unlimited". Why make everything the same and equal when one manufacturer/race team could go their own way.


Maybe, for instance, in MotoGP one team could run 1000cc I-4s while anothe could use a 1600cc turbo V-4.


Why the attempts to dial down the unlimited or top fuel sector when they are what keeps pushing the envelope to bigger and brighter things.


Kind of like once we put a man on Mars, wait hold up, thats too far, lets take them back to the moon. Why de-evolve?
 
I was thinking of a 430 cid limit.

The Dodges could have their 426
Chev 427 and Ford bodies 429 cid.

Of course they would all be as close
to 430 as possible with added nostalgia.

One more tooth on the top pulley and
two less on the bottom pulley would
put the blower drive in the ball-park.
 
Top fuel is Top everything. The sound, the smell, the flame. You change any of it and there will be less people watching.

Leave the rules alone.

Rod
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top