2.5 2012

This highlights one of the issues with the rules as they are now - everyone calls out exactly what the turbo rules are - but no one (that I know of) is taking the time to walk through what the actual teching procedure is to determine if a part is legal. In my feeble little mind - I would think that a lot of these issues would be alleviated if the rules included say a drawing with tolerances of a plug being used to tech the chargers - that would further clean up any grey areas and help people understand what the teching procedure actual is. Most of the time there are items just like this where everyone's intent is to be legal - but without knowing the exact teching method used to determine legality its pretty damn difficult to push the rules. I for one encourage pushing the rules - that's why they were made.
 
carpenca said:
That may be but there is just not that much there to begin with, using the 2.55" plug is an expedient. If anything there is just enough bore because there is not enough room there for a bushing or a inward taper.

Caleb
Click to expand...

There is nearly an inch of STRAIGHT bore before the comp wheel on a OEM cover... How is that not much? Maybe your machinist got off his .001 mark while making that RACE COVER.
 
my question is, is that .001 goin to make you win first place come on guys your fighting about a .001/.002 i know rules are rules but you act like they are making 100hp off that!!!
 
No it's probaly not but the rules say a certain number. Doesn't matter if it's .001'' or .100''. This winter when I put a charger together depending the class it will be .020 under what it's supposed to be. So if someone cant use a micrometer or what ever other tool they are using it will still pass. It's easy to miss measure or loose 3 to 4 thousandths from tool to tool or with wear.
 
pierce460 said:
There is nearly an inch of STRAIGHT bore before the comp wheel on a OEM cover... How is that not much? Maybe your machinist got off his .001 mark while making that RACE COVER.
Click to expand...

What is the big deal? Apparently Fleece has a cover for the turbo that meets the bore requirements, but the bore itself is very short. If it meets the rules (I assume it really does) as they are written - if you don't like it - work on changing the damn rules instead of *****ing and moaning on the internet. Either the pteching plug needs the chamfer/radius removed, or a bore length needs to be added to the rules.
 
Last edited:
The class is called 2.5, but a plug that is 2.55 is fitting in the bore. If a 2.55 plug goes in the bore, then the bore is larger than 2.55. I guess I'm lost. How is this a grey area. They give everybody the room for heat deformation by using a plug that is .05 bigger than what the class is called. I'm not the smartest person on here, but I doubt I am the dumbest either. Can someone explain this to me?
 
JMOODY said:
How is this a grey area. They give everybody the room for heat deformation by using a plug that is .05 bigger than what the class is called. I'm not the smartest person on here, but I doubt I am the dumbest either. Can someone explain this to me?
Click to expand...


Trying to push the envelope much as possible + garbage machining tolerances from the turbo mfgr is what it sounds like...
 
JMOODY said:
The class is called 2.5, but a plug that is 2.55 is fitting in the bore. If a 2.55 plug goes in the bore, then the bore is larger than 2.55. I guess I'm lost. How is this a grey area. They give everybody the room for heat deformation by using a plug that is .05 bigger than what the class is called. I'm not the smartest person on here, but I doubt I am the dumbest either. Can someone explain this to me?
Click to expand...


Jeff i think some of the problem is that a lot of people are using that extra .05 in their bore and not leaving it for error or heat expansion. my guess is a lot of chargers would not pass a hot tech because of this reason. The "problem" in Greencastle last weekend was not that Fleece was trying to pull something. It was the simple fact that a plug with a "radiused" end was used rather than a 90 degree end. the radius slid into the bore and allowed the plug to hit the wheel. Their bore was shorter than the radiused end. (These are my conclusions anyhow)
 
WillyDmax said:
LIKE!...hope i draw a good one i'll give a shot with my little 2.5er...better hope i dont make it in top 26 and draw last number on saturday...cus yall are gonna feel like a ***** when a worktruck with a busted headlight puts it to ya...lol..j/k Rob take it easy...met u at indy when u were cruisin ur Caged Kawasaki
Click to expand...

Lol ya never know man, that track can go bad quick, and get good quick. I remember ya, we'll see ya out there hopefully.
 
KEhrich86 said:
Jeff i think some of the problem is that a lot of people are using that extra .05 in their bore and not leaving it for error or heat expansion. my guess is a lot of chargers would not pass a hot tech because of this reason. The "problem" in Greencastle last weekend was not that Fleece was trying to pull something. It was the simple fact that a plug with a "radiused" end was used rather than a 90 degree end. the radius slid into the bore and allowed the plug to hit the wheel. Their bore was shorter than the radiused end. (These are my conclusions anyhow)
Click to expand...

If this was the case, the tools that were used plugging with the rules that were in place were wrong. The plug should have def been a 90 degree end.
 
:D
pierce460 said:
Really???:umno: Your just hatin cause im not at FPE getting my eyeballs phucked out like the 2 nut swingers in question...
Click to expand...

You know your quite a funny guy! I dont think brayden and chase are into eyeball phuckin but you may know sumthin we all dont!?!:what: But seriously why does it matter to you why barnes and maders turbos didnt pass tech? you jealous of there trucks or wat? idc its jus funny you are all concerned about them and fleeces!
 
KEhrich86 said:
1. is not to be considered an entry level class. There needs to be a "stock" class that serves that purpose, although i would hate to be the tech for "stock" as it will be hard to police. The name "workstock" and the 2.5 class need to have no correlation with one another. there are more dedicated pullers than "street trucks" or "work trucks" in this class, so get over it. what was once ws,2.6,2.8,3.0 now needs to be stock,2.5,2.6 protrusion,3.0.

2. dual pumps or not? doesnt bother me either way. dual pumps would save the top trucks from spending $2,000 a throw on single cp3s if they are shown to be undependable and on the other hand single cp3s would probably prevent dual pumped 2.6 trucks from dropping down and running 2.5. If single pumps shall be the way then i think it needs to be said "single oem model/make fuel pump." lets remember though classes are distinguished by 2.5,2.6, etc. which is the main limiting factor here (air).... so would it be so bad to run dual pumps? IDK

3. duals on non-dual trucks? (this is going to be said to be a biased opinion because i have a short wheelbase truck but im expressing anyways) Level playing field is what everyone wants correct? to level the playing field in this aspect would require a short wheelbase truck to be able to run duals to compensate for the "leverage" issues shorter trucks face. this falls back on the dedicated pullers, if its dedicated then duals on the back dont effect its "use". if someone wants to run their "street truck" in 2.5 their most likely going to trailer it to the pull nehow so put the duals on before the pull and take them off after or face the consequences (if any) of not running them.

4. hanging weights? I could swing either way with this.... this may be another good way to keep 2.6 trucks from dropping to 2.5? on the other hand this would also help level the playing field and thats what we all want isnt it? hanging weights could also allow top 2.5 trucks to bump to 2.6 and do better since it seems 2.6 has low truck numbers this year (everywhere i have been anyhow).

theres going to be atleast a 300hp gap between top 2.5 trucks and top 2.6 trucks with just 2 factors (1. 2.5 straight bore, and 2.6 protrusion 2. no water-air and water-air) this 300hp gap alone would be enough to distinguish the 2 classes. the other factors need to be weighed by opinions and somehow someone somewhere will make a set of rules. 2.5 i believe is here to stay and as a competative puller in this class, i would say a good, FUN class to pull in. I would like to see these rules be adopted by or intermingled with rules from BOB to allow even competition all over IL,IN,KY.
Click to expand...

Before the 2.5 thread got derailed into the 2.5 Pageant...there were excellent posts like these thoughts here...that are being overlooked by drama...these are the questions/topics we "the pullers" and you "the shops, sponsors, rule makers" need to hash out...prolly not the best idea to do so on CompD cus we are gonna get every Tom, Dick. and Harry from the midwest that don't pull with us telling us what they think we should do. But this is food for thought, we are all bias to our own opinions,we need to all take 5 min and think these thoughts out...
 
maroondmax06 said:
:D

You know your quite a funny guy! I dont think brayden and chase are into eyeball phuckin but you may know sumthin we all dont!?!:what: But seriously why does it matter to you why barnes and maders turbos didnt pass tech? you jealous of there trucks or wat? idc its jus funny you are all concerned about them and fleeces!
Click to expand...

I honestly don't care who it was.. It's the fact that it happend, I would have said the same thing if it was ur charger that didn't pass tech..
 
JMOODY said:
The class is called 2.5, but a plug that is 2.55 is fitting in the bore. If a 2.55 plug goes in the bore, then the bore is larger than 2.55. I guess I'm lost. How is this a grey area. They give everybody the room for heat deformation by using a plug that is .05 bigger than what the class is called. I'm not the smartest person on here, but I doubt I am the dumbest either. Can someone explain this to me?
Click to expand...

The class is wrote in as a 2.5" Compressor Inducer class. Thats "Common Folk" terminology and easy to understand. 2.5" = 63.5mm on the dot. You can not take a 63.5mm inducer and fit it into a 63.5mm bore, thats whats refered to as a press fit...

The compressor wheel has to have clearance between the outside of the inducer and the bore in order to spin freely. Further more Aluminum expands and contracts depending on temperature (More so than most of the materials found underneath the hood), and billet compressor wheels and covers are cut at around 70* ambient temperatures, so the general rule of thumb is a .015-.02 tolerance to allow the wheel and cover to expand and not come in contact with each other. Factor in a 90* ambient temperature, and a turbo sitting on top of a 140* motor and your not left with much room for error when it comes to teching.

Make sense? Thats why the plug is 2.55" which in essence gives you .05 for tolerance and heat expansion.

Caleb

PS: Will... You and I can comense negotiations as soon as you replace that Idler pulley... It really bothers me. :lolly:
 
Last edited:
I know what is going on. I just wanted to hear somebody say they were pushing the envelope a little to far. A 2.55 plug shouldn't fit in a 2.5 turbo before the truck has run. The trucks that failed tech did so before they hooked. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
pierce460 said:
I honestly don't care who it was.. It's the fact that it happend, I would have said the same thing if it was ur charger that didn't pass tech..
Click to expand...

hey understandable its just part of truck pulling, just curious why you had to keep pointing fingers on it. i aint trying to be a smarta$$ was just curious.
 
WillyDmax said:
Before the 2.5 thread got derailed into the 2.5 Pageant...there were excellent posts like these thoughts here...that are being overlooked by drama...these are the questions/topics we "the pullers" and you "the shops, sponsors, rule makers" need to hash out...prolly not the best idea to do so on CompD cus we are gonna get every Tom, Dick. and Harry from the midwest that don't pull with us telling us what they think we should do. But this is food for thought, we are all bias to our own opinions,we need to all take 5 min and think these thoughts out...
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that we all need to just take 5mins n throw our opinions around with one another and the shops.
 
Personally I think 2.5 would be fine here in ky. It sure would make it easier on us guys runnin dodges. It's hard to take a 2.3 turbo and run with a larger dmax turbo.. But I agree after a while it will be hard to tell a difference in a 2.5 and 2.6 truck. Dual pumps aren't that much more than a big single. But we will see what happens.
 
Stock appearing just adds cost, single CP3 just means folks will spend money on a custom CP3. Stock appearing driveline just means custom axles, and spools.

In other forms of racing initially the stock appearing cuts costs, but in the end it just means custom parts.

2.5 turbo would be a fine class.
 
JMOODY said:
I know what is going on. I just wanted to hear somebody say they were pushing the envelope a little to far. A 2.55 plug shouldn't fit in a 2.5 turbo before the truck has run. The trucks that failed tech did so before they hooked. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, the trucks failed before tech. But it has been said a few times the instrument they were using as a 2.550 plug had a radiused end on it... The rules as may have stated say nothing about bore length past the wheel so the 2.5 part of the bore is close to the wheel so when you put a plug in the bore that's radiused of course it will hit the wheel, the plugs need to be 90* at the business end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top