"The 2.6 right now is 3.0 undercover."

Street driven only trucks are running traction bars so you can't take that away from a work stock class let alone a 2.6 class. Weights well I like them and everyone allows them so I have to say you keep them too.
 
One thing that gets me is if you run a 2.6 class You should be able to swap to a 2.8 cover to run the 2.8 class that same night. I know its just a cover and therefor only lets so much air into the turbo but it is still an advantage over the guys running true 2.6 turbos
 
Weston, what's the reasoning behind disallowing T6 housings?

Is this an indirect way of limiting turbine diameter?

I'm sure you and others are aware that one can get (for example) GT42 83mm turbine housings in either T4 or T6, and I don't believe one outflows the other (at the same A/R), just the T6 volute is longer/larger dia and therefore the openings would naturally be larger.

I would have to check some turbine maps to be sure of that, but just wondering out loud here.

The only reason I'm questioning this is, a lot of guys can make use of truck housings found reasonable in the junkyards, and many of those just came T6. I don't see that as being some unfair advantage.

The downside to a turbine footprint limit is, you know as well as I do, someone will start casting trick turbine housings and here we go again with cost escalation. Also, what do you do with the wise guy who buys a pro-mod v-band housing? Since it would not be a T6 housing, you'd have to allow it unless you specifically ban those too.
 
Last edited:
A T6 housing will outflow a T4 housing. It should be common knowledge to anyone with a data logger that past ~ 92mm turbine the T4 housing causes excessive drive pressure, so yes it is a way to limit turbine wheel effectiveness. The topic of v-band housings has been brought up, but again that is another "grey" area that would need to be addressed. What are your thoughts on the other 3 topics?
 
Saying only trucks with dually fenders can run drw is useless. You can go to any place that sells flatbeds and i bet they have over ten brand new beds sitting out back and buy them at a decent price. If there would be a limit to a srw what would the tire size be. Some places allow a 36in tire and some allow a 35in tire.
 
My deal with the dual rear wheel. If its a single rear wheel that what needs run on it. Seen it happen a few times busting the window out of the sled/ sled operator getting hurt. If truck came out with dual rear wheels it fine cause there covered by the bed in fender. You dont see a guy driving a truck with duals on a single wheel down the street. I know most 2.6 trucks arent drove on the street. Im looking at it as a safety deal.
 
Smokem said:
Let's take a different approach. Here is a simple few questions, feel free to respond to them.

1. Should RSV governors be allowed in the 2.6" class?

No.

2. Should dual CP3's be allowed in the 2.6" class?

NO. There are single pumps that can support well over 850hp.

3. Should T6 turbine housings be allowed in the 2.6" class?

No.

4. Should duals be allowed in the 2.6" class?

YES if it came from the factory. Must be in the VIN, numbers 4-8
Click to expand...

....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smokem said:
4. Should duals be allowed in the 2.6" class?

YES if it came from the factory. Must be in the VIN, numbers 4-8
Click to expand...


This won't fly, I'm sorry to say. Many classes in many different states do not allow duals in the 2.6", and people still show up. I would suggest limiting it to single rear wheel 35" maximum DOT.
 
Smokem said:
This won't fly, I'm sorry to say. Many classes in many different states do not allow duals in the 2.6", and people still show up. I would suggest limiting it to single rear wheel 35" maximum DOT.
Click to expand...

X2

Guys in 2.6 don't pull with factory installed tires and most don't do it with factory installed rims. Having a dually bolt on a single (or super single) should not be a huge issue. Those that have already spent the money to do it will probably ***** (and it sucks for them), but it's the easiest way to keep a somewhat level'ish playing field.
 
Thats BS for the guys that own TRUE duallys like I do. Maybe limit duals to 33". I have also looked into this, just in case something like this were to happen. I have found tires at 24" wide that will fill the dually wheel wells, and still be DOT approved. There is always a way around everything.
 
Are the guys with dual wheels the only ones dominating the class?
 
Our club doesnt allow spacers to be run between dually rims. Max tire size a dually can run is a 295/75/16.
 
This is a much better way to get the discussion going instead of just saying "I want this, I think that." Good thinking Weston. Here's my take on it.

1. Should RSV governors be allowed in the 2.6" class?

If dual CP3's are allowed, yes. If not, no.

2. Should dual CP3's be allowed in the 2.6" class?

If RSV's are allowed, yes. If not, no.

3. Should T6 turbine housings be allowed in the 2.6" class?

No.

4. Should duals be allowed in the 2.6" class?

Absofrigginlutely. To say someone can't runs a set of dual wheels out back b/c it didn't come from the factory with them is beyond retarded. What's good for one is good for all. I don't particularly like a tire size limit either. I know it can be used to bring a class down some but IMO, if you can make your drivetrain hold together with XX" tire size, so be it. This class will be like NASCAR in the next few years with all the BS being thrown around. Everybody seems to agree limiting power needs to and/or will be done via air. Make the class 2.5, no RSV, single CP3, and the power will drop significantly. Just my $.02.


Make tire size a minimum, everybody runs 40" or bigger with the same tire pressure. :bang
 
Is it that hard to remove 1 tire? No duals in 2.6 is pretty common around here.

In the scheid finals of 2.6 it was almost 1/2 dual 1/2 singles. It was 14 of one, 12 of the other.
 
And everyone has to wear blue shirts if the pull is on monday, and you can wear black shirts if the pull is on the weekend, unless its the last weekend of the month, then you have to wear a green shirt.
 
As for pumps...

I can't comment on the RSV governor because I'm just not educated enough on it to know what to say. Up here we have some pro stock trucks that say they don't need or want them, yet other guys swear they're the only thing that work. I guess it all depends on who sets the pump up.

But as for principle -

If you are going to allow supposedly "limitless" fuel from a P-pump, and then legislate against twin CP3s, well, that's outright favoring one setup over the other. So I can't see that happening.

However, twin CP3s are as streetable as a bug shield. RSV governors are not, from what I have seen, but I'm not aware enough of whether it's the governor itself, or how it's being implemented that makes the difference.

And I really question whether or not the concept of "streetability" does or should have anything to do with the class. Maybe that's something we should let go of and forget, maybe not.

Lastly, there are single CP3s being made for huge dollars that are working, so to toss my existing twin CP3s which work fine, and have to buy a $3k+ pump to get back to where I was, is stupid and unreasonable.

Answer me this please, someone, what exactly is the advantage of the RSV over the other style? Is it about flow, or rather control of flow at big rpm?

What happens to the mechanical CTDs if you take away the RSV? Do they all lose 200 HP?
 
There's a couple really strong trucks that run with us that don't use the RSV. Just goes to show that it isn't the answer for all out performance, however when the rules were wrote in our area, that was supposed to be the answer to the dual CP3's. That was the reason in my previous post about the RSV, I posted to allow it only if the dual CP3's are allowed. Actually an RQV truck beat an RSV truck in a pulloff last night for the win. As far as "streetable", that and everything else that has "street" or resembles "street" should be taken away from the titles of all these classes. If you want to run anything "street", stay on the street. This is pulling.
 
After thinking this over a lot, I think the $50 restrictor plate really deserves some evaluation.

All this other stuff is so convoluted and complex that we're going to be banging our heads on it for a long time. Yet we have a $50 idea in front of us that has a good chance of working.
 
nwpadmax said:
...I think the $50 restrictor plate really deserves some evaluation.
Click to expand...

While still stupidly easy & relatively quick to check, it will require someone (tech) more effort to unhook plumbing, make completely accessible for visual & spec measurement, and take a lot more time than just doing the same charger slug measurement that is already used now but with a 2.5" slug instead of 2.6". Power will be brought down immensely with no other changes needed. Problem solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top