|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: mopardamo]
#819814
10/06/10 02:43 AM
10/06/10 02:43 AM
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,446
NJ-USA
HPMike
master
|
master
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,446
NJ-USA
|
The cubic inch limit won't work, IMO. Cars, like anything that came with a 426 Hemi, would totally dominate the class. You really can't expect anything with a wedge engine to be remotely competitive at that point. Perhaps a big chevy with aluminum heads(and block) in a Corvette or Camaro might get close, but that's probably it.
At this most recent event we tossed around a few ideas. A few things I mentioned were making the cars run at the minumum factory published shipping weight, but NO less. They can be heavier and they can move the weight around(within the rules outlined in FAST), but no super lightweight stuff. One other possibility is a spec fuel for the class.
Like previously stated, the racers themselves aren't complaining about any inequities(at least not publicly, snyway), so perhaps it's best to just leave things as they are. The only potential downside to all of this is that unfortunately there will be some that choose to not participate because the cars have gotten too fast and too exotic. If they are competitive and want to actually run with the big dogs, it is going to take a pretty substantial investment of time and money to get there with what is out there. I have already heard from a few people that were contemplating running in the class now not wishing to participate due to the top being pretty far out of reach. And that is pretty sad, as they are missing out on a whole lot of good competition. I, for one, love heads up sytle of racing.
It's no different than any other type of "unlimited" heads up style of racing. If someone wants to really pull out all the stops, he is going to find himself at the top of the pack. I am sure the subject will be approached in the offseason. I guess we'll see how it plays out.
MB
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: Monte_Smith]
#819815
10/06/10 03:46 AM
10/06/10 03:46 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,825
Sk. Canada
RemCharger
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,825
Sk. Canada
|
Quote:
Jeez...what is the deal about the front suspension. Its all stock, except for something that helps the seriously bad bumpsteer issue, like the pic shown in this thread. So what if it has more travel than stock. You think some of the other cars don't have trimmed stops, or whatever it takes to make more travel.
Anybody here ever owned a Mustang, Falcon, Maverick, or any Ford with those shock towers. What about a Chevy II. If you have, you know the front suspension is junk, even if new and needs help, to be stable at much of any speed, much less 140. The steering box, drag-link, tie rod setup on a Mopar is much better and does not have serious bumpsteer issues, even at full droop. If you are complaining about correcting something that could be dangerous, you are really reaching for an excuse
As far as the rear carb bowl supply line, that is just fine. No internal mods or anything else needed. Exactly how much fuel you guys think it needs.
Monte
A gallon in 9 seconds? Or, for the rear bowl, 1/2 gallon? 
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: rook440]
#819817
10/06/10 08:48 AM
10/06/10 08:48 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,048
Atlanta Indiana
Dave Watt
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,048
Atlanta Indiana
|
Quote:
9.80s 140 mph ..those cars are awesome ....but how safe/unsafe are they???
If it had a highway gear, these cars were all capable of 140mph 40 years ago when they were new. They are just getting there quicker now. 
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: HPMike]
#819819
10/06/10 10:14 AM
10/06/10 10:14 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,082
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,082
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
The only potential downside to all of this is that unfortunately there will be some that choose to not participate because the cars have gotten too fast and too exotic. If they are competitive and want to actually run with the big dogs, it is going to take a pretty substantial investment of time and money to get there with what is out there. I have already heard from a few people that were contemplating running in the class now not wishing to participate due to the top being pretty far out of reach. And that is pretty sad, as they are missing out on a whole lot of good competition. I, for one, love heads up sytle of racing.
MB
This doesn't surprise me in the least.
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: Monte_Smith]
#819821
10/06/10 12:03 PM
10/06/10 12:03 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 568
Ky
moparmafia
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 568
Ky
|
Quote:
Jeez...what is the deal about the front suspension. Its all stock, except for something that helps the seriously bad bumpsteer issue, like the pic shown in this thread. So what if it has more travel than stock. You think some of the other cars don't have trimmed stops, or whatever it takes to make more travel.
Anybody here ever owned a Mustang, Falcon, Maverick, or any Ford with those shock towers. What about a Chevy II. If you have, you know the front suspension is junk, even if new and needs help, to be stable at much of any speed, much less 140. The steering box, drag-link, tie rod setup on a Mopar is much better and does not have serious bumpsteer issues, even at full droop. If you are complaining about correcting something that could be dangerous, you are really reaching for an excuse
As far as the rear carb bowl supply line, that is just fine. No internal mods or anything else needed. Exactly how much fuel you guys think it needs.
Monte
the deal on the front suspension is it is supposed to look stock. what part of fast do you not understand? fast-factory appearing stock tires. why is it every single time something comes up about mopars vs another brand u always seem to bash the mopars? on a mopar site we should be able to discuss issues like this. after all i think because mopars have been cheated over the years it just makes people mad to this day if the mopars have a disadvantage due to rules.
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: moparmafia]
#819823
10/06/10 12:45 PM
10/06/10 12:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,608
Indiana
EV2DEMON
The Camaro Kid
|
The Camaro Kid
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,608
Indiana
|
Quote:
the deal on the front suspension is it is supposed to look stock. what part of fast do you not understand? fast-factory appearing stock tires. why is it every single time something comes up about mopars vs another brand u always seem to bash the mopars? on a mopar site we should be able to discuss issues like this. after all i think because mopars have been cheated over the years it just makes people mad to this day if the mopars have a disadvantage due to rules.
Dave Dudek is ont of the founding members of FAST and plays a big part in the rules making of the series. If he doesn't have a problem with the Mustang, I doubt he feels that his car is at a disadvantage.
I can't believe how many people here who don't even race the series feel the need to play arm chair QB and whine about rules, when those int he series don't even seem to have a problem with them.
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: moparmafia]
#819824
10/06/10 12:50 PM
10/06/10 12:50 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,890
North Alabama
Monte_Smith
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,890
North Alabama
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jeez...what is the deal about the front suspension. Its all stock, except for something that helps the seriously bad bumpsteer issue, like the pic shown in this thread. So what if it has more travel than stock. You think some of the other cars don't have trimmed stops, or whatever it takes to make more travel.
Anybody here ever owned a Mustang, Falcon, Maverick, or any Ford with those shock towers. What about a Chevy II. If you have, you know the front suspension is junk, even if new and needs help, to be stable at much of any speed, much less 140. The steering box, drag-link, tie rod setup on a Mopar is much better and does not have serious bumpsteer issues, even at full droop. If you are complaining about correcting something that could be dangerous, you are really reaching for an excuse
As far as the rear carb bowl supply line, that is just fine. No internal mods or anything else needed. Exactly how much fuel you guys think it needs.
Monte
the deal on the front suspension is it is supposed to look stock. what part of fast do you not understand? fast-factory appearing stock tires. why is it every single time something comes up about mopars vs another brand u always seem to bash the mopars? on a mopar site we should be able to discuss issues like this. after all i think because mopars have been cheated over the years it just makes people mad to this day if the mopars have a disadvantage due to rules.
You can discuss any issue you want. And, Yes, I totally understand what FAST means. You, on the other hand, need to check your facts, I NEVER bash a Mopar. I have carried the Mopar banner for years, in racing orgs that were dominated by Chevy and Ford. I only bash people who are so short sighted and close minded that they give ZERO respect to anything that is NOT a Mopar. And this is a prime example. A FORD won an event and instead of giving him props, all the "purists" and sheep, want to give him sh%&, because his front end has something that does not look stone stock. I have not seen anything mentioned about a few of the cars, Mopars included, having lightweight Wilwood race brakes. Do those "LOOK" stock. Give me a freaking break.
Mopars, "cheated" in the past. And there we have it. Somebody still pissed and can't get over something that happened in Pro-Stock and NASCAR in the 60s & 70s.
You don't like what I say, thats fine. We are all entitled to express our opinions, but you don't have the right to tell me that I "BASH" Mopars. Just because I don't think EVERY, car they ever made, and EVERY, part they ever made is the best in the world, makes me no less of a Mopar fan, than you. I like "cars" and am open minded enough to realize the other brands also have much to offer.
Monte
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: Monte_Smith]
#819825
10/06/10 12:51 PM
10/06/10 12:51 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
Monte I am not making excuses, it has nothing to do with the make or whether Mopar is on top. I love all things mechanical. One of my favorite cars to watch in the old NMCA Top Stock was Barry Poole's Cobra Jet Stang. I just hope the management in FAST takes a hard look at the ruling, and it helps in future decisions regarding the class. I am not trying to take anything away from Lane's efforts or accomplishments. Although I do believe his car could look stock and be safe too. Again these are just my thoughts and opinion, I am sure everyone will not agree. 
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: RemCharger]
#819826
10/06/10 12:54 PM
10/06/10 12:54 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,890
North Alabama
Monte_Smith
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,890
North Alabama
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jeez...what is the deal about the front suspension. Its all stock, except for something that helps the seriously bad bumpsteer issue, like the pic shown in this thread. So what if it has more travel than stock. You think some of the other cars don't have trimmed stops, or whatever it takes to make more travel.
Anybody here ever owned a Mustang, Falcon, Maverick, or any Ford with those shock towers. What about a Chevy II. If you have, you know the front suspension is junk, even if new and needs help, to be stable at much of any speed, much less 140. The steering box, drag-link, tie rod setup on a Mopar is much better and does not have serious bumpsteer issues, even at full droop. If you are complaining about correcting something that could be dangerous, you are really reaching for an excuse
As far as the rear carb bowl supply line, that is just fine. No internal mods or anything else needed. Exactly how much fuel you guys think it needs.
Monte
A gallon in 9 seconds? Or, for the rear bowl, 1/2 gallon?
From the time he drives it to the line, makes a pass and drives it back, it MIGHT use a gallon, but I doubt it. Our drag radial car makes about 1800hp on 3 stages of nitrous and actually uses about 1.5 QUARTS of fuel on a pass.
Monte
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: CrAzYMoPaRGuY]
#819827
10/06/10 01:00 PM
10/06/10 01:00 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,890
North Alabama
Monte_Smith
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,890
North Alabama
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you are complaining about correcting something that could be dangerous, you are really reaching for an excuse
Monte
So I guess that's going to at some point be the stock tires too, wouldn't you think?
Which is why the actual words of the racing body are confusing.
I originally thought "Factory Appearing Stock Tire" meant EXACTLY that. Which it doesn't.
And it sure isn't JUST Lane's front suspension that doesn't appear showroom stock in the F.A.S.T. cars. You have to put blinders on to miss the rollbars, but there are other "deviances" too which make following the acronym's meaning a waste of time.
F.A.S.T. is what it is, it's up to the techs to regulate the rules they are given, and when it's the description that is dwelled upon, well IMO that's just wasting one's time.
They aren't showroom stock appearing any more, but they are STILL fun to watch and follow...
It's got a roll bar, it runs 9s, it should have a full cage and a window net. It has a fuel cell, it should, it runs 9s. And the tires are a concern. I don't know the specs on them, but are they speed rated for 140  . These cars are light years ahead of where anyone thought they would be, so some concessions must be made, in regards to safety and other things. But regardless, they are still major cool
Monte
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: dannysbee]
#819830
10/06/10 01:45 PM
10/06/10 01:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,082
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,082
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
I am not trying to take anything away from Lane's efforts or accomplishments. Although I do believe his car could look stock and be safe too.
I bet if Lane had thought about it for a second and spray painted those parts BLACK hardly anyone would have noticed.
|
|
|
Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer
[Re: JohnRR]
#819833
10/06/10 01:58 PM
10/06/10 01:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,670
Lima, Peru
domingo
EL Master
|
EL Master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,670
Lima, Peru
|
If they make em change the tires then the class would loose all its allure.
I can live with the roll bars, a fuel cell and atermarket brakes...heck even with a full cage....they would still be the same cars and equally impressive. Its just a matter of safety.
Id rather see them getting faster and faster with some extra safety equipment rather than limitng to a certain gas octane, or limiting displacement, or anything like that which would slow them down...
But if they loose the tires, then it would be OVER.
Id rather see them limit something else to be able to keep using the stock tires, rather than changing the tires. Then again, Id hate to see them slow down.
|
|
|
|
|
