funnybike..nitro v-twins

[funny1]

Paul-I never meant cheap-----I meant cheaper
<DIV>I ran FB and I will bet I am in the lower 20% as far as incomeof all the competitors inall the AMA classes</DIV>

[Webmaster]

<div>It's the racers best interest to have it this way, after all they are building them right?</div>
<div>

</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>Are you refering to the written proposals in the above statement?</div>

<div>
</div><div>Bryan....Yes.</div>

[Webmaster]

Paul-I never meant cheap-----I meant cheaper
<div>I ran FB and I will bet I am in the lower 20% as far as incomeof all the competitors inall the AMA classes</div>

<div>
</div><div>Bryan,</div><div>
</div><div>Your performance is a testament that money isn't the only way to win races. It sure helps though! There's another guy from PA/NC that shows this sameperseverance. I'm pretty sure you know him.[img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]</div><div>
</div><div>Scott</div>

[2bking1320]

Right when I thought I'd learned something....... Income vs Outcome and I thought it was all about " Angles "

[BMcBride]

The concept of racers submitting proposed combinations for rule adoptions goes back to the beginning of the NHRA; it's nice to see a sanction remembering that. I don't see any better way, honestly.

And as far as the "cheaper" bit. I still think that if you allow more resilient motor combinations, one of two things is going to happen:

1.) You'll make more power and go faster, before you break. But you'll still break.
2.) You'll find the next weakest part and break that.

I would fully expect that a stronger motor combination would live just fine at 6.36, but 6.36 isn't what is needed, 6.16 is, and that isn't an easy number to run without hurting equipment, even for most guys in a T/F bike.

There will be a lot of expense as you break these better parts during the learning curve, I can't believe the theoretical engines we're discussing here are going to be cheaper to build than what's in use now; perhaps cheaper to maintain once they're figured out, but man, someone is going to need to throw down some cash on that learning curve.

I also agree that any pro level heads up class is going to require either significant amounts of money or just slightly less significant amounts of money and a lot of skill. It's just the nature of the beast. Any heads up class is going to progress until all available power is bring pulled out of the combination. That is going to be hard on parts, period. Winning consistently at that point means lot of testing and lots of parts to replace what you break. Cheap, fast, reliable, pick two. [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]

Edited by: BMcBride

[Francis]

I don't think it came to the V-twin combo cheap or without a lot of hard work. If the same work and money is spent on an inline 4 I don't think performance will be a problem. James the AMA said to send in what you want on paper. Until you do and they say yes or no anything else posted doesn't matter same with any other combos.

[trganey]

I also agree that any pro level heads up class is going to require either significant amounts of money or just slightly less significant amounts of money and a lot of skill.

<DIV>Agreed 100%</DIV>

<DIV>Money has always dominated the heads up classes and it always will. You could put an index on FB class but what would you have then? Just a faster and more expensive TG class!</DIV>

<DIV>TR</DIV>Edited by: trganey

[flyinon2wheels]

It is simple the TOP FUEL bikes belong in TF not funny bike .

[Lonnie DeTurck]

I disagree eric,
<DIV>Are the puma cases legal as we speak?</DIV>

[madd57]

Yes Lonnie you can build a legal funnybike using Puma cases. There are two that I know of at this time in the US (there are othersoverseas)Rob Giard &amp; John Morgan each have one and both have tested them at an AMA Dragbike race. Both of these bikes are still in the "learning curve phase" and have not ran to their full potential just yet.