2.6 Protrusion Consensus

ABI MOTORSPORT said:
You nailed it, This is exactly what our rules state. This is a fair rule I believe. The rules are locked for three years with the option after the second year to talk about what changes can be made for the fourth year. I think this is fair also. I don't understand why Pa thinks this is so bad.
Click to expand...

Well, first off, I don't think I said the rule itself was bad.

The fact that we have multiple rules is what's bad....thus the title of the thread.

At the beginning of this, no one was saying a 3-year lockdown and no one was saying that KY and IN would fall in line.

So if you guys are going to pull this all together and agree on it, then good on ya, and we'll all be watching to see how it turns out. If you guys hit the nail on the head on the first try, then I think NADM will seriously consider it, and FPP will follow NADM.

As with all change, a lot of the initial reactions come from how people percieve the message. If important elements aren't posted from the beginning, you can't blame people for asking a bunch of questions. No heartburn intended.
 
ABI MOTORSPORT said:
What does all this mean? Why not just say why this rule is so bad in your opinion.
Click to expand...

The comment was made before about this not being NASCAR. Well sir this rule is putting the sport down the same path. There are more effective ways to limit power at a lesser expense. All rules have grey areas. Just look at the 2010 turbo rule. The people that spend the money to play in the grey area will be out front. Why give them more play ground. Who will benefit from this? I can tell you it's not the pullers. Exactly what is there to like about this rule?
 
how about just dropping the 2.6 and making them put the 3.0 with a bushingand run in the class that they are built for. 2.8 dedicated pullers. easy to tech. now evryone can take some aspiran and get rid of the freakin migrain headache.
 
CRUDE.

turbo.jpg


Brandon
 
nwpadmax said:
Well, first off, I don't think I said the rule itself was bad.

The fact that we have multiple rules is what's bad....thus the title of the thread.

At the beginning of this, no one was saying a 3-year lockdown and no one was saying that KY and IN would fall in line.

So if you guys are going to pull this all together and agree on it, then good on ya, and we'll all be watching to see how it turns out. If you guys hit the nail on the head on the first try, then I think NADM will seriously consider it, and FPP will follow NADM.

As with all change, a lot of the initial reactions come from how people percieve the message. If important elements aren't posted from the beginning, you can't blame people for asking a bunch of questions. No heartburn intended.
Click to expand...

So u started this whole thread not knowing what we already knew?

we were told that this was a 3 year lockdown, and we were told other organizations are working with us! You should have came to london for the meeting I guess.
 
Brandon, your picture looks like how I would interpret COTPC turbo rule. There should not be a lot of gray area in the rule like there has been in the past couple of years, all depends on what tech allows though.
 
outlaw99 said:
So u started this whole thread not knowing what we already knew?

we were told that this was a 3 year lockdown, and we were told other organizations are working with us! You should have came to london for the meeting I guess.
Click to expand...


Correct...I only knew what I was seeing in the COTPC rules thread in the "events" section.

Thanks for offering, but I sat on the sidelines this year and would not have expected to be invited to a COTPC meeting since I've never got to pull with you guys. I would very much like to run with you guys at some hooks next year, so that was my main interest.

As for who knew what, and when, about who was doing what, that's still a mystery to me, because there's some things that don't seem to add up.

I've been a member of FPP for some time now so I'm kinda familiar with how that goes. Got to meet some of the northern Ohio guys at the FPP meeting, nice to put some names to faces and shake hands.

And just to reiterate one more time, the thing I will always push for is common rules...maybe one or two sets at the most. I think it's good that we're trying protrusion because at the end of the day, the real proof has to come from the track. We can theorize about it all we want but we have to run it in real life and see if it accomplishes the goals. If it does, I think you'll see alignment with FPP and NADM at some point in the future.

I hope some of the top NADM and COTPC trucks hook at the NADM regional series. It'll be a great comparison.
 
As for Brandon's drawing....it might be wrong.

You have to draw the step in the wheel, and the guys are saying that the MWE must be BEHIND the tips....as in, you should not be able to see the secondary tips as you would, in that drawing, and in the pic I posted.

Is that a better way of saying it? The secondary tips cannot be visible from the MWE?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This is awful hard to visualize with words so that everyone gets it.
 
this stuff is too complicated. even you guys are having a hard time explaining/ understanding the rules. and you guys are pullers who know and understand this stuff. what a nightmare this will turn out to be for the techs... imagine whats gonna happen when the 80 year old farmer who volunteers to help out with the pull becuase his wife is on the fair board and he used to pull a JD B back in 1942 tries to figure out what this stuff is. will he even know what an MWE is?
 
nwpadmax said:
As for Brandon's drawing....it might be wrong.

You have to draw the step in the wheel, and the guys are saying that the MWE must be BEHIND the tips....as in, you should not be able to see the secondary tips as you would, in that drawing, and in the pic I posted.

Is that a better way of saying it? The secondary tips cannot be visible from the MWE?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This is awful hard to visualize with words so that everyone gets it.
Click to expand...

Brandons drawling is correct. He is showing the map at the side and not in front of the (secondary tips). Ingenuity will have a big part on the winners behalf in any motorsport
 
ABI MOTORSPORT said:
Brandons drawling is correct. He is showing the map at the side and not in front of the (secondary tips). Ingenuity will have a big part on the winners behalf in any motorsport
Click to expand...


Where are the secondary tips in the drawing, I see the larger inducer bore, but no secondary tips.
 
zstroken said:
Where are the secondary tips in the drawing, I see the larger inducer bore, but no secondary tips.
Click to expand...


The tips aren't drawn in the picture, but after the cover "steps" to the larger inducer bore it could be assumed so do the blade tips, or I am missing something (completely possible)....
 
Leadfoot said:
The tips aren't drawn in the picture, but after the cover "steps" to the larger inducer bore it could be assumed so do the blade tips, or I am missing something (completely possible)....
Click to expand...


I know where I think they should be, but since this is so ambiguous, we might as well make this completely clear.
 
nwpadmax said:
Correct...I only knew what I was seeing in the COTPC rules thread in the "events" section.

Thanks for offering, but I sat on the sidelines this year and would not have expected to be invited to a COTPC meeting since I've never got to pull with you guys. I would very much like to run with you guys at some hooks next year, so that was my main interest.

As for who knew what, and when, about who was doing what, that's still a mystery to me, because there's some things that don't seem to add up.

I've been a member of FPP for some time now so I'm kinda familiar with how that goes. Got to meet some of the northern Ohio guys at the FPP meeting, nice to put some names to faces and shake hands.

And just to reiterate one more time, the thing I will always push for is common rules...maybe one or two sets at the most. I think it's good that we're trying protrusion because at the end of the day, the real proof has to come from the track. We can theorize about it all we want but we have to run it in real life and see if it accomplishes the goals. If it does, I think you'll see alignment with FPP and NADM at some point in the future.

I hope some of the top NADM and COTPC trucks hook at the NADM regional series. It'll be a great comparison.
Click to expand...

I doubt if you will get to see a good comparison because if any of the COTPC trucks go to nadm events they will probably run what they had @ the end of this year (3.0" or 3.2"undercover) w/lots of custom work.
 
PTPULLINCHASSIS said:
I doubt if you will get to see a good comparison because if any of the COTPC trucks go to nadm events they will probably run what they had @ the end of this year (3.0" or 3.2"undercover) w/lots of custom work.
Click to expand...

True.

Maybe we could get someone to try both approaches at a Test 'n Tune?
 
There is no grey aera the:

-MWE CANNOT BE LOCATED ANYWHERE IN THE 2.6" BORE
-THE 2.6" BORE CANNOT TAPER
-MWE CANNOT EXCEED .250"
-COMPRESSOR WHEEL FINS MUST ENTER THE 2.6" BORE FOR .125"


Brandon
 
Ok guys here is the deal. Use common sence and apply what has been written and what was drawn and put the two together. THE MAP WIDTH GROOVE HAS TO BE BEHIND THE STEP IN THE WHEEL! THIS WAY YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING AIR TO THE FACE OF THE LARGER DIAMETER FINS AIR HAS TO ENTER FROM THE SIDES.
NO MAP GROOVE INFRONT IF THE 2.6 THERE MUST BE. 375" SOLID BORE INFRONT OF THE WHEEL FACE.

I am going to get together with B.O.B and indiana and we will most likely end up with the same rules even if we have to tweek what we have some.

By the way a s400 cover cut for 1/8 protusion meets our rules.

I am done with this until we all meet together. Sorry for the confusion, I thought posting the rules early would help not cause a cluster **ck

I will answer any questions I can but will have this resolved as soon as we can get together.

Ted
 
If someone way smarter than me that uderstands what we are after would put it in different words so everyone can understand I would appretiate it. Not sure where the cunfusion is coming from you guys are making this harder than it is. Almost like some of you are already trying to figure out ways to cheat or push the rules.

I asked my wife today to see if she understood the rule. All she knows is that a turbo is expensive (she bought me one of my hx82 chargers) they hang on the engine and make boost. Any way I showed her a drawing similar to the one brandon put on here. I had her read the rule that is written on here and asked her where the groove could be and she got it right with out any coaching. READ WHAT'S WRITTEN AND STOP OVER THINKING THIS. WE WILL TRY TO FIND A BETTER WAY TO WORD IT IF PEOPLE ATILL HAVE PROBLEMS.

Ted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top