Register now to get rid of these ads!

HA/GR Rules...

Discussion in 'HA/GR' started by Ryan, Oct 8, 2008.

  1. bobw
    Joined: Mar 24, 2006
    Posts: 2,277

    bobw
    Member

    Scotty, The TIG rule is in the General Regulations and is in effect for all CM roll bars and cages, even those slow enough to not require certification. I have zero experience with CM and have no opinion about what effective welding practices are. I'm just giving my interpretation of the rulebook.

    Personally, if I could build a CM chassis/rollcage HA/GR, I would. But, I'm stuck with my heavy MS HA/GRa. It will probably go on a diet next year.:D
     
  2. mudflap261
    Joined: Oct 24, 2005
    Posts: 588

    mudflap261
    Member
    from tulsa

    scott what about sending a pm to ryan he has the final say.
     
  3. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    I finally took notice that the header for this thread reads "HA/GR Rules".

    Frankly my dear, I agree ......... :cool:

    :D
     
  4. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    Simple question, the Ford 200 inch 6 is basically the same as the 144-170 motors even the heads interchange, but has a 7 main crank and the ability to run a modern trans. The 144-170 will not as the bell housing/flywheel/clutch parts are to small and there is only one trans that they can run. There is also no stamped steel bell housing available for them. Is the 200 allowed since the later slat 6 MOPAR and Chevy 6's can be used?
     
  5. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    So far that's up in the air. Some think it should be OK and some don't. Likely it'll wind up a go.

    The slant block's still an under square four main pushrod engine right on up 'til they stopped making'em, with no real difference from the original '59 design. Its primary advances were a long runner intake and a bit higher compression, both things already in use at the strips of the time. It's a "throwback" to a large extent, so the "grandfathering" is understandable.

    The Chev's that're seven main I'm told are technically legit as they come in just under the wire. They're still a major design advancement over the engines HA/GR represents, as are the seven main Fords, and actually are the beginning of the next engineering generation. I'm not certain but aren't they both over square as well?

    One argument holds that they're small enough (194 & 200) that the design improvements aren't a major advantage. The counter argument is that their tach capabilities decidedly are.
    Both arguments ignore the original intent of the class.

    Bear in mind that HA/GR was devised to showcase technology and engineering commonly seen at strips of the early '50s, thus reliving that era's ways and methods of racing.
    The '62 cut-off is there because folks asked for a simplified rule, and '62 is generally applicable for the end of that engineering era.

    It's really what you want out of it that'll make your decision.
    Here're the two trains of thought regarding the class ......

    If you're looking to enjoy the early '50s "spirit" of the thing, the deciding factor is the engineering itself.

    If you're merely looking to game a set of rules, that's good too. There're builders doing that already, you'll be in good company.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2010
  6. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    My concern is I want to run a Ford. The top loader trans will not fit a 144-170. Only the early Falcon 2.77 trans and it is A. very weak (POS) B. Not very available. C. only a 8 1/2 clutch will work. This combo gives away way to much to the Chevy or MOPAR. I could see a Pre-Smog limit and cube inch limit, like the later 60's. I'm looking at like engine sizes and reliable operation. The object is race and have fun, not dissasemble parts as you drive down the track, make one pass and go home. Cost of operation.

    I understand the intent of the class and am not looking for an unfair advantage, just equality as the other engines can run stronger current drive lines and have the mechanical advantage of displacement and in the Chevy stronger bottom ends.
     
  7. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    I apologise, on re-reading my previuos post I see it comes across with an unintended snottiness. That isn't the way I think (good thing I'm not in politics for a living).

    I have no problem with the alternate thought process and its goals. Indeed, the points and reasoning are real and well considered.
    In addition I see plenty of room in what this class is for both styles of build. As I stated, both are in practice already and HA/GR's still alive and slowly growing, benefitting in part from the very fact that it can accomodate both schools of thought (in my opinion).

    That our team accepts the weaknesses of our set-up as part of the spirit of that era is no more than our own preference of what the class is for us.
    We blew two pressure plates in two starts last weekend, the second at revs. That one cost us the engine, as it freakishly tweaked off a piece of the bell flange and a bit of the oil galley in the process (the Mopar "slant" driveline's hardly strong). We also constantly sweat our spiders, a given on Chrysler's 7 1/4". :rolleyes:
    This was drag racing in the '50s, warts and all. I'm relating what we do it for, we don't expect the world to turn our way.

    Rocky & Lee are running a top loader (and top shifter :cool:) on their Ford, perhaps they're already running a 200 and've set the precedent. If not, then they found a way to mount it up. Give'em a yell, they're good eggs.
    And if not, then certainly Dick Mosely's 194 can be said to set it.
    Hell, Joe's car is a fountain of later engineering applied to the concept and could easily be considered a poster car for the precedent.
    Run the 200, build it and have fun. You sincerely will be in good company, HA/GRs. :cool:
     
  8. 64 DODGE 440
    Joined: Sep 2, 2006
    Posts: 3,836

    64 DODGE 440
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from so cal


    Yeah Bob...what Old6rodder said. I have no problem with the 200 with early style cast in part head. the seven main bottom should help reliability and that doesn't really seem much different than running a 9" Ford rear which seems quite accepted.

    Don't really like the idea of automatics though that has been previously flogged to death so we'll let that die a peaceful death.

    Our choice was entirely the other way...old parts, (1934 dodge engine and trans) and old technology. Part of the fun from our perspective will be seeing how well we can do with a pile of old stuff against the "New Iron".

    Build it and have fun...we look forward to staging next to you.
     
  9. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    Old6rodder, I heard about your clutch issue from Joe. and the car I'm trying to buy is sitting in Dick Mosely's shop. Thanks for the info. I would rather run the 200 with the log intake head and a stick is just part of the fun. With the 200 I can run a good bell housing and stick.

    I should pick up the chassis this weekend. Don't think I'll have it together for this year, but I will for next. Thanks for the input and help.

    I've spent to many years watching and talking about you guys racing. I want a piece of the action too..LOL
     
  10. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    If I had not sold the Flathead from my coupe I would be right there with you with the old iron. 216, Isky cam and lifters, Edmunds head and Offy intake. 6's sound so sweet. Ran 19's at LACR with it at the Antique Nats years ago, so I know it would run well in a dragster. I prefer 6's and sticks.

    See ya in the staging lanes.
     
  11. 64 DODGE 440
    Joined: Sep 2, 2006
    Posts: 3,836

    64 DODGE 440
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from so cal

    Cool! :d
     
  12. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    Cool, I know that chassis. You can be sure the welding's excellent and won't be coming apart on you. It'll be good to have another Ford in the mix but of course you'll now be required to harass Dick about his radials. :D

    Maybe you'll surprise yourself and make the second Eagle Field meet this year.

    Six bangers, side suckers & sewer tubes :cool:, heaven'll keep.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2010
  13. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    We talked about the radials too.. lol. This will be fun.
     
  14. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group


    Still agree ............. :cool:
     
  15. timbo_93631
    Joined: May 24, 2010
    Posts: 5

    timbo_93631
    Member

    Would a Jaguar XK6 engine be allowed? Inline OHC/OHV 6 introduced in '49 and production ran until 1992. If allowed would it have to be from pre '62? Just wondering cause there are so many 4.2L XJ6's in junkyards/for sale cheap.
     
  16. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    Yes, you can use the XK from '62 and earlier. Also from '62 up until the next changes were engineered into it would be "grandfathered" in, same as the American engines. I don't know when the next changes came but I'm sure there're those who do, just ask around.

    I've heard of at least two who've considered this engine but as yet none who've done it. It'd be wicked looking. :cool:
     
  17. timbo_93631
    Joined: May 24, 2010
    Posts: 5

    timbo_93631
    Member

    Awesome! I know that the 4.2L block was introduced in '64 and incorporated some design changes, they moved the inner 2 bores closer together and the outer 2 further out, but the heads stayed the same as the earler 3.8L engine. I suppose the hard thing would be finding the earlier block to meet the rules, and finding an affordable manual gearbox might be hard too. Loved seeing the Barn Job run this past weekend! Good to see you got the timing chain/components back in there in time to race!
     
  18. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    I've got the chassis home and started collecting parts. Have a 3 carb set up, now need the engine /trans to put under it.
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    Cool.

    Start a build thread with the words "build" and "HA/GR" in the title for search purposes. Then we can harass you along with the rest of us. :D
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2010
  20. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    LOL okee dokee. Will do soon. There will be a little delay. Totaled my daily driver two weeks ago.. Gotta replace it first... been religated to driving my wifes PT cruiser...YUK
     
  21. 64 DODGE 440
    Joined: Sep 2, 2006
    Posts: 3,836

    64 DODGE 440
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from so cal

    As long as you weren't hurt...cars can be repaired/replaced. Take care Bob, looking forward to seeing your progress.
     
  22. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    Hi Tom, I'm ok, my panel was totaled. Can't find a replacement like it so I'm surching for something different..I will post progress as I can
     
  23. Joe Roseberry
    Joined: Feb 9, 2009
    Posts: 28

    Joe Roseberry
    Member

    I don't want to appear to be whacking on a deceased equine but...we need to have more discussion on the use of the late (62 and later) Chevy 6 in HA/GR. The rules do not support the exception and these engines are not a refinement of the early GM 6. They share the Bowtie and the number of pistons only. The early 6 is available and can be competitive.
    Just say no !
     
  24. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    Isn't the 194, 230 and 250 the same basic block and engine that came in the 1962 Nova?
     
  25. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    No, the 194 had smaller bores cast in. The subsequent blocks of that series (230 & up)were modified at the patterns for larger bores.

    The 194 R & D was done, and the first (siamese exhaust) models hit the floor, in '61 for the '62 sales year. This is the technical point arguing for their inclusion.

    The early 194 does not grandfather the 230 & up sizes nor the seperated exhaust heads in. It should only be used with the early head, like the slant.

    My own opinion is in favor of the early 194, thrice.
    One, the limited displacement offsets the better tach capability more than enough from a C.I. perspective.
    Two, it'll respond well to the old techniques of engine building that we're promoting.
    Three, it'll allow more HA/GRs to be built (the early head design is a good equalizer).
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2010
  26. Joe Roseberry
    Joined: Feb 9, 2009
    Posts: 28

    Joe Roseberry
    Member

    Dick, at the risk of offending a friend I have to say I disagree with your reasoning on the issue of 1962 and later Chevy engines in HA/Gr. We have a reasonable engine rule for the class, "pre 1962" not to be confused with engineering or R&D dates that will be completely arbritrary. Simple and easy to understand, pre 1962.
    As for your 3 opinions supporting the inclusion of these late (modern) engines I would offer the following:
    #1 Displacement is not the issue (try policing that) vintage is.
    #2 Old style techniques that we should promote will fall by the wayside in favor of . parts inter-changeability with modern high performance Chevy engines.
    #3 There is no shortage of pre 1962 GM I-6 engines. if we keep it simple they will come.
    Joe
     
  27. Toymaker
    Joined: Mar 26, 2006
    Posts: 3,908

    Toymaker
    Member
    from Fresno,CA

    Considering the 3rd generation Chevy engine as "HAMB Dragster" legal is a mistake and will open a can of worms, we are not all educated on how too tell the difference and I don't see anyone checking bore and stroke, now or in the future. The rules as written keeps it simple and unconfusing, sure I can get my Falcon 6 to 200 inchs but thats it, anything larger in the ford family is easy to identify. Rocky
     
  28. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    Honest disagreement doesn't offend me, Joe, it pleases me. I have little respect for much else.
    Hell, my longest standing friend, Tom, and Rocky & Lee are all on the other side of this issue as well. And I'm not taking any of you off my quick-dialer, so suck it up. :p

    This has been an opinion discussion, and all of yours are well thought out and well stated. In fact most of the posts on this have been well considered and perfectly civil.

    In truth I may be bending too far in my wish for broader inclusion and more participants. Might only be inviting wrong attitudes.
    While I discern the "purity" more in the application than in the hardware, I do realize how easily that can be gamed and how willing others would be to game it (I'm not a complete Pollyanna, just a wistful one).

    I've always liked Ryan's "just one, bangin' gears and grinnin" (paraphrased) line. It's what I get out of it, and it'd be what I get out of it if I had a 200 Ford as well. Let's face it gentlemen, how many actual "frame rail" HA/GRs are running anyway vs how much tube, or even chromoly?(No, I'm not carping, it's merely an illustration of my bent :rolleyes:).

    I've always been far too wordy, and I guess I can consolidate my basic point easily enough.
    So with no rancor, here 'tis ........

    Our stated goal is to apply old school building and racing styles to newer, more available and cheaper hardware, for the love of it.
    Whatever furthers that, I'm for.
    And I'm still in, no matter what.
    :cool:




    OK kiddies, I'm going to let it stand there for me. I certainly don't need to harrangue anyone about it, we know what I think. :eek:

    ps. I'll still stage with anyone. :D

    :mad: 'Cept I wanna stage my rear wheels against Lee, he's just too damn good on the tree.
     
  29. hotrodbob
    Joined: May 7, 2002
    Posts: 500

    hotrodbob
    Member

    So if we limit engines to Pre-62, why not diffs and transmissions?
     
  30. Old6rodder
    Joined: Jun 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,365

    Old6rodder
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from SoCal
    1. HA/GR owners group

    They're underneath the car, so nobody cares? :D

    Forgive me, Bob, just couldn't resist that one. :eek:
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2013 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.