Stepped Covers and Bushings in 2.6" or not?

Bushings and Stepped covers in 2.6" classes or not?

  • DO NOT allow bushings or stepped covers in 2.6" class

    Votes: 80 63.0%

  • Allow bushed or stepped cover chargers that have a 2.6" inlet?

    Votes: 47 37.0%
  • Total voters
    127
Convicted1

Convicted1

New member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
488
Hey folks...

There's been quite a bit of debate lately about class structure and where the classes are heading.

My opinions on the 2.6" class are pretty easy to find should anybody want to look around for them, but I'd like to hear what everybody else thinks!

Should the 2.6" classes be kept to an "off the shelf" 2.6" charger, or should bushings and stepped covers be allowed?

Lets hear your opinions!

This is a repost because I didn't meet the 2 minute requirement on my poll setup on the first thread. Moderators please delete the OTHER thread.
 
Just bumping this one since I screwed up on the other thread with the same title and didn't get the poll attached.

Mods please delete the other thread.

Thanks!
 
No bushings or stepped covers.

This being said there are big 2.6 chargers that do not have a stepped or bushed cover but yet meet the rules. These chargers can still have 110mm exducers etc. and not look any different than another S400 2.6. Eliminating bushings and stepped covers would still allow for the guys who want to spend the money to go out and buy a high $$$ 2.6 charger but not allow for the 2.8 and 3.0 chargers to jump down as easy.

It is hard to define/tech "off the shelf"

There is no good answer. Just as long as everyone doesn't go out and change the 2.6 class so my 2.6 build for 2010 is obsolete before it ever gets finished.
 
Yeah.. There are some interesting chargers out there that even fit into most "Work Stock" class rules and have pretty huge wheels in them... But most are few and far between.

I agree... Defining "Off the Shelf" would be somewhat difficult, but anybody can spot a bushing or a stepped cover charger.

Just as you said though these rules would help keep the 2.8" class flunkies from dropping down and running with the "little guys" because they can't compete in 2.8".

The big problem that I see is that those of us with really hot street trucks are thrown to the wolves with the 2.6" class the way it is now. We can't reliably run the bushings and stepped covers because of spooling issues on a street driven truck. We also can't run with the WS class because that would be unfair.
 
Convicted1 said:
The big problem that I see is that those of us with really hot street trucks are thrown to the wolves with the 2.6" class the way it is now. We can't reliably run the bushings and stepped covers because of spooling issues on a street driven truck. We also can't run with the WS class because that would be unfair.
Click to expand...

I agree I'm in the same boat I know some people will say a s400 is streetble I don't disagree with that but I don't think they could hook up to a trailer and haul another truck to a pull
 
Heres my thoughts for whatever they may be worth. The 2.6 class wasn't made for trucks that just couldnt hang in the 2.8 class anymore or upper classes to just throw a bushing on and run down a class. The 2.6 class was made because it leveled the playing field better for your "streetable" trucks. Of course guys will build trucks for the 2.6 and they wont ever see the street. I'm sure theres even a couple trucks like that for workstock. What you let guys build though is the big point of concern. If associations arent careful they'll ruin the entree level classes (2.6) that feed into the 2.8 and so on and so on. If you let the trucks bush down and basically discourage a lot of guys from just starting to get into the class it will affect and prevent growth in all classes. Keeping in mind what the 2.6 class was first made for is key to keeping it around and fun and competitive in my opinion
 
I say just throw everyone in one big class. That way there isn't any more complaining...

If that doesn't work, I say 2.6" regardless of how you get it there.
 
make them require a 2.6 charger with 1/4 inch protrusion with NO MWE groove.

Simple and easy to tech, and no gray areas.
 
RAWdiesel said:
make them require a 2.6 charger with 1/4 inch protrusion with NO MWE groove.

Simple and easy to tech, and no gray areas.
Click to expand...

Really?

You can do that S400 or a Garrett and still have an exducer well over 100mm. Until you limit the exducer your just wasting your breath with these step cover, bushing inducer rules. All you will do is see who really wants to spent money on a retoured wheel and cover.
 
I doubt it will charge. But I vote for the off the shelf turbos. Make the really hot 2.6 trucks pull 2.8 and make it the class it should be. The "street" class drowns out the 2.8 class now. Ditch that rule and watch the 2.8 class grow to what it used/should be!!
 
If you are worried about the 2.8's droping down to the 2.6....STOP tryn to use the turbo as a limet!!!! Give the 2.8 guy's some rules that are easy to teck...like big rearends, cut bed floors/interiors, hydro steering, tires, RPM limet in 2.6...so on and so on.

The more rules you put on a turbo for a class the more $$$ it will cost, cause someone will spend big $$$ to get a bigger/better proforming turbo for the class. Then the cycle starts all over... For instance, look at how much money the 1 ton drive train rule cost every one to get a d-80 to hold when you could have a rockwell in for around 500$ and no breaking! Rules cost money!!!
 
Wouldn't these "custom" machined Exducers and Covers be easily spotted with only a visual inspection in comparison to a "Native" 2.6" charger?

I mean obviously you wouldn't be able to know for sure what size the exducer was, but you'd know something fishy was going on.

If so I'd say anything that has questionable looking machine work should be grounds for failing tech.... If you've taken the time to have somethin' custom machined, chances are you're trying to bend the rules in your favor.
 
WHat if you have happened to find a specific application that uses a different wheel?
 
Convicted1 said:
Wouldn't these "custom" machined Exducers and Covers be easily spotted with only a visual inspection in comparison to a "Native" 2.6" charger?

I mean obviously you wouldn't be able to know for sure what size the exducer was, but you'd know something fishy was going on.

If so I'd say anything that has questionable looking machine work should be grounds for failing tech.... If you've taken the time to have somethin' custom machined, chances are you're trying to bend the rules in your favor.
Click to expand...

So you are saying if there is visible machine work or a race cover its out? Bullseye has their own cast 2.6 race covers. Other than it being a race cover it doesn't visually look like anything special. What about turbos made by a company like precision. What is considered "off the shelf" from them compared to a 2.6 precision charger from a place like EDP?
I wouldn't like putting the word "questionable" in the hands of a tech person. Especially at these events where people travel great distances to compete.

It comes down to the exducer size on these chargers.

You can also look over to the discussion on the 2.8 discussion for more insight on the classes. Maybe 2.8 and 2.6 has become the same class and the cutoff should be driveline or something that is easily distinguishable like Brushpuller mentioned.

How many times are we going to discuss this topic on here this year anyway? :bang
 
We are just gonna spin our wheeles, cause there will be people out there that will find ways to cheat and not get caught. Or get caught and not care. If you can't run with the big boys pull in 2.6. I'm not a puller yet so my opinion probably don't matter. When I do decide to, it will be either 2.8 or 3.0. I won't bend rules either.
If you have to cheat to win, there's something wrong
 
How do you define an off the shelf turbo? thats like the rule stock appearing. Exducer limits, what organization is going to pull the covers on the chargers?

if it gets much more complicated, might as well do a spec charger, everyone runs the same $5000 turbo from who ever. Once its a spec charger, the company or maker will charge arm n a leg for em.

Then what kind of mess will we have?
 
I think its sad that guys build thier trucks to the full extent of the rules - and then everyone that doesn't win calls them "cheaters" because they spent a little time, effort, and money setting thier truck up to win a COMPETITION.

Do I think there is an issue in the 2.6 class and the HP is getting a little out of hand? Yes sir! But I don't have a good solution to the problem - because no matter what people are going to work on maxxing out to the letter of the rules to help them win the COMPETITION.

If there was a simple and easy to tech way of limiting the class - while also limiting the costs then I would be for it. None of the solutions presented so far are cost effective or simple. Teching exducers on compressors suck - and the only good way to do it is a go - no go type of gauge. Buying a spec charger sucks - then EVERYONE would need to buy a new charger. Making the rules that say the inducer of the wheel has to protrude into the bore is about as best as you can do - but contouring a wheel to fit those kind of rules is done all the time.

I applaud all those that max out thier trucks to win - it takes a lot of time, effort, and some coin to do it. To those that want to change the rules - make sure you want to change the rules for the right reasons.
 
that's why I resort back to saying the 2.6 class is fine, leave it alone and let it be what it is. Do away with the 2.8 class and let that class disperse into the 2.6 and 3.0 open driveline class. The weaker 2.8 trucks will be good trucks in 2.6 and the stronger 2.8 that are busting the guts out of their trucks with detuned engines will most likely be glad to step up and run 3.0 with big driveline.


Seems logical to me. The fact is, the day of a street truck competing in any of the classes are over with the occassional exception to remote areas where pulling isn't too progressed or with no organized pulling circuits. The trucks that follow a series for points in regions where truck pulling is real popular, are going to be built for one goal in mind, pulling the farthest. They couldn't care less about street manors, spool up time, towing a trailer, excessive smoke out put, jump throttle, stiff susp, etc. If you happen to live in an area where pulling is popular and have some good organized groups putting on pulls and want to be able to compete with a DD truck, that's just unfortunate for you because it's most likely a pipe-dream. That does NOT mean the rules should be taylored to meet guys who do want to pull DD trucks IMO. Because the dedicated trucks will still do whatever it takes to be ahead regardless of the rules and a DD street truck just will not be able to compete most likely. That's just how it is. So, the rules that try to get the class back to more street-friendly trucks actually make it much more expensive to be competitve because then the custom parts become much more expensive. ;) So again, just leave it alone IMO.



That's my $0.02 from an dumb armchair puller (who would give absolutely anything he had to be able to afford to have a pulling truck yet I still don't want rules to change to make it a more tame and "cheaper" class). ;)



C-ya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top