10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer

Quote:

Quote:

I believe they might fall under safety items so therefore do not need to appear stock.

Ok, to that end, if it's done to increase safety and it's ok to deviate from a stock appearing suspension in doing so. That being the case why wouldn't an Altercation style suspension be allowed for the Mopars? Where does it end?

From a spectators point of view the closer to original the cars appear the more impressive thier accomplishments.

When I start seeing fuel cells, trick suspension parts, etc. the cars start to loose a bit of thier alure, sort of like when you see a really cool magic trick and then the magician shows you how it was done, takes some of the fun out of it for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pick on Lane either just because he's driving a Ford, I meant what I said, a HUGE congratulations to him for what he's done, and as you said, he passed tech so nothing was done wrong on his part. I'm a huge FAST fan and supporter, I just don't like some of the things I'm seeing lately in terms of what's being allowed.

An early Mustang, has some of the worst front suspension geometry on the planet, and you want to nit pick, because he has some bumpsteer correction stuff. As far as the cell, they should be required to have a cell at these ETs. 9s also require a full cage, window net, license and I bet those stock bias tires are not rated for that speed. Could be that the tires on the Stang are speed rated and Dave's are not. Have no idea what's on the cars. Either way, with the speed these cars are running, "stock appearing" is going to take a back seat to "ET legal" from here on out, and rightfully so. And to me, just because it has a cage and a fuel cell, makes it no less impressive. These cars are flying

Monte

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 04:34 PM

I beleive they are useing a 460 block for the massive cube motors. They have really tall decks like mopars and big bore capability like nothing else. No cam interfearance like a chevy motor either. There really is no replacement for displacement especially in this kind of class, you can cover up a big cam so it still sounds kinda stock and a big cam is one of the best ways to increase airflow through a restricted engine. We all know the mopar is not really capable of that many cubes but it does naturally have better airflow. Mabey Dave could look into useing a 440 block to get a bigger bore, I would think with some special work it could be made to work and the way I read the rules it would be legal, still not able to get as many cubes as the ford but closer.

As for haveing too much power I seem to recall Dave once said he pretty much floors it right off the line and it is not blowing the tires off anywhere so I would think it could handle more power at the tires. Mabey he will chime in and let us know some of his thoughts, wish I could to afford to run that class, of course if I built a car I would have to trailer it 1000miles to compete, hint hint

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 04:58 PM

Quote:

Mabey Dave could look into useing a 440 block to get a bigger bore,

It would be easy to see the main cross bolts missing from the outside. So I would think that would lose the "factoring appearing" rule.

Are the pre-world, siamesed blocks different in looks, externally speaking?

edit: Nope, just read the rules and it expressly prohibits that block. Odd that it calls that one out specifically.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 05:04 PM

Here is my

You can take it and a buck and buy a cup of coffee. I don't care what brand name is on the cars you have to give credit where it is due. Lane has payed his dues and the proof is in the pudding.

The only thing I wish could have been different is that Dave would have had the first 9 second slip. He has worked long and hard, and to reach that milestone a pass or two short of being the first is a tough pill to swallow. But I am sure Dave is making plans as I am typing this to take back some of that thunder.

I think the main reason Dave has such loyal fans is that he is a middle class working guy with much heart and desire. He is competing with some competition that has a much larger budget and still has managed to hang in there and actually been fairly dominate. All this in a sport that that the spend to win ratio is completely laughable.

I think we should thank all the competitors in FAST for the hard work, resources and dedication they put into their cars which provides a great show for all to see with little more than some bragging rights and comradery to show for it.

It is good for the sport to have more than one brand at the top of the heap, it makes for larger crowds and better competition. If you think F.A.S.T. racing will survive as an all Mopar show I think you will be sadly mistaken.

Posted By: Monte_Smith

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 05:31 PM

I agree, Dave is a good guy, one of the leaders in this type racing and deserves all the props he gets. ALL these guys do an outstanding job and as a "CAR GUY" I am super impressed with everything they do. That is why it steams me when you see stuff like posted in this thread. Yeah, Lane won and congrats...BUTT......no, there is no BUTT here. His stuff hauls azz and he should be praised for that, WITHOUT the negative remarks. Ford, Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Mopar, whatever, right now, HE is the man and should be treated as such. I have no doubt Dave will be back on top before long, but don't expect Lane to sit still and watch him go by. Major props to both these guys. Should be fun

Monte

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 05:39 PM

Quote:

I agree, Dave is a good guy, one of the leaders in this type racing and deserves all the props he gets. ALL these guys do an outstanding job and as a "CAR GUY" I am super impressed with everything they do. That is why it steams me when you see stuff like posted in this thread. Yeah, Lane won and congrats...BUTT......no, there is no BUTT here. His stuff hauls azz and he should be praised for that, WITHOUT the negative remarks. Ford, Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Mopar, whatever, right now, HE is the man and should be treated as such. I have no doubt Dave will be back on top before long, but don't expect Lane to sit still and watch him go by. Major props to both these guys. Should be fun

Monte

Couldn't agree more. And let me tell you this much. There are more sour grapes on this thread then there will ever be at an actuial FAST event. Always a catch, more cubes, more $$, yes but,

I wish I had a camera to catch the look on Lane's face when he got the icewater on his head(like the Gatorade baths the sports guys get). All conjured up by the Mopar camp. There wasn't any crying in any beer that I saw.

Word is that there will be a hive of Hemis out next year that will give the others something to think about. Heck, I still think an L88 Corvette that was really sorted out would give Dave or Lane some real headaches.

MB

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 06:41 PM

I agree Mike the Corvette has untaped potential. I would also like to see some Olds, Pontiac and Buicks step up to the plate. A Boss 429 in the stick shift wars and some big inch Z/28 and Boss 302's in the small block race with a Olds W31 just for good measure. I almost forgot AMC where are you!!!!

Congratulations to all on their new bests and I am looking forward to next year with great anticipation. Best of luck to everyone next year.

Posted By: SmallHurst

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 07:16 PM

They are not done yet!!!! October 15 and 16 at US 131 in Martin, MI. Mark your calenders and get er done!!!

As for your wishing of some of the other warriors from other brands coming up.... Everyone has their issues, but some have hurdles as big as Mt. Rushmore to jump over.

Speaking for myself, the BB Olds guys may have some good exhaust manifolds to work with, but the intake resembles a pancake and at the higher revs is like sucking through a straw (and this would be after you worked the intake over). The Smallblock Olds W-31 is a giant killer, but the combination was designed for header usage and the exhaust manifolds logs are far from stellar. That being said, I would love for someone to step up and make me shut my mouth.

Chevy and Mopar have some great designs and advantages that make them step to the head of the line, but you have to put your work in, no matter what you drive.

I called and gave congrats to both Lane and Dave today. Both of them are still giddy from the weekend, but you can tell, Dave is already working on the next step.

I also talked to Dave about the 9 second barrier. You have to have the air, the car, and the track for everything to work. No way in heck are you going to get one of these cars (I am sure it will happen now!!!!!

) to pull the 9 sec runs in the heat like at the Mopar Nats. It will be interesting how this all plays out, and I hope like everything that all people involved are careful and play it safe!!!!

Posted By: JAKE68

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 10:09 PM

Congrats to both Lane and Dave for their steller performances. It is out standing to go that fast. That being said. Looking at their runs they both make comperable power. I do not think that Dave needs more cubes. It was all maid up in they 60's. That Mustang was working. I have never seen a Mustang with the front end that high and not pulling the tires off the ground. If Dave was to maybe look into what it will take to get his 60's down to where the Mustang is he'd be another .02 faster. That maybe something to look at????????? Also I do not see how you can get 588 cubes on that stock ford block. You can not bore one and get enough stroke in that block 429/460 have the same bore size. Difference was in stroke. Them 60's where very impresive on that stang with them tires. I know Dave very well and he will not just sit back. He is a very hard working dedicated person. He loves to flogg. Jake

Posted By: BBR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 10:16 PM

588" = 0.080 over (4.440" bore - not too uncommon with stock block BBF's) with a not-so-common 4.75" stroke crank.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 10:29 PM

.080 over with 4.5 stroke would be 554. SVO makes a block that will take a larger over bore but I would think it would be illegal as a Mega block is.

Daves problem going with anything larger than a 4.25 stroke with a 1/2" oil pick up is going to get close.

Posted By: domingo

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 10:30 PM

FORDS SUCK!!!!!!

Posted By: domingo

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 10:32 PM

HEMIS RULE!!!!!!!

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 10:40 PM

Most of you know I was for a time the Tech director for FAST and at the time Wayne's Vette ~10.53 in the heat of the day at the Mopar Nats was the quickest and about 1/2 a second quicker thean the rest of the field.

I always thought the 71 Stang with the SCJ 429 would someday be an awesome combo and much praise and

to Lane and I know the kind of extensive time and effort that must've went into it, I'd love to see the mods to the Cylinder heads on that motor, the oem's as cast have a particularly limited exhaust port so I know they've got a ton of work done to them to make that kind of power. (regardless of how many cubes you got). Back then I believe Lane was running a beautifully prepared Torino that was obviously a bit heavier and didn't transfer the weight dynamically like a mustang could. That fastback body was pretty popular in stock in the mid/late 70's due to it's weight transfer/hooking ability. The 429/460 isnt't really substantially (if any) heavier in race form than the ootb Iron headed 351C so it seems like a natural.

as for the mods to the front end if they deem the mods legal then that's what it is, even if it visually doesn't look correct. but that does seem to be a bit of a deviation from the origianl rules because I remember several contestents pointing out that Jack's (Iron's) car had a bit of visual alteration to the front spring eyes of the rear leafs...even though you did have to look under the car to really see it.....to a casual observer the stance of that bad bird was certainly correct. both as it sat and going down the track.

At the time I had wondered if anyone was running 70mm Exhaust (which is european spec and approx 2.75" od....even a nine year old can spot 3" pipe but 2 3/4 vs 2 1/2 can be really tough to eyeball....especially if very few are aware it is even available. I didn't spot any back then but I noted it would be an easy "upgrade" to make to the headpipes off the manifolds.

I want to make it to another show just for the fun of it and to see the great guys again....I had a blast for sure....But it would be interesting to see what "rules" (if any and I'm not saying any have

) might have been slackened up just a tad in the interest of speed and putting the hard found but well hidden power to work...I wonder if I would spot somethings that weren't kosher before or weren't 100% allowed back then...but even what I DID spot I'd sure as heck keep to myself.....after all it's SOMEBODY ELSE's worry now!!

Rulz are rulz but there are always things that fall into a grey area that can (in certain instances) create a double-standard where perhaps it's ok for some brands of cars but not for others and that's where tempers can flair and resentments started...it can definately be a fine-line.

Great job guy's!!!!

Posted By: 1Fast340

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 10:42 PM

Quote:

.080 over with 4.5 stroke would be 554. SVO makes a block that will take a larger over bore but I would think it would be illegal as a Mega block is.

Daves problem going with anything larger than a 4.25 stroke with a 1/2" oil pick up is going to get close.

is it impossible to just get teh pickup out of the way? if dave can get a stock appering former gtx now a roadrunner run 9�s i bet he can figure out how to get the pickup out of the way

Posted By: Big Squeeze

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/04/10 10:54 PM

Quote:

Let BES take 100 cubes out of that engine and lets see how it runs.

Better yet.....lets see it be 100ci SMALLER than Dudek and lets see how it runs.

You can't look at it like that.....

That'd be like saying Dudek would need to install an iron, single 4 intake and carb, choke down his exhaust manifolds 25%, cut down his head flow 25%, and make him use a 40 year old block and heads to "see how it runs".........

The thing that EVERYONE needs to realize is that this class is in no shape or form, FAIR

.......It won't ever be

and you have to realize how it all got started.......It was guys trying to get past Pure Stock tech.....and instead of doing how a LOT of the front runners in Pure Stock do now, they actually went out and started their own class making it legal to modify the internals of the engine.......

Mopar built a lot of their cars to run well with exhaust manifolds, wheras other makes built their combo's to really take advantage of headers and a camshaft and intake/carb swap because they KNEW virtually EVERYONE that bought one of these car brand new was going to modify it as soon as possible.........IMHO, Mopars fit the FAST rules fairly well......

Lane's car passed tech, and ran FANTASTIC.......What else is there to say???

Posted By: moparmafia

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 03:28 AM

Quote:

Funny how everybody seems to find it neccessary to make excuses for Dave, except Dave. He basically said "Lane kicked my butt and I have work to do". Can you guys not just give Lane the credit he deserves, WITHOUT all the backhanded compliments. Yeah he won....BUTT, suspension, yadda, yadda, blah, blah......big motor, blah, blah, blah. Simply amazing, the things people say. Believe me, I realize this is a MOPAR board, but wow, still amazes me.

i dont think anyone was making excuses for dave they were just saying what if the mopar had the same cid as the ford what would be the outcome then? and if the heads and exhaust were better on the hemi than the ford then so be it. thats the way they were factory, not the same with the cubic inches. if you choose to run a ford that came from the factory with less superior parts than the mopar and you have to run 100 more cubes to win then so be it.
Monte

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 03:43 AM

Based on the MPH's being almost identical I'd say Dave needs to work on the 60 ft times more than his engine package. Maybe some more suspension work is in order or moving some more weight off the nose somehow?

Posted By: Big Squeeze

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 03:46 AM

Quote:

Based on the MPH's being almost identical I'd say Dave needs to work on the 60 ft times more than his engine package. Maybe some more suspension work is in order or moving some more weight off the nose somehow?

EXACTLY, they're making almost identical HP/weight.......and you know on his drive home, Dave was brain storming like crazy.....

Posted By: F1Scamp

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/05/10 03:55 AM

I dont know what you guys are arguing about, everybody knows deep down that the all cast iron smallblock mopar with a plastic carb is the best combo. Hands Down.

Posted By: XXHEMI

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 04:17 AM

Truth of the matter is Lane's car is light years ahead of Dave's in the chassis department and Lane has mastered his MSD box.

Lane has done his home work and it shows.He's a great guy and it's actully good to see some else at the top for a little while. Congratulation Lane and Iam sure you already know Dave ain't sitting on his hands!

Ultimate Lenny thanks for the coverters as you can see they are all working great 3 wedges well into the 10's!

Ed Cook

Attached picture 6233822-Picture003.jpg

Posted By: 493_DART

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 04:32 AM

" mastered his MSD BOX "

theres a hint as to how these cars dont blow the tires off...

Posted By: ademon

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:35 AM

so there killing cyl for the first 100' or so, or taking massive timing out

Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:38 AM

If I had to speculate I would guess they run slightly tight converters to reduce TQ at the launch. That is pretty much how I run my cuda on the street to keep from blowing the tires off.

Posted By: 493_DART

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 10:41 AM

Quote:

so there killing cyl for the first 100' or so, or taking massive timing out

60' is slow for a 9.90 pass ..... just wondering...

Posted By: XXHEMI

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 11:38 AM

Quote:

" mastered his MSD BOX "

theres a hint as to how these cars dont blow the tires off...

To clarify some use there MSD box to knock tinning out but not all. And yes tight coverters are the norm.

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 12:11 PM

Quote:

You can't say "what if".....because the Ford DOES has enough room to go bigger with a stock block.......That'd be like the Ford camp saying "what if" we had two carbs, an aluminum intake, heads that flow more air, and better exhaust manifolds.......

Check, life isn't fair. Bad things happen to good cars. yada, yada, yada...

Now, I would think a custom 1/2" pick up tube could be made to hug the side of the block and extend down into the sump.

I'm also assuming the RR is already running a Honda rod. The next stroke up would be 4.375" which would put the cubes to 511.

Posted By: SmallHurst

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 01:31 PM

I talked with both Dave and Lane yesterday. I spoke with Lane about his front end and he said that the only non-stock Ford parts in the front end were the visable bump stop eliminators. Lets face it, he has some MAJOR weight transfer to get those G60-15's Polyglas(2 years old now) to bite and grip like they do. With the CID he is running, you know that thing has the grunt to pull the the lips off a Rhino, so running a tighter convertor to kill a little torque multiplication is going to help him get off the line. I also asked him about the time differences between e-town and Cecil in a month's period. He shared some facts, but none of them pertained to the engine. Both of these guys deserve the praise that you throw at them as they have worked very hard to get where they are at!!! Remember, with these cars, you can have too much horsepower if applied at the wrong time.

I feel a lot of sour grapes are coming down because people have slick tire, open header cars that can't show themselves as legal on the street seeing that they would get their butts handed to them by these 'show queens'!!!!

Posted By: NoJoke

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 03:08 PM

These guys are flying but now dont forget they will have to be adding weight to the car with a legal roll bar and other stuff so they will have to find more power..

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 03:39 PM

Does Lane run the OEM 780 HOlley Vacuum secondary?

Note the Oem feeds the primary bowl from the drivers side and the front bowl pass side "sub-feeds" the back bowl.

http://429mustangcougarinfo.50megs.com/fred84.jpg

http://429mustangcougarinfo.50megs.com/fred83.jpg

Back when I was with FAST I remember researching this motor and thinking it could be an achilles heel to make competitive and stay inside the rules as they were written at the time.

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 03:40 PM

Real good 71 429 Info site here:

http://429mustangcougarinfo.50megs.com/429_scj_engine_detail.htm

They also had a Q-jet but I think that was a one year only deal

http://429mustangcougarinfo.50megs.com/qjchokesetup.jpg

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:24 PM

Quote:

And for those complaining about the big inch Ford, I have never personally seen a 500 cube HEMI from the factory. Must be like one of those 440 sixpack HEMIs or something. Heard about em, just never seen one................lol

Monte

I don't get it?

Anyway, I was thinking with the pickup tube out of the way one could fit a 4.5" stroke crank into a stock hemi block. The problem is side loading on the piston starts to decrease service life with just a .060 bore. So one could go with the trick stuff and a 7+ inch rod and running the pin into the lower compression ring. I've also heard that stock blocks can go .100 over but to sonic test the thickness to make sure.

So, with a 4.5 stroke and a .100 over bore that will get you to 535ci!

Posted By: Chevy454

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:38 PM

I'm just a lowly Chevy guy, so don't throw too many rocks, but...I'm gonna say if Dave felt it was imperative to run 500+ cubes then he'd definitely be doing so...my gut says there's a reason he's not. This isn't his first rodeo, fellas...

Congrats to everyone in the FAST class on all the new bests, simply amazing...

Posted By: Monte_Smith

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:40 PM

HEMI motors don't respond as well to bore, as they do stroke. Even with a monster bore, the knot on the piston still has to be the same, because of the chamber design. Valve shrouding is not really an issue either, so they need stroke. You can get around the pickup boss, just takes some creative thinking, a little welding, a little grinding.......lol

Monte

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:43 PM

There is a rumor that there is a high level Hemi going together for FAST that is a 4.280" and stock stroke and will be set on kill.

Posted By: JERICOGTX

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:46 PM

Sorry but there isn't a stock stroke HEMI that will compete with the top dogs in the class. As Monte said going to take some tinkering to gain cubes in a stock HEMI block, but it can be done. If you can get creative and get 501cubes out of a small block, why not in a HEMI? You can bet BES used every trick in the book on that 460 block...

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:50 PM

Quote:

Sorry but there isn't a stock stroke HEMI that will compete with the top dogs in the class.

Don't bet on that.

Posted By: moderncylinder

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 06:57 PM

if you have the same parts it will shift the tq curve higher than dave with a std stroke,, which will make more power,, now the only thing i wonder is,, say dave has a 4.30 gear,, i dont know what he has,, but if you go and put a 5.13 in it,, you have like a 200% greater chance of spinning off the line due to increase of tq at the tire,,

might make good hp with it,,, now get it down the track

i think this class needs a tech guy to make sure people are running the right air cleaners,, air cleaner assemblies,, head casting numbers, blocks,, carbs,, etc...

also a few guys said some stuff about the fords front suspension,, a guy i know who does alot of race car wheel alignments along with stock daily drivers,, said he HAD to do that stuff to get the bumpsteer right,,, so i said did he really need to? he said yes,, then i asked again,, did he really need to? getting to... that thing has so much seperation in the front end,, i.e. alot of travel to try to get it to tranfer weight and hook,, that the bumpsteer would have been insane if he used all stock parts,,, the answer to that,, i guess you cant have that much travel... use the stock parts.... something a tech guy can make a call on,, not fellow racers,,

raise the price of the entry 25 or 50 bucks to each car,, and get a tech guy

congrats to lane and dave

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 07:05 PM

Jeff

I agree on the tech official. It's too difficult and time consuming for someone who is fielding a car to do it. It needs to be a neutral party.

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 07:23 PM

That was the Idea when I was doing Tech, I think the guys would agree I tried to be objective, fair and unbiased. There was a LOT of homework I did on the cars and that to me was the most fun and challenging part. There can be some degree of drama (as you can imagine), guys are understandably very passionate about their efforts so you got to have the right temprement for it for sure.

I had to resign the duties due to taking a job that involved a lot of International travel and that made it impossible to plan around, I'm not sure if they ever got somebody else to take it on but I'd like to do it again some time. Dave and the gang are great to hang around with, go fast and have fun, that was the name of the F.A.S.T. game as far as I was concerned.

As for Ford suspensions, I know Fords (virtually everything between the 1960 Falcon and the late 70's Fox body) have a lower control Arm Strut Rod that has a rubber biscuit pivoting bushing that attaches to the frame in order to triangulate the LCA. If you replace that with a softer bushing and/or a spherical rod end you can get a whole lot more front end travel for Drag racing. Conversely, on road race cars the trick is to stiffen the bushing in order to limit the travel and lateral roll (similar to a stiffer sway bar).

Posted By: 1Fast340

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 08:13 PM

cant just everyone get along and realise that this class is all about doing anything as long as it is not vissible except for safety?
the class was created by cheaters for cheaters and what i mean about cheating is as long as its not vissible its ok unless its for safety

this kind of racing is not for anyone looking for fairness, if a ford can have more cubes great for ford,if a mopar is alowed more carbs great for the mopars, if you have found a winning concept use it

afterall racing is not for crybabies looking for fairness its about being the fastest within a set of rules and having fun while doing it.

if it was about being fair it whould be boring and anyone should be able to get reruns until reaction time is zero for both cars and both should also be aloved reruns until both are happy about there time, and until both win,and with identical cars, it does not work like that, and i hope it never will that would be boring,like collecting stamps without the risk of having someone upen a window when there is a hurricane outside or the risk that you find your valuable stampcolection togheter with an anteater

why are people racing diferent stuff? cause they want to, is it up to anyone to be a crybaby about some other brand having an unfair advantage? nope. if you find that one brand or model has a very good advantage in one class, use it to your advantage or go all the way to realy try to even out the diference with your own creativeness.

racing is about being the fastest within the set rules and have fun getting there some never get to the point of being the fastest but if all they do about it is complein they are wasting alot of energy that could be put into being the fastest and at the same time take all the fun out of it while doing so.
dont waste no time.
in racing its go for it or go home.
cant just everyone get along and use what little technical can be found in these threads and actualy learn something that can help both yourself and maybe someone else?
there is a lot of stuff to be learnt and i have learnt alitle in this thread that i had not figured out about how to make a car with lots of power hook up on small tires

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 08:20 PM

Quote:

...like collecting stamps without the risk of having someone upen a window when there is a hurricane outside or the risk that you find your valuable stampcolection togheter with an anteater

I don't get it?

Posted By: DaveDudek

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 08:52 PM

Right now the only thing I use to get my Road Runner off the line is the springs in my distributer and my gas pedal. No studder box or MSD retards, my front suspension is all stock except the comp engineering 90/10`s (maybe $50 from Mancini), I don`t even have poly bushings. As a matter of fact everything is painted the correct color with all the concourse paint dabs and stuff.

People notice that type of stuff and it makes what were doing that much more impressive. I don`t know if I`m willing to give up that look to increase my front end travel and 60ft`s. I like kicking it old school..

A third party tech guy is a great idea and i believe over the winter were gonna try and make something happen. Personally i`d like to see more tear down tech for record setting cars and really tighten up on each cars appearance, I`ll volunteer to be the first as a show of good faith.

This class is getting tougher and tougher with BES built Fords and guy`s like Mr.Carey who have to drive to be #1. I know Barton is building a money no object 9000+rpm Hemi for a racer to run in FAST, I know two other guy`s who are cloning my engine to run next year, Jon Kaase doing work,etc,etc. It`s gonna be a blood bath next year.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 08:58 PM

This is not a bashing question, but one I will ask as I am curious. Do the Mustangs that run in NHRA stock eliminator run this same suspension mod? If not why is necessary for the FAST cars? I am pretty sure the 428 Cobra Jet cars run reasonably close to these cars.

Posted By: JERICOGTX

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 09:21 PM

Quote:

This is not a bashing question, but one I will ask as I am curious. Do the Mustangs that run in NHRA stock eliminator run this same suspension mod? If not why is necessary for the FAST cars? I am pretty sure the 428 Cobra Jet cars run reasonably close to these cars.

Trying to make a 9" slick work compared to treaded street tires that are not even 9" wide is a completely different animal. Also Stock Eliminator cars would love to have the HP these cars run...

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 09:42 PM

Still wondering about the Carb question I asked earlier....does that big Ford motor move through the single feed/dual Line OEM 780 VACUUM SECONDARY (see the picture) carb as per the rules? It may have been legal in FAST to run (for Ex) an 800cfm Q-jet instead of the OEM 650....as long as it remained visually correct (you can't mill the choke horn but you could remove the choke plate, etc) but the fuel lines still needed to be routed as per OEM....The 429's 780 had a unique Bowl mounted single filter and series-fed fuel bowls, even if you run an 850 VS that flowed 1000cfm but you can see it'd be tough (but probably not impossible) to feed if the lines for an 800 hp motor were routed per the factory.

There was also a stipulation of "No VISABLE Traction aid", which means no ladder/slapper bars but (for example) 90/10 shocks in the front and fake/empty batteries up front (which are both CLEARLY traction aids

) are obviously ok. I'm thinkin a sherical rod end on the strut rods would PROBABLY be ok if I was teching but back then (2005-2006) I think there would be a lot of chin music from the other competitors about it.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 09:45 PM

I believe you are missing my point. I am well aware that we are talking apples and oranges. But what the Ford camp states is that these modifications are necessary to be safe. And what I am asking is do the Mustangs that run NHRA stock have this safety modification? Or would this safty modification be legal in NHRA Stock.

Posted By: BBR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 10:20 PM

Quote:

I believe you are missing my point. I am well aware that we are talking apples and oranges. But what the Ford camp states is that these modifications are necessary to be safe. And what I am asking is do the Mustangs that run NHRA stock have this safety modification? Or would this safty modification be legal in NHRA Stock.

Not sure that it matters since the FAST series really amounts to a bunch of guys peer-policing each other's cars. If the guys really running in the series don't have a problem with it, what gives us keyboard jockeys the right to cry foul?

Posted By: NoJoke

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 11:40 PM

Quote:

Sorry but there isn't a stock stroke HEMI that will compete with the top dogs in the class. As Monte said going to take some tinkering to gain cubes in a stock HEMI block, but it can be done. If you can get creative and get 501cubes out of a small block, why not in a HEMI? You can bet BES used every trick in the book on that 460 block...

Whats about a SS Hemi its 12:1 comp its a stock stroke Steel heads and all....You dont think that can make more power?

Posted By: CrAzYMoPaRGuY

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/05/10 11:53 PM

Quote:

I believe you are missing my point. I am well aware that we are talking apples and oranges. But what the Ford camp states is that these modifications are necessary to be safe. And what I am asking is do the Mustangs that run NHRA stock have this safety modification? Or would this safty modification be legal in NHRA Stock.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong anybody...) that the reason Lane runs the aftermarket front bumpsteer suspension pieces is because his front suspension has been modified to allow more front suspension travel. Because his Mustang has such a long front suspension travel in order to hook the required bias ply tires, the aftermarket bumpsteer parts need to be used for safety.
I'm not sure the Mustangs in "stock class" are allowed to use such a modified front suspension, and if they weren't it's possible they wouldn't need the aftermarket bumpsteer parts.

Anybody who knows, am I close?

Posted By: JERICOGTX

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 12:15 AM

You are close. In Stock Eliminator traction devices like Cal Tracs can be used. That along with slicks you can plant the tire, and make the chassis work much different then trying to hook a bias ply street tire. When you can make the car hook, you do not need a ton of front end rise. Look at all ProStock cars and SS/AH cars. The front ends are tied down, becauase they do not need the front travel for weight transfer.

And as for a SS/AH motor cloned as a FAST motor... Throw a stock looking intake manifold, exhaust manifolds, and couple Carter carbs, and see what kinf of HP that stock stroke makes.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 12:22 AM

That is what I am trying to get to here, as the name of the class is "factory appearing stock tire". So if the changes are for safety as in a roll cage I can see why they let Lane make the changes. But if it is to make it safe after modifying the stock suspension for additional travel I think they may have shot them selves in the foot. Thats just my opinion.

Posted By: CrAzYMoPaRGuY

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 12:48 AM

Quote:

That is what I am trying to get to here, as the name of the class is "factory appearing stock tire". So if the changes are for safety as in a roll cage I can see why they let Lane make the changes. But if it is to make it safe after modifying the stock suspension for additional travel I think they may have shot them selves in the foot. Thats just my opinion.

Nothing wrong with your opinion. In my opinion.

Factory Appearing. Stock tire.

Once you deviate from the description it leaves people arguing.

This is where I got all confused a year or more ago....
There are no "cut a dried" rules. Things CAN be changed. It's not reallllly bending rules, it's bending within the rules so to say....

Maybe the "stock tires" WILL have to be looked at from a safety standpoint also, which I am sure will further confuse things!

Posted By: BBR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 02:15 AM

I don't think he has any addition travel. I think the bumpsteer parts are probably to correct a situation similar to this:

It appears to be severe toe-out at full suspension droop.

This is a '70 model, but you get the idea.

Posted By: RemCharger

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/06/10 02:15 AM

S.W.F.A.S.T.
Some-what factory appearing stock tire.

Sorry, but crazy is right. I don't like it, but hey, as stated, its their class and sanctioning body--not mine.
I agree with wize too, but the carb I worked on for a guy was correct for a 428 , not sure if the 429 was the same. The rear bowl supply line was no more than 1/4 inch. I would "almost" bet my car there is NO WAY you could run 140 mph with that.
Everything aside though, these cars are awesome.
(and the plymouth should be allowed one blaring none-stock performance enhancer just to shore-up this little indiscretion),

Posted By: slantzilla

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/06/10 02:25 AM

Just asking, but if Lane's Mustang is a '69 how is a 429 CJ style engine legal? Wasn't the 429 Boss the only 429 available in '69?

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/06/10 02:27 AM

Lane's car is a 71 I believe, like the one James Bond drove in Diamonds are forever

here's a shot of the carb sub-fed from tha main feed to the other side of the cathedral bowl

Attached picture 6235378-fred83.jpg

Posted By: slantzilla

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/06/10 02:29 AM

Quote:

Lane's car is a 71 I believe,

Ahhh, that makes sense.

Posted By: cjfordman

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 02:29 AM

Lane said he would give up 75 cubes if he could run a set of hemi heads,dual quads and exhaust manifolds.Dave and the other racers don't have problems with Lanes car.It has a factory 429 CJ block heads and intake just like the other racers.I think every make has some advantages and some disadvantages.The 429 CJ has a cube advantage .As far as the carb it is legal with a single inlet with the dual feed bowls like the factory.Lane knows the carb is holding the car back some and a dual quad would another 50 hp.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/06/10 02:29 AM

Lane's Mustang is a 1971.

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/06/10 02:34 AM

If he's running nines with that carb set up my Hat is off to him!!

Posted By: RemCharger

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/06/10 02:39 AM

Quote:

Lane said he would give up 75 cubes if he could run a set of hemi heads,dual quads and exhaust manifolds.Dave and the other racers don't have problems with Lanes car.It has a factory 429 CJ block heads and intake just like the other racers.I think every make has some advantages and some disadvantages.The 429 CJ has a cube advantage .As far as the carb it is legal with a single inlet with the dual feed bowls like the factory.Lane knows the carb is holding the car back some and a dual quad would another 50 hp.

They must have made an internal fuel circuit to feed the rear bowl. If they did, or didn't, outstanding.

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 02:51 AM

Quote:

Lane said he would give up 75 cubes if he could run a set of hemi heads,dual quads and exhaust manifolds.Dave and the other racers don't have problems with Lanes car.It has a factory 429 CJ block heads and intake just like the other racers.I think every make has some advantages and some disadvantages.The 429 CJ has a cube advantage .As far as the carb it is legal with a single inlet with the dual feed bowls like the factory.Lane knows the carb is holding the car back some and a dual quad would another 50 hp.

He can get the duel quads or the hemi heads and run a Ford but you can't have both.

Honestly I don't have a problem with his engine size but the front suspension is a contradiction of what the class is about in my opinion. I don't have a a dog in the fight but have been a big fan of the class since it came about. You know those L88 Corvettes would probably be safer with some sort of bolt on traction device. They already removed the air filter from the hood chamber because it was a fire hazard.

Posted By: Monte_Smith

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:34 AM

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

Posted By: CrAzYMoPaRGuY

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:42 AM

Quote:

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

Just as much as his nitrous demands I guess...

OK, ok!

I'M JOKING!!!!!!!!!

Posted By: CrAzYMoPaRGuY

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:47 AM

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...

Posted By: rook440

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:01 AM

I love the class ,but if they are running that fast then it seems the only thing to do is limit cubic inch to factory production ,dont get me wrong here ,I love to see them do what they are doing ,but the only way to slow them down across the board is to limit cubic inch BEFORE some one gets hurt ....9.80s 140 mph ..those cars are awesome ....but how safe/unsafe are they???

Posted By: CrAzYMoPaRGuY

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:47 AM

Quote:

I love the class ,but if they are running that fast then it seems the only thing to do is limit cubic inch to factory production ,dont get me wrong here ,I love to see them do what they are doing ,but the only way to slow them down across the board is to limit cubic inch BEFORE some one gets hurt ....9.80s 140 mph ..those cars are awesome ....but how safe/unsafe are they???

I actually was thinking the same thing. Keep the cubic inches at factory sizes, that might bring the speeds down and keep things a tiny bit safer...

Posted By: mopardamo

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 06:08 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I love the class ,but if they are running that fast then it seems the only thing to do is limit cubic inch to factory production, don't get me wrong here ,I love to see them do what they are doing ,but the only way to slow them down across the board is to limit cubic inch BEFORE some one gets hurt ....9.80s 140 mph ..those cars are awesome ....but how safe/unsafe are they???

I actually was thinking the same thing. Keep the cubic inches at factory sizes, that might bring the speeds down and keep things a tiny bit safer...

I really do not believe that is an answer but I do believe that it is a start. These guys are really figuring things out and doing such an outstanding job they just crossed into new territory. Things will get too wild I think not to change the rules significantly. On the other hand if they are policing them selves and the class is making money who am I to say anything? Money talks. Good luck to all the F.A.S.T. racers and give'em hell Dave!!!!!

Damon

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 06:43 AM

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

Posted By: RemCharger

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 07:46 AM

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?

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 11:43 AM

Quote:

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.

Probably the same as every other heads up class. Especially now that big name shops like BES, Kaase and Barton are getting involved.

Posted By: Dave Watt

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 12:48 PM

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.

Posted By: scatpacktom

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 01:01 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UcYp3yHw_g

Lane went a 9.84 to Daves 10.00

Posted By: JohnRR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 02:14 PM

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.

Posted By: SmallHurst

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:01 PM

Kind of like frogs in a pot of hot water? Too hot to jump in but too comfortable to leave?

Posted By: moparmafia

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:03 PM

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.

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:20 PM

Quote:

Kind of like frogs in a pot of hot water? Too hot to jump in but too comfortable to leave?

I don't get it?

If the frogs are already in the pot how would they jump in?

Posted By: EV2DEMON

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:45 PM

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.

Posted By: Monte_Smith

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:50 PM

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

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:51 PM

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.

Posted By: Monte_Smith

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 04:54 PM

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

Posted By: Monte_Smith

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:00 PM

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

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:15 PM

Drive shaft loops and roll bars are mandated for all the cars that reach certain ET's Now roll cages for some because because of the ET and speeds being reached. These changes are a must to be able to compete at a sanctioned track. Brakes can be upgraded on every make and model depending on what the owner is comfortable with. This is something that is good for the whole class not just one make or model. I just think when you start making concessions for any one make or model it is a move in the wrong direction.

Posted By: scatpacktom

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:16 PM

All this talk about the tires, Does anyone know what a regular slick is rated for?

Posted By: JohnRR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:45 PM

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.

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:51 PM

As another point to consider. SS/AH cars don't do anything, or aren't allowed to address bump steer and they seem to be ok going low 8's right now. And watching their front tires wobble when the front end comes down off the line makes me wince!

Posted By: JERICOGTX

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:57 PM

Lots of arm chair quarterbacks here. Funny how the ones saying the rules need to be looked at/changed, have never entered a FAST race. As for installing cages, and window nets, the cars have run into the 9's at ONE event, and in mineshaft air. IF it happens again, I can see upgrading them, but once? No. Just my opinion...

Congrats to Dave and Lane for running in the 9's.

Posted By: domingo

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 05:58 PM

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.

Posted By: JohnRR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 06:00 PM

Quote:

As another point to consider. SS/AH cars don't do anything, or aren't allowed to address bump steer and they seem to be ok going low 8's right now. And watching their front tires wobble when the front end comes down off the line makes me wince!

More keyboard quarter backing .

Here's a great idea they should only allow Mopars then the

won't have a need to

about ?

This is the same

that came out when Wayne Nelson was the first into the 10's ... a Corvette isn't a MUSCLE CAR , it's a SPORTS CAR

... i'll admit I jumped on that dogpile for about 2 seconds then I realized it was a good thing , just like this is a GOOD THING, especially since it's cheaper to build a Ford than a Corvette

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 06:04 PM

Quote:

Lots of arm chair quarterbacks here. Funny how the ones saying the rules need to be looked at/changed, have never entered a FAST race. As for installing cages, and window nets, the cars have run into the 9's at ONE event, and in mineshaft air. IF it happens again, I can see upgrading them, but once? No. Just my opinion...

Congrats to Dave and Lane for running in the 9's. [/quote)

Says the kettle to the pot.

Posted By: Moparnut426

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 06:35 PM

I have to agree with the safety deal, These guys are craftsman to the fullest, and I am sure they can make a cage, net, look like they arent there, the chutes are another story. But either way, safety is most important. Also for all the guys complaining about the dum bump stearing issue, who cares, Im sure that little piece of safety didnt help his ET or speeds, his time in the Dyno Room, and his persistance to his setup is what got him there. Lane, Dave, and MANY MANY more FAST guys are pure inventive folks, and deserve a huge pat on the back. My dirt track buddy wraps his old tires in solophane and 20wt oil on during the week to soften them up, the rules dont say not to, and he takes advantage of what the rules leave out. Simple racing, humans have been doing this since the start of any racing. Its called competative edge, and IMHO drag racing is one of the few racing venues that you have any edge in.

Once again congrats guys, and Im sure there will be a few more in the 9s.

Posted By: Monte_Smith

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 06:45 PM

Quote:

As another point to consider. SS/AH cars don't do anything, or aren't allowed to address bump steer and they seem to be ok going low 8's right now. And watching their front tires wobble when the front end comes down off the line makes me wince!

Apples to peanuts comparison. Those cars have about 2 inches of front end travel, so bump steer is not as much of an issue. And who says they don't do anything about it. Just because you don't see it, or it is not glaringly obvious, does not mean it is not there. Unless you are the sharpest tech guy in the world, you are not going to see a slightly sectioned and refinished a-arm, to improve caster. Nor will you notice a slightly bent lower steering arm, to help bumpsteer...I'm jus sayin

Any racer who runs up front, makes..shall we say "creative" use of the rule book

Monte

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 07:00 PM

Quote:

Apples to peanuts comparison. Those cars have about 2 inches of front end travel, so bump steer is not as much of an issue. And who says they don't do anything about it.

Well anyone that says they do without evidence would be slanderous, right?

Posted By: 10secGTX

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 07:31 PM

I would like to see a little change though, I would like to see a 30 mile drive, a cool down then a best of 3 passes, with a few conditions, after the drive, you can not open the hood, you can only add Gas and adjust air pressure to tires.
I saw this at a ford race with a class called real street, this would make it more impressive.
my

Posted By: Streetwize

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 08:27 PM

COOL!

It's obvious that the "stock sounding idle" rule is out the window though

Posted By: SmallHurst

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 08:42 PM

Quote:

I would like to see a little change though, I would like to see a 30 mile drive, a cool down then a best of 3 passes, with a few conditions, after the drive, you can not open the hood, you can only add Gas and adjust air pressure to tires.
I saw this at a ford race with a class called real street, this would make it more impressive.
my

Most of the guys at the Pure Stocks wouldn't do this!!!! And I bet those guys were also running Drag Radials or Street Slick and were banging away on a keyboard to put in different fuel maps and opening up their Nitrous bottles. You may not be impressed with what they are doing, but I know that I am!!! Am I running in FAST, no. Do I want to run in FAST, no. Am I a supporter of their racing, YES!!!!

As for the tires standing up these speeds and not having a speed rating.... I have my call in to John Kelsey. A speed rating on a modern radial is a designation that this tire has been tested to be able to endure that speed, constant, for a set period of time (45- 1 hour if my memory serves correct). The reproduction tires are all DOT certified to a specific standard.

Posted By: 383man

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 11:26 PM

I just want to say congrats to Lane and Dave.

To Lane for having the fastest car right now and to Dave for all his hard work in keeping the Mopars at the top.

I really have to say I think Lane's Stang looks really good and he has done a great job with it. And as was said you know Dave has more coming for the wicked black Runner. And I cant wait to see the Max Wedge crack the nines !

Ron

Posted By: F1Scamp

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FAST - 10/06/10 11:43 PM

Quote:

I would like to see a little change though, I would like to see a 30 mile drive, a cool down then a best of 3 passes, with a few conditions, after the drive, you can not open the hood, you can only add Gas and adjust air pressure to tires.
I saw this at a ford race with a class called real street, this would make it more impressive.
my

Boy I am glad we don't have to go through that ordeal. You guys do realize they are race cars right? As a guy that lines up next to Lane and all other FAST racers, I am glad everybody takes the time and money to make the cars go down the track as safely as possible. If that means the tie rods look alittle funny, So be it.

Posted By: DaveDudek

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/06/10 11:56 PM

Quote:

I would like to see a little change though, I would like to see a 30 mile drive, a cool down then a best of 3 passes, with a few conditions, after the drive, you can not open the hood, you can only add Gas and adjust air pressure to tires.
I saw this at a ford race with a class called real street, this would make it more impressive.
my

I did go through 4 rounds of the Hot Rod magazine Hemi vs Buick vs Vette shoot-out without even shutting the car off one single time. (didn`t want to get rained out and it was close..)

Posted By: Greg_Gessler

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 02:42 AM

Congrats to both Lane Carey and Dave Dudek for both running 9 second ET's!

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 11:09 AM

Quote:

Slanderous?????what are you, a lawyer or something. Lets just say I have been around a Super Stocker or two in my years in this sport. One in particular, a national record holder that sat in my dads garage.

Oh wow. Well ironically enough I'll be going to the Grove tomorrow with the current SS/AH record holder.

I need to remember to ask him what his plans are for that stock stroke hemi FAST car he is building for next year!

Posted By: Big Squeeze

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 01:28 PM

Quote:

I need to remember to ask him what his plans are for that stock stroke hemi FAST car he is building for next year!

What you should do is ask him what's been done to the front suspension of his SS/AH car........

Posted By: SmallHurst

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 01:32 PM

As for the tire question:

Are the tires speed rated? no.
Do they pass DOT testing for load and durablity? yes and surpass.
Are they designed for racing? no.
Do they hold up to abuse? I would have to say yes. The tires that Lane pulled 1.52 60's with this weekend are 2 years old.

These tires are built using better materials than were available back in the day. These tires held up to a lot of abuse back in the day and they are doing a yeomans job of holding up to car producing upwards of 800 hp!! They were on cars that hit 130 plus out in the panhandle of Oklahoma back in the day and were burning down the boulivard in the back street brawls.

Can something go wrong? yes. Rocks, sharp objects, and other foreign material can cut a tire down.
Has anything gone wrong? Not to my knowledge. Not saying it can't happen.

You see slicks getting cut down and causing all kinds of issues when they go. I hope to never see this happen to anyone.

Posted By: JohnRR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 01:52 PM

Quote:

As for the tire question:

Are the tires speed rated? no.
Do they pass DOT testing for load and durablity? yes and surpass.
Are they designed for racing? no.
Do they hold up to abuse? I would have to say yes. The tires that Lane pulled 1.52 60's with this weekend are 2 years old.

These tires are built using better materials than were available back in the day. These tires held up to a lot of abuse back in the day and they are doing a yeomans job of holding up to car producing upwards of 800 hp!! They were on cars that hit 130 plus out in the panhandle of Oklahoma back in the day and were burning down the boulivard in the back street brawls.

Can something go wrong? yes. Rocks, sharp objects, and other foreign material can cut a tire down.
Has anything gone wrong? Not to my knowledge. Not saying it can't happen.

You see slicks getting cut down and causing all kinds of issues when they go. I hope to never see this happen to anyone.

I have witnessed at least one potential mishap, and know of 2 others, and had the 2 cars been running slicks and skinnies on the front there is no doubt in my mind that those cars would have ended up on their ROOF once they went sideways , nevermind did a 360 plus and had very little damage.

If either the tires they use or a slick blows at 130plus the ending result will more than likely be the same .

I hope that wasn't too slanderous ...

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 01:58 PM

Quote:

Quote:

What you should do is ask him what's been done to the front suspension of his SS/AH car........

Don't need to. He does only what is legal for the class.

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 02:19 PM

Quote:

funny thing about rules is they tell you what you can and can not do , if it doesn't say you can't it does not mean you can't ...

I'll say that's funny. You have two sets of double negatives in your one sentence!

So you are saying if the rules don't specifically prohibit something and you do that something then it is technically legal? ... Really? Wow!

Posted By: domingo

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 03:23 PM

Dave's RR SUCKS!!!!

Posted By: Dave Watt

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 04:41 PM

Quote:

Congrats to both Lane Carey and Dave Dudek for both running 9 second ET's!

Posted By: bwdst6

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 04:43 PM

Quote:

No need for that Wayne, it is 100% stock. We have been told that right here and everything on the internet is true...right.....just like on TV.............lol

Monte

Posted By: 1Fast340

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 04:49 PM

Quote:

funny thing about rules is they tell you what you can and can not do , if it doesn't say you can't it does not mean you can't ...

some good words about how to win

Posted By: DaveDudek

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 06:47 PM

Quote:

Dave's RR SUCKS!!!!

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 06:57 PM

I knew Dave's RR was a cross dresser, but that is a new bit of information.

Posted By: Twin Turbo Mower

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 08:32 PM

Quote:

I knew Dave's RR was a cross dresser, but that is a new bit of information.

Pink engine girdle?

Posted By: dannysbee

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/07/10 09:04 PM

Nope it's a GTX dressed as a Road Runner.

Posted By: Darrell

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/08/10 01:32 AM

Quote:

Nope it's a GTX dressed as a Road Runner.

Don't post that in the restoration-A12 section!!

Congrats to Dave and Lane!

I was hoping to see you guys at VMP again but I guess you have to move around.

Posted By: cjfordman

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/09/10 05:06 PM

More keyboard quarter backing .

Here's a great idea they should only allow Mopars then the

won't have a need to

about ?

This is the same

that came out when Wayne Nelson was the first into the 10's ... a Corvette isn't a MUSCLE CAR , it's a SPORTS CAR

... i'll admit I jumped on that dogpile for about 2 seconds then I realized it was a good thing , just like this is a GOOD THING, especially since it's cheaper to build a Ford than a Corvette

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think its cheaper to build a Ford .I think you can get chevy parts at Walmart

Posted By: CrAzYMoPaRGuY

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/10/10 10:28 PM

Quote:

More keyboard quarter backing .

Here's a great idea they should only allow Mopars then the won't have a need to about ?

This is the same that came out when Wayne Nelson was the first into the 10's ... a Corvette isn't a MUSCLE CAR , it's a SPORTS CAR ... i'll admit I jumped on that dogpile for about 2 seconds then I realized it was a good thing , just like this is a GOOD THING, especially since it's cheaper to build a Ford than a Corvette

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think its cheaper to build a Ford .I think you can get chevy parts at Walmart

Factory Appearing Stock Tires

Doesn't say anything about musclecar, sport car, or anything of the sort.

Now, if you remember Wayne's TRANSMISSION, well THAT was a different story...

That's when I first thought things were odd that factory appearing didn't have to necessarily be... FACTORY APPEARING.

I think lots of guys get confused because the race venue isn't EXACTLY what the acronym stands for.
And then the arguing starts...!

Posted By: JohnRR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/10/10 10:31 PM

Quote:

Quote:

More keyboard quarter backing .

Here's a great idea they should only allow Mopars then the won't have a need to about ?

This is the same that came out when Wayne Nelson was the first into the 10's ... a Corvette isn't a MUSCLE CAR , it's a SPORTS CAR ... i'll admit I jumped on that dogpile for about 2 seconds then I realized it was a good thing , just like this is a GOOD THING, especially since it's cheaper to build a Ford than a Corvette

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think its cheaper to build a Ford .I think you can get chevy parts at Walmart

Factory Appearing Stock Tires

Doesn't say anything about musclecar, sport car, or anything of the sort.

Now, if you remember Wayne's TRANSMISSION, well THAT was a different story...

Hut 1 , Hut 2 ....

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/10/10 10:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

More keyboard quarter backing .

Here's a great idea they should only allow Mopars then the won't have a need to about ?

This is the same that came out when Wayne Nelson was the first into the 10's ... a Corvette isn't a MUSCLE CAR , it's a SPORTS CAR ... i'll admit I jumped on that dogpile for about 2 seconds then I realized it was a good thing , just like this is a GOOD THING, especially since it's cheaper to build a Ford than a Corvette

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think its cheaper to build a Ford .I think you can get chevy parts at Walmart

Factory Appearing Stock Tires

Doesn't say anything about musclecar, sport car, or anything of the sort.

Now, if you remember Wayne's TRANSMISSION, well THAT was a different story...

That's when I first thought things were odd that factory appearing didn't have to necessarily be... FACTORY APPEARING.

I think lots of guys get confused because the race venue isn't EXACTLY what the acronym stands for.
And then the arguing starts...!

Hut 1 , Hut 2 ....

John, you are on fire

The arguing starts? By who, the people who have never even laid eyes on an actual FAST car??

Posted By: scatpacktom

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/10/10 11:42 PM

Waynes Transmission? Seems like I was there but I have no idea what was wrong with Waynes transmission.

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/10/10 11:54 PM

Quote:

Waynes Transmission? Seems like I was there but I have no idea what was wrong with Waynes transmission.

He was running a TH350,IIRC, which everyone knows isn't installed behind alum head Chevy Rat motors. Who cares, it was legal then as it is now. No different than a C4 behind a 429 Ford or a 904 in a T/A Mopar.

Posted By: DodgeCharger

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/11/10 12:09 AM

I am no expert on the class but if the front end parts are anything other than Factory Apearing the car should not be legal. As far as a safety issue. That is a load of bull. The only safety issue is created when you try to exceed that factory wheel travel to transfer weight to the rear tires to gain a competitive advantage.

Posted By: pettyblue440

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/11/10 12:18 AM

How can anyone have a problem with the stang or vette? These cars passed the rules/tech as they are written. I'm pretty sure they are written in such a way to allow these upgrades they were given.

I love this style of racing

Posted By: CrAzYMoPaRGuY

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/11/10 04:35 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Waynes Transmission? Seems like I was there but I have no idea what was wrong with Waynes transmission.

He was running a TH350,IIRC, which everyone knows isn't installed behind alum head Chevy Rat motors. Who cares, it was legal then as it is now. No different than a C4 behind a 429 Ford or a 904 in a T/A Mopar.

MB

That's what screwed ME up first time I started to follow F.A.S.T.
I thought it was exactly as stated- FACTORY APPEARING. I then was told certain things were allowed, so I went rule reading, and sure enough, if the acronym is taken as "the exact term" then people don't understand the class, IMO anyways.
Things CAN be tweaked, things that don't APPEAR factory stock can be allowed, and alterations can be made.

Quote:

The arguing starts? By who, the people who have never even laid eyes on an actual FAST car??

As far as guys commenting on F.A.S.T. cars that haven't been there.... I wonder if the same applies to all the threads?

I never want to see YOU comment on a band like the Beatles, you were never in the Beatles!!!

There is interest on the west coast too, but you eastern guys are hogging the F.A.S.T. stuff all to yourselves!!!!

Posted By: cjfordman

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/11/10 05:00 PM

The races are near where most of the racers are.If there were a group of racers in other parts of the country then they would most likely have some races near them.You don't build a gas station where there are no cars

Posted By: slantman

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/12/10 02:10 AM

Quote:

The races are near where most of the racers are.If there were a group of racers in other parts of the country then they would most likely have some races near them.You don't build a gas station where there are no cars

I love this class of racing, and am building my 63 Dodge to the F.A.S.T. rules. However, as far as I know, I'll have the only car of this type in the country, so I'll be racing against myself. At least I'll know who will win all the races I enter.

Back on topic, big congrats to Dave, Lane and all the other F.A.S.T.racers. Keep posting the race results, I love watching it from here, down under.

Posted By: XXHEMI

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/12/10 03:08 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Waynes Transmission? Seems like I was there but I have no idea what was wrong with Waynes transmission.

He was running a TH350,IIRC, which everyone knows isn't installed behind alum head Chevy Rat motors. Who cares, it was legal then as it is now. No different than a C4 behind a 429 Ford or a 904 in a T/A Mopar.

MB

That's what screwed ME up first time I started to follow F.A.S.T.
I thought it was exactly as stated- FACTORY APPEARING. I then was told certain things were allowed, so I went rule reading, and sure enough, if the acronym is taken as "the exact term" then people don't understand the class, IMO anyways.
Things CAN be tweaked, things that don't APPEAR factory stock can be allowed, and alterations can be made.

Quote:

The arguing starts? By who, the people who have never even laid eyes on an actual FAST car??

As far as guys commenting on F.A.S.T. cars that haven't been there.... I wonder if the same applies to all the threads?

I never want to see YOU comment on a band like the Beatles, you were never in the Beatles!!!

There is interest on the west coast too, but you eastern guys are hogging the F.A.S.T. stuff all to yourselves!!!!

Crazy
Seems like you have a beef with FAST care to let us in on it?

Posted By: CrAzYMoPaRGuY

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/12/10 06:29 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Waynes Transmission? Seems like I was there but I have no idea what was wrong with Waynes transmission.

He was running a TH350,IIRC, which everyone knows isn't installed behind alum head Chevy Rat motors. Who cares, it was legal then as it is now. No different than a C4 behind a 429 Ford or a 904 in a T/A Mopar.

MB

That's what screwed ME up first time I started to follow F.A.S.T.
I thought it was exactly as stated- FACTORY APPEARING. I then was told certain things were allowed, so I went rule reading, and sure enough, if the acronym is taken as "the exact term" then people don't understand the class, IMO anyways.
Things CAN be tweaked, things that don't APPEAR factory stock can be allowed, and alterations can be made.

Quote:

The arguing starts? By who, the people who have never even laid eyes on an actual FAST car??

As far as guys commenting on F.A.S.T. cars that haven't been there.... I wonder if the same applies to all the threads?

I never want to see YOU comment on a band like the Beatles, you were never in the Beatles!!!

There is interest on the west coast too, but you eastern guys are hogging the F.A.S.T. stuff all to yourselves!!!!

Crazy
Seems like you have a beef with FAST care to let us in on it?

No beef whatsoever. I don't see where you get that- I'm just pointing out to many repliers that they sometimes get caught up in what I got caught up in- the acronym.
The acronym isn't the be all end all in this venue, and those who think Factory Appearing Stock Tires is EXACTLY that...? Well they are mistaken.
I went and read the rules after I mistook the acronym for being the exact description of the cars, and found out it is NOT an exact description at all.
These guys have a few areas written into their rules which can allow deviances from factory appearing, not JUST transmissions, not JUST exhaust, but many areas.

I found out the rules by researching. Now I think I understand F.A.S.T. much better. If you think that's a "beef"...? Well

I like watching and following the cars, but I'm on the west coast of nothingness over here....

I don't care about brand when it comes to the F.A.S.T. cars, I like watching them all.
Cool stuff if ya ask me, and lots of characters too!
(Where's that Wayne?!?!)

Posted By: JohnRR

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/12/10 03:10 PM

Quote:

Waynes Transmission? Seems like I was there but I have no idea what was wrong with Waynes transmission.

Same here , it was a Chevy transmission as the rules called for.

Posted By: Big Squeeze

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/12/10 04:52 PM

Quote:

No beef whatsoever. I don't see where you get that- I'm just pointing out to many repliers that they sometimes get caught up in what I got caught up in- the acronym.
The acronym isn't the be all end all in this venue, and those who think Factory Appearing Stock Tires is EXACTLY that...? Well they are mistaken.
I went and read the rules after I mistook the acronym for being the exact description of the cars, and found out it is NOT an exact description at all.
These guys have a few areas written into their rules which can allow deviances from factory appearing, not JUST transmissions, not JUST exhaust, but many areas.

I found out the rules by researching. Now I think I understand F.A.S.T. much better. If you think that's a "beef"...? Well

I like watching and following the cars, but I'm on the west coast of nothingness over here....

I don't care about brand when it comes to the F.A.S.T. cars, I like watching them all.
Cool stuff if ya ask me, and lots of characters too!
(Where's that Wayne?!?!)

I guess the word "appearing" means different things to different people.....

The class isn't called "100% Pure Stock Appearing"..........

In my mind, to "appear" stock means that to the casual observer, the cars "appear" stock.......

which IMHO means that the cars have stock looking paint jobs, stock looking tires and wheels, and look relatively stock under the hood.......

Posted By: CJK440

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/14/10 01:44 PM

Quote:

I am no expert on the class but if the front end parts are anything other than Factory Apearing the car should not be legal. As far as a safety issue. That is a load of bull. The only safety issue is created when you try to exceed that factory wheel travel to transfer weight to the rear tires to gain a competitive advantage.

Safety is a touchy subject. I understand not wanting to get in the way of safety but IMHO the S word is used too often to gain a performance advantage.

One prime example, a lot of guys are running aftermarket brake setups in the name of safety which is not a bad idea considering 40 year old brake technology. But of course all of these are super light. So why not throw a weight penalty of x amount of lbs to put on the front end when using aftermarket racing brakes? This would be extra safe and cancel the performance benefit of the "safer" component.

There are other things but not surprisingly, they all help to get the car off the line and/or down the track quicker. You don't see many people chomping at the bit to implement a safety item that slows the car down.

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/14/10 02:08 PM

Quote:

Quote:

You don't see many people chomping at the bit to implement a safety item that slows the car down.

Chris:

With all due respect, a roll bar and 5 point belts add a considerable amount of weight with no real advantage in performance. Pretty much all of the FAST cars running under 11.50 have a roll bar in place. In fact, with these cars, the stiffer you make the body, the harder it is to get it down the track.

Posted By: ScottSmith_Harms

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/14/10 02:28 PM

Quote:

Chris:

With all due respect, a roll bar and 5 point belts add a considerable amount of weight with no real advantage in performance. Pretty much all of the FAST cars running under 11.50 have a roll bar in place. In fact, with these cars, the stiffer you make the body, the harder it is to get it down the track.

MB

Yes Mike, but AFAIK the roll bar is a required safety item under 11.50, not an optional one.

Posted By: CJK440

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/14/10 02:40 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You don't see many people chomping at the bit to implement a safety item that slows the car down.

Chris:

With all due respect, a roll bar and 5 point belts add a considerable amount of weight with no real advantage in performance. Pretty much all of the FAST cars running under 11.50 have a roll bar in place. In fact, with these cars, the stiffer you make the body, the harder it is to get it down the track.

MB

Hey Mike! You are absolutely right, but those are mandated by track safety rules at a certain ET break. You risk getting told to slow down or kicked off if you don't comply. If the bar rule was 10.99, only the 10 second cars would put them in.

I'm referring to the stuff that isn't required by anybody. Coincidentally (or not) a deviation from stock in the name of safety often has a performance benefit to boot.

I realize that this is all part of racing and the rules have been in existence for a very long time but its just something I wish was handled differently when I was racing in the class.

Posted By: HPMike

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/14/10 05:07 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You don't see many people chomping at the bit to implement a safety item that slows the car down.

Chris:

With all due respect, a roll bar and 5 point belts add a considerable amount of weight with no real advantage in performance. Pretty much all of the FAST cars running under 11.50 have a roll bar in place. In fact, with these cars, the stiffer you make the body, the harder it is to get it down the track.

MB

Hey Mike! You are absolutely right, but those are mandated by track safety rules at a certain ET break. You risk getting told to slow down or kicked off if you don't comply. If the bar rule was 10.99, only the 10 second cars would put them in.

I'm referring to the stuff that isn't required by anybody. Coincidentally (or not) a deviation from stock in the name of safety often has a performance benefit to boot.

I realize that this is all part of racing and the rules have been in existence for a very long time but its just something I wish was handled differently when I was racing in the class.

Yes, Chris. I would have to agree. That was a poor analogy I suppose.

MB

Posted By: moparmanjames

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/14/10 11:40 PM

Quote:

I like watching and following the cars, but I'm on the west coast of nothingness over here....

You might try and check out a P.S.C.A. event (Pacific Street Car Association), pretty cool heads up racing and they usually have bracket and E.T. class racing too for the bracket guys. Very cool event.
http://www.pscaracing.com/schedule.html

10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer

10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 02:22 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 02:28 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 02:32 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 02:47 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 03:22 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 03:34 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 03:38 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 04:22 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 04:44 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 04:59 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 05:09 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 05:21 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 05:26 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 05:31 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 05:56 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:03 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:05 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:06 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:09 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:13 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:21 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:24 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:25 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:27 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:27 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:28 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:31 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:32 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:33 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:37 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:41 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:43 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:52 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:55 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 06:58 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 07:05 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 07:08 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 07:39 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 07:41 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 08:00 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 08:18 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 09:00 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 09:09 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 09:34 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 11:16 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 11:28 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/02/10 11:49 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 12:27 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 12:41 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 12:54 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 01:03 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 01:06 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 01:13 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 01:16 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 01:51 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 01:56 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 02:00 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 02:06 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 02:17 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 02:26 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 02:35 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 02:44 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 02:56 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 02:58 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 03:09 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 03:16 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 03:19 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 04:45 AM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 01:00 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 01:56 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 03:28 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 03:42 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 04:30 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 05:49 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 05:49 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 05:51 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 06:08 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 06:16 PM

Re: 10.02 @ 139.02 ... the black Road Runner goes FASTer - 10/03/10 06:18 PM