NHRA rules vs real world

[Nova67ss]

Ok this is a serius debate, no bashing or crapp, please.

This was a matter on debate allready -05 and this is still a serius matter.
The rule says 9.99 and we all know that 4wdcars runs faster than that, and when run as neat as Roberts truck theres no reason to NOT alow faster times..

http://www.syty.net/forums/showthread.php?t=32369&page=1&pp=15&highlight=nhra+rules

from the nhra website under new 2006 guidelines:

"Four-wheel-drive is permitted per class requirements; four-wheel-drive vehicles running quicker than 9.99 are PROHIBITED."

I sure hope that local tracks dont take this to heart and not allow syclones to run under 9.99!

ed

Ed sorry to say this WAS an issue on the nats... and that might affect every track in US if your unlucky..

I bet they're thinking more about the big desiel trucks that all the Rednecks are racin' and not all wheel drive cars and trucks.

No the rule says 4WD/AWD not "high redneck trucks"

I just spoke with Pat in NHRA tech dept.

his initial reaction to my inquirey was "heck we just lowered the et prohibition, it used to be at 12.00"

sure enough my 2004 rulebook did mention this.

talking with him it appears that this limitation was based on vehicle height for "raised pickups" more than just using 4wd as a vehicle identifier.

so it appears syclones are still good to go.

thats a relief !

ed<--- can finally stop worrying

No Ed I dont think so.. without paperwork or writhen exemtions the rule aplyes.. we did find out in KC...

I did find these lines on a Impala board.. someting to check up on.. OR start a poll and show the NHRA that you wount sit still and be tied down to "just running 10´s"

I did put in the authors names on these inputs.. Joe Amodea


Posted on a local racing board... may be interesting to some of you. Anyone know why they said you can't have a fast 4WD??


The NHRA 2006 Rules were released on November 1st, (in advance of the rulebook
printing), and I noticed a few revisions which might affect some of you. Here they are
with the appropriate translations.

“Effective Jan. 1, 2006, where a Snell-rated helmet is required in NHRA competition, the
Snell 90 helmets will no longer be allowed”. Translation: Your Snell 90 helmet is junk.

“Any vehicle that runs faster than 135 mph must meet minimum requirements for
9.99-second vehicles, which include an NHRA chassis certification, NHRA competition
license, and updated safety requirements”. Translation: After all the years you
avoided having to buy the safety equipment for a 9.99 or quicker machine
because your fast street car wouldn’t hook up on street tires, you now must pay.

“The Protective Clothing section states which jacket and/or pants are needed for 10.00
and slower and 9.99 and quicker supercharged, turbocharged, or nitrous-equipped cars,
with or without a full OEM or .024-inch steel firewall.” Translation: ...and you’re going
to be buying more stuff, too, especially if you have a blown, turbo, or nitrous car
which runs quicker than 11.49.

“Plastic brackets to secure bottles filled with nitrous oxide are prohibited”. Translation:
To the three guys who still use plastic brackets...get your act together.

“Four-wheel-drive is permitted per class requirements; four-wheel-drive vehicles running
quicker than 9.99 are prohibited”. To all the DSM guys who’ve spent every dime on
their ride, I have no idea where this one came from.

“During competition, NHRA prohibits the use of a portable computer while the vehicle is
in operation. Such items as a laptop, PDA, Palm Pilot, programmer, and the like may not
be installed or located in a vehicle at any point beyond the staging-area ready line. All
functions or values must be preset prior to this point”. I’d be surprised if they enforced
this at Gateway; the rule wasn’t clear if it was for National and Divisional events or
all NHRA Member Tracks.
Chris Nickell


You can run datalogging for practice runs and all test n tune but you cannot run datalogging for elimination runs. (that's the rule right now).

Also that guy may have paraphrased somewhat. The chassis certification is not needed until around 9.0 or something like that. You can go 9.99 as long as you have a roll cage and all the other junk...but you won't need a certification, (I could be wrong).

No quicker than 9.99 4WD is probably a good safety feature due to all the running gear near the driver that needs to be "safe" and they probably didn't want to have SFI look at it. just a wild guess.
Karl Ellwein



I'll try to help clear up a couple of the issues for the racers.. oops I mean ricers who complain about this crap

: Snell 90 hemlets ARE old junk now... If you dont care about your head or keeping it's contents contained then dont get a new helmet

: 9.99 or 135 MPH. These rules are for your safety. The MPH break is more meaningful than the E.T. break there are 12 second cars exceeding 135 MPH & they do crash & people get hurt/killed because a lack of protection at those speeds. The cars that run high MPH without the ET to go along with it are usually traction/handling impared & are even more likely to crash.

: Chassis certification is & has been required at 9.99 for a very long time. There are many reasons for this including making sure roll cages are built safely, stickers are removed from crashed cars so they cant be boogered back together & raced unsafely.


: some personal opinions.. I dont see why people complain about needing saftey eqiupment. It's required for a reason. Sanctioning bodies & SFI have a little more experience than the average racer.. & do what they do to protect you... even with the new updates not enough is required yet. Ever been in a car at speed on fire? I guarantee you yould use fire suits while racing for the rest of your life if it was required or not. Bitching about this stuff is down right silly. If you dont want to do this go street racing because none of the track workers want to see or smell or clean up your burning dead body Complaining about this is kinda ricerish mentality... & I'm being nice about that.

lactic nitrous hold downs... There are more than three people still doing this. If you knew how many cars try to come through tech with bottles stuffed under the seat, secured with tywraps or sitting in a gym bag in the trunk ( or should I say Civic hatch?) you would be shocked.


Four wheel drive vehicles are not "all" wheel drive vehicles. 4WD's are usually trucks with parts that explode & shatter.


:Large square items like laptops sitting on a passenger seat tend to get lodged in the head of a driver in a rollover crash... even right through snell 90 helmets. Items in the car should be properly secured or removed from the drivers compartment.


Joe Amodea

With all this in mind and more Sy&Ty closer to sub 9.99 times AND all the "Ricer´s" running down in the 7 and STILL prohibided benith 9.99 still goes away with those runs without the NHRA aproval to do so..

I mean KC was warned by thretning phonecalls by NHRA head people, to loose their licensec to run NHRA event and the track people to loose therir licenses even drivers licenses IF we where to make passes benith 9.99 regulary...

Thats why we got banned after each round under 9.99 on Friday and Saturday at the nats i KC..

Problem is the group or person that enlighted the NHRA people to this, probably get their atension to all tracks and 4WD so if your unlucky all tracks can lock down for Sy&Ty and ricerboys to run faster than 9.99 IF we dont get that clarification that Ed got by phone whriten down...



So it seems we all (U over in US and we here in europe) have to do some work to get the changes made to this rules..

Hard work but it can be done..

Keep PROGRES in the matter posted here please..

 

[ed hess]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

anders

all i can add to this is to call Pat nhra tech dept and ask him.

awd is not the same as 4wd.

this was based on vehicle height, center of gravity and not driveline issues.

awd eclipses and talons arent considered as 4wd.

again call nhra tech.

I kinda think your problems were more than likely from beleving the misinformation that not haveing a complete sfi certified cage would be ok to run here. i.e. no bars out the back.

you wont find a single sfi nhra chasiss cert on a single truck here that doesnt have the bars thru the back.

if you guys had shown up with everyting done per the rules you probably wouldnt have had any issues.

 

[JSM]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

The issue was the cage. Although I had contacted Pat, KCIR, etc and got clearance ahead they really didn't give me the right clearance at the end.

FYI there is a way to get a cage certified though without bars out the rear, but it requires a funny car style cage. I confirmed this with NHRA inspector himself.

 

[ed hess]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

The issue was the cage. Although I had contacted Pat, KCIR, etc and got clearance ahead they really didn't give me the right clearance at the end.

FYI there is a way to get a cage certified though without bars out the rear, but it requires a funny car style cage. I confirmed this with NHRA inspector himself.

so why in the world did you tell him he would be ok without the cage being certified?

 

[JSM]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

I won't go into details publically, you can send me PM if you want.

Both Robert and I knew the risks up front. We had some documents saying we would be ok. That is the basics.

The fact is his cage is 100% legal where he races, and we both agreed we would not be making huge changes to it here in the US for 1 race.

 

[Nova67ss]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

anders

awd is not the same as 4wd.

this was based on vehicle height, center of gravity and not driveline issues.

awd eclipses and talons arent considered as 4wd.

again call nhra tech.

I kinda think your problems were more than likely from beleving the misinformation that not haveing a complete sfi certified cage would be ok to run here. i.e. no bars out the back.

you wont find a single sfi nhra chasiss cert on a single truck here that doesnt have the bars thru the back.

if you guys had shown up with everyting done per the rules you probably wouldnt have had any issues.

Ok Ed its a lithle expensive to call the NHRA-tech i supose U got the -06 rule book??

Can U find the § # where I can find these whriting?

I need an explanation how and why an AWD is not an 4WD? Rules in the book? § #

The systems drive on all wheels dont they?

And what have the 9.99 time limit have with 4WD or AWD considered wehicle height, CG and IF they are a talon or a Syclone?? is this allso mentioned in the rules?? § #.

This starts to confuse me more and more??

 

[ed hess]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

your just as confused as i was which was why i called nhra.

especially since this is wriiten in section 2.11 rear end.

pat at nhra agreed with me on the confusion because given the section its written in it aears to be a drivleineissue and not a height issue.

so i have to agree with you on the confusion.

fwiw pat agreed with me that its written in the wrong section and the interpretation is screwed up.

also agreed that it needs to be changed. perhaps in an upcoming rule revision.

but i wouldnt hold my breath.

as for saying awd is the same as 4wd... awd = 4wd.

not exactly as we all know here.

so what answer can i give you. only what i have said allready.

the cage issue probably got you and the driveline issue was secondary.

 

[qbnkiller]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

According to the 2006 "General Regulations" rulebook I have here, there are a few pictures and charts that outline the requirements for the different speed brackets. For example:

Section 4:4 speaks about frame specifications.
Section 4:10 speaks about the roll bars, along with a diagram of the standards required.
Section 4:11 speaks about roll cages, and has a diagram of the standards required.

 

[ed hess]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

According to the 2006 "General Regulations" rulebook I have here, there are a few pictures and charts that outline the requirements for the different speed brackets. For example:

Section 4:4 speaks about frame specifications.
Section 4:10 speaks about the roll bars, along with a diagram of the standards required.
Section 4:11 speaks about roll cages, and has a diagram of the standards required.

alex

is that the usa or international version your using there.

alex you have to pay attention.

according to what was said above anders says they couldnt run cuz of the awd.

jeff said they couldnt run cuz of the cage.

what was the question anyway?

ed

 

[qbnkiller]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

well, my thinking process is as follows:

forget the fact you have a truck..let's say it is a 65' GTO...who cares. If the car is running X.XX, the cage has to meet the following regs. This is how I read it. There are/may be more stringent rules, but I am approaching it that way. I will be in communications with my local NHRA guy in a few months myself for my own truck, but at least this is what I understand it to be. These sections also have diagrams of how the roll bars/cage need to be contructed.

As for where I got that from, it is from the Sport Compact Rules and Regulations 2006 - since this was questioned previously.

 

[blk00z28]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

I think the difference between awd, and 4wd are slightly different. But it depends on who you ask I guess. Our trucks were made off of a 4wd platform. WRX's and such don't have a real transfer case like we do. Its all in the tranny. But they might call it a transfer case. :dunno:

I'd like to see whats going to happen when Parish run's faster then a 9.99 in his truck. Will they stop him from running everywhere because he's 4wd as well? (although I guess it doesnt really matter for him, because he can still drive it in 2wd huh..?)

I know I'm not the person to talk about this, seeing I will probably never see a 9.99 et in my truck. And when the day comes it might be 5-6 years from now and the rules might be changed in our favor. But I like to talk about it. So forgive me if I'm a little outta line here.

 

[Nova67ss]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

your just as confused as i was which was why i called nhra.

especially since this is wriiten in section 2.11 rear end.

pat at nhra agreed with me on the confusion because given the section its written in it aears to be a drivleineissue and not a height issue.

so i have to agree with you on the confusion.

fwiw pat agreed with me that its written in the wrong section and the interpretation is screwed up.

also agreed that it needs to be changed. perhaps in an upcoming rule revision.

but i wouldnt hold my breath.

as for saying awd is the same as 4wd... awd = 4wd.

not exactly as we all know here.

so what answer can i give you. only what i have said allready.

the cage issue probably got you and the driveline issue was secondary.

God thing U pointed on the irregulations in sections and interpretations, Ed, If it is confusing for U then think about how it is for me, trying to understand things in a foreing language too

About us being stopped it was about the cage ( I found out later) BUT there are 2 ways of inturpent the cage thing too and thats how we got the dispence for the 2 rear bars..

That is in the NHRA rulebook too!!!

Thats suposely have to do with weight on the truck..
Roberts truck was on the "right" side in that matter.. more confusing

I think the rule makers have to revise the whole thing, because the background rules is made to fit the old unsafe cars like the hardtop Mustangs and so on.. but TODAYS cars already have a much more safety thinki´n already build in when manufactured and that must be considered when they make rules..


Everybody that have an opinion in this or even some hard evidence feel free to chip in, a good debate is good fore the cause..and might help to redo the rules..

 

[ed hess]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

>>>and might help to redo the rules <<<


good luck getting that done!

easier to just make it right according to the rules and be done with it.

ed

 

[Nova67ss]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

That gets us back to the rule, no 4WD is alowed to run faster than 9.99.....

The heck with the bars.. its the time limmit that counts.

By the way, Roberts Cage is done right down to 7,50 et...in Europe and Sweden.

 

[turbodig]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

That gets us back to the rule, no 4WD is alowed to run faster than 9.99.....

The heck with the bars.. its the time limmit that counts.

By the way, Roberts Cage is done right down to 7,50 et...in Europe and Sweden.

I think the reason for the "No 4wd" rule was to avoid some of these guys...

http://www.dhraonline.com/

Full size diesel pickup running 8s.... a bit top-heavy, if you ask me.

Where the NHRA stuck themselves is that they didn't make the rule clear. They could have said:

"No 4WD/AWD vehicles with a floorpan higher than x inches, going faster than xx.xx."
This would have gotten the desired result, until someone builds an AWD 9-second UPS
van.

I'm betting this will get changed, since there are a number of import cars that I'm sure are wondering about this same thing. NHRA doesn't want to make the import guys mad, as there is a *lot* of sponsorship $$ there right now.

The interesting thing, is that ultimately, chassis certification is handled by the SFI foundation. (http://www.sfifoundation.com/) The spec involved is 25.5, as I recall.

Both the NHRA and Svensk (the swedish association) use the same people to certify.
Both are full SFI members.

So, why a cage certified by them in one country is deemed "unsafe" in another, is a bit puzzling. I suspect the answer lies with liability issues, and the crazy lawsuit situation we have in the US.

In the end, safety rules are about keeping the driver from injury/death. It would take take a pretty horrendous crash to compromise Robert's cage, the way he has it set up.

My .02,

 

[JSM]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

Dig is 100% correct. In the end we really need to build our trucks to be safe. The rules are guidelines and there due to idiots at the track, and lawsuits.

The driver needs to take responsbility of what he is driving and not try to blame everybody else like 99% of US citizens like to do. Blame the other guy.

To clear up Roberts cage questions:

It is certified by SHRA (swedish hot rod association) and legal to run in all of Europe. Since this is where he races probably a good thing.
He has a written statement from the head of SHRA allowing for no rear bars due to it being street legal and licensed in Sweden. The day it isn't street legal he must add the bars.
His cage is full chromemoly, been sonic checked, holes drilled in proper locations for thickness, fully tig welded, corner bracing etc. It is done correctly.

When we were planning his trip to US we knew about the rear bar concern and took the risk.
I sent letter to Pat at NHRA asking if NHRA would accept a SHRA cert. He responded to contact track.
Track told me it would be fine, they may want him to do a single pass to make sure it was safe but otherwise wouldn't be an issue. They would also accept his FIA competition license.

I went one step further and we got his NHRA license. I did 120% of what KCIR asked.
The track manager admitted I had done what they asked and that they didn't response to my questions properly. In his words "nobody" stood up in your emails everybody just pointed fingers.

Due to publicity of it, he was afraid to let us run faster than 10.00's. He was not at all concerned if the truck was safe and told me several times, he could tell from the truck, and how it drives it was safe. That wasn't an issue. We were just caught up in technical issues. The track guy was a great guy, but as the track manager had to follow the "rules" if he liked them or not.

Robert and I had SEVERAL discussion before hand on risk, and decided for 1 race it wasn't worth adding bars he didn't want since he does drive this truck on the street. Our risk and it bite us. O well.

In the end the reason for the trip Nationals was to talk to old friends, met new friends and answer questions and help others. We did that. Mission successful.

Could we go back in time, we would have changed a few things. One being it would have seen more track time prior to nats. Hindsight though. Fact is chances are the truck will never see US ground again. It will continue to be raced in Europe and hopefully be faster next year.

 

[mattw]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

So, why a cage certified by them in one country is deemed "unsafe" in another, is a bit puzzling. I suspect the answer lies with liability issues, and the crazy lawsuit situation we have in the US.

Yeah, our country sucks in that regard.. IMO it should be completely impossible to even entertain suing a track for any reason whatsoever.. I wish that the waiver sheets that everyone has to sign actually worked like they should.. If that were the case most tracks would prolly let you run whatever you want down the track at any speed...


-Matt

 

[420]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

Yeah, our country sucks in that regard.. IMO it should be completely impossible to even entertain suing a track for any reason whatsoever.. I wish that the waiver sheets that everyone has to sign actually worked like they should.. If that were the case most tracks would prolly let you run whatever you want down the track at any speed...


-Matt

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this point here. Our local track, Moroso Motorsports Park, has issues that have been known about for years and years, yet they refuse to do anything about it. These include a major problem with water seeping up through the track, lanes having dips and bumps in them, and CONSTANT track prep issues. Just as the racer needs to be responsible for ensuring that all necessary safety equipment is used, the track needs to be responsible for safety on their end as well.

Just my $.02.

 

[Nova67ss]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this point here. Our local track, Moroso Motorsports Park, has issues that have been known about for years and years, yet they refuse to do anything about it. These include a major problem with water seeping up through the track, lanes having dips and bumps in them, and CONSTANT track prep issues. Just as the racer needs to be responsible for ensuring that all necessary safety equipment is used, the track needs to be responsible for safety on their end as well.

Just my $.02.

Have the Moroso Motorsports park "gone down the hill"? in the last couples of years?

Vissited them for 16 and 14 years ago and they seemd fine then..
I guess florida have problems with the water because ther low sea levels but othervise it seems like a fine track to mee then..

We have another problem due to the long rainy and cold winters, cold creeps down in the earth and the water in the ground freezes and expands, at springtime the warms starts to heat up the ground, but lower levels are still frozen (not permafrost) this makes the ground soft and muchy untill the water have drained away and the ground starts to dry up and hardens again

Back to the NHRA again..

one thing strikes me.. the rule for 4WD not faster than 9.99, same sy take of the proppshaft to fron and are now consider RWD and have no rules against going faster than 9.99.
Genius thinkin by the rulemakers hahahaha.. thats in fact redictioulus stupid rule..

Turbodig I agree with U
I think the reason for the "No 4wd" rule was to avoid some of these guys...

http://www.dhraonline.com/

Full size diesel pickup running 8s.... a bit top-heavy, if you ask me.

Where the NHRA stuck themselves is that they didn't make the rule clear. They could have said:

"No 4WD/AWD vehicles with a floorpan higher than x inches, going faster than xx.xx."
This would have gotten the desired result, until someone builds an AWD 9-second UPS
van.

 

[Nova67ss]

Re: NHRA rules vs real world

Maybee we should go to techinspecktions as RWD?? and later turn on the AWD/4WD ability just to avoid that 9.99??