What happened at the SRAC meeting?
- Thread starter greg williams
- Start date
NHRA requested to meet with all Comp SRAC Reps on 11/30 to go over some proposed changes to the CIC system and the addition of some new classes / class modifications. The goal was to have each of us reach out to our respective division comp racers and get their feedback.
We then held a Comp Reps only meeting on 12/18, and voted on the following:
- Adjust all Comp indexes back to 1/1/2020 and then take .10 off : NO. In addition, NHRA would remove class index hits, all hits being personal only : NO
- Allow splayed or canted valves in B/ED and/or C/ED and have a weight break for wedge heads : NO (this was something that NHRA had just proposed and wanted us to discuss, but it was felt that this is not needed).
- For the additional classes being added to Comp (pre-70's roadster class & pre-2010 OEM engine platform) we felt we needed more info as to the reasonings for them.
As for postivity, NHRA came to us to get our thoughts on their proposals, listened to our feedback during the original call, and wanted us to gather as group to ensure we were all aligned.
Since we met on 12/18, we have not met back with NHRA to understand the next steps nor to review how we have voted as all of this butted up against the holidays.
Once we reconvene after the New Year, we can share more info on with everyone; I hope this has helped.
Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and has a Happy New Years!
Cody Lane
Hancock & Lane Racing
We then held a Comp Reps only meeting on 12/18, and voted on the following:
- Adjust all Comp indexes back to 1/1/2020 and then take .10 off : NO. In addition, NHRA would remove class index hits, all hits being personal only : NO
- Allow splayed or canted valves in B/ED and/or C/ED and have a weight break for wedge heads : NO (this was something that NHRA had just proposed and wanted us to discuss, but it was felt that this is not needed).
- For the additional classes being added to Comp (pre-70's roadster class & pre-2010 OEM engine platform) we felt we needed more info as to the reasonings for them.
As for postivity, NHRA came to us to get our thoughts on their proposals, listened to our feedback during the original call, and wanted us to gather as group to ensure we were all aligned.
Since we met on 12/18, we have not met back with NHRA to understand the next steps nor to review how we have voted as all of this butted up against the holidays.
Once we reconvene after the New Year, we can share more info on with everyone; I hope this has helped.
Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and has a Happy New Years!
Cody Lane
Hancock & Lane Racing
I am the one who proposed D/Street Roadster. The reasoning for the pre-1970s roadsters - namely, those 1963 left-hand drive Corvette roadsters or other styles of the like normally running in Super Gas - it was designed to increase participation. Now with Don Davis Race Cars working to get some certified to a 6.0, they could run quicker and safer. The initial presentation for Lonnie was for the cars to have small blocks and stick shift, aka, a throwback to the old Modified. Then Jim Hughes heard about it, and said if there was an automatic option (no throttle stops or electronics) he'd build one immediately. The proposal of this class was purely to increase participation in the class nationwide.
Im going to plead ignorance for this part of the Comp rules, but would this combo already be legal to run in an Altered class?
Not sure if it would be for a roadster. But I may be ignorant of the rules too. All I was looking for was to grow the class.
I believe that I'm understanding that this "Roadster" class would be for the SG type topless roadsters of today, as the 27 Ford Roadster style already fits into the Street Roadster classes, except mine wasn't allowed due to the "AERO" style body.. thus, the reason for being in SG..
Since the majority of these topless roadsters are big block automatic combinations, why would it be addressed as small block 5 speed combinations??.. I'm not seeing the help here if everyone would have to go out and build a new car.. may just be counter-productive..
So, basically, I'd have to change the body, engine, trans, and rear to fit in??.. UGH!!!!
Since there was a NO vote on heads for B/ED and C/ED, should I assume that there wasn't even a vote on BILLET heads in ALL "Altered" or "Altered Automatic" classes??
By the way, thanks to all the SRAC reps for staying involved..
Since the majority of these topless roadsters are big block automatic combinations, why would it be addressed as small block 5 speed combinations??.. I'm not seeing the help here if everyone would have to go out and build a new car.. may just be counter-productive..
So, basically, I'd have to change the body, engine, trans, and rear to fit in??.. UGH!!!!
Since there was a NO vote on heads for B/ED and C/ED, should I assume that there wasn't even a vote on BILLET heads in ALL "Altered" or "Altered Automatic" classes??
By the way, thanks to all the SRAC reps for staying involved..
Thnx for the response, Brian.. I believe that this billet head issue should be addressed, as I'm pretty sure that "ALTERED" does actually mean "ALTERED".. and with billet heads being approved in some altered classes, what would the reasoning be for NOT ALL.. I'm not referring to Econo-Altered classes.. THNX AGAIN!!
On the altered body deal Charlie, It refers mainly to like A/A for instance. Typical cars like Tom Snyder and David Eaton used to be the A/A type deal. Since guys have been doing it with the 700 plus ci deal in a door car it creates a disadvantage from a stand point of the impossibility of running an engine that big in the standard Bantam or 23T
Well Roger.. I tried to get my car into Comp, back in the day, and the powers to be in D1 determined that because the body style is actually the "AERO" type, it didn't fit into the Comp Roadster classes.. at the time, since it wasn't accepted in Street Roadster, I was told it would not be accepted in other classes as only accepted Roadsters can be.. I haven't looked into other Comp classes recently, and wouldn't now.. it would be financially smarter with a different car..
I understand the explanations I received, as well as their justifications.. still don't have a problem with it.. it just put me in the direction of SG.. I had no motor or trans in the car when I made the inquiry.. even brought the roller to a D1 race just to make sure..
