NEHA

Walter, I can see where you are coming from, and that is exactly the way I was thinking. Basically what I want to do is keep 4 cly turbo cars in the same class
A 1.8 L, 2.0 L, or 2.2L turbo should be able to make almost as much power as a 2.4 or 2.5, so they should be in the same class. I also like the idea of small small blocks dropping to P2

I don't think the P class should be too complicated. Can a 1.8 liter engine make as much as a 2.5... well, yes and no. My 8V 1.8 liter can't make much power but my 20V 1.8 liter can. Too take this too far (before getting back to the simple suggestion), we would have to look at cams, number of valves, the carbs, etc. etc. like we do in SP.

So, reviewing the group by engine size and the multiplier has merit, I'm unsure where those lines are...

sachilles wrote:True, you can't verify it easily. Lots of things can be changed after tech.

I was under the impression that NEHA operated more on the honor system. Do we ever tear down a car to make sure someone hasn't done something funny?

For U and SP we assume that people haven't done something unless they tell us they have. For P we just assume they have done anything ever remotely reasonable because its a race car and you would be crazy not to do it. It also keeps the P rules simple which is just how we prepared drivers like it.

I think changing the displacement limit for P2 is worth talking about.

The 5000cc rule sounds justifiable. It will also make more competition in the p2 class since there isnt one?

A little background on teardowns: No we don't, and with many good reasons!

Some years ago, all the written copies of the tech & class rules went missing, so Jimmy Hale, Dave Patten, and I had to "recodify" them. Jimmy's Dad raced NHRA Super Stock (with a Hemi Cuda!), and my Dad was the tech inspector at Claremont Speedway. Teardowns are an ugly business, a consequence of money racing and restrictive rules, and we felt that that level of hostility did not belong here. Consequently, our rules are structured so that they may be reasonably enforced without teardown, i.e. no limits on cams.

In my opinion as a P class driver of many years....poor car for class (as I have been told many times with my old british tin).....maybe. 4 cyl turbo prepared to the max as the spirit of the P class is based can make just as much if not more than many V8s.
Just my 2 cents from the RI woods.

DennisRacing3 wrote:The 5000cc rule sounds justifiable. It will also make more competition in the p2 class since there isnt one?

Past few years there were two cars in P2... neither of them belonged there. My SP3 car and Don's SP2 (?) car ran in P2.

What size is the motor in Valliere's Sunbeam Tiger? 289? that would now be a P2 car with a 5000cc limit.
I like P2 as a turbo 4 cyl class-not so keen on letting v-8s in.

sdwarf36 wrote:What size is the motor in Valliere's Sunbeam Tiger? 289? that would now be a P2 car with a 5000cc limit.
I like P2 as a turbo 4 cyl class-not so keen on letting v-8s in.

I dont see where an under 5 liter normally aspirated V8 has an inherent advantage over an under 2.5 liter turbo 4. Please enlighten me.

walterclark wrote:

sdwarf36 wrote:What size is the motor in Valliere's Sunbeam Tiger? 289? that would now be a P2 car with a 5000cc limit.
I like P2 as a turbo 4 cyl class-not so keen on letting v-8s in.

I dont see where an under 5 liter normally aspirated V8 has an inherent advantage over an under 2.5 liter turbo 4. Please enlighten me.

5 liter V8 is a LOT heavier, too