NOPIDRAGS

Import or domestic compact FWD or AWD entries only. Car or truck body style must be retained in door slammer variety.

Lightweight components (non-stock fiberglass or other composite) limited to hood, doors, decklid/hatch, one-piece front ends allowed on all backhalf cars.

3/4 chassis cars are Honda/Acura cars with aftermarket H-pattern trans., Full chassis cars are Honda/Acura cars with stock case H-pattern trans

All ¾ chassis and tube chassis cars allowed aftermarket body work that retains the factory stock look, as long as it is made of carbon material or stronger.

All tube chassis and ¾ chassis cars must be approved for competition before they are allowed to compete in 2006.

FWD: 0.80 lbs per CC of displacement (minimum of 1700 lbs. with stock case H-Pattern transmissions), with up to two power adders

Stock style transmission cars:
Maximum Turbo size = 80 mm

Aftermarket transmission cars:
Maximum Turbo size = 78 mm

Ecotec Powered cars:
Maximum Turbo size = 70 mm

Add 100 lbs. to your specific minimum weight for automatic transmissions.

Add 300 lbs. for ecotec engines.

All H pattern cars allowed aftermarket bell housing, and slipper style clutches.

What does everyone think? Lets speed the Hondas up instead of slowing the GM's down.

Nothing has been done yet, just getting a feel for a few things from you guys.

MrParks

not bad......but will this apply to street cars as well? speaking in terms of the trans

NOPIDRAGS

Just looking at the Pro 4 class currently.

The street classes do not allow aftermarket trans, or altering of the stock external case as of this time.

tony1

Those minimum weights are unattainable for a honda...

tony1

wait, so you can run full tube, with stock h pattern at 1700lbs with a 2l motor?

SSC1

Look at your scale logs. We cant afford to get our hondas to 1900# now. The weight advantage we should have had this year we cant afford to take advantage of. Just ask Tony how much to shave 400# off of most of the hondas! I do like the fact you are looking at the class though.

NOPIDRAGS

With a stock unibody and back half ,yes, they are.
Not with a tube or a 3/4 chassis they are'nt.


Sav's car weighs 2060lbs, with a Xtrac he can 3/4 chassis his car and save 200-300lbs depending on the materials used. With a stock case H-pattern he can do a full tube and weigh alot less.

NOPIDRAGS

Kerry @ Kens Kustom Chassis says to 3/4 one that is already backhalf is 5-7k depending on the materials used. Standard Chromoly and tin,vs. Chromoly and Carbon Fiber.

Team SMP

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NDRATECH &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

What does everyone think? Lets speed the Hondas up instead of slowing the GM's down.

Nothing has been done yet, just getting a feel for a few things from you guys.</TD></TR></TABLE>

What about me lol do I get 100lbs weight redux cause I drive an old heap

NOPIDRAGS

Hey Frenchie, what size is your motor? 2.4l? with an Auto?

That would be 2020lbs correct? If it is a 2.4

Team SMP

2.2liter oem auto tranny and only 1 power adder

4piston

Joe you know where to go for a 3/4 car!! And it won't be any damn $7,000 I can tell you that! MR2 Performance!!

ninesecrx

I think the rule is lame about letting full tube cars in a stock uni body class. Once again, you just made it even more expensive for smaller budget teams to participate.

NOPIDRAGS

1860 pounds in 2006

NOPIDRAGS

Mike, it is alot cheaper than having to go to an Xtrac trans. By taking 300-400 additional pounds out of the Hondas, we should be able to eliminate some of the tranny breakage issues as well as help the racers go faster.

ComposiMo

I still think itd be right to look at tire sizes. I would still be building a car for this class if the Pro 4 guys weren't practically outrunning the Pro FWD cars. There should be no reason for that, and the definition between the two classes really should be broader than they are right now.

The SFWD cars are going 9's on 24.5 tires... if you're looking for a class to run 8's, then there should be no need for 28" tires. If you move T4 to 24.5, Pro 4 to 26, and Pro FWD to 28+ i think it'd help even things out a bit between the classes. As a side benefit, since you are saying that you are concerned about transmission costs nad breakage... a 26" tire in Pro 4 would mean less breakage as well

ninesecrx

Wecan run a 26 inch tire all day long with no breakage...thats for sure

NOPIDRAGS

I have already said that these are not the final rules. If you can run a 26" tire all day with no breakage and run 7.90-8.00 more power to you. The option to take weight out is up to each Honda/Acura and whatever else team there is outside of the GM teams. Take advantage of the weight break, and possibly run in the 7's with no breakage.

All the fans want to see is side by side racing, not cars blowing up or boken bye's.
Let's try and put the racing back in Sport Compact Racing.

Nobody on here think that I am pointing fingers at any team. I am not doing that, I am just trying to bring all the cars down in ET and not trying to slow some teams down so everyone can catch up.

Let me throw this out there for everyone.
How do we expect the sport to progress, if we are constantly trying to slow everyone down?
Most racers run heads up, and have no interest in a index or bracket class, so why do we try to force everyone to run the same numbers?


Modified by NDRATECH at 4:54 PM 11/22/2005

Enzo-Racing

You have very good points...
Only thing is I think that class needs to slow down a bit.
There's nothing wrong with slowing cars down and it happens often in other forms of racing. Some pro 4 cars can compete with Pro Fwd cars. Thats where the problem is.

Maybe that tire restriction is not a bad idea. Limiting pro 4 to a 26".

NOPIDRAGS

The only cars that Gary G. and Brian J. should be able to compete with in that class are either gone or being re-done by GM for 2006.

We already know that they can't compete with Jason's Cobalt (Marty's old car), 7.2x@200+, or some of the new GM cars coming out.

Tire size limitations are just a band-aid to a problem. Let's just try and figure out how to make everyone competitive with out putting band aids on the wounds again.

How do we know that the GM cars can't go 7.80-7.70 on 26" tires?

4piston

So GM tube chassis cars are not allowed to run Pro4?

NOPIDRAGS

Correct.

misfertech

jeeez

why not make the class Honda only

0VisualAutoMotoring

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by misfertech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">jeeez

why not make the class Honda only</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hey.....

Read NDRATECH's signature.

ComposiMo

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NDRATECH &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Tire size limitations are just a band-aid to a problem. Let's just try and figure out how to make everyone competitive with out putting band aids on the wounds again.

How do we know that the GM cars can't go 7.80-7.70 on 26" tires?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't think it is a "band-aid" solution at all. Also, you are sitting here contradicting yourself sorta:

- You say you want close racing, and more cars out there, and more people to be competitive with less breakage

But then you come on here and say that if you can't run on big tires without breaking, go home. ALso, you want to speed everyone up.

That also begs the question, what on earth does this class need to run 7's at 180mph for? Shouldn't it be closer to mid 8's? But that is another discussion... back to the topic:

Fact is, limiting tire size is probably one of THE best ways to limit speed and create equality with less breakage. So-what if the GM cars can run mid 7's on 26's.. if they CAN, then what on earth do they need 28's for then?... Lower the tire size, you'll have less breaking for everyone, and a class that is now a bit more speed limited compared to its Pro FWD brothers.

To reiterate: If you want them to stop breaking, lighten up on your firm grip of a 28" tire, and at least -consider- the thought of limiting tire size in the class

p.s. and yes, i know i'm not building a car for this class, so therefore there is no reason for you to lend any weight to anything i am saying, but i -was- building one, and decided to not finish it for several reasons that are being discussed here. I'm one of those guys that would be out there, and be playing if the playing field was a bit more level... i don't have the money to take it to GM , and i don't have the manpower. Could i have tried? Sure, but that would also be worse than throwing money down the drain... i should just buy a yacht or something, and at least enjoy it! I want to race to actually have a chance, and be competitive, and have fun. If the sanctioning bodies are not interested in leveling the field more, then what incentive do i have to finish my car and throw my money away?

You need to be more apt to creating a level playing field, even if that means slowing the fast guys down... no, scratch that... ESPECIALLY if that means slowing the fast guys down. Every other series does it. They limit speed, either by power, by traction, or by aero. Since none of these cars run aero packages that you can limit with, then you go to power... well, some of the Pro 4 guys are running motors making power that are probably very close, and the motor is not very far off from a ProFWD motor.... so if they are running the same motor, what is going to keep them from going faster? Is it weight? traction? or limiting power? Well, i think weight is one of them, but the biggest will be traction, especially if you have no other way of reducing power on these cars than limiting turbo size.

I don't know why the aprehention is there to limit the tire size, but it does make pretty good sense, and it has made sense to everyone i've discussed this topic with in the past.