Joe, I don't see that clarifying anything. I hope theres a new rule to follow as that was a waste of ink…

Valve cover bolt holes must remain unaltered and in their original location.

Heres the link:

http://www.nhraracer.com/content/general.asp?articleid=53432&zoneid=132

Rule amendment is under "stock cyl heads"

i sent bruce a picture of a valve cover bolt hole in the intake face last thursday or friday and requested 100% clarification as to what the rule means,, they are supposed to come out with a better wording soon

How much are you allowed to mill the intake face? I have seen examples where the bottom of the valve cover threads showing, this is obviously a means of acheiving a larger cross section port whilst still meeting the CC requirements?

Quote:

---

How much are you allowed to mill the intake face?

---

thats a good question,, tech has been thinking about it for a few months now

I think the rule is as clear as it can get. It has been clear for as long as the rule has been in place. The only problem is that it wasnt enforced.
As a Stock & SuperStock cylinder head guy i think the rule needs to be taken as is and the subject needs to be dropped.NHRA has done there job on making this rule clear and now they just need to enforce it and stay within the guidlines and wording!!! Its pretty cut and dry guys.

No Disrespect to anyone but lets move on and let the chips fall where they may!

The problem with that theory is NHRA has let this stuff go for so long, not only are 75% or more of the AH racers current heads illegal, but all their old stuff also…

You want to talk about class killer…

And No, I'm not currently affected. My SS/DA hemi heads are legal to the rules and my AH stuff will be raced in bracket mode in local ECSSSA circuit races. Makes alot of VERY expensive current hemi heads worthless…except for AH circuit racers like myself

And mine. Dyno

Dan,,, you have old Barton stuff from marvel/bàughman,, going by what Eric says they are illegal,,, everybody at Indy this year was illegal going on what Eric says,,, if you see the valve cover bolt hole exposed in the int face,, it's illegal,, rule says int face may not be cut into any part of screw hole,,, any part,, tech says that means at the v cover sealing surface,, but if you listen to Eric and go as written,, it's any part,, so if that is enforced,, I'd say one person will have the advantage


We need this clarified

Happy thanksgiving to all

Jeff

If you take Jeff's reply and change "Erik" to "NHRA" That's pretty much how a rule is supposed to be taken. Not everyone at indy was illegal because none of my stuff has the bolt hole exposed what so ever because i take the rules as "written" and let the Tech officials figure it out.If anyone thinks the 2 cc's you gain from the two different interpretations of the rule is going to be the difference between 8.90 and 8.30 they are sadly mistaken! Im all in favor of NHRA adding "At the valve cover sealing surface" to the rule book, that way people can take the rule as written!!!!!!!

It seems to me that the amendment is towards "stock" class heads. If it were for super stock, wouldn't it have been under "super stock cylinder heads"? The short block amendments are separated between the two.

DefBob, at the begining of the super stock rules:

Requirements and specifications for all Super Stock categories are the same as those for Stock Cars - Section 10A - with the following exceptions:


Unless it is written othrwise, the stock rule applies.

And my point in all of this is that if NHRA does something about all the fighting within the class according to the way the rule book is currently written, There will be alot of very expensive junk hemi heads.

There needs to be an ammicable solution and the majority of hemi heads deemed legal. If the valve cover gasket fits and minimal thread cutting involved, there needs to be a cc penalty or spacer made.

As Erik has stated, a few cc's will not kill the performance of these cars that much. And if you think it will, do a new set of heads sans penalty cc's...

if you think there are 2 cc's difference in the intrepretation of the rule,, you,,,,, are sadly mistaken

when the rule book says one thing,, then you talk to tech and they say this is how we meant it,, then you talk to different divisions and they say this,,, when others say that,, you now have 3 versions of the same rule depending on who you ask in nhra,,, or racers

we just need this clarified,, which should happen in the next few weeks

jeff

what i want to know i how this crap ever gets started??..seems people with the $$ just throw this [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] out there and see if it sticks...id say the rule couldnt be any clearer...and if everyones stuff turns illegal so be it...they really knew it wasnt to start with if they can read...eric seems the only sane one here

So going by the rule, as it is written, IF I machine the intake surface around the valve cover bolt and the valve cover bolt threads are untouched, but the intake surface itself has been completely machined away and a new intake surface rigged up to work behind the valve cover bolts, with the intake machined to match this new head intake surface, is this legal? Not in the spirit of the rule, I know, but I do not see where it states the intake has to be completely flat along the surface. Or did I miss this? By the letter of the rule, this would seem to be legal unless it states the head surface has to be completely flat the entire length of the head-intake surface.
Not trying to point fingers at anyone, but it looks like that is what was done on the picture of the Camo head (I am probably wrong). A friend that builds SB Chevys does this and has never been busted.
Seems like it would make some GM & Ford heads illegal too.

How about posting a picture of the camo head you are referring to ?

The picture is on page 8 near the end. The one posted earlier by Charlie. See the green part of the gasket on the intake with the small square opening. It appears to b just there to clear the VC bolt that was left intact. Pet rules, I agree it would b legal.