Serious dilemma!!

[Shaman]

Has the maximum engine points rule been taken out for 2001?

As it stands, I can either declare 11 points if I concede that port matching my intake is a non-stock item (a point I will have to debate if pressed, I guess) or I have to declare a complete motor swap at which point I may as well call up BBC and set myself up with a 780hp smallblock running 110 octane. That way I only have to declare 10 points!

So, what will it be? 780hp smallblock or 500hp or so smallblock? Should I go to an aluminum 626ci with 1100hp? I guess my real question is: where did the maximum naturally aspirated engine points rule go to, and should I exploit the hell out of the engine swap rule?

1100hp big-blocks in ASP? Who'd have thunk... :)

[Shaman]

Another serious point is:

Where is the rule for nitrous oxide? Should I put a 200hp shot in my car? Or in the case of the 625ci motor, a two stage 600hp wet kit?

I'm serious... these are big problems... huge gaping discrepancies. Maybe I'm missing something in the rules - there was a maximum points rule the last time I looked at these rules this winter, and now a competitor is far better off to just stuff the biggest motor in the car that's possible... not only can they get the added power, they can also drop a point off! And nitrous appears to be a free mod!

Maybe I missed the nitrous rule, but I did a search for "nitrous" and "oxide" on the document and searched for it visibly, reading pretty well everything in the document. I also searched for "power adder".

Should I propose regulation changes this late in the game? The latest rules have already been released!

My personal suggestions:


* Ban nitrous oxide: it's dangerous to have it around race tracks... use of it is very restricted around drag racing these days and rules for storing it in professional drags are strict.

* Provide a maximum engine points rule with naturally aspirated motors (with OE motors) of 7 or perhaps 8 points, as it was before. This will discourage nuts like me from getting the baddest crate race engine that their manufacturer makes (in GM's case, sky's the limit).


I'm pretty shocked, I must say, that these two points have been overlooked. If I'm misinterpreting the rules, or I've overlooked something myself, please - I'd be happy to hear otherwise.

FYI, I was on vacation and couldn't attend the final CCC meeting. Boy, am I sorry now. :(

[Shaman]

The more I look at it, the more concerned I become.

A '86 Corvette, for instance, with a completely worked L98 motor with making 500hp can have a completely worked suspension and even take some body trime points.

The car is rated at a 70 handling percentage stock.

A '98 Firebird, with a completely worked LS1 motor making 500hp can have almost no suspension changes at all. Alignment + torque arm round out the max points.

The car is rated at a 50 handling percentage stock.

This gives the C4 a very pronounced advantage over the f-body which never reaches the 'vettes stock handling and is several hundred pounds heavier.

The problem is, as I pointed out earlier, but which is now highly aggravated by the lack of a maximum naturally aspirated points rule (and a pump gas rule might apply here too IMHO), that fuel injected cars in ASP are going to take a boot square in the teeth in 2001.

As it stands under the rules earlier this year, if I relocated my battery I was golden at 13 points. My car was semi-competitive against ASP cars last year, with as many losses as wins. This year I won't stand a snowball's chance in hell - I'll have to go in mod, install a roll cage and go toe-to-toe with cars 1000 pounds lighter. I have no intention of taking on that much pain, nor destroying my car's streetability. How did so much change in one meeting?

I remind everyone that I used my car publicly to prove the rules as they existed this winter were good. Now suddenly I'm in the can like crazy! Surely I can't be misinterpreting it this grossly?

A direct quote from the CCC:

> The way I see it, your car is ASP legal.

And yes, I kept all the original e-mails. I can pull quotes out as needed. I checked out all my mods with everyone publicly and with the CCC this year before I freshened my motor and did some minor things like remove the A/C (since it's legal in ASP and I keep the windows open all the time anyway). I'm very concerned that I've wasted a great deal of time, effort and money on the whims of Solo-1 this year. In fact, I may not even sleep tonight, I feel sick.

[ctenche]

I guess you must be tired and missed the following:

2.0.6.d - Use only hydrocarbon based gasoline or diesel fuel. Oxygen bearing additives are not permitted (no NOS).

6.1.D.5 - Unlimited modification(s) to any other engine part(s) and OE specifications provided the number of cylinders...yada yada yada

There. Maybe you can sleep now.

[Christian Sorensen]

The point is: NOS is nixxed and the most one can be dinged for modifications to a naturally aspirated motor is 8.
We didn't put in a 'maximum points' for mods to a naturally aspirated motor 'cuz we didn't need to.

A naturally aspirated fuel-injected engine would can take points for:

6.1 A.1 (exhaust manifold, etc) 1pt
6.1 B.2 (fuel injuction mods) 1pt
6.1 B.3 (computer mods) 1pt
6.1 B.5 (intake manifold, etc) 1pt
6.1 D.5 (all other mods) 4pts
---------
8pts


Chris the ccc guy

[Shaman]

O.K. clear on the NOS. The proper short form is N2O, NOS is a manufacturer, so I didn't search for it.

6.1.D.5 says any "OTHER" engine parts, meaning (in the Queen's english), by expansion, that any other parts not listed in 6.1.D. are 4 points... so I take 1 point for camshaft, two points for cylinder heads and the four points for the forged parts in the bottom end.

If that's not the intention, the rulebook is still not correct because the proper grammatical expansion of that rule is that any part not already covered is four points. Which is what made me toss and turn all night.

What I did miss is the final sentence, which reads "if 6.1 D.5 is claimed, then 6.1 D.1 through 6.1 D.4 are all authorized without claiming any additional preparation points." I missed that because for turbo and supercharged engines, actual max points are listed - but i do consider this an oversight of mine... I should have seen that sentence because I read it over twice... rose coloured glasses...

Anyway, I still highly recommend that the commitee change the wording of 6.1.D.5 so that its grammar makes it obvious that Solo-1 considers this rule to be a "all in one" rule, because I'll bet I'm not the only one that gets caught in it. Though Mom always told me I take things too literally.

[ADAM]

steve...i already went thru the NOS thing for the last two years..thats why they added that little clause.... other wise i would have been using my NOS kit ......NOS is not unsafe(no more unsafe than the other high pressure bombs we are carrying around in our cars (fire extinguishers).....it is used in drag racing all the time i have used it for 3 years both on the highway and on the drag park, with a few safety features(drive line catcher and proper blow off venting) could be added to solo 1 easily....and with computer control feels and works like a turbo charger but is silent....but in all reality...the rule is still flawed....as anyone who is using sunoco ultra 94 is using illegal fuel already as i believe it contains alcohol (methonal) based octane enhancers....which are oxygenated..... or is it ethenol that ultra 94 uses? is ethenol oxygenated?

i am not sure why the rule for no oxygenated fuels is even there? does anyone know? it is a good way to make power.

re: port matching...there was always the chance that the factory would have lined things up near perfect :)

[Shaman]

NOS is a manufacturer, actually. Not a product, and it is not specifically "nitrous oxide". People mistakenly use "NOS" when they mean "N2O". With the current rules, I can put a Compucar nitrous kit on my car, and they'd have to amend the rule if they wanted me to remove the bottle from the car.

I also agree with you in regards to Sunoco Ultra 94. That's what my car runs best on, and there's a Sunoco at both Shannonville and Mosport... I doubt there's many in any of the SS/SP classes putting in 89 octane. ;)

[ctenche]

Let's not get to tied up in semantics. NOS is to N20 as Xerox is to photocopying. It's a brand name that has become interchangeable with the product itself; irregardless of the manufacturer.

[Shaman]

I strongly disagree with you there. NOS is one of perhaps 8 vendors selling nitrous systems. Being lazy with the rulebook is not very productive.

Holley
Compucar
NOS
NX
Venom
Nitrous Works
ZEX
Edelbrock

It's not an exhaustive list or anything, believe me.

[ADAM]

i agree...NOS is like xerox..we all know what is being said....

if you want to get technical...you would have to specify

NO2 industrial grade.....as medical grade is illegal to use in automotive applications...i think they add sulfer to the industrial grade to make it deadly so people do not sniff it.

but it is all covered by the statement on oyxgenated fuels....you can't add oxygen...though i am not sure what difference it makes whether you compress normal air via a turbo or supercharger....or shove it in the engine via NO2 or shove it in via nitromethane or methenol? as for danger...ever see a drag car blow up its

so is ultra 94 oxygenated or not? if it has methanol it is......then it is illegal

i just went and bought 15 gallons of VP racing motorsports 103...

here is an AWESOME link on race fuels....

http://turbofast.com.au/racefuel.html