|
Post by Darren383 on Sept 22, 2004 17:38:44 GMT -5
No problem Charlie. You all know you have alot on your hands trying to keep everyone happy.
|
|
|
Post by BKMeyers on Sept 22, 2004 17:59:48 GMT -5
Lee by his own words says he only runs what he has too to win
So it's okay for an NOS car not to "lean" on his/her equipment to run the numbers needed, but if a turbo car does it there is a problem.
Interesting.
BK Meyers
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Sept 22, 2004 20:12:39 GMT -5
Now BK, dont you be picking on Bill too...I've already ruffled his feathers enough for one day///
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by greg on Sept 22, 2004 20:21:00 GMT -5
didn't somebody and i'm saying who, say at the first of the year, that if you want to go fast you have to take weight out of the car,and then had the car redone and it still heavy. i got a 3500lbs car i think with a 700ci moter and a 400 shot i could go 4.88
|
|
|
Post by bnewton on Sept 23, 2004 5:23:24 GMT -5
The real issue here is car count and why its down. I really believe that its simply a matter of overlapping dates,i'm not placing any type of blame here,I really like ov people and facillity,and would like to race both when I get my junk fixed.Congrats Bill on your championship you have worked hard for it.Bill when you make horsepower statements you need to think about how a combination makes power.A turbo car cannot make power as quickly as an nos car.In tonys car I am putting power in the car as fast as it can make it.The only thing held back might be the starting line, we leave with 8-13 pounds depending on the track. The object of the game for everyone on that level is to apply the power as fast as possible.Do you apply all your power within the 60 foot mark,or do you turn on more power later.I noticed at kilkare your car was leaving like a bullitt.Could you have turned on that second kit sooner?I'm not trying to argue here im just saying that its not always about total power,its about how fast you can get it there.Too often that is overlooked. :
|
|
|
Post by Bill Lutz on Sept 23, 2004 6:00:50 GMT -5
I will address BK and Bryan on this post. BK first off I have never said that I'm not leaning on my car I will state again that there is no easy 1700HP 615 motors out there. I have my car at the point where if I put more on it I will break part quicker than a top fuel car. Now over to Bryan myself and you get along very well and can have a debate that makes sense when we are done. I know that Tony's car is by far the smallest motor out there so if we were making a comparison you would have too look at a 500 inch nos motor not a 615. I'm thinking that we need to talk more along the lines of Shannon's motor or Lee's and then we have a "big" 4hunder and something inch motor with a 106mm turbo now when you take out 5 to 8 psi and run it it's about like myself hitting my car with 1 stage which I would love to be able to do and still run the numbers that I am. Here is another one for you how about a 1.209 best 60ft all weekend long at Kil Kare so I'm not sure how fast a bullet is but that sucks for me I have been a 1.150 in 60 before and most of the time it will go between 1.16 to 1.18 I have the slowest bullet out there. One last question for BK and Bryan both when was the last high dollar turbo other than Chris Ridges that you have seen break? Now I can name every car in Prostreet this year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ridge on Sept 23, 2004 6:25:08 GMT -5
Bill, the number of cars that have broke have nothing to do with this debate. They ALL break...NOS/blower/turbo. I will say that a turbo is easier on parts, and that is only one of the reasons I chose to run a turbo. We all had the CHOICE of power adder to run when we built our cars. At the same weight and tire size, I don't know of a turbo that can run with a BB NOS motor in the first 300ft., we have to depend on playing catch up out the back and yes, we have to lean on them to do it. You can't just compare HP numbers to come up with weights for a class, you have to look at actual runs each type of combo has made and go from there. If that was the case them your 1700HP should be running 4.60's and I should be running 4.40's, but that hasen't happened because you can't use it all or make it all from the light to the stripe. Take care.
|
|
bxl007
Full Member
"BELEIVE THE HYPE"
Posts: 185
|
Post by bxl007 on Sept 23, 2004 8:10:41 GMT -5
Chris I agree 100% with what your are saying about getting everything to the ground. Do you know that Lee's car with the exact same motor and turbo combo has been either a super low 4.50 or a high 4.40? So what's the difference in the car? Randy went 6.96@202 or something in Columbus about 2 years before Lee bought the car now I know that it had a stick in it but Randy's car he built after he sold the Vette went 4.40's for sure so if you are judging everything off of potential you have to use one of the baddest cars on the planet to figure out what they can really run when you don't care about reliability which Randy doesn't care he has plenty of money to spend. I'm pretty sure that your Motor and Shannon's are just as good if not better than what Randy has so your potential should be the same correct?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Sept 23, 2004 8:36:53 GMT -5
I have a question Bill...You said that your 60ft numbers were off at Kil-Kare right? You went a 4.88 with a bad 60ft, what will it run with that same tune-up if you can get the 1.15 back? By what your saying it sounds like it shoulda ran somewhere solidly in the 70's, would you agree? What other cars at Kil-Kare ran in the 70's regardless of what they weighed?
|
|
bxl007
Full Member
"BELEIVE THE HYPE"
Posts: 185
|
Post by bxl007 on Sept 23, 2004 8:50:09 GMT -5
Yes we were trying for the 70's at Kil Kare and if we could get back to 1.15 it would have went into the 70's but it didn't so that point doesn't matter. No cars went 4.70's but Shannon did go 4.64 at Kil Kare.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ridge on Sept 23, 2004 8:54:31 GMT -5
Chris I agree 100% with what your are saying about getting everything to the ground. Do you know that Lee's car with the exact same motor and turbo combo has been either a super low 4.50 or a high 4.40? So what's the difference in the car? Randy went 6.96@202 or something in Columbus about 2 years before Lee bought the car now I know that it had a stick in it but Randy's car he built after he sold the Vette went 4.40's for sure so if you are judging everything off of potential you have to use one of the baddest cars on the planet to figure out what they can really run when you don't care about reliability which Randy doesn't care he has plenty of money to spend. I'm pretty sure that your Motor and Shannon's are just as good if not better than what Randy has so your potential should be the same correct? No doubt Randy stirred things up with the Vette( and yes, I know a lot of its history), and it runs very well today. Lee does not have the exact same setup, so you have to look at what it has run with its current setup, not what it used to run.One thing you have to remember is the weight he ran at, the huge tire he ran and it had a 5-speed. You can't even compare Randy's current Pro 5.0 car to ours. It is a state-of-the-art tube chassis Mustang with a Pro Stock wheelbase and weighs a lot less than what we run at, plus it has a huge 34.5/17/16 Hoosier under it! This car is in a different league than Outlaw 10.5 racing and we will never come close to those times.
|
|
|
Post by smckenzzz on Sept 23, 2004 8:59:06 GMT -5
Bill, The comment you wrote about, who else besides Chris has broken with a turbo? Well I beleive every combo will have breakage, for instance.....
We broke the tranny, Lee broke the tranny, Darin and Tony hurt the motor, Terry blew head gasket, now that is this past weekend alone. If you go to the last race in muncie Shannon R. hurt the motor. All of these cars are turbo combo's. I am sure their were NOS combo's hurting parts also, just wanting to point out all combo's can and do break when racing... Just my thoughts
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ridge on Sept 23, 2004 9:01:24 GMT -5
Yes we were trying for the 70's at Kil Kare and if we could get back to 1.15 it would have went into the 70's but it didn't so that point doesn't matter. No cars went 4.70's but Shannon did go 4.64 at Kil Kare. Yes, Shannon did run 4.64, but he also had a 1.11 60ft. Your car has the capablilty of leaving this hard to, so when you find that sweetspot in the chassis setup, you too will be running at least low 70's. Don't penalize the guy who has their chassis figured out, because you are leaving a lot on the table Bill. The Outlaw 10.5 guys are running 1.09-1.11 60'@3000lbs. so I figure you should be able to go 1.10-1.12 with BIG tires at weight.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Sept 23, 2004 9:15:34 GMT -5
You need to understand Bill that in a Pro street class like ours we have to try to make it fair across the board while still attracting different combos...With that said we are fully aware that some combo may have an upper hand until we can see enough to know how to change it...If Kevin makes changes to fix the OSCA's Pro class and it hurts a few along the way and they stop racing then there is no good way to judge what to do next...We feel that under the current rules its not a blowout at all, but more runs would give more data to work with...Remember that we are still working off of a rules package that has less than a tenth of separation between the NOS and the Turbo cars...
|
|
|
Post by BNEWTON on Sept 23, 2004 10:26:41 GMT -5
ALL THIS WOULD MEAN A WHOLE LOT MORE IF SOMEONE WAS RUNNING AWAY WITH THE CLASS BUT NO ONE IS SO LETS JUST RACE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. I KNOW YOULL RACE BECAUSE YOUR NOT LIKE SOME WHO ARE TOO POMPUS TO SHOW IF THEY DONT HAVE A DISTINCT ADVANTAGE.
|
|