Time to get the party started!

[EightSecV6]

This is an OUTLAW class. How about using OUTLAW rules? I suggest considerations for the following changes:
- Limit the turbo size to 88mm at the inlet and limit the exhaust to 12" of 5" pipe immediately reducing to 4" after that.
- I would like to see the BASE weight at 3200# and give A weight break for stock valve configuration heads of 100#
-Allow ladder bars and wheelie bars but penalize each with 50#
-Modify the rear frame rail rule to a minimum measurment between frame rails, as it may be difficult to see if the entire frame rail was moved or just notched.
-Allow liquid intercoolers for a 50# weight penalty
:arco:

[Ted A.]

How about running YOUR rules at BPG Bill??

[Joe Lubrant]

This is an OUTLAW class. How about using OUTLAW rules? I suggest considerations for the following changes:
- Limit the turbo size to 88mm at the inlet and limit the exhaust to 12" of 5" pipe immediately reducing to 4" after that.
- I would like to see the BASE weight at 3200# and give A weight break for stock valve configuration heads of 100#
-Allow ladder bars and wheelie bars but penalize each with 50#
-Modify the rear frame rail rule to a minimum measurment between frame rails, as it may be difficult to see if the entire frame rail was moved or just notched.
-Allow liquid intercoolers for a 50# weight penalty
:arco:

Bill,

I will comment on most of your suggestions, and of course get a lot deeper, as I usually do.

This is a STREET OUTLAW class. I suggest we try and maintain that theme and appearance.

The Current Exhaust Rule as written, seemed more than acceptable to all. I personally don't see a need for change.
Not sure of why additional 5" pipe would be necessary, but a suggestion is just what it is.
In any event I suggest that the rule be written as such, that there is no mis-understanding as to the intent.

The 88mm Turbo Rule, I'm sure will be a topic of heavy discussion, I'll reserve my suggestions for a later post.

As far as Base Weight, majority of TSO cars would not be able to get down to 3200# with Driver. This would require more than fiberglass bumpers, hood, and decklid. I don't believe most, including myself wish to further butcher their car, and add expensive body components of Carbon Fiber, Fiberglass doors, or plexiglass etc.

Based on the above, 100# weight break to small headed cars that couldn't possibly get to 3200# would be a mute point.

Most if not all cars were adding minimum weight to make 3400# min. typically 100# or less.

So I suggest possibly 3300# to 3350# base weight would be more pratical for the small headed cars? Of course the following items below would still need to addressed.
Weight penalty's should be appied fairly, and take in consideration the true adavantage it presents. i.e. if its claimed as a safety item, and also presents an advantage, then a penalty should still be applied fairly.

*Add xx# for Sheet Metal Intake Manifold
*Add xxx# for Stage II Heads?
*Add xxx# for certain 88mm turbo's?
*Add xx# for Rear Wing or Delete the allowance??
*No Wheelie Bars--Delete alowance
*No Ladder bars---Leave rule as is?
*No Liquid Intercoolers-Leave rule as is-- Everybody deals with the same weather conditions!--50#'s not realistic for the power & consistancy it would provide.
*No "W" Tires-- Rule change suggestiion-- Limited to true 10.5 side wall disignation, Max tread 10.6" measured.

Again I say this is a STREET OUTLAW class. I suggest we try and maintain that theme and appearance.

We had 14 TSO cars at GSCA Tech, many have alot of catching up to do to obtain the current performance levels attained so far.

Why would we want to discourage 14 already Legal Cars?? by letting the class go with numerous changes?

I know certain people want a class that will exceed 8.50-8.60 performance levels, they should possibly consider starting a New Class instead of TSO which is just starting to gain participation with the current rules.

I dont think the majority of the TSO participants wish to go to that type of performance level.

Most of the disagreements of power potential limitations stem from the classes Head & Manifold configurations, and of course now the turbo types.

More than half of the TSO class are Small Headed cars!! It will continue to grow with GN-1's and now the TA small Heads.

Remember the original class was for Small Headed Cars, then the scramble to get more participation, and allowing the StageII heads. Then the issues began to escalate from there.

Maybe its time to consider a True TURBO MODIFIED OUTLAW Class for the Stage II Boys and let them go with the larger 88's & 91 etc. turbo's, wheelie bars, wings, ladder bars, coil overs, 4-Links, 3200# etc. etc??????

What does anybody else think of this possiblity??


Joe

[EightSecV6]

Glad you are here to participate Joe. My main issue is configuring a car that can raced in BG and ALL TSO events that can be raced locally as well. If you read the majority of class rules for other racing orginazations, there is no real empahasis on housing sizes, just wheel sizes.I would like to see the cars run as quick as possible and not "index" the class.

[Joe Lubrant]

Bill,

I will give you an example of a Local deal in our area, and a lot of other comments as usual.

Sorry for the length of this post!!!

OSCA-TRUE STREET----This is an 1/8 Mi Class---Cars Running 5.4’s To 5.5 ET’s this would be equivalent to 8.4 to 8.6 ET’s in the 1/4 Mile!!

The class is composed of N/A, Nitrous, Supercharged, & Turbo. Weights vary based on combo, below are general rules that apply eliminating weights for other than turbo/supercharged.
Here is an extract of the rules:

Stock front fame rails required
After market front suspension components allowed (must bolt-on and mount in stock mounting points)
Must have inner fender wells (minor modifications allowed)
Stock rear frame rails required (notched frame OK)
After market stock type rear suspension allowed (must bolt on)
No rear coil-overs allowed
No wheelie bars, four links or ladder bars allowed
Anti-sway bars allowed
Must have working head lights and tail lights
Must have functional charging system
Must have stock appearing interior
Must have full interior (no metal visible)
Must have dash
Fiberglass limited to hood, trunk lid, and bumpers
No sheet metal intakes allowed
Must have mufflers
Rear tires are limited to a 10.5 slick as measured (10.75 inches) or 12.5 DOT (11 inch footprint) tires
All turbo/superchargers with OEM style fuel injection set-ups must be a maximum of 4" inlet and 3" outlet
3150 lbs. small block with nitrous - V6 with turbo/supercharger
Add 100 lbs. for after market fuel injection on V6 applications only

A turbo T/R- would be allowed to weigh 3250# min. Most current TSO cars couldn’t get there, under the fiberglass rule restrictions.

As you look at the rules above, you will see they are much more restrictive than the TSO rules.
The TSO rules are currently very generous, but cars that have taken full advantage of the rules would not be Legal for the OSCA.

This is the only other well known class here in the Mid-west that a T/R could legally run. I also believe D. Fiscus, Odell, myself and others also had intentions of trying it out.

Fielding a Turbo Regal in any other sanctioning body in the country is difficult, as the rules vary substantially.

As you stated your problem is fielding a car that you can race in TSO BG, other TSO, and also Local Sanctioned races.
You are right! But just about all Buick Turbo Racers have that problem, especially for Heads up class racing!

So I guess I’m saying there is no Magic Rule Changes for TSO that is going to make it easy for Your (Jeff) Car, or anyone else’for that matter, to allow it run or meet all local rule requirements.

At local events most, if not all TSO type cars are stuck in some type of bracket race.
The Buick community has provided the Heads up classes where we as Buick Racers can strut our Stuff!!

Prior to the Nats, after numerous posts thru the winter, everyone that was to participate in TSO, were satisfied with the rules & agreed intentions. (although the agreed original intent of turbo type allowed went to */$@.)

So for all intent and purposes we had a solid base set of rules established, where the Majority agreed.

We need to Focus on the overall Good of the Class, and not make changes that will discourage those who are already participating.

Giving current cars the incentive & opportunity to catch up on their performance potential should be our Goal.

We should not be allowing the faster cars more potential, and leave the others to become more discouraged, and not participate.

Most already know to compete in Big Scantioning Body Races full Stage II set-ups are normally required for Limited Street, etc ,and cars there have run 5.0-4.9 et's for 1/8's or 8.0 or 7.90 1/4 mi. Pretty much out of the realm of any current TSO car!

Again referencing my first post if certain people wish to go beyond the performance levels in TSO….I still suggest Another Class for the Stage II Heads and/or Larger Turbo configurations,wheelie bars, ladder bars, wings, 4-links 3150#-3200# etc. etc…
2006 is still a ways off and it can easily be accomplished.

Class rule stabalization and equalizing performance potential ,to maintain & grow participation, is used by all sanctioning bodies. We need to mirror that approach as it has proved to be successfull for many years.

It’s truly not about my car, or yours, or if you, or I can run Heads Up else where, but about the majority of the Racers, that are participating in the TSO Class already provided and established.


Joe

[EightSecV6]

To be honest, I would like to see the class run faster and ultimately make it larger by flexing the current rules a bit to allow more participation.
I would like to see the base weight dropped as I stated before and at this time, I dont really see a need to lock everyone into the standard PTE88 t4 style housings, the turbo rules should be based on compressor wheel size and exhaust pipe diameter like in most other events throughout the country. If the tire size is limited to 10.5" tires, I dont see why we cant let ladder bars in, we have run as fast as 1.25 on stock suspension with Jeff's car, I dont think ladder bars would do anything for us.
I would have no problem taking a hit on the wieght for a wing or intake as long as I got a break for the heads and stock suspension.
We intend to leave the car as it is, we are not going to change the intake,turbo or heads and I am definately not arguing in the staging lanes like this year! Super 16 turbo pays more and no hassles!
Joe, your car ran away with the class this year,Jeff flat out CANNOT drive and I am not sure if he will ever get the hang of it(sorry lil buddy, :add_wegbr). I say allow the stage 2 head cars,ANY 88 turbo but penalize them for weight along with ladder bars.None of the cars in the class are legitimate street cars anyway. I read you had run an 8.46 on your current combo, that is faster than we have run so as of right now the turbo we are using has not proven to outperform yours with our combination :zahn:

[Ted A.]

To be honest, I would like to see the class run faster and ultimately make it larger by flexing the current rules a bit to allow more participation.
I would like to see the base weight dropped as I stated before and at this time, I dont really see a need to lock everyone into the standard PTE88 t4 style housings, the turbo rules should be based on compressor wheel size and exhaust pipe diameter like in most other events throughout the country. If the tire size is limited to 10.5" tires, I dont see why we cant let ladder bars in, we have run as fast as 1.25 on stock suspension with Jeff's car, I dont think ladder bars would do anything for us.
I would have no problem taking a hit on the wieght for a wing or intake as long as I got a break for the heads and stock suspension.
We intend to leave the car as it is, we are not going to change the intake,turbo or heads and I am definately not arguing in the staging lanes like this year! Super 16 turbo pays more and no hassles!
Joe, your car ran away with the class this year,Jeff flat out CANNOT drive and I am not sure if he will ever get the hang of it(sorry lil buddy, :add_wegbr). I say allow the stage 2 head cars,ANY 88 turbo but penalize them for weight along with ladder bars.None of the cars in the class are legitimate street cars anyway. I read you had run an 8.46 on your current combo, that is faster than we have run so as of right now the turbo we are using has not proven to outperform yours with our combination :zahn:

Well said Bill. There will be no way everybody will agree to such a radical change, which is what is needed in my opinion. With the rule change in TSE, there have been a few that have commented on dropping down to TSE. Maybe after the mechanical issues, there will only be 4 cars running at BG next year and that makes more sense to only run the car as least as possible for the $$ payout.???

Recap on participation results last year:

BG, TSO ran
Norwalk, no
BPG, ran TSO with rules modified(thanks Jack/Chris)
Morrocco, no
Reynolds, no(unless I heard wrong)

Why "no" at those other races? NO CARS/PARTICIPATION!!!!!

And there is not a problem!?!

Change the rules and run the program for a year, WHAT IS THERE TO LOSE???

[Joe Lubrant]

Well said Bill. There will be no way everybody will agree to such a radical change, which is what is needed in my opinion. With the rule change in TSE, there have been a few that have commented on dropping down to TSE. Maybe after the mechanical issues, there will only be 4 cars running at BG next year and that makes more sense to only run the car as least as possible for the $$ payout.???

Recap on participation results last year:

BG, TSO ran
Norwalk, no
BPG, ran TSO with rules modified(thanks Jack/Chris)
Morrocco, no
Reynolds, no(unless I heard wrong)

Why "no" at those other races? NO CARS/PARTICIPATION!!!!!

And there is not a problem!?!

Change the rules and run the program for a year, WHAT IS THERE TO LOSE???

Let me first answer your post here about radical change?????

TED.....What were You Reading????

I posted an example of some Local class as an example. This was to respond to Bill about T/R's trying to fit in local Heads up racing in his area.
I responded to show a Mid-West example.

This was just to clarify that other Scantioning Bodies local or otherwise, are Much Varied to their Heads Up Racing Programs, and T/R's do find it difficult to fit in!!!!

I DID NOT present those rules to be what I wished to be Changed!!!! I believe Bill understood what my example just represented.

Apparently you were reading something else???, because it sure wasn't what I Posted or anywhere close for you to respond with the term "Radical Change!!

Bill posted his response understanding what I said, and injected where he would like to see the class go, and I will present a few suggestions back to him since we seem to be on the same page.

Joe

[EightSecV6]

MSRA "Real Street" rules

Heads Up Class
- .400 Pro Tree
- 1/4 mile class
- Untubbed cars with BOLT ON traction devices ONLY (No welded crossmembers, coil over shocks etc.)
- NO WHEELIE BARS!
- Anti-roll bar permitted. (Bar running parallel to the rear end providing mouting points for downward attachments in order to prevent excess body roll)
- Quarter tubs and notching of frame rail OK
- Maximum 28"x10.5" drag slick, or any size radial allowed with power adders (no W tires)
- Any 10.5" slick allowed on naturally aspirated combinations. (no W tires)
- Direct bolt on aftermarket front end components allowed
- Fiberglass limited to hood, scoop, and front and rear bumpers
- NO LEXAN WINDOWS
- Interior with carpet and headliner, two front seats and factory dash required (back seat optional)
- Single stage plate or fogger allowed
-Plate system may have (1) fuel, and (1) nitrous solenoid,
with one optional purge solenoid.
-Foggers may consist of a total of (2) fuel, and (2) nitrous
solenoids, with one optional purge solenoid.
- Progressive style timers allowed on plate and fogger systems
- Forced Induction, Centrifugal Superchargers, Roots Style Blowers and Turbos are allowed
- No multiple stage power adders (Twin Turbos, Nitrous & Blower etc)
- No Delay boxes
- Gasoline ONLY No ALKY
- Must have exhaust with mufflers
- Legal tags and registration required unless car is subject to strict emissions laws by state (must show proof if not a Maryland resident)

-Eliminations to be an all run event to all cars that pass inspection
-Random drawing for first round pairings/ladder after first round

-Entry fee is $40
-Payout is $500 to win, $200 for R/U, and $75 for semifinals


*All rule interpretations made by the MSRA will be final

[EightSecV6]

No issues locally with the wing, manifold or weight. The same goes for the quick8 races at Cecil County (I couldnt copy the text from their site, it is in flyer format) basically it is anything goes as long as it is muffled with 10.5 tires and we can weigh 3100#

[Joe Lubrant]

To be honest, I would like to see the class run faster and ultimately make it larger by flexing the current rules a bit to allow more participation.
I would like to see the base weight dropped as I stated before and at this time, I dont really see a need to lock everyone into the standard PTE88 t4 style housings, the turbo rules should be based on compressor wheel size and exhaust pipe diameter like in most other events throughout the country. If the tire size is limited to 10.5" tires, I dont see why we cant let ladder bars in, we have run as fast as 1.25 on stock suspension with Jeff's car, I dont think ladder bars would do anything for us.
I would have no problem taking a hit on the wieght for a wing or intake as long as I got a break for the heads and stock suspension.
We intend to leave the car as it is, we are not going to change the intake,turbo or heads and I am definately not arguing in the staging lanes like this year! Super 16 turbo pays more and no hassles!
Joe, your car ran away with the class this year,Jeff flat out CANNOT drive and I am not sure if he will ever get the hang of it(sorry lil buddy, :add_wegbr). I say allow the stage 2 head cars,ANY 88 turbo but penalize them for weight along with ladder bars.None of the cars in the class are legitimate street cars anyway. I read you had run an 8.46 on your current combo, that is faster than we have run so as of right now the turbo we are using has not proven to outperform yours with our combination :zahn:

Bill,

I'll try to stay on topic with your response:

I guess we will still disagree on the Class needing to go Faster.

I am not opposed to Lowering the Minimum Weight, but it needs to be something Realistic. 3200# as I said before would be pretty much out of the question. Making that the Min say for small combo, when most if not all couldn't possibly get there would be Mute Point.
I would still consider 3300# or 3350# the easiest for most to attain. Beside the select few in the class most were considerably heavier than the current 3400# min., and that was also an added factor in some of lack luster performance.

Penalties for the bigger combo's etc. should be discussed at length, and applied fairly. I echoed that in my first post, so we are still on the same page here.

Turbo, I wll agree to any 88mm turbo T4,T5, but now since we all are pretty educated on power potential, weight penalties should be applied fairly.
Turbo rule should be very specific on the 88mm packaging for 2006.
This is going to be a fun area when the discussions begin in earnest!

As far as Jeff, I thought he did pretty well, considering the problems that he encountered during his runs. I'm sure some of that affected his focus. I'm sure he will do just fine in the future.

I'm definitley for the 10.5 tire restriction. No W. change.
I still have to add No wheelie bars, or Ladder Bars.
Of course also No Liquid Intercoolers.

As far as my car running away with the class, Jeff was within .11 or .12 of my car so I wouldn't consider that a run away as far as et's. Now the rest of the fellows were a little further back.
It might have played out different had Cal, Dave & Tony G. had been able to participate, as all of them have 8 sec. cars

My car did not run 8.498 in TSO Legal Trim, I had stated in another post what the weight, and other conditions were so its really not relevant to the TSO rules as they currenty exist.

I believe our best pass at BG was an 8.69 at 3410#

Joe

[Ted A.]

TED.....What were You Reading????

Joe


Joe, if you read the first post, I would consider that a radical change from the present set of rules. I simply said that there is NO WAY everybody will go for it. If the rules don't allow me to run TSO, I will run something else, no biggie.

[odie]

i like them as they are, but change all you want, JOE, fiscus runs [when his car is not broke] OSCA true street and he can run his big turbo, i was told by one of the officials , take off your wheelie bars and you can run, but so far i cant run with those mustangs and camaros, and my friend runs a 68 camaro in true st, they pay 2000 first place and 500 2nd 300 3rd, i think most of the time, i allways go and watch them run, yea, dan sent me a new neal chance convertor, sorry i got off the topic, i still need a turbo like cal has[ the one that pte wasnt going to make] could delete the exhaust for safety reasons, good luck getting tso racers to agree with any rules, oc,

[Joe Lubrant]

i like them as they are, but change all you want, JOE, fiscus runs [when his car is not broke] OSCA true street and he can run his big turbo, i was told by one of the officials , take off your wheelie bars and you can run, but so far i cant run with those mustangs and camaros, and my friend runs a 68 camaro in true st, they pay 2000 first place and 500 2nd 300 3rd, i think most of the time, i allways go and watch them run, yea, dan sent me a new neal chance convertor, sorry i got off the topic, i still need a turbo like cal has[ the one that pte wasnt going to make] could delete the exhaust for safety reasons, good luck getting tso racers to agree with any rules, oc,

Odie & Bill

Sorry Odie I can't help you with a Turbo Like Cal Has!, I don't seem to be able to get on PTE's Aproved Vendors List.??? Not sure why???

I"m pretty sure the majority of TSO racers will agree on the rules, with minor tweaks.

Bill seems to want his entry to fit all rules no matter where he races, SO... he wants the TSO class rules changed to meet his Car??? Sorry Bill but thats basically what you are trying to do??.

I have been accused of doing that, but as all have seen, my car did not take advantage of the already generous TSO rules. Most of the added items in the class was to allow CERTAIN CARS in to help participation.

You also want the class to go FASTER.....How Fast do you want it to Go???
8.0??, 7.5??, Lets be Realistic the TSO Class has maybe 4 to 5 potential High to just above mid 8.5 Cars. The rest of the 8 to 10 Cars are in the 9.0 to 9.7 range. So in essence you want to go FASTER, are you saying you don't care about the other fellows that are already racing in this TSO Class??

"Cars are built to meet the Rules, Not Rules changed to meet someones Car"

Who said that?? I can't remember??

Ted A. has been canvasing for Ladder Bars for about a hundred years!....If ladder bars is the only item keeping you from legaly running TSO than Change it! If you don't have all the parts I'll give them to you free!!
Its really not that expensive. Other guy's in the class changed or added more than 1 item to their cars to be Legal!!
Heck its alot cheaper then $1660-$2195 for upgrades to turbo's that Bill is proposing. Thats not counting $$$ for custom headers, or modifications to exisiting headers and exhausts to accomplish the turbo upgrades.

Saftey has been another avenue used by people, to gain approval for items that are also a performance enhancement. They of course are wheelie bars & wings. Fair penalties for usage should be added to the list of proposed rule changes.

Since SAFETY has been used to get approvals. Lets really talk about it Seriously. CHASSIS CERTIFICATION!! My,as many others Cages 8-10 Point, by new NHRA Specs are only certified down to 8.50 et.
I don't think there are many that have certified cages below that. So are we going to stand by the statement "Should have a Certification"?? It should be mandatory that the cars in this already fast class have proper chassis certification. Most do!!! So do most of the Drivers having Comp. Lic.

I personally do not wish to see the class escalate faster than 8.50, don't see any valid purpose, or positive advantage.

I guess I'll lay low for while, and see if any others who have been monitorng can step in??

Got to run someone needs a FAST SYSTEM!!!



Joe

[JCotton]

Here goes, guess I'll throw my hat into the ring here.... First I think the present rules are pretty close, if anything, they need to be clarified and tightened up, not loosened up. I believe what Billy is suggesting is more suited for Q-16, not TStreetO. Keeping our motors together at this level is becoming more difficult than what I can afford and I'm sure others will agree. If we are to put any kind of a series together we need to keep our cars together. To sum it up, the size of the turbos has to stop growing, suspensions, need to stop where they are at and a few other rules need to be clarified.
I too run in a local heads up class, to be honest with you, I've done ok, but really can't see running with the top dog big block, nitrous cars without breaking something. I've been around these cars for a long time, at this level and faster, something is gonna give...... sooner than later. I've already gone farther that I ever wanted to do. If this class gets pushed any farther............ I'm going back a class or 2.........

[EightSecV6]

Odie & Bill

Sorry Odie I can't help you with a Turbo Like Cal Has!, I don't seem to be able to get on PTE's Aproved Vendors List.??? Not sure why???

I"m pretty sure the majority of TSO racers will agree on the rules, with minor tweaks.

Bill seems to want his entry to fit all rules no matter where he races, SO... he wants the TSO class rules changed to meet his Car??? Sorry Bill but thats basically what you are trying to do??.

I have been accused of doing that, but as all have seen, my car did not take advantage of the already generous TSO rules. Most of the added items in the class was to allow CERTAIN CARS in to help participation.

You also want the class to go FASTER.....How Fast do you want it to Go???
8.0??, 7.5??, Lets be Realistic the TSO Class has maybe 4 to 5 potential High to just above mid 8.5 Cars. The rest of the 8 to 10 Cars are in the 9.0 to 9.7 range. So in essence you want to go FASTER, are you saying you don't care about the other fellows that are already racing in this TSO Class??

"Cars are built to meet the Rules, Not Rules changed to meet someones Car"

Who said that?? I can't remember??

Ted A. has been canvasing for Ladder Bars for about a hundred years!....If ladder bars is the only item keeping you from legaly running TSO than Change it! If you don't have all the parts I'll give them to you free!!
Its really not that expensive. Other guy's in the class changed or added more than 1 item to their cars to be Legal!!
Heck its alot cheaper then $1660-$2195 for upgrades to turbo's that Bill is proposing. Thats not counting $$$ for custom headers, or modifications to exisiting headers and exhausts to accomplish the turbo upgrades.

Saftey has been another avenue used by people, to gain approval for items that are also a performance enhancement. They of course are wheelie bars & wings. Fair penalties for usage should be added to the list of proposed rule changes.

Since SAFETY has been used to get approvals. Lets really talk about it Seriously. CHASSIS CERTIFICATION!! My,as many others Cages 8-10 Point, by new NHRA Specs are only certified down to 8.50 et.
I don't think there are many that have certified cages below that. So are we going to stand by the statement "Should have a Certification"?? It should be mandatory that the cars in this already fast class have proper chassis certification. Most do!!! So do most of the Drivers having Comp. Lic.

I personally do not wish to see the class escalate faster than 8.50, don't see any valid purpose, or positive advantage.

I guess I'll lay low for while, and see if any others who have been monitorng can step in??

Got to run someone needs a FAST SYSTEM!!!



Joe


Joe,
Here is the way I see it and I may be way off base. You are trying to keep everybody where they are performance wise and stay on top of the pack for a class that you only race in once a year, you dont want to make your car any lighter so nobody else should be able to, you dont want to build or fabricate headers so nobody else should, you dont have ladder bars so nobody else should etc etc. I have already stated that we are not changing the car and if we cant race we cant race, no big deal, go ahead and dominate in BG where your "record" wont be threatened.Basically what you are saying is you are not willing to enhace the performance of your car and you are not willing to allow any others to either??

Cal has a turbo that nobody else has, you said to me "it has not been proven to work or not", well I can say the same thing about the GT47-88 on Champion heads as we have run FASTER with the turbo you currently have.

I surely care about the other 9 or 10 guys in the class who want to continue to race, just as much as you do.Please explain to me your thoughts on the rear wing and how it provides an unfair advantage?, it was NEVER mentioned in the original rules until someone complained about it or brought it up after I posted a video clip of an 8.69 run.....if it had been a 9.69 there would have not been any issue.
I am sure it will cost ALOT more than the price of a turbo to change a ladder bar car back to stock suspension.

Joe, are you running TSO in BG for 2006?

8.00 would suit me just fine.


GOTTA RUN, I need a BREAK!

[EightSecV6]

Here goes, guess I'll throw my hat into the ring here.... First I think the present rules are pretty close, if anything, they need to be clarified and tightened up, not loosened up. I believe what Billy is suggesting is more suited for Q-16, not TStreetO. Keeping our motors together at this level is becoming more difficult than what I can afford and I'm sure others will agree. If we are to put any kind of a series together we need to keep our cars together. To sum it up, the size of the turbos has to stop growing, suspensions, need to stop where they are at and a few other rules need to be clarified.
I too run in a local heads up class, to be honest with you, I've done ok, but really can't see running with the top dog big block, nitrous cars without breaking something. I've been around these cars for a long time, at this level and faster, something is gonna give...... sooner than later. I've already gone farther that I ever wanted to do. If this class gets pushed any farther............ I'm going back a class or 2.........


For the most part, I agree Jack, however with a little less weight, we wont be pushing stuff as hard so it will be easire on parts and engines, we have been fortunate in that aspect, on Jeffs car we have broken 1 rocker stud in 2 years of racing and that is it (the engine in my car has 4 seasons on it with the only maintenance being valve adjustments).
If our TSO car is the only reason for all the controversy we'll step out, problem solved.

[Ted A.]

Where are the proposed rules for BPG?????? Jack, Chris....... Bill A.????

[Joe Lubrant]

Here goes, guess I'll throw my hat into the ring here.... First I think the present rules are pretty close, if anything, they need to be clarified and tightened up, not loosened up. I believe what Billy is suggesting is more suited for Q-16, not TStreetO. Keeping our motors together at this level is becoming more difficult than what I can afford and I'm sure others will agree. If we are to put any kind of a series together we need to keep our cars together. To sum it up, the size of the turbos has to stop growing, suspensions, need to stop where they are at and a few other rules need to be clarified.
I too run in a local heads up class, to be honest with you, I've done ok, but really can't see running with the top dog big block, nitrous cars without breaking something. I've been around these cars for a long time, at this level and faster, something is gonna give...... sooner than later. I've already gone farther that I ever wanted to do. If this class gets pushed any farther............ I'm going back a class or 2.........

Jack,

THANKS! for your Input, and Like you, I'm sure the majority in the class feels the same way. :applaus:

Jack, just to answer one of Bill's questions, YES I will be fielding my car in 2006. Lord willing!

In Bill's last post, he seems to believe somehow, its all about MY CAR keeping the Record??
I find that to be somewhat funny, because Cal's Car has run faster!, and I'm sure would have been in the hunt at BG.
Other Legal cars there at BG also had the potential to equal, if not surpass the performance of my car! Some of the reasons it didn't happen mirrors what you have posted.

So Bill, I do not see an 8.69 to be a long term record by any means, for any current legal TSO car to equal or surpass!

Again I say, its not about my car!, but if you re-read your posts, everything is about "changing rules to fit or model your TSO Car"!!

I think maybe a Smoke Screen for a no longer hidden agenda??

I said before we have 4 to 5, high 8 to mid 8 cars, with the balance 9-10 cars in the 9's. We need to care, and encourage not discourage their future participation.

Bill, you also say "you do care about the other 9 or 10 others participatng in the class"

What have you posted or suggested Here, that could possibly benefit all of those other 9 or 10 participating Racers, that you care so much about in TSO :fragez:

[EightSecV6]

Jack,

THANKS! for your Input, and Like you, I'm sure the majority in the class feels the same way. :applaus:

Jack, just to answer one of Bill's questions, YES I will be fielding my car in 2006. Lord willing!

In Bill's last post, he seems to believe somehow, its all about MY CAR keeping the Record??
I find that to be somewhat funny, because Cal's Car has run faster!, and I'm sure would have been in the hunt at BG.
Other Legal cars there at BG also had the potential to equal, if not surpass the performance of my car! Some of the reasons it didn't happen mirrors what you have posted.

So Bill, I do not see an 8.69 to be a long term record by any means, for any current legal TSO car to equal or surpass!

Again I say, its not about my car!, but if you re-read your posts, everything is about "changing rules to fit or model your TSO Car"!!

I think maybe a Smoke Screen for a no longer hidden agenda??

I said before we have 4 to 5, high 8 to mid 8 cars, with the balance 9-10 cars in the 9's. We need to care, and encourage not discourage their future participation.

Bill, you also say "you do care about the other 9 or 10 others participatng in the class"

What have you posted or suggested Here, that could possibly benefit all of those other 9 or 10 participating Racers, that you care so much about in TSO :fragez:


And what racers are you concerned about Joe? SURELY the ones who pose no threat....... :add_wegbr

I dont CARE about any record????????? If Cal has the "RECORD" why is it in your signature?

I ALREADY said I was not going through this again...... ALL OF YOUR complaints, infractions or whatever other wordsyou use are directed towards Jeffs car???? STILL waiting on an answer from you about the wing????

I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING RULE:
-ALL participants must have stock type oil pumps and no externally belt driven pumps.

I agree with you about the 8.69....it aint gonna last long.

[EightSecV6]

Where are the proposed rules for BPG?????? Jack, Chris....... Bill A.????


Ted, run your combination by Joe and see if he will permit you to race, if you are slower than him, it will not be a problem, if there is ANY REMOTE possibility of outrunning him, PREPARE for a battle!

[EightSecV6]

I guess I'll lay low for while,

Joe



That didnt last long. :applaus:

[Joe Lubrant]

And what racers are you concerned about Joe? SURELY the ones who pose no threat....... :add_wegbr

I dont CARE about any record????????? If Cal has the "RECORD" why is it in your signature?

I ALREADY said I was not going through this again...... ALL OF YOUR complaints, infractions or whatever other wordsyou use are directed towards Jeffs car???? STILL waiting on an answer from you about the wing????

I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING RULE:
-ALL participants must have stock type oil pumps and no externally belt driven pumps.

I agree with you about the 8.69....it aint gonna last long.


Bill,

Looked like a pretty frustrated response there!!!

It of course never answered anything, on ""positive suggestions by you"" for the rest of the other (9-10) class cars that you also care so much about!!

SMOKE SCREEN AGAIN!! ....Its to Late everybody can see thru it!!

Skirting all the questions asked of you!!! .....WHY??

As far as WINGS, your a Smart Racer!! You should already know the answer??
If you don't know the answer, than maybe you do have a little more to learn!

BTW.. Cal's Car has gone Faster, but records are established at the meets, during Qualifications or Eliminations for the Class!! He was unable to do it at BG.
As a Racer at BG you would have known that also!!!

[EightSecV6]

Bill,

Looked like a pretty frustrated response there!!!

It of course never answered anything, on ""positive suggestions by you"" for the rest of the other (9-10) class cars that you also care so much about!!

SMOKE SCREEN AGAIN!! ....Its to Late everybody can see thru it!!

Skirting all the questions asked of you!!! .....WHY??

As far as WINGS, your a Smart Racer!! You should already know the answer??
If you don't know the answer, than maybe you do have a little more to learn!

BTW.. Cal's Car has gone Faster, but records are established at the meets, during Qualifications or Eliminations for the Class!! He was unable to do it at BG.
As a Racer at BG you would have known that also!!!



WTF record are you taliking about? My RACE car is faster than Cal's by a second and a half , BUT it was not done in a TSO class anywhere.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH <----that is what I read

[Joe Lubrant]

WTF record are you taliking about? My RACE car is faster than Cal's by a second and a half , BUT it was not done in a TSO class anywhere.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH <----that is what I read

Yep "YOUR RACE CAR" is faster than all of the TSO Cars by that margin or more.

"JEFF'S RACE CAR" runs TSO, HE is the Driver & Owner of the Car!!!

SO WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE?? If You do not participate in the TSO Class???

MayBe You Need A Super 16 Thread??? :arco:

[EightSecV6]

"JEFF'S RACE CAR" runs TSO, HE is the Driver & Owner of the Car!!!




Dont ASSume so much Joe....BLAH BLAH BLAH

[JCotton]

Sheeeeit Guys, this is not good. This has to stop, like right now. We cannot be bagging back and forth like this, been there and done that, this will not help to put the rules together nor is this going to bring in participation by others for fear of being slammed. I'm not the peacemaker here, I just want to race.

BPG is coming up, we need to wrap this up, for the sake of the guys that want to race in mid August. Thats 6 weeks away. The guys that raced at BG and anyone else that didn't, and those that want to race in the future. Right now, we need to tweak the rules, others need to share their thoughts as well. Otto, Cal, Ted, Jeff, Joe, Me, OC, Chris, Dave, and I am sure several others. . We need cars, BG was excellent, we started with about 14 cars, it was exciting for a while but kinda sucked when we had only 6-7 cars when eliminations started. Looking back at BG, there were a few pretty stout cars there, but we all raced........ the rules are pretty good now, just need a little tweaking...... comon guys lets share our thoughts, we can't alll sit and watch and leave it to a few to fight it out. I want to race, not fight, we can't all have our exact combo be the center piece of the rules. In the past I have argued for a few things, not to have the advantage, just to be able to be competitive. Right now, we need to just hammer out BPG rules, we can tweak some more after BPG for the Nats. Hey..... for that matter, we could have another TSO race at one of the other fall events..... Morrocco, E-town, Cecil County, maybe even Reynolds.

Y aaaa. I know, I edited it, just heard that the rules in BPG will be the same as the Nats........ no need to discuss much of anything here guys.

[Ted A.]

I was told I would be able to run BPG at Quaker to aid in getting the car count up. I have just read that the GSCA rules are in effect. I have no intention on showing up on race day and put anybody in the position to have to call me on a obvious rule infringement(s). I was under the impression that it would be made public knowledge and the rule exceptions be put in writing for the BPG event only. I have no intention on disrespecting the existing rules and respect them for what they are. The rules are what they are and it is time to enforce what is written on the other page.

Good luck guys. Gotta go, my puppet strings just broke!!

[Turbobuick]

The rules for BPG have been posted in a new topic.

I agree with Joe and Jack there is no need to push the class further than were it is. Lets tighten up and tweak the current rules like Jack said. I've only been working on this car and combo since Feb 04. I still have some sorting and catching up to do and it will be a never ending struggle if the rules keep changing. 8.50's should be the limit, especially since a 25.1c chassis is required beyond that. If the class goes further I will also be changing my car around to fall back into TSE.

I would like to see what those big 47/88 turbos will do espcially with a GN1 head. I'm not convinced that they will be that much of an advantage, especially against another car that is faster spooling. If I'm wrong and the cars with the larger frame turbo start running 8.20's with .400 lights and 1.20 60's then I will want to see rule changes and penalties to level the playing field. As far as wings, and BASIC ladder bars setups I have no porblems with them. I say run a 100# wieght penalty for a basic ladder bar car. I can't see everyone in the class running to change thier cars over to ladder bar cars if they are allowed. I also can't see a min wieght less than 3300. Right now I can get mine down to 3350 but would need serious mods after that, many of which I'm not going to do.

Bill, I disagree with the street car comment, I drive mine regularly.

[HighPSI]

I've been way too busy to properly post here. My opinion is to leave the rules alone, other than clarifying the turbo. Making it a TO4 flanged 88 (like previous years) would simplify things considerably.

FWIW: The turbo I run isn't special. Anyone can order one (and some of my customers have). Please feel free to call us up and order one.

FWIW: I weighed 3365 BEFORE I added 50# balast

Joe: Sorry I missed your call (wiring & plumbing a 572 BBC w/twin 67's). Please give me a call in the morning.

BTW: I will be away from the computer until Tuesday.

[Joe Lubrant]

The rules for BPG have been posted in a new topic.

I agree with Joe and Jack there is no need to push the class further than were it is. Lets tighten up and tweak the current rules like Jack said. I've only been working on this car and combo since Feb 04. I still have some sorting and catching up to do and it will be a never ending struggle if the rules keep changing. 8.50's should be the limit, especially since a 25.1c chassis is required beyond that. If the class goes further I will also be changing my car around to fall back into TSE.

I would like to see what those big 47/88 turbos will do espcially with a GN1 head. I'm not convinced that they will be that much of an advantage, especially against another car that is faster spooling. If I'm wrong and the cars with the larger frame turbo start running 8.20's with .400 lights and 1.20 60's then I will want to see rule changes and penalties to level the playing field. As far as wings, and BASIC ladder bars setups I have no porblems with them. I say run a 100# wieght penalty for a basic ladder bar car. I can't see everyone in the class running to change thier cars over to ladder bar cars if they are allowed. I also can't see a min wieght less than 3300. Right now I can get mine down to 3350 but would need serious mods after that, many of which I'm not going to do.

Bill, I disagree with the street car comment, I drive mine regularly.

Chris,

Thanks for your comments, and getting us back on track!!

I agree with what your are saying about the Minimum Weight, and what would be realistically attainable.

Based on the current rules my car weighed 3395# and I had to add 15# of removable weight, to scale at 3410#

Fiberglass on my car was limited to Hood & Bumpers.

I elected not to add doors or trunk lid, as these items are not permited at local Sanction heads up races.

I wonder if the 14 or so TSO Teched owners, could post what they weighed at BG, and what they feel could be a fair change, if necessary at all for 2006??

Joe

[EightSecV6]

I've been way too busy to properly post here. My opinion is to leave the rules alone, other than clarifying the turbo. Making it a TO4 flanged 88 (like previous years) would simplify things considerably.

FWIW: The turbo I run isn't special. Anyone can order one (and some of my customers have). Please feel free to call us up and order one.

FWIW: I weighed 3365 BEFORE I added 50# balast

Joe: Sorry I missed your call (wiring & plumbing a 572 BBC w/twin 67's). Please give me a call in the morning.

BTW: I will be away from the computer until Tuesday.


FWIW Cal, the turbo on your car WAS NOT available to us or anyone else before the GSNats as O.C. attempted to get one too, since we were not able to get the same turbo, we bought a Mid Frame GT47-88 (as classified by PTE)

I disagree with the T4 flanged rule, that would at least eliminate Cotton, Jeff B, Fiscus,and Gomes.......who's left?

I am all for ladder bar cars to be permitted in the class.

I THINK the spec below 8.50 is a 25.2 chassis which doesnt require much to upgrade from the standard cage must of us currently have but as of right now that is not a concern as nobody has gone that fast.

[JCotton]

FWIW Cal, the turbo on your car WAS NOT available to us or anyone else before the GSNats as O.C. attempted to get one too, since we were not able to get the same turbo, we bought a Mid Frame GT47-88 (as classified by PTE)

I disagree with the T4 flanged rule, that would at least eliminate Cotton, Jeff B, Fiscus,and Gomes.......who's left?

I am all for ladder bar cars to be permitted in the class.

I THINK the spec below 8.50 is a 25.2 chassis which doesnt require much to upgrade from the standard cage must of us currently have but as of right now that is not a concern as nobody has gone that fast.

Good points Bill, unfortunately, the T4 flange Cal is speaking of is a T5 housing with a T4 flange, but then we already know that since thats been already documented when you place them side by side.
As for the ladder bar cars, Ted is the only car I know of and I have lobbied in the past to make an exception allowing him, but really don't think we should open that avenue up to new cars being built. Do you have someone in mind that has a ladder bar car now?

[HighPSI]

FWIW Cal, the turbo on your car WAS NOT available to us or anyone else before the GSNats as O.C. attempted to get one too, since we were not able to get the same turbo, we bought a Mid Frame GT47-88 (as classified by PTE)


I disagree. I had even received some for customers engines BEFORE BG. At BG, I had two extra in my trailer and Joe had one too.

Not sure what your talking about, Jack. You probably didn't see my turbine housing, since it was UNDER the stock shield.

[EightSecV6]

I disagree. I had even received some for customers engines BEFORE BG. At BG, I had two extra in my trailer and Joe had one too.

Not sure what your talking about, Jack. You probably didn't see my turbine housing, since it was UNDER the stock shield.


Cal,
I spoke with you on the phone about it and you said you had one (old style 88 with gt47-88 wheels), I spoke to Joe Lubrant at PTE, he said you had it for testing and you would be running it in BG, he also said he did not have one and his signature still says he did not have one and told me they were not currently available.I spoke to Jim at PTE and he said at the time (when I ordered the new Mid Frame GT47-88) the turbo you had was not available and did not know when it would be?????
If you changed that turbo back to the OLD 88 like we all USED to have, I stand corrected,but if not, I was fed a whole lotta BS by a whole lotta people!
oh well......

[EightSecV6]

Do you have someone in mind that has a ladder bar car now?

No I dont, just put it out there to get more guys in.

[Turbobuick]

FWIW Cal, the turbo on your car WAS NOT available to us or anyone else before the GSNats as O.C. attempted to get one too, since we were not able to get the same turbo, we bought a Mid Frame GT47-88 (as classified by PTE)

I disagree with the T4 flanged rule, that would at least eliminate Cotton, Jeff B, Fiscus,and Gomes.......who's left?

I am all for ladder bar cars to be permitted in the class.

I THINK the spec below 8.50 is a 25.2 chassis which doesnt require much to upgrade from the standard cage must of us currently have but as of right now that is not a concern as nobody has gone that fast.

My Chassis guy did a 87 442 this winter. Whatever the spec is it requires a full tube chassis and funny car cage for the driver. It wasn't an impossible upgrade but it wasn't cheap and it wasn't easy. He was able to tie a lot of it in with the factory frame like a lot of the Mustang guys build.

My car was 3435 at the NATS.

I was under the impression that the 47/88 in old housing wasn't available prior to the NATS. I looked into it when I was changing things around for the new headers and DP.

[JCotton]

No I dont, just put it out there to get more guys in.

How bout this, is there anyone running TSO that would be opposed to Ted running with us with his ladder bar car, him being the only exception.........

Oh ya.......... I weighed in at about 3450 after I put 2 GT4788's in my trunk to make weight.... :elefant: I weigh about 3350 otherwise...

[HighPSI]

Bill,
Joe has one, just not on his car. When I spoke to you, I had one on order for a customer. I received it before BG

Good Luck in the rule making guys! I'm on vacation!!

[EightSecV6]

How bout this, is there anyone running TSO that would be opposed to Ted running with us with his ladder bar car, him being the only exception.........

Oh ya.......... I weighed in at about 3450 after I put 2 GT4788's in my trunk to make weight.... :elefant: I weigh about 3350 otherwise...


You must have had the lightweight versions.......Jeffs is about 59#

I personally dont object to anyone running ladder bars.

[odie]

Billy, about the turbo that cal has, i was told in april that we[pte] by a sales rep, that we hadnt made a turbo like cals, i needed a new turbo, so i had to get my old 88 rebuilt, that is past history, my car with driver weights 3425, 5 gallon of fuel, alum, seats, light weight rotors and brake calibers, glass hood and front bumper, chassic certified to 7.50 untill october 2005, rule change, why not delete the exhaust then we can make more noise. , just my opinion, oc :joint:

[Joe Lubrant]

Bill,
Joe has one, just not on his car. When I spoke to you, I had one on order for a customer. I received it before BG

Good Luck in the rule making guys! I'm on vacation!!

Cal,

What you are saying is true!

I was able to get the 47/88 packaged in the T4 Regular PT88 Compressor Cover & Turbine Housing on "April 28, 2005"!!! I didn't feel I needed a change in turbo as the car was performing "just fine", but it would be taken to BG as a back-up just in case of problems with my current turbo.

I was told that they had made & shipped others, after you reported your results of testing to Harry. Your results were provided I believe in late Feb. or early March if I'm not mistaken.

In posts made on TB.com between Bill & I, spoke of my mis-understanding as to which turbo he intended to use. He dealt directly with Harry, and communication being what it is there, I was not in the loop. I of course believed Bill procured the same turbo you had at BG.

The turbo availability was termed "Limited Availability" since rotating parts were at very low levels, due to high demand in other applications.

People who inquired about it, depending on the time frame "date wise", could have been told different responses, due to internal lack of communications between dept's at PTE . But as you say they were provided on "special order" to meet the rules for class racing. Especially if dealing with Owner direct, since he is the one who makes things happen!

On another note, the T4 & T5 turbo rule issue, as was thrashed thru the many posts on TB.com prior to the Nats, was tentatively settled. Most were under the impression that the T5 Y2k like the one on Jack C. car would be permitted, to allow him to run. It would therefore be used as the max size style turbo dimensionally.

In hind site, knowing no matter what we all felt was the intention of the rule, it should have been revised to reflect the exact intentions. It was not suggested or revised to accomplish the intended limits. Therefore the Major Problems we face now!!

Not sure how we can accomplish a fair resolution that would satisfy everyone in the TSO class. I understand you can not satisfy everyone, but the solution should satisfy the MAJORITY.






Joe

[EightSecV6]

I dont know how all of this is going to get resolved without rewriting a bunch of rules or pissing alot of people off.
I have 2 other TSO cars in the shop right now and we have already purchased and have in posession 2 GT47-88 turbos, (one of these cars was formerly owned by Pat Rubio, the other has stage 2 heads.). We have already started header fabrication and there is no turning back.
Basically, I see it all boiling down to the turbo HOUSING sizes, all the other arguments about the wing and such are crap. Until the so called potential is shown with the turbo, I dont see why it is such an issue especially since the only difference is the physical size of the HOUSINGS???????????? I believe the MAJORITY probably doesnt give a crap!

[Joe Lubrant]

Re-Writing a Bunch of Rules for TSO 2006 is Not Required.

The Majority feel the rules just need to be tightened up, and the turbo rule be very specific to maintain some type of parity between the different combinations.

Anyone who feels that the Majority doesn't give a cr_p about the turbo situation is in the Minority.

Anyone who is building a car specifically for 2006, should be very cautious, as the rules may very well change!

I believe the constructive thing to do, is see if we can come up with a fair compromise.

When the rules were changed for 2005, it was the consensus, we needed to allow another turbo Mfg other than PTE, & their PT88 T4, that was capable of 1200hp.
Hense the allowance of the Turbonetics Y2k 1200hp T5.

Now the lobby by the Minority (3 out of 15 or 16) participants is for 1500hp T5 turbo's, and we have come full circle with PTE being the only Mfg. Again!!

Those with GT47/88's, the Turbine Housings and Compressor Covers can be changed easily as I was told by my former employer. So this is a viable option, and you still retain your complete rotating assembly.

A handy fabricator can easily change flanges from T5 to T4.

I have also been informed by another Manufactuer, that they will be releasing another 88mm T4 turbo, either in Standard or possibly Dual Ball Bearing configuration, that will meet the rules.


Joe

[EightSecV6]

Re-Writing a Bunch of Rules for TSO 2006 is Not Required.

The Majority feel the rules just need to be tightened up, and the turbo rule be very specific to maintain some type of parity between the different combinations.

Anyone who feels that the Majority doesn't give a cr_p about the turbo situation is in the Minority.

Anyone who is building a car specifically for 2006, should be very cautious, as the rules may very well change!

I believe the constructive thing to do, is see if we can come up with a fair compromise.

When the rules were changed for 2005, it was the consensus, we needed to allow another turbo Mfg other than PTE, & their PT88 T4, that was capable of 1200hp.
Hense the allowance of the Turbonetics Y2k 1200hp T5.

Now the lobby by the Minority (3 out of 15 or 16) participants is for 1500hp T5 turbo's, and we have come full circle with PTE being the only Mfg. Again!!

Those with GT47/88's, the Turbine Housings and Compressor Covers can be changed easily as I was told by my former employer. So this is a viable option, and you still retain your complete rotating assembly.

A handy fabricator can easily change flanges from T5 to T4.

I have also been informed by another Manufactuer, that they will be releasing another 88mm T4 turbo, either in Standard or possibly Dual Ball Bearing configuration, that will meet the rules.


Joe


Easily changed......with that being said Joe, if you are certain of the performance gain, why not put them on your car, after all a handy fabricator could easily handle it.

Who's interpretation of the rules will the "new" turbo meet?

About that external oil pump.......

[Joe Lubrant]

Easily changed......with that being said Joe, if you are certain of the performance gain, why not put them on your car, after all a handy fabricator could easily handle it.

Who's interpretation of the rules will the "new" turbo meet?

About that external oil pump.......


What about the external oil pump??

Read the engine rules!!!

Got to run I'm hungry.... think I'll get some Wing's :add_wegbr

[EightSecV6]

What about the external oil pump??

Read the engine rules!!!

Got to run I'm hungry.... think I'll get some Wing's :add_wegbr


Dont choke :add_wegbr :add_wegbr .......read the rule on the wing.

I seriously doubt you'll be running anywhere on foot or in YOUR race car.Careful Joe, dont want Gepetto to tighten up those strings.....

An external oil pump provides an unfair advantage as do headlight covers that do not follow factory body lines.

blah blah blah

[EightSecV6]

My Chassis guy did a 87 442 this winter. Whatever the spec is it requires a full tube chassis and funny car cage for the driver. It wasn't an impossible upgrade but it wasn't cheap and it wasn't easy. He was able to tie a lot of it in with the factory frame like a lot of the Mustang guys build.

My car was 3435 at the NATS.

I was under the impression that the 47/88 in old housing wasn't available prior to the NATS. I looked into it when I was changing things around for the new headers and DP.


Missed your comments on the cage Chris, sorry. I spoke to my chassis guy tonight and he said about $1200 to convert to 25.2, requires x- braces in the doors, a funny car cage and a couple bars beneath the floor but not a full tube chassis. I am not posting this as a fact, just passing along what I found out.

[Joe Lubrant]

...

An external oil pump provides an unfair advantage as do headlight covers that do not follow factory body lines.

blah blah blah


Sorry Bill, I was unaware that the external oil pump provides an advantage??? I know it provides better oiling to a high $ engine, to help prevent premature destruction.

If it is really true, I'm surprised you didn't think of it??

I guess if you had used a talented engine builder, he would have suggested one to you!!

If I take my headlight covers off will it make you happy??
I'll be glad to take them off!!

What else do you want me to take off of my Car, that came there with Less then Allowed??

I am willing to change what ever it takes to comply with the 2006 rules when they are formalized by the appropriate Personnel !

You on the other hand, have so far shown here in all your posts, you are NOT Willing to Do or Change Anything!!!

It's TIME to get real, things are going to change, wether you or I like it or not!!

You and I can keep digging at each other until the cows come home,....but I wish to get this thread back to some serious discussion of suggestions, that the appropriate people can evaluate for possible inclusion to the rules.

Your Turn??


Joe

[EightSecV6]

Sorry Bill, I was unaware that the external oil pump provides an advantage??? I know it provides better oiling to a high $ engine, to help prevent premature destruction.

If it is really true, I'm surprised you didn't think of it??

I guess if you had used a talented engine builder, he would have suggested one to you!!

If I take my headlight covers off will it make you happy??
I'll be glad to take them off!!

What else do you want me to take off of my Car, that came there with Less then Allowed??

I am willing to change what ever it takes to comply with the 2006 rules when they are formalized by the appropriate Personnel !

You on the other hand, have so far shown here in all your posts, you are NOT Willing to Do or Change Anything!!!

It's TIME to get real, things are going to change, wether you or I like it or not!!

You and I can keep digging at each other until the cows come home,....but I wish to get this thread back to some serious discussion of suggestions, that the appropriate people can evaluate for possible inclusion to the rules.

Your Turn??


Joe

Why should I be required to change something to a car that fits into the rules for no other reason than YOU want it changed. What is your ultimate goal here?

An external oil pump has no business on a STREET car and that is what this class is geared toward....correct?

I guess if you had used a talanted tuner, you wouldnt have cracked those GN1 heads, detonation is a killer!

[Joe Lubrant]

Why should I be required to change something to a car that fits into the rules for no other reason than YOU want it changed. What is your ultimate goal here?

An external oil pump has no business on a STREET car and that is what this class is geared toward....correct?

I guess if you had used a talanted tuner, you wouldnt have cracked those GN1 heads, detonation is a killer!

Bill,

I will answer your response above to the point.

No other car in TSO peer tech (except Jeff's) at BG generated as many areas, considered violatons, by the other participates.

The area's of considered infractions by peers were:

1.) Exhuast System not being in compliance with rule as written.
2.) Turbo Location & Orientation as defined by the rules.
3.) Minor trimng of front wheel well to facilitate clearance for 90 deg. elbow off turbo rule---Was violated due to it was not used for that purpose, but to be able to fit the Turbo it self there.
4.) Complete GN/TR body...Removal of complete Stock Type Radiator Support,
which is considered to be an interegal component of a complete body.
5.)Turbo Type used.

Before you jump on what I have posted above, I don't want to argue about any of those points!! Past History!!

The Car was permitted to run the class.

I posted the above, as a reflection of what was considered infactions, by peers, not just by myself alone.

You were aware & told by a very reputatable individual, had it been allowed to come to a Vote by Peers in the TSO class, the Car was Out!

Wether you agree or not, it was very evident the Majority felt the car was illegal.

As I said before I DO NOT wish to rehash the above, as I said it now is Past History!

With that being said, all the more reason, the rules need to be changed and/or modified, to be specific & detailed so no one can put their own intrepretation to them. (That is my Goal!)


The response to other Minor items you stated in your post:

I had stated our reason for using the external oil pump, and you are entitled to your opinion, right or wrong!

The GN-1 Heads on my car were 5 yrs Old ,and of the Older Crack Prone Design.

The Cracking on 1 Head was strictly external, in the normal location that just about all heads of the design era have had. Normal Horizontal crack located just below the GN-1 Logo area. Which Tom has taken care of in his Newer designed Heads.

Heads removed, Engine shows Perfect running condition, no signs of Any Detonation! Wire Lock Gaskets were in excellent condition!

As far as me being a Talented Tuner!

Dave Bamford- TSM Winner, & Dennis Butt-GN Engine in his low 9 sec Blue Mustang with a 74mm at BG to name a few, don't seem to have a problem with my tuning expertise!!
Also with six- 8 sec. passes at BG on my car I'm also pretty happy with the tune!!

Now Can we Start suggestions or clarification proposals to the rules??

Have a Good 4TH of July Holiday!!

Joe

[Brad T]

:albert: I'm all for the weight penalty to run the liquid intercooler.I'm not an expert engine builder or tuner I need every break I can get to run with the pros.

[EightSecV6]

:albert: I'm all for the weight penalty to run the liquid intercooler.I'm not an expert engine builder or tuner I need every break I can get to run with the pros.


Is it up and running yet Brad?

[Brad T]

Well ....no :dong: The UPS guy keeps asking the same thing.I have a pile of nice parts but the last time I looked no one has come along and put any of them together.I just got the farming done so I hope to be out in the shop some now.I hope to have it going by sept. for the last $5000 EZ street race.The one we just had on the 4th a 5.40 pass would have brought home the money.Only 2 cars went that fast the rest went 5.70 to 6.0.

[Nick Micale]

Bill,

I will answer your response above to the point.

No other car in TSO peer tech (except Jeff's) at BG generated as many areas, considered violatons, by the other participates.

The area's of considered infractions by peers were:

1.) Exhuast System not being in compliance with rule as written...................................

Before you jump on what I have posted above, I don't want to argue about any of those points!! Past History!!

The Car was permitted to run the class.

I posted the above, as a reflection of what was considered infactions, by peers, not just by myself alone.

You were aware & told by a very reputatable individual, had it been allowed to come to a Vote by Peers in the TSO class, the Car was Out!

.......................Now Can we Start suggestions or clarification proposals to the rules?? Joe

Sorry for my late response to this Joe, but somehow missed it?

You are correct in most areas, but one that will require you to go back and read the rules. The subject exhaust system WAS in compliance! :lickit:

The turbo was, or was not, defined by the rules?

Your comment about "vote by peers" brings up a debatable issue. Do the cars get "exceptions" because of a vote? If so, why even have rules? If there is to be peer tech, should it be done to have compliance with the rules? Seems if someone builds a car to comply with class rules, why should another car get an "exception" to the rules?

Your last comment is a very good one, how?, who?, when?, where?, all need to be determined before any rule changes can be made, if they will be made? I do not have any answers to this question even though I have tried to obtain one for months. :add_shit:

P.S. Joe, I also thought Jeff's car illegal for TSO but since there were so many discrepancies in the rules and their definitions which were not cleared up in the 8 months prior, the car was allowed to run.

[Dusty Bradford]

Brad T,

What are you building for EZ street? I hope to be in Benton in the fall in EZ if I get the car running halfway decent by then. My car looks like a T-Type but I went with a turbo sbc instead with an 88mm.

I was watching in Huntsville that weekend and a 5.70 car would have won it. When the track is hot like it was that weekend it's hard for the n20 guys to put up a number since they can't get after it right off the line. I know several of the guys who came up there to race on the 3rd.

[EightSecV6]

Sorry for my late response to this Joe, but somehow missed it?

You are correct in most areas, but one that will require you to go back and read the rules. The subject exhaust system WAS in compliance! :lickit:

The turbo was, or was not, defined by the rules?

Your comment about "vote by peers" brings up a debatable issue. Do the cars get "exceptions" because of a vote? If so, why even have rules? If there is to be peer tech, should it be done to have compliance with the rules? Seems if someone builds a car to comply with class rules, why should another car get an "exception" to the rules?

Your last comment is a very good one, how?, who?, when?, where?, all need to be determined before any rule changes can be made, if they will be made? I do not have any answers to this question even though I have tried to obtain one for months. :add_shit:

P.S. Joe, I also thought Jeff's car illegal for TSO but since there were so many discrepancies in the rules and their definitions which were not cleared up in the 8 months prior, the car was allowed to run.


Nick,
All we need is clarification, I am sure thet turbo manufacturer of the turbo will gladly give you his input on determining if the turbo fits into the rules as written.

[Joe Lubrant]

Sorry for my late response to this Joe, but somehow missed it?

You are correct in most areas, but one that will require you to go back and read the rules. The subject exhaust system WAS in compliance! :lickit:

The turbo was, or was not, defined by the rules?

Your comment about "vote by peers" brings up a debatable issue. Do the cars get "exceptions" because of a vote? If so, why even have rules? If there is to be peer tech, should it be done to have compliance with the rules? Seems if someone builds a car to comply with class rules, why should another car get an "exception" to the rules?

Your last comment is a very good one, how?, who?, when?, where?, all need to be determined before any rule changes can be made, if they will be made? I do not have any answers to this question even though I have tried to obtain one for months. :add_shit:

P.S. Joe, I also thought Jeff's car illegal for TSO but since there were so many discrepancies in the rules and their definitions which were not cleared up in the 8 months prior, the car was allowed to run.



Thanks for your response Nick!

I still “Respectfully” disagree with the exhaust legality ruling, but understand the motive or reason it was made.


“Quoted Rule as Written”

“”A 4”maximum size single or dual exhaust system is allowed. It must muffle and exit at/behind the rear axle tube(s), away from the car, equal to the lower body line.””


Peer Tech majority consensus:

Everyone in the class seemed to understand the “Rule as Written”, and it appeared to be very explicit.

It means the Exhuast System shall have a muffler(s) and piping not exceeding 4”, and it must extend back at least to the rear axle tube (s) (Not way forward of it…as was the case(s) in question)

The term/wording “At/Behind” means “just that” it has to extend at least to the rear axle tube, but can go beyond/past that point. (Exhaust exiting way short of rear axle tube or out the side forward of rear tire does not comply with rule as written)

If the majority of the class misinterpreted the true meaning of the rule, what was the real intent or your interpretation of the rule as written??

The exhaust rule along with the other 4 or 5 other areas that were cited, as concerns would be best clarified first, since the rest of the rules seemed acceptable to all.


Joe

[EightSecV6]

Just as a FRIENDLY reminder to all, we were willing to correct the exhaust at the track if required by our peers to do so. I also question the legality of oval pipe, if it is permitted, we need to have a dimension from top to bottom and side to side.
Thanks

[Joe Lubrant]

Just as a FRIENDLY reminder to all, we were willing to correct the exhaust at the track if required by our peers to do so. I also question the legality of oval pipe, if it is permitted, we need to have a dimension from top to bottom and side to side.
Thanks

Bill,

You are right ! You did concede to fixing it to meet concensus. The other car in question had the exhaust exiting in front of rear tire, and I believe was under protest also.

I actually complained to my pipe/oval tube supplier, that what was supplied for my car was smaller in flow area than standard 4" round. The Turn Down was even smaller yet.

Its sort of strange when you think about it??..rule allows (1) single or (2) dual
4" exhausts system. Lots of leeway there for sure!!

I guess the word "system" allowed choice of round or oval etc. to keep/allow exhaust to tuck tight under body, to comply with "equal to the body line" words in the written rule.

In any case my opinion anything over single 3.5" past the firewall / muffler tends to be an overkill & adds unecessary weight.


Good idea for dimensions, I'm all for it.

Joe

[Nick Micale]

Nick,
All we need is clarification, I am sure thet turbo manufacturer of the turbo will gladly give you his input on determining if the turbo fits into the rules as written.

Bill, no need to worry about me "interpreting" the rules as my recent directive from Richard states each class will have a spokesperson and "they along with their racers will ultimately decide who will race the class".

So next year I plan to take a "real" vacation that I can actually enjoy with my race car somewhere here in the West where rules are actually determined by a race organization rather than vendors. :fragez:

[EightSecV6]

Bill, no need to worry about me "interpreting" the rules as my recent directive from Richard states each class will have a spokesperson and "they along with their racers will ultimately decide who will race the class".

So next year I plan to take a "real" vacation that I can actually enjoy with my race car somewhere here in the West where rules are actually determined by a race organization rather than vendors. :fragez:

Sounds good Nick!


Nick, I just read that again....does that mean you are not attending the race or you are not going to be the race director?

That DOES NOT sound good.....

[Ted A.]

Bill, no need to worry about me "interpreting" the rules as my recent directive from Richard states each class will have a spokesperson and "they along with their racers will ultimately decide who will race the class".

So next year I plan to take a "real" vacation that I can actually enjoy with my race car somewhere here in the West where rules are actually determined by a race organization rather than vendors. :fragez:

Nick,

Does he go by Richard or DICK?

[Quickt]

Bill, no need to worry about me "interpreting" the rules as my recent directive from Richard states each class will have a spokesperson and "they along with their racers will ultimately decide who will race the class".
:fragez:

So in other words the posting done on this websight or any other does not mean squat.

[EightSecV6]

So in other words the posting done on this websight or any other does not mean squat.


I think that pretty much sums it up...

[Ted A.]

So in other words the posting done on this websight or any other does not mean squat.

WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY!!!!!!!!!!

[Quickt]

WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY!!!!!!!!!!

You can say that again. I sure did not see this coming.

[Nick Micale]

.....................Nick, I just read that again....does that mean you are not attending the race or you are not going to be the race director?

That DOES NOT sound good.....

Based upon information I have received, I can give you further info about the "new" GSCA race program. This will be all defined and worked out on the official GSCA web site shortly.

As I said before, there will be a rep from each class who will be the race administrator for that class. He will manage and formulate any and all proposed changes for that class.

These changes will then be forwarded to a rules evalulation panel for approval.

At the next event, the class rep will determine if each car is legal or not, and cannot be overruled by anyone other than Richard Lasseter.

To specifically answer your question Bill, the Race Director is now Richard Lasseter. The rules evaluation panel will be Ron and Red. So I am by default, no longer race director, and at this point doubt that I will even attend the 2006 event in BG. :fragez:

I do want to thank all the racers I have met and dealt with over the years in BG. Yes, I am disappointed that John Chamberlain and I could not be allowed to bring this event to a "higher level" with a more professional competition, better payouts including monies from racer fees and gate receipts, and major sponsors. This was our goal when we were given the jobs of Event Director and Race Director over 2 years ago.

However, since John insisted on responsible accounting of the financial transactions, and I ruled the race program with a "heavy hand", it was determined by the "powers to be" that we will not be allowed to go forward with our plan.

I want it to be clear, I leave with no hard feeling towards anyone, and actually enjoyed the opportunity to show that with proper direction, the BG race program could be fun and successful.

It is also with great regret for the racers that we can no longer have an open, unbiased forum to discuss and formulate proposed rules for this event. As has been said, any comment, proposals or ideas here or on any internet site will fall on deaf ears. It will have to be on the GSCA site only, since that is where the control will remain.

John and I will now explore another agenda to see if it is feasable to do an event on our own, or with another organization.

[EightSecV6]

Based upon information I have received, I can give you further info about the "new" GSCA race program. This will be all defined and worked out on the official GSCA web site shortly.

As I said before, there will be a rep from each class who will be the race administrator for that class. He will manage and formulate any and all proposed changes for that class.

These changes will then be forwarded to a rules evalulation panel for approval.

At the next event, the class rep will determine if each car is legal or not, and cannot be overruled by anyone other than Richard Lasseter.

To specifically answer your question Bill, the Race Director is now Richard Lasseter. The rules evaluation panel will be Ron and Red. So I am by default, no longer race director, and at this point doubt that I will even attend the 2006 event in BG. :fragez:

I do want to thank all the racers I have met and dealt with over the years in BG. Yes, I am disappointed that John Chamberlain and I could not be allowed to bring this event to a "higher level" with a more professional competition, better payouts including monies from racer fees and gate receipts, and major sponsors. This was our goal when we were given the jobs of Event Director and Race Director over 2 years ago.

However, since John insisted on responsible accounting of the financial transactions, and I ruled the race program with a "heavy hand", it was determined by the "powers to be" that we will not be allowed to go forward with our plan.

I want it to be clear, I leave with no hard feeling towards anyone, and actually enjoyed the opportunity to show that with proper direction, the BG race program could be fun and successful.

It is also with great regret for the racers that we can no longer have an open, unbiased forum to discuss and formulate proposed rules for this event. As has been said, any comment, proposals or ideas here or on any internet site will fall on deaf ears. It will have to be on the GSCA site only, since that is where the control will remain.

John and I will now explore another agenda to see if it is feasable to do an event on our own, or with another organization.

Nick, this truley disapoints me, I for one think you did a hell of a job keeping things organized and running smoothly. I hope you ultimately decide to go, even if you are only spectating......when is the last time you had your hands in a clutch can? :arco: :arco: :arco:

[REDS TTYPE]

geez how many boards do I have to go read on to find some rules for a dam car event

Im thinking of going out here and building this car to fit local 10.5 tire class rules and giving up on being in tso in 2006

sounds like BG races will be a thing we talk about as past tense

well guess I'll try to find info on the gsca board ...Im building a car now I need to know rules now not a week after the next event :mad:


what a bunch of :wc:

[Nick Micale]

Nick, this truley disapoints me, I for one think you did a hell of a job keeping things organized and running smoothly. I hope you ultimately decide to go, even if you are only spectating......when is the last time you had your hands in a clutch can? :arco: :arco: :arco:

Thanks Bill, tried to run it like I was racing too.

Been about a year since a Lenco experience. Maybe Dick Kereny will bring his S-16 car so I can then "play" with the Big Boys! :racer:

My car is overqualified for TSE and underqualified for TSO. :stupid:

[REDS TTYPE]

I may be new to the scene but from what I've watched and read over the last few years .. seems they just made a stupid mistake .. which I 've also learned is pretty comon

Looked Like you were going to get the Nats in order finally now this

from the outside it shows you did a great Job Nick

on another note .. this sucks .. looks like Billy and Joe were having fun discussing things :add_schac

[NJTURBO]

Nick,

So let me get this straight. They want a Race Director that is a track monkey all weekend that has no say in the rules :dong:

You are a racer, and a hell of a Race Director. Nobody worked harder for 1 week than you to give the racers and the spectators the best show possible. So basically what you are saying is we are back to the Ron and Red Nats :asskickin

It will have to be on the GSCA site only, since that is where the control will remain.They cannot control the views or minds or points the racers have, I will leave these open just tweak them a little. They need a place to be able to come and vent and NOT have to worry about being banned :albert:

[Ted A.]

Nick,


They cannot control the views or minds or points the racers have, I will leave these open just tweak them a little. They need a place to be able to come and vent and NOT have to worry about being banned :albert:


Yes, they cannot control me saying that this is B.S. It won't matter what the rules are next year, I got something for a certain individual. :racer:


Nick, thank you for taking a week off of work to run the NATS. We all know what you stood for and that is what matters.

[buicks4speed]

It's alway good to see you guys flyin' with your TSO cars. At least you guys have a class that is somewhat close to what you can run locally. We are suppose to have our first 10.5 OutLaw v-8 class in 06. It is hopeful that we get ladder bars and a little more of a weight break. Rules are still in the works and all is in the air but the same thing is in my thinking as with most of you all. I want something that I can have that I can compete/or use locally. I am from NC and 10.5 stuff is everywhere and a lot closer than the Buick events. Most current v-8 stuff is at "tank" weight and way off what is run everywhere else. Going fast with class is great but I want it practicle for my OutLaw stuff. Hope to see you all next year with something scary :SHOCKED: If the car count gets too bad and the v-8 guys get there stuff straight then maybe a corperate class. They are both Buicks and a 10.5 power adder class right? But then again it would be twice as hard to keep two types of cars happy in the same class. :add_shit: Makes you wonder how they do it on a Natioanal level......

[odie]

the tso rules must be about finalized, its too quiet here and on the gsca board. :gr_gruffy

[Nick Micale]

the tso rules must be about finalized, its too quiet here and on the gsca board. :gr_gruffy

There has been LOTS of discussion here about TSO rules, but not much accomplished in my opinion? :add_shit:

The major item of contention is the turbo. As I said in BG, it is up to you guys to define this properly so we all understand what is or is not legal. So guys, please lets get going on discussing this so we have ample time to finalize the TSO rules.

There are a few other items that need to be tweaked also, lets do them as well.

Some of you guys I will see in Salem shortly and would be glad to hear your opinions in person. :rant:

[odie]

right nick, i dont think there was anything accomplished just a lot discoussion that didnt get anything settled joe had some good points , so did billy. it was interested reading their post, maybe cal has some ideals, :racer:

[REDS TTYPE]

are you talking rules for the gsca event?

or for tso in general?

I dont think there will be many people at BG next year

I know Jack runs a y2k turbo .. but before I order one for this tso car Im building I'd like to know at which events It'll be legal

and Billy will have I believe 3 cars with the turbo's rotated so theres no elbo in the d/p
Before I finish up mounting this one that way I want to know which events it would be legal for ? :drive:

[EightSecV6]

are you talking rules for the gsca event?

or for tso in general?

I dont think there will be many people at BG next year

I know Jack runs a y2k turbo .. but before I order one for this tso car Im building I'd like to know at which events It'll be legal

and Billy will have I believe 3 cars with the turbo's rotated so theres no elbo in the d/p
Before I finish up mounting this one that way I want to know which events it would be legal for ? :drive:


I cant answer any of your questions BUT I spoke to Nick and he is prepared to structure the TSO rules around a REAL OUTLAW race. I am sure the Y2K will be legal.

[JCotton]

I cant answer any of your questions BUT I spoke to Nick and he is prepared to structure the TSO rules around a REAL OUTLAW race. I am sure the Y2K will be legal.

Billy,

What TSO class would that be, The Nats or Nicks new race at Indy?

[EightSecV6]

Billy,

What TSO class would that be, The Nats or Nicks new race at Indy?

Nick has nothing to do GS Nats, I am referring to Indy

[Mike10secv6]

...........

[Joe Lubrant]

Billy,

What TSO class would that be, The Nats or Nicks new race at Indy?

Jack,

As Bill's response reflected, he was in contact with Nick, and the rules will be centered around a "REAL OUTLAW CLASS" NOT A "TURBO STREET OUTLAW CLASS.

So Bill is implying that it is not to be confused, with what is considered the (TSO) Turbo Street Outlaw Class by GSCA, and the fellows that currently run in it.

The current GSCA "understood" rules, the 88mm T4 & T5 Y2k 1200-1250 hp Turbo's have already catapulted some TSO cars to 8.50 e.t.'s.

He is basically saying that the Manfacturer Advertised (PTE) 1450 HP GT4788 Turbo will not be an issue in this new Indy class, as it was at BG TSO Class.

I am glad "IF IT IS TRUE & HAPPENS" that Bill found a class for his cars using the GT4788 (1450hp) turbo's, and their performance potential.

As for me and others I have spoken to, with our current TSO combinations (1200-1250 hp turbo's), the proven 8.50 potential, Safety & Chassis Cerification limitations have been reached.

Many of the current TSO participants are still figuring out their combo's, and need a stable rules time frame, in order to catch up in their performance capability.

A Bill Termed "REAL OUTLAW CLASS" with bigger turbo's <8.50 et's would require the newer NHRA Chassis Certification to 7.50 et.
Other than his (Jeff) entry don't believe any other current TSO car is in compliance or wishes to do so??

I wonder if Bill knows what this New "REAL OUTLAW CLASS" is going to be NAMED???

If the INDY Race has another Class for Legal "TURBO STREET OUTLAW" (TSO) cars using up to and including 1200-1250 HP Turbo's, I look forward to participating, as I'm sure Jack and others will also.

Creating a New Class is Great!!, as long as it can attract a good number of participates, be competitive, with a performance level pretty much determined by power capability of the combo's.
Also the Driver Comp Lic, Chassis,& other established NHRA Safety issues need to be met. Indy is a first class NHRA Track and is very strict with compliance


Joe

[JCotton]

Right on Joe, you can take me off the TSO list, I had enough. 5 years of arguing to keep the class reachable for the majority has pretty much fallen on deaf ears and now it has gone too far for my pockets. It would now appear that the few guys that put the TSO on its past course have decided they cannot compete either.......

[REDS TTYPE]

I dont see GN1 headed cars going but so fast no matter what turbo you stuff on it

so If a real outlaw class shows up I'd think that would seperate the gn1 cars and the stage head cars

[EightSecV6]

Hey Joe how about you go ahead and attend one race a year and Kiss my ass?

[fiscus]

Hello everyone. Well it seems that another year of BG has come and gone and we are still going through the same old BS. There is this feeling among some that the stage headed cars have an advantage. I seem to remember in the past that if the stage heads were allowed that they would dominate the class. Guess what? It DIDN'T happen.
As per the rules for this year they state that a 88 mm turbo up to and including a mid-frame was allowed. The 47-88 is a mid frame according to pte. So what is the problem? The average TSO racer couldn't get the 47-88 in the smaller t-4 housing that didn't exist but only to the select 2. Given this prospect myself and billy chose the turbo that we COULD get. Think that this is BS? Ask O.C. , he also inquired about the turbo and was told it wasn't available.
Whats this about being a STREET CAR class? The last I remember I didn't see Joes car in the parking lot next to mine the 3 nights that I drove it from the track straight to dinner with my family inside. Or how about in the parking lot of the Drury hotel when I drove it there 2 nights and back to the track the next day. Saying that a car with a 47-88 isn't as streetable as one with the old t-4 88 is BS.
And what about keeping the cars slower than 8.50 because of NHRA rules? Since when has that EVER been a concern at BG? Look at the number of cars that run in the 10's and even some 9 second cars that don't even have a rollbar. Who's the biggest offender of the NHRA rules? A car that MIGHT go 2 or 3 tenths under the rule or a car that goes 9's with no safety equipment at all!
All this is BULL! It all comes down to being affraid of change. Lets face it, we all have worked HARD to get to this level. The cars in this class could have a good shot of competing heads-up locally if the rules don't get screwed-up. Why limit these cars to a particular e.t. level? There is already FOUR classes that do that based on small turbo restrictions.
All this comes down to is that some feel that they could be POTENTUALLY outrun by something different or take away record holding status. The last time that I checked champion headed cars with old 88's have won every year.So whats all the crying about?

Can't wait for the colorful replies on this one!
Dave "worm" Fiscus

[NJTURBO]

These areas are for feedback, we are all big boys and professionals and in a small community. So please lets work together.

[REDS TTYPE]

yes the stage heads have not dominated the class but they could as far as power goes

thing is power isnt everything when it comes to drag racing

for the record Im not complaining about stage heads ..Im well aware that gn1 head cars continue to win but the car Im putting together is stage head equiped anyway .. then when not limited to tso rules it can contend in other real world classes outside of the buick events

so just how fast do you fast gn1 head cars think you could really go if you could use any turbo ?? My guess would be a few 10ths if that

I think thats where joe is pushing to keep a limit on turbo size is Im betting his car has had bigger on it without gain

then on the other side of things .. to make stage heads really work they need big cams and rpm to take advantage of them and bigger turbos would help feed the air supply needed for the rpm

thats where I believe a real outlaw class would let the big head motors run to their potential and the Gn1 motors are closing in on their max capable hp

Hey Billy ..Maybe you should try some gn1's on your race car and report back on hp difference :add_best_

[Ted A.]

Hey Billy ..Maybe you should try some gn1's on your race car and report back on hp difference :add_best_

Yes, and turn the turbo sideways while you are at it!!!

[REDS TTYPE]

Yes, and turn the turbo sideways while you are at it!!!

help some of us out here

are you for or against turning turbos ?

[EightSecV6]

Yes, and turn the turbo sideways while you are at it!!!


I'll shine it up, turn it sideways and shove it right up......nevermind LOL!

[odie]

I raced a friends 69 camaro ss/da super stock car there back in 69, last time was 86 and 87 at the corvette nats, of course our new vets were not fast so they were not strict with us, the corvette club would rent the track for 3 days for racing and car shows, i quit the vet club back in 1995 i havent been to a vet nationals sence then, everone should enjoy IRP. about a hour drive for me, we will be there if i dont die first, :elefant: :racer:

[Otto J]

Hello everyone. Well it seems that another year of BG has come and gone and we are still going through the same old BS. There is this feeling among some that the stage headed cars have an advantage. I seem to remember in the past that if the stage heads were allowed that they would dominate the class. Guess what? It DIDN'T happen.
As per the rules for this year they state that a 88 mm turbo up to and including a mid-frame was allowed. The 47-88 is a mid frame according to pte. So what is the problem? The average TSO racer couldn't get the 47-88 in the smaller t-4 housing that didn't exist but only to the select 2. Given this prospect myself and billy chose the turbo that we COULD get. Think that this is BS? Ask O.C. , he also inquired about the turbo and was told it wasn't available.
Whats this about being a STREET CAR class? The last I remember I didn't see Joes car in the parking lot next to mine the 3 nights that I drove it from the track straight to dinner with my family inside. Or how about in the parking lot of the Drury hotel when I drove it there 2 nights and back to the track the next day. Saying that a car with a 47-88 isn't as streetable as one with the old t-4 88 is BS.
And what about keeping the cars slower than 8.50 because of NHRA rules? Since when has that EVER been a concern at BG? Look at the number of cars that run in the 10's and even some 9 second cars that don't even have a rollbar. Who's the biggest offender of the NHRA rules? A car that MIGHT go 2 or 3 tenths under the rule or a car that goes 9's with no safety equipment at all!
All this is BULL! It all comes down to being affraid of change. Lets face it, we all have worked HARD to get to this level. The cars in this class could have a good shot of competing heads-up locally if the rules don't get screwed-up. Why limit these cars to a particular e.t. level? There is already FOUR classes that do that based on small turbo restrictions.
All this comes down to is that some feel that they could be POTENTUALLY outrun by something different or take away record holding status. The last time that I checked champion headed cars with old 88's have won every year.So whats all the crying about?

Can't wait for the colorful replies on this one!
Dave "worm" Fiscus
Dave, I have only one question for you.
WERE IS MY DAMN HAT YOU PROMISED :rant: :zahn:

[Joe Lubrant]

Hello everyone. Well it seems that another year of BG has come and gone and we are still going through the same old BS. There is this feeling among some that the stage headed cars have an advantage. I seem to remember in the past that if the stage heads were allowed that they would dominate the class. Guess what? It DIDN'T happen.
As per the rules for this year they state that a 88 mm turbo up to and including a mid-frame was allowed. The 47-88 is a mid frame according to pte. So what is the problem? The average TSO racer couldn't get the 47-88 in the smaller t-4 housing that didn't exist but only to the select 2. Given this prospect myself and billy chose the turbo that we COULD get. Think that this is BS? Ask O.C. , he also inquired about the turbo and was told it wasn't available.
Whats this about being a STREET CAR class? The last I remember I didn't see Joes car in the parking lot next to mine the 3 nights that I drove it from the track straight to dinner with my family inside. Or how about in the parking lot of the Drury hotel when I drove it there 2 nights and back to the track the next day. Saying that a car with a 47-88 isn't as streetable as one with the old t-4 88 is BS.
And what about keeping the cars slower than 8.50 because of NHRA rules? Since when has that EVER been a concern at BG? Look at the number of cars that run in the 10's and even some 9 second cars that don't even have a rollbar. Who's the biggest offender of the NHRA rules? A car that MIGHT go 2 or 3 tenths under the rule or a car that goes 9's with no safety equipment at all!
All this is BULL! It all comes down to being affraid of change. Lets face it, we all have worked HARD to get to this level. The cars in this class could have a good shot of competing heads-up locally if the rules don't get screwed-up. Why limit these cars to a particular e.t. level? There is already FOUR classes that do that based on small turbo restrictions.
All this comes down to is that some feel that they could be POTENTUALLY outrun by something different or take away record holding status. The last time that I checked champion headed cars with old 88's have won every year.So whats all the crying about?

Can't wait for the colorful replies on this one!
Dave "worm" Fiscus

Hi Dave!!

I'm glad you are here and posting. I wish more of the fellows would jump in and contribute. There are 9-10 pages of posts on this thread, maybe alot of bashing, but ALOT of USEFUL INFORMATION.

In any event most of what you are saying about driving and parking my car or anybody elses TSO car for that matter doesn't mean much.
I can assure you my car is as street worthy as yours, maybe more so. Idles at 900 rpm, No tip in problems, no cold start issues 12 gal. cell. Drives like a Dream etc.

If we want to prove drivablity and streetablilty for TSO lets Just add a 30 MILE CRUISE CITY & HIGHWAY to the rules. Lets see how many would fair at that??
I'm all for it if you wish to make a big issue of the Street Thing??

You know of all people how the class came about and the reasons!!
It was the introduction of the 88mm 3-bolt in TSE in 2000.
Later that year my car ran 9.13@153.54 @3680# with that turbo, and Cal H. & Gary H. followed with similar results.
The Turbo was deemed Illegal for TSE the following year.

When TSO was formed (2001) it was intended for M&A & GN-1 88mm T4 Turbo Cars, not alot of cars exsisted or completed at that time. So the allowance of Stage II Headed, Sheet Metals etc. were allowed to promote participation.
Any body with Half-A-Brain knows what that would mean, to small headed cars, if the Turbo rule 3-4 bolt T4 Limitation of 88mm (1200-1250hp) was not put in Place! It also meant the PT88 was the only turbo of choice.

You also know that the numerous posts regarding the turbo rule thru the winter months canvasing for the allowance of the Y2K 80 or 88mm T5, so Jack C. could run his Car. I believe Tony G. was also in favor of the Y2k also.

I know although not happy with the proposal, I agreed since the turbo's were advertised by Turbonetics as capable 1200hp Turbo's. The Turbine & Compressor Covers were a Tad larger but the HP ratings were comusurate with the PT88 T4 Turbo.

Based on those posts and the general understanding by everyone involved, those were the turbo's that would be used at BG period!

Now as I knew would happen to the class, the Stage II headed boys are looking to step up to a GT4788 Turbo which is Advertised by the manufacturer as a 1450hp turbo & called a mid-frame. By the way this is the same GT4788 turbo run by Richy Kibler on his 7.90 Stage II Headed Turbo Regal.
So the farse of using the term mid-frame for a 1450hp turbo to compete with the intended 1200-1250hp turbo's PT88 or Y2K is the real B.S. Here!!

Anybody that is remotely familiar with Turbo's and the end packaging, meaning larger turbine housings, Compressor Covers, Ported Shrouds & more aggressive wheels will produce more power than those of the current configurations being used in the class by the majority.

Mid-Frame, Medium Frame, Large Frame Tiny Frame what ever...ambigous terms for what is necessary to determine the power capability of a turbo for use in a class.

The Standard PT88 3-bolt (1150-1200hp) PT88 4-Bolt T4(1200-1250hp), Y2k (1200hp) as Officially Adviertised by their respective manufactuers.

PTE on their Web-Site conservatively rates the GT4788 at 1450hp, It has already demonstrated 1500+ in another application.

In closing Dave I really don't care about losing a TSO record!!!
Especially if its done by someone with a GT4788(1450hp turbo) or a Tricked out Y2k with funny modified wheels on a Stage II or an Illegal GN-1 Car.

If someone beats that TSO record in competition, with the standard PT88 4-BOLT (1250hp) turbo at 3410# I will be impressed!!!
It will just make me refine my current combo and use the reserve 3 psi and faster ramp & 11.50 tires I didn't use at BG.

The only reason No Stage II headed TSO car has accomplished this NONE HAVE HAD THERE ACT TOGETHER YET!! This is TRUTH & FACT!! NO EXCUSES for such a poor showing with the best parts Buick Produced. And that is not B.S.

Maybe you can Band-Aid the problems or issues with a Bigger Turbo, I'm sure it will help!!

Time to separate the M&A, GN-1's, & TA Small Headed Cars from the Stage II Headed Sheet Metal Boy's seems to be the only real answer to me.

NHRA rules will probably be enforced for TSO BG...As for INDY you better believe they will for sure!!

Joe

[REDS TTYPE]

If billy and Joe would take a break from hammering on each other once in a while then I might have answers to questions I've posted in here

will y2k turbo's be allowed in all the events? from what I've read seems like that would be yes

Are the turbo's going to be allowed to be rotated ? Im not sure there is a real power advantage to this .. it may be but not proven but it sure makes plumbing alot easier and gets the turbo out the way should you need or want to get to the front of the motor

hey Joe who with stage heads are pushing for 47-88 turbo's ?

I dont thats for sure

definatly not going to take anything away from Kibler but comparing a lighter car thats backhalfed with a 4 link and liquid I/c is totally different than heavy stock style suspention cars with air to air coolers

hey Jack you talking of dropping BG tso or all events?

[Baadgn]

Hi Dave!!



Now as I knew would happen to the class, the Stage II headed boys are looking to step up to a GT4788 Turbo which is Advertised by the manufacturer as a 1450hp turbo & called a mid-frame. By the way this is the same GT4788 turbo run by Richy Kibler on his 7.90 Stage II Headed Turbo Regal.
So the farse of using the term mid-frame for a 1450hp turbo to compete with the intended 1200-1250hp turbo's PT88 or Y2K is the real B.S. Here!!

PTE on their Web-Site conservatively rates the GT4788 at 1450hp, It has already demonstrated 1500+ in another application.

In closing Dave I really don't care about losing a TSO record!!!
Especially if its done by someone with a GT4788(1450hp turbo) or a Tricked out Y2k with funny modified wheels on a Stage II or an Illegal GN-1 Car.

If someone beats that TSO record in competition, with the standard PT88 4-BOLT (1250hp) turbo at 3410# I will be impressed!!!
It will just make me refine my current combo and use the reserve 3 psi and faster ramp & 11.50 tires I didn't use at BG.

The only reason No Stage II headed TSO car has accomplished this NONE HAVE HAD THERE ACT TOGETHER YET!! This is TRUTH & FACT!! NO EXCUSES for such a poor showing with the best parts Buick Produced. And that is not B.S.

Maybe you can Band-Aid the problems or issues with a Bigger Turbo, I'm sure it will help!!

Time to separate the M&A, GN-1's, & TA Small Headed Cars from the Stage II Headed Sheet Metal Boy's seems to be the only real answer to me.


Joe

I tried to stay out this but joe you are (out of control) Richies car ran 7.90s joe what does it weight 3550# NOOOOOOOOOO 3100# just so you are clear on this it means that at 3550 legal tso weight that it would not run 7.90s PTE remember them? if not let me refresh your aging memory Harry the owner of PTE is the one that informed you to find employment elsewhere remember NOW.he deemed the 47/88 a mid frame who the f__k are you say its not should we listen to you or the turbo manufacture.Oh and this turbo made over 1500 hp in another application YA it did with ALCOHOL that made no difference right joe. Its funny that you mention (funny wheels) in turbos Joe yours is stock right! The only record you own in tso is the biggest and loudest whiner in the class.Ya Joe none of us stage II guys have are stuff together your right I made 4 passes down at bg with an all new aluminum motor and only ran 8.85 MY bad maybe 8.18 @ 172.6 would have been better.So in closing Joe please put your 11.5 tires on 3 more # of boost and give it all the ramp it can handle and bring it to salem.


P.S why is it that everyone argues with joe and he argues with everyone else except his BUDDY JACK :rainbow: but there are no arguments between anybody else :stupid:

[Joe Lubrant]

I tried to stay out this but joe you are (out of control) Richies car ran 7.90s joe what does it weight 3550# NOOOOOOOOOO 3100# just so you are clear on this it means that at 3550 legal tso weight that it would not run 7.90s PTE remember them? if not let me refresh your aging memory Harry the owner of PTE is the one that informed you to find employment elsewhere remember NOW.he deemed the 47/88 a mid frame who the f__k are you say its not should we listen to you or the turbo manufacture.Oh and this turbo made over 1500 hp in another application YA it did with ALCOHOL that made no difference right joe. Its funny that you mention (funny wheels) in turbos Joe yours is stock right! The only record you own in tso is the biggest and loudest whiner in the class.Ya Joe none of us stage II guys have are stuff together your right I made 4 passes down at bg with an all new aluminum motor and only ran 8.85 MY bad maybe 8.18 @ 172.6 would have been better.So in closing Joe please put your 11.5 tires on 3 more # of boost and give it all the ramp it can handle and bring it to salem.


P.S why is it that everyone argues with joe and he argues with everyone else except his BUDDY JACK :rainbow: but there are no arguments between anybody else :stupid:



Tony.....what the Heck are you Smokin??? :joint:

WHAT 3550# WEIGHT TSO CLASS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? :stupid:

LET ME HELP YOUR """"SHORT MEMORY""" GET IT?? :add_wegbr :add_wegbr

I'm pretty sure TSO is still 3400#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by my aging memory. :haha:

Richie doesn't weigh 3100#, but since you are the expert OK!!! Thats a 300#'s difference from TSO "not your tso" :dong: if your still counting on your fingers and Toes!
So a possible 8.18 or 8.20 wouldn't be out of the question!!!! :shock:

As far as the PTE Cr_P.... HARRY may HAVE TOLD YOU What ever he wanted to SAVE FACE, but I can Tell You TRUE FACTS and what you quoted is A TOTAL LIE!!!
Its really none of your business, but there were many things prior to BG, that lead to ME QUITTING PTE!!!!
In any event best move I ever made getting out of that Hell Hole........Life is Good Again!!

As far as the turbo I never denied he said it was a Mid-Frame...I never said it wasn't!!!
I said Mid-Frame terminology for a GT4788 turbo compared to a Standard PT88 is AMBIGOUS!! Apples & Oranges, even you can understand the differences in those items! :dunno:

You were very much a part of the discussion thru the winter, when it was determined to allow Y2K's...you were if I remeber pretty glad the issue was settled. You can deny it if you wish, but I'm sure at that time you also believed the PT88 t4 & Y2k's were the understood turbo's for the class???

If I wine for TSO its not for me, its for the other fellows in the class. They wish to be more competitive, but because of people like you and Bill, they can forget it ,because You & him wish to move to some other level.

Congrats !!! on your 8.18 @ 172.6 TSO Car, I'm actually glad that you were able to accomplish that. It just proves what I been saying all along about the potential of StageII headed cars with the Larger T5 (MID_FRAME) Turbo's.

Heck Bill Ole Jeff is really going to have to step that small headed car up, to keep up with Mr. Tony Gomes TSO Car.

As I said in my other post to Dave Fiscus, I really didn't care about losing the TSO ET/MPH Record.
It really wouldn't impress me if its done with a larger turbo & stage II heads, I would actually expect those numbers!!
Gee Tony do you have a larger Turbo with funny wheels and Stage II heads?? Sure you do!! Thats why you can run the numbers you just bragged about.

Lets do the opposite, put a PT88 T4 4-bolt on and I'll take you up on some $$$.
Sorry Red.... To answer your question Dave Fiscus is another Stage II headed car owner with a GT4788 (MID_FRAME) Turbo.

Tony!!!, Yes my PT88 T4 is Stock Standard................................Why would HARRY want somebody that he doesn't want working for him to have a Special Turbo, in order to Win the TSO Class in the Biggest Buick Turbo Race of the Year??? I believe it was the 25th year of the Club also!! :goldcup:

HARRY gave me nothing!! All the money, parts, & hard work was provided as a Team effort, with Dan Strezo of DLS at the lead. There were others involved and they know who they are!!

OK Tony how much does a TSO Car have to weigh to make minimum weight:

Is it (A) 3650#.....(B) 3550#.... or (C) 3400# ??????? :add_wegbr

[EightSecV6]

If billy and Joe would take a break from hammering on each other once in a while then I might have answers to questions I've posted in here

will y2k turbo's be allowed in all the events? from what I've read seems like that would be yes

Are the turbo's going to be allowed to be rotated ? Im not sure there is a real power advantage to this .. it may be but not proven but it sure makes plumbing alot easier and gets the turbo out the way should you need or want to get to the front of the motor

hey Joe who with stage heads are pushing for 47-88 turbo's ?

I dont thats for sure

definatly not going to take anything away from Kibler but comparing a lighter car thats backhalfed with a 4 link and liquid I/c is totally different than heavy stock style suspention cars with air to air coolers

hey Jack you talking of dropping BG tso or all events?


I dont think the Y2K was ever in question Red, it has been permitted this year without any problems.

[fiscus]

And so it begins!!!
Joe, do you deny that you have a T-4 88 with the wheels from a large frame 47-88 placed inside? Because at BG you admitted that you had one but chose not to run it there. This was at peer tech when the heated discussion with Billy was going on.
The way that your acting it would appear your basing the hp potential of the GN-1's verses the stage heads on the magic eight ball! For years you have been saying that, if allowed to compete, the stage headed cars would be so much faster. I guess the old pt88 is worth 1200-1250 hp with GN-1's but if you have stage heads watch out it'll make soooo much more power. Cmon, this is BS.
As for the tunning, maybe myself, Cal, Tony Gomes and Brian Burnside need to take some lessons from you. We have all gone 1 mph of each other with different cams, heads, intakes and etc.. We all went 159 with the old 88 and you went 164. Heck, for a 5 mph(with more in reserve ) gain through tunning we might need to get you to tune our cars oh mighty great one!
I guess it's like they say, those who can't play coach.

Who said that, I said that!

Dave Fiscus

[Otto J]

From what was explained to me about turbo output,Rated horsepower is what it is rated horsepower, If you have a 1250 HP turbo,It will make UP TO THAT on any size motor that is properly built to handle, So stage heads or not,Thats the horsepower it is capable of with the airflow it produces.

On another note, he has 5MPH on you guys?????
Holy crap,I think we need to do a better inspection next time.
Can you say "Sneaky Pete"

That means Joes car is making about 100 or more horspower than your cars.
Hmmmmmm.

But Dave you did not answer my other post??? :as:

[Otto J]

Althoug using a horsepower calculator
Joes car make 1233 flywheel HP
Thats about the 1250 capability it claims

[REDS TTYPE]

I dont think the Y2K was ever in question Red, it has been permitted this year without any problems.

you know how things change around here :banghead:

being its not exactly a cheap purchase I prefered to see it written somewhere

Im not aware of any funny wheels for y2k turbo's :kopfkratz

only ones I've seen make up new turbo's just in time for bg that arent exactly availble to anyone has been Pte

I like being an under dog so I'll stick with turbonetics :arco:

[Nick Micale]

All this dialoge among TSO racers is just like last year's discussions, except this time Ron and Richard cannot tell me to keep my mouth shut. :add_shit:

So here we are "commenting", not making progress in defining a turbo for TSO. Next week many of us from various Buick organizations will meet in Salem, and one of the items for discussion is TSO series for our events.

Is there any way between now and then we can have some realistic guidelines for the TSO class turbo? It would be very helpful if turbo options could be listed, defined and detailed and then an intelligent "pro and con" discussion be held. From that, a poll, or some manner of selection can be made.

I know most of you guys and think very highly of your abilities and knowledge, and can do this in a gentlemanly manner. Think about the overall program and put personal likes or dislike aside. I am confident all of you together can do this, so PLEASE let's NOT have a repeat of last year, thanks to each of you. :rock:

[Turbobuick]

Next week many of us from various Buick organizations will meet in Salem, and one of the items for discussion is TSO series for our events.

Is there any way between now and then we can have some realistic guidelines for the TSO class turbo? :rock:

GOOD LUCK.

There won't be a series, there are WAY to many EGOS in this group to reasonably accomplish anything yet alone more than one race a year. Jack and I tried pretty hard to even get some reasonable dialogue going last year and failed miserably. After reading some of the CRAP you people are posting here it makes me wonder WTF I ever bothered getting involved in trying to race this class. Yet alone spending a ridiculous amount of $$ to build a car that is now going to antiquated by "new" TSO standards and illegal for the new TSL series.

Hope to see everyone at Salem :stupid:

[Jim Haas]

WTF is going on here ??????????? :hanged: :twak:

[JCotton]

GOOD LUCK.

There won't be a series, there are WAY to many EGOS in this group to reasonably accomplish anything yet alone more than one race a year. Jack and I tried pretty hard to even get some reasonable dialogue going last year and failed miserably. After reading some of the CRAP you people are posting here it makes me wonder WTF I ever bothered getting involved in trying to race this class. Yet alone spending a ridiculous amount of $$ to build a car that is now going to antiquated by "new" TSO standards and illegal for the new TSL series.

Hope to see everyone at Salem :stupid:

Amen Chris,

Unfortunately, again I will say it, a select few who care nothing about anyone else are leading this and the new TSL class. I am not including Billy A in this group, he wants what he feels is a fully loaded gun, thats fine, but to build a car then demand it be legal is not fair either. I beleive at this point, there should be 2 classes 1 for ST2 heads, where anyone can go, and 1 for GN1 type heads that isn't being limited to their leader and his friends built cars. I attempted to make suggestions on that class, unfortunately I was sent packing, for no legitimate reasons. Majority rules is a joke........
Good luck,

Oh ya, and the personal attacks are just ridiculous..... who would want to participate with guys that not only lack class, but character as well.

[Dusty Bradford]

I am so glad I said to hell with TSO and went with a combo that would compete locally.

Looks like you guys don't have many choices and someone not racing this class will have to make that one for you.

1) separate the class

2) ban all T5 turbo's. They may be rated different but the potential is there for them to put up big numbers. I know why the y2k was allowed in but did it not occur to anyone that someone would take a variation of a y2k and make big power. If you allow one vendor's T5 then you have to allow them all otherwise everyone will have to swap to Tony's version of the y2k and your back to 1 turbo vendor in TSO.

If Tony can bring his T5 I can see why others want the 47/88, if they don't everyone is sitting ducks.

I'd like to see two different classes. You will never make both sides happy so might as well separate the two. If you do participation in each class will be down but if you ban T5 turbo's then participation will also be down. Several guys have already modified their cars for the big turbo's and can't just simply swap turbo's out for the nats.

Looks like TSL needs to be a Champion/TA head class with PT-88 limit and TSO needs to be all out, hell even let in Liquid i/c's.

[Otto J]

Oh ya, and the personal attacks are just ridiculous..... who would want to participate with guys that not only lack class, but character as well.

You cannot be talking about Tony or Dave,Those guys have more class than most people i know.I llok forward to hanging out with them any chance i get,One of the reasons i am going to BPG ,But they like to tell it like it is,The same way i do,Problem is most people dont want to hear it that way
As far as being a character, Not sure which ones Tony and which ones Dave, Mickey or Donald,Hmm
Ill haveto think about that. :add_wegbr

[Otto J]

Looks like TSL needs to be a Champion/TA head class with PT-88 limit and TSO needs to be all out, hell even let in Liquid i/c's.

Well said, BUt leave TSL 76 T4 turbo,And let the TSO guys have it all,Ladder bars,Coil overs,91mm turbos liquid intercoolers<<<<<< Outlaw the way it should be.

[JCotton]

You cannot be talking about Tony or Dave,Those guys have more class than most people i know.I llok forward to hanging out with them any chance i get,One of the reasons i am going to BPG ,But they like to tell it like it is,The same way i do,Problem is most people dont want to hear it that way
As far as being a character, Not sure which ones Tony and which ones Dave, Mickey or Donald,Hmm
Ill haveto think about that. :add_wegbr

Gee Otto,

Why would you ever think anyone was talking about Tony like that...

[Joe Lubrant]

And so it begins!!!
Joe, do you deny that you have a T-4 88 with the wheels from a large frame 47-88 placed inside? Because at BG you admitted that you had one but chose not to run it there. This was at peer tech when the heated discussion with Billy was going on.
The way that your acting it would appear your basing the hp potential of the GN-1's verses the stage heads on the magic eight ball! For years you have been saying that, if allowed to compete, the stage headed cars would be so much faster. I guess the old pt88 is worth 1200-1250 hp with GN-1's but if you have stage heads watch out it'll make soooo much more power. Cmon, this is BS.
As for the tunning, maybe myself, Cal, Tony Gomes and Brian Burnside need to take some lessons from you. We have all gone 1 mph of each other with different cams, heads, intakes and etc.. We all went 159 with the old 88 and you went 164. Heck, for a 5 mph(with more in reserve ) gain through tunning we might need to get you to tune our cars oh mighty great one!
I guess it's like they say, those who can't play coach.

Who said that, I said that!

Dave Fiscus

If you had paid a little more attention to earlier posts...I stated I had one of those turbo's in the Trailer....same as the one on Cals car which you drove!!!
It was brought as a back-up if my Standard 88 T4 failed for any reason.
When we got back from BG, just for fun, I put it on to compare spool-up with the Standard 88. Just wanted to verify what has been said about it!!

Other than (1) spool-up test on the brake, it is New and Still in the Box, If you or you know anyone that is interested its "For Sale"!!

As far as stage 1 vs Stage 2 with PT88 T4, that has always been the equalizing formula.

If the oppurtunity was finiancially feasable for me, I would convert to the Stage II set-up, because I personally think my Team can extract more from that combo. Don't need to run as much boost to fill the cylinders, compared to the smaller heads. Hence less heating of the air...and a little more power potential from the PT88 T4.

I have already proven locally, Testing with another Stage II PT88 T4 car that ran similar 1/8mi et's to mine in TSO trim only needed 22-23# to my 26-27#'s boost levels. I'm sure it will be competitive when other issues are resolved and put the turbo boost in the effieciency range. When maxed I'm sure it will not need to exceed 26-28# to my needed 29-32#....to accomplish same performance level.

As far as tuning goes, I only claim to know what my car wants and needs, My team spends more attention to many minor details that we feel is overlooked by many as not being important!!

Thru the years many have proven to be competent tuners including yourself, Cal and others for sure. I have never reflected or said anything to the contary! Every car & engine combination is different, even if very similar. It of course is just not (1) one thing that makes the difference. Its getting the total package optimized. Meaning not just engine & turbo, but drive line and all of its componets to work in harmony to maintain what the engine capabilities are.

I don't think I wish or need to give anybody lessons in tuning their cars, but thru the many years in the buick community, I have always helped & supported people who have asked me!! I never turned my back on anyone!!

I'm sure you may remember a tip or two??, back when you didn't have a clue!

I guess now under the current circumstances & enviroment, I might have to re-think the worth of contributing to those who are not even remotely appreciative of my experiences or knowledge.

Your right Dave...most players in sports feel they don't need a Coach, as the players feel & express they know it All!!

Joe

[Turbobuick]

Well said, BUt leave TSL 76 T4 turbo,And let the TSO guys have it all,Ladder bars,Coil overs,91mm turbos liquid intercoolers<<<<<< Outlaw the way it should be.

So Otto, where do you suggest the guys with PTE 88's who built there cars for this class race?

[Joe Lubrant]

So Otto, where do you suggest the guys with PTE 88's who built there cars for this class race?

Chris...

YEP!!!

ORPHANS AGAIN!!! :dong:

BEEN THERE DONE THAT!!

Joe

[Otto J]

So Otto, where do you suggest the guys with PTE 88's who built there cars for this class race?

There is where the problem lies,I came to BG and ran TSO with a BB gun to all the Big Guns,My car was no good for TSE but way to slow for TSO.
ALthough in the End 2 bye runsmake me look good.

SO what it comes down too is,You want to leave TSO the way it was this year? 88 Turbos in the TSL class, That would be TSO the way it was run this year minus the stage 2 heads

I feel that if TSL ends hte way it was proposed i have a hell of a ruuner for the class.


THis is allgetting to confusing,ANd we will never settle it with everyone being happy as an end result,Some will have to make changes so might not, I m not my tiny little 3.8 hydraulic roller motor is about thru at this point, I dont feel any real changes can be made for drastic power increases

[Otto J]

Gee Otto,

Why would you ever think anyone was talking about Tony like that...

Dont know, I dont know anyone who doesnt speak highly of Tony.

[Turbobuick]

There is where the problem lies,I came to BG and ran TSO with a BB gun to all the Big Guns,My car was no good for TSE but way to slow for TSO.
ALthough in the End 2 bye runsmake me look good.

SO what it comes down too is,You want to leave TSO the way it was this year? 88 Turbos in the TSL class, That would be TSO the way it was run this year minus the stage 2 heads

I feel that if TSL ends hte way it was proposed i have a hell of a ruuner for the class.


THis is allgetting to confusing,ANd we will never settle it with everyone being happy as an end result,Some will have to make changes so might not, I m not my tiny little 3.8 hydraulic roller motor is about thru at this point, I dont feel any real changes can be made for drastic power increases


Otto,
You built your car the way you wanted and then tried to find a class to run. Probably the smart thing to do. I purposely built my car for this class and spent $$ intending to race this class. That's a little different, don't you think? I don't mind the 76 turbo rule for the TLS class but if they limit the housing sizes I have to completely redo my headers, wastegate and down pipe, all this on top of having to swap out a sheetmetal intake all because the powers to be think it "looks" to much like a race piece and want "stock appearing intakes:add_shit: Doesn't the GSCA already have a 76mm turbo class?

This whole thing is ridiculous and now I feel like a fool for even trying to build a car and particpate in this class and the GSCA's HU race program. Those Mustangs are looking better everyday :dong:

[NJTURBO]

This is a outside persons view.

TSO is a outlaw class, run what you brung IMO.

Looks like TSL needs to be a Champion/TA head class with PT-88 limit and TSO needs to be all out, hell even let in Liquid i/c's.

Bingo.....

As other's stated this is the reason we had issues at the Nats. Nothing ever seems to be concreted into stone.

The class may be smaller but at-least everyone will be able to run in something, that is what it is all about. Racing and having Fun :arco:

You guys are what makes the sport, the videos for newbies to watch over and over again and only dream of being as FAST as you guys. You guys need to get along and continue to hammer down the talks and Get It Done!!!! :racer:

[Nick Micale]

Looks like you guys don't have many choices ....

1) separate the class

2) ban all T5 turbo's......

.........You will never make both sides happy so might as well separate the two. If you do participation in each class will be down but if you ban T5 turbo's then participation will also be down..........

Looks like TSL needs to be a Champion/TA head class with PT-88 limit and TSO needs to be all out, hell even let in Liquid i/c's.

From an "interested" observer, this really sums up a solution to the TSO squable that has gone on now for years.

We have a total of 5 forums for discussion of turbo head's up classes. Out of these 5 potential classes, 4 of them are for race cars. So the "street" meaning in these classes has turned out to be very minimum. So if the TSL class allows a 4-bolt TO-4, TSO should allow Y2K or Garrett's BB mid-frames and, as was said, maybe liquid IC's? :tantrum2:

What does this do to participation in each class? Our thoughts are class payouts on a percentage basis figured on car count. It could also be supplemented by specific class sponsor $$$ designated for that class ONLY. Could not only be cash, but some vendors may be willing to do gift certificates or merchandise.

Without being too redundant, there is enough info, ideas and qualified racers here in this thread to put this class together with a little bit of compromise, so most every one could be satisified. :rock:

Let's get on with the program, and save the personal comments for when we get together! :haha:

[Nick Micale]

This whole thing is ridiculous and now I feel like a fool for even trying to build a car and particpate in this class and the GSCA's HU race program. Those Mustangs are looking better everyday :dong:

Hold on Chris, this is NOT the GSCA and the series is NOT going to be dictated by them. You are no fool, just a passionate racer that wants fair and balanced rules and to have them in place for a while.

If they are in Salem to discuss this fine, if not fine also. :add_shit:

Out of 5 major Buick events, organizers from 4 of them plan to be in Salem to discuss uniting and conforming our race rules for these events. About time the racers took charge of this program, not promoters concerned just for the $$$$. :rant:

[Otto J]

Chris i run into the same thing as you,If i cant run with TSL,I ahve to ru nTSE,I have to redo my header,my downpipe, change waterpumps,etc...
You car was built for TSO,thats pretty much were it fits, Hell thats why i ran TSO,Thats were my non purpose built car fell into.Either way if i race BG or any other race,I will race the class i fall into,I have no plans on any other inprovements other than weight reduction (3615 is a bit heavy) and fine tuning what i have..


Although i would love to get single nozzle methanol injection into the class,as it is a great item to cool intake charge that is not expensive to other racers,I am currently having a hell of a time keeping my intake temps cool,THey are like 180+ degrees at the end of a pass!!! with the methanol its ambient.

[REDS TTYPE]

ok how will anything get done here if you cant get answers to questions :tantrum2:


I'll pinpoint my question:

NICK : at the Indy event will rotated turbo's be legal

to anyone involved : will rotated turbo's be allowed at BPG?

Im not asking for a rule change Im asking for an answer

I could care less if rotated turbo's will be legal for bowling green so dont include that event in an answer

noone can make up their minds on turbo's so lets work on this rule for now

[fiscus]

Lets not forget that this class was almost dead a few years ago. The concession was made to allow the stage heads in to boost car count. At the time it was said that the stage heads would go much faster if allowed to compete. It didn't happen. It was also agreed that if any one combo started to dominate the class that the particular combo would be factored with weight. In case anyone forgets, there isn't that many cars in this class to begin with. If cars start being deemed illegal for heads or turbo then it will get even smaller.
I think that this is the first time in history that someone has won their class hands down and still wasn't happy with the rules. Thats like someone winning the lottery and bitching about the taxes.
None of this makes any sense, lets just show up, run our cars, have some fun and see what happens.

Dave

Otto-I have your hat,when are you going to pick it up?

[REDS TTYPE]

Now my opinion on turbo's is no matter what turbo you allow in there
if one is allowed from another manf. pte will come out with something different to corner the market

hate to do it to you guys but I dont think 47-88 should be in tso


with the same note ..I agree a more true outlaw class may need to be formed

how about stock frame (no backhalfed cars) 10.5 tire outlaw like some of the real world classes

ladder bars / 4 links alowed as long as stock frame is still in car

alot of guys here Im sure would like to see more buicks out running in classes outside of the buick events so lets have a class that lets the fast guys step up their program in hopes of being able to compete in the non buick world :racer:

[Turbobuick]

ok how will anything get done here if you cant get answers to questions :tantrum2:


I'll pinpoint my question:

NICK : at the Indy event will rotated turbo's be legal

to anyone involved : will rotated turbo's be allowed at BPG?

Im not asking for a rule change Im asking for an answer

I could care less if rotated turbo's will be legal for bowling green so dont include that event in an answer

noone can make up their minds on turbo's so lets work on this rule for now

As far as this year is concerned we are staying with the same rules we used for BG. Any car that ran at BG will be allowed to run at BPG. As far as 2006 goes who knows. A lot will be determined by car count this year. So I guess that rotated turbos are allowed at BPG this year. I did propose a rule change regarding this on the gsca board.

[Turbobuick]

Lets not forget that this class was almost dead a few years ago. The concession was made to allow the stage heads in to boost car count. At the time it was said that the stage heads would go much faster if allowed to compete. It didn't happen. It was also agreed that if any one combo started to dominate the class that the particular combo would be factored with weight. In case anyone forgets, there isn't that many cars in this class to begin with. If cars start being deemed illegal for heads or turbo then it will get even smaller.
I think that this is the first time in history that someone has won their class hands down and still wasn't happy with the rules. Thats like someone winning the lottery and bitching about the taxes.
None of this makes any sense, lets just show up, run our cars, have some fun and see what happens.

Dave

Otto-I have your hat,when are you going to pick it up?

If Tony wieghs 3550, and as he claims can go 172 mph with his current combo, how do we factor him with wieght?

I agree and will show up and race out gunned or not I will be there. I won't bitch, complain or fight about someone elses car. This bickering is ridiculous. If someone does run away or has an advantage than a wieght penalty is definitely the answer. I've been saying that for awhile, but when it came up this winter with the addition of the Y2K turbo to the new rules a wieght penalty was discussed and shot down.

[Turbobuick]

Now my opinion on turbo's is no matter what turbo you allow in there
if one is allowed from another manf. pte will come out with something different to corner the market

hate to do it to you guys but I dont think 47-88 should be in tso


with the same note ..I agree a more true outlaw class may need to be formed

how about stock frame (no backhalfed cars) 10.5 tire outlaw like some of the real world classes

ladder bars / 4 links alowed as long as stock frame is still in car

alot of guys here Im sure would like to see more buicks out running in classes outside of the buick events so lets have a class that lets the fast guys step up their program in hopes of being able to compete in the non buick world :racer:

When this was all discussed over the winter the general consensus was that the 47-88 was not going to be allowed. The largest demensionally allowed turbo was to be the Y2K.

[REDS TTYPE]

I dont see why 47-88 wheeled t4 turbos couldnt be allowed if and only if anyone can call up and order one unlike pte planned for this past event

I posted a poll on turbo rotation figured I post in here for ones who are subscribed and come strait to this thread

atleast a poll on it will allow all to voice oppinion in it without having to take backlash on it :rock:

[Otto J]

Otto-I have your hat,when are you going to pick it up?

Dave, Im coming to Ohio next week,See ya there.
How about a nice Fiscus shirt? :elefant:

[fiscus]

Otto- I'll have a shirt for you also.

Chris-Tony was just saying" what if" referring to the 8.18 @ 172. His best is 8.49@164 with a thumper 91.5.

I hope to see you ALL in salem. Maybe we'll all make 8 second passes and everyone will be so happy that we'll forget all about this bickering.

Your pal,

Dave

[Jim Haas]

I want a Fiscus shirt too... :rock:

[Otto J]

Otto- I'll have a shirt for you also.

Chris-Tony was just saying" what if" referring to the 8.18 @ 172. His best is 8.49@164 with a thumper 91.5.

I hope to see you ALL in salem. Maybe we'll all make 8 second passes and everyone will be so happy that we'll forget all about this bickering.

Your pal,

Dave
THanks Dave, A large shirt would be great,No xtra large here,Well atleast as a shirt size is concerned
Dave does this mean your car is ready?
Damn,I may need to get some extra time off and bring mine,
Go to go do some wheeling and dealing

[fiscus]

SHOULD have the car there. I hope to get the motor back tomorrow or friday. I don't care how long Natalie has to work on that car of mine for us to be there!

Dave

[Otto J]

SHOULD have the car there. I hope to get the motor back tomorrow or friday. I don't care how long Natalie has to work on that car of mine for us to be there!

Dave
Crack that whip!!!

[EightSecV6]

When this was all discussed over the winter the general consensus was that the 47-88 was not going to be allowed. The largest demensionally allowed turbo was to be the Y2K.


I didnt realize that Chris???

[Baadgn]

Amen Chris,

Unfortunately, again I will say it, a select few who care nothing about anyone else are leading this and the new TSL class. I am not including Billy A in this group, he wants what he feels is a fully loaded gun, thats fine, but to build a car then demand it be legal is not fair either. I beleive at this point, there should be 2 classes 1 for ST2 heads, where anyone can go, and 1 for GN1 type heads that isn't being limited to their leader and his friends built cars. I attempted to make suggestions on that class, unfortunately I was sent packing, for no legitimate reasons. Majority rules is a joke........
Good luck,

Oh ya, and the personal attacks are just ridiculous..... who would want to participate with guys that not only lack class, but character as well.


How bout the fiberglass being allowed, lots of us have doors and trunk lids already, as long as we make weight, what diff does it make. In the northeast, it impossible to find good stock doors.

As for the cantelope, thats not fair since only a few may have them, that would knock out all other turbo manufacturers.
__________________
Jack Cotton
www.cottonsperformance.com
8.90@154mph
413-789-0531

Ya jack
your not trying to sway anybody to your combo no doors in the northeast "give me a break" maybe if you had some credabilty you could get some doors.Oh and the reason you get sent packing everytime is because you show up to a gun fight with a knife :tantrum2: . The class thing jack thats priceless all I have to say on that is Harry Huskra, Eric Rankin, Pete Banard, Dereck Lacker, Jerry Lowel, Miguel Moralas, and lastly ME.You mentioned character are you preparded to go down that road with ME.

[EightSecV6]

HOLY CRAP! Fiscus has a mean streak, he's the one you gotta look out for! I am glad I am FINALLY not alone in my disgust with all the rules BS!

[Baadgn]

Tony.....what the Heck are you Smokin??? :joint:

WHAT 3550# WEIGHT TSO CLASS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? :stupid:

LET ME HELP YOUR """"SHORT MEMORY""" GET IT?? :add_wegbr :add_wegbr

I'm pretty sure TSO is still 3400#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by my aging memory. :haha:


If I wine for TSO its not foreme, its for the other fellows in the class. They wish to be more competitive, but because of people like you and Bill, they can forget it ,because You & him wish to move to some other level


As I said in my other post to Dave Fiscus, I really didn't care about losing the TSO ET/MPH Record.
It really wouldn't impress me if its done with a larger turbo & stage II heads, I would actually expect those numbers!!
Gee Tony do you have a larger Turbo with funny wheels and Stage II heads?? Sure you do!! Thats why you can run the numbers you just bragged about.

Lets do the opposite, put a PT88 T4 4-bolt on and I'll take you up on some $$$.
Sorry Red.... To answer your question Dave Fiscus is another Stage II headed car owner with a GT4788 (MID_FRAME) Turbo.

Tony!!!, Yes my PT88 T4 is Stock Standard................................Why would HARRY want somebody that he doesn't want working for him to have a Special Turbo, in order to Win the TSO Class in the Biggest Buick Turbo Race of the Year??? I believe it was the 25th year of the Club also!! :goldcup:

HARRY gave me nothing!! All the money, parts, & hard work was provided as a Team effort, with Dan Strezo of DLS at the lead. There were others involved and they know who they are!!

OK Tony how much does a TSO Car have to weigh to make minimum weight:

Is it (A) 3650#.....(B) 3550#.... or (C) 3400# ??????? :add_wegbr

Oh your right Joe I guess a Stage headed TSO car never had to weight 3550 right :rock: If I made what you do for power ON MOTOR I would want to make sure it weighs in right at 3400 too.And as far as your accomplishments in TSO I will measure that in salem for myself. I will be impressed if you can be within 2 tenths of BG times now that the cat is out of the bottle. So as I suggested before, put the bigger 88 on give hell 5 more # :shock: mount up the BIGG slicks, and while your at it strip it down to 3300 pounds and bring it down and impress me by matching your BG times.Oh and now that you have the new and improved heads LOOK OUT. Its too bad that a class engine builder like dan hangs out with a whiner like you maybe he just cant shake you loose :as:.As far as your challange to me by bolting on a t/4 88 I have already learned to walk NOW I RUN But ANYTIME you want to part with your money give me a call :asskickin. So in closing a TSO car has to weight 3400 pounds that would be C for Cant drive, Cant Coach, and Cant get ANYYYYYY RESPECT :tantrum2:

[Mike10secv6]

:popcorn: lol

[Otto J]

Every body decide to work today??
Very quiet in here :racer:

[fiscus]

Wow! It sure is quiet in here all of a sudden. :playboy: Maybe everones busy with getting there cars ready for salem.

Dave :wc: Can't wait to see everyone again

[EightSecV6]

Wow! It sure is quiet in here all of a sudden. :playboy: Maybe everones busy with getting there cars ready for salem.

Dave :wc: Can't wait to see everyone again


How do you find the time to post? I pulled the clutch out of my car today to service it for Salem, I have a blown, big block alky Regal to beat there and then when I am finished with him,I am gunnin for you Dave,I will be running the same LARGE FRAME turbo (mounted out there in no mans land)I have been running for the last 4 years, heads up match race, no excuses,no BS! My single turbo 5 speed against your single turbo automatic! Those rules are fair enough.....right? .400 Pro Tree, go ahead and try to burn me down, I can get to 20psi in under .5 of a second! It's on, me and you! Lets see what that big, bad, MID FRAME ILLEGAL GT47-88 can do for you!

P.S. No go on the 30 minute drive, I dont want to get my car dirty!

[REDS TTYPE]

yeah this is boring .. :gaehn:


maybe someone passed out pacifiers when we wont looking and put a stop to the whinning :baby:

[REDS TTYPE]

dammit I was late on that post .. someone already dropped theirs .. :haha:

[EightSecV6]

dammit I was late on that post .. someone already dropped theirs .. :haha:

Ummm F/U! Is that allowed? :add_wegbr :add_wegbr :add_wegbr

[Otto J]

Im all for a required 50 mile drive one tank of fuel and 3 back to back passes, tire change only or not

[NJTURBO]

Well almost 5000 views and lots of posts but no foundation laid for the rules :tantrum2: :rant: :rant:

[Otto J]

On problem is the new TSL class has some people tossed up right now.I wold think TSL would be my class,But hey maybe ill put one of hte 47-88s on and try it out for TSO

[turbokid]

boy this crap was funny. Boy there is a big baby in this house for sure! :arco: