Author Topic: '86 Camaro for B'ville  (Read 41266 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jl222

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2955
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2014, 09:20:34 PM »

First, what would the cops pull me over for? Seriously........


I've driven enough Hot Rods and Pro Streets to know that any cop that sees a roll cage and a parachute knows it's just a matter of time before you hit the throttle.  That's all.

Scottie J

Admittedly I haven't mastered the rulebook yet, but since my 'maro now has a class 3 hitch through the rear bumper, why wouldn't I just grade-8-bolt my 'chute to that when I get to the salt? After all, on the streets I'll have 14" 6-piston brakes.

  Check with your chute company about the mounting height of the tether line, most want it about the center of gravity height which is usually around camshaft height on a cam in block V8. You don't want to be to high and jerk the front wheels up or to low for the same at the rear.

                    Good luck jl222  
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 09:44:46 PM by jl222 »

Offline JimL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 799
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2014, 11:48:11 PM »
I cant find the old post....if I remember about right, Jim Diest told me to pull a line from the actual CG point of the car (he said weigh front and back, find fore/aft CG and then put end of that line about cam height of a Chevy at that fore/aft CG beside the car.)  Pull 35 feet of line from that point, to a point 7 feet above the ground behind the car.

Where the line exits the body line is your pull point height.

If you have scales and a tall jack, there is a formula on the internet to find vertical CG, as well as longitudinal CG.  The chute is pulling against the total mass of the car, which is the reason for finding true CG.

If I dont remember right, somebody please speak up.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:55:07 PM by JimL »

Offline redhotracing

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #47 on: March 06, 2014, 11:03:30 AM »
Admittedly I haven't mastered the rulebook yet, but since my 'maro now has a class 3 hitch through the rear bumper, why wouldn't I just grade-8-bolt my 'chute to that when I get to the salt? After all, on the streets I'll have 14" 6-piston brakes.

Wolfe Racecraft sells a similar style chute mount, which is what we've used for 5 years. Build a chute mount
off of the receiver, level the tether point off CG and the chute at your desired angle and height. Voila.
Luke- Winston Salem, NC
Loring 2 Club- 201.252 (2010)
Ohio 2 Club- 203.712 (2013)

Offline jl222

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2955
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #48 on: March 06, 2014, 04:00:09 PM »
Admittedly I haven't mastered the rulebook yet, but since my 'maro now has a class 3 hitch through the rear bumper, why wouldn't I just grade-8-bolt my 'chute to that when I get to the salt? After all, on the streets I'll have 14" 6-piston brakes.

Wolfe Racecraft sells a similar style chute mount, which is what we've used for 5 years. Build a chute mount
off of the receiver, level the tether point off CG and the chute at your desired angle and height. Voila.

  Wouldn't the chute pull be transferred back down to the lower mounting point?

                JL222

Offline redhotracing

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #49 on: March 07, 2014, 07:08:26 PM »
He could add another mount higher to raise the "pull point"... Not saying it's the most ideal, but I know that
it works in a < 1 mile shutdown from 200+. Our chute pulls have always been clean and without incident. I
will go ahead and knock on wood now  :-D
Luke- Winston Salem, NC
Loring 2 Club- 201.252 (2010)
Ohio 2 Club- 203.712 (2013)

Offline Bob Drury

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2014, 10:47:40 PM »
  Camshaft high works great on my 53 Stude (5200#, 238 mph).  I use two Stroud ribbon chutes released one at a time.  I can't remember if they are 12' or 14' but they both have 30' tag lines.  I only use the second chute if I make it to the five under power. 
  You are better off a little high than too low.  I used to have it mounted 8" lower (below the bumper) and it would try to dump me on my nose and get squirrely real fast!
                                                                                        Bob
Bob Drury

Offline Interested Observer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #51 on: March 07, 2014, 11:23:12 PM »
Quote
Wouldn't the chute pull be transferred back down to the lower mounting point?

The line of action for a parachute tether acts through its point of attachment to the vehicle, regardless of the configuration of the structure that connects the attachment point to the vehicle.  The loads are carried by the structure but the external load applied by the tether acts at the attachment point. 
Rather like a C-clamp.

Offline JimL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 799
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2014, 12:29:35 AM »
On the roadster, I was warned that air flows down over the back of the car.  I mounted the pack below the attachment point, so the chute could tumble out of the bag without wrapping behind anything.  My pack mount was made by using a flat plate for the back of the pack, with vertical small diameter tubes on each side of the plate.  The body had two flat straps, bent out 90 degrees top and bottom to form tabs.  The tabs had holes, and the pack was held on by long 1/4" rods dropped through the tubes.  I used long springs to connect the top loop of the rods to the long end of the rod sticking out the bottom tab (to prevent the rods from walking out).  This method allowed the pack to be easily pulled off the car while repacking the chute.

The attachment point was a roller, about 2 1/2" diameter, that had a large pivot bolt in double shear.  I actually made this as a two piece roller, where the tether loop could move each side of the roller differently if it was snapping up at an angle.  When the chute fills, it is usually coming off the ground, and the tether could be damaged if it isnt on a roller for the loop...it can really snap hard.  You simply pull the roller pivot bolt to get the chute unhooked from the car.

The beauty of these two methods, is that it is much easier to take the chute to your hotel rooms...for whoevers turn it is to shower with the chute, that night.  You will find its much easier to repack when its not crusted full of wet salt.

Probably a bunch of stuff you've already heard....us old guys ramble and mumble a lot.

JimL

Offline cagedruss

  • New folks
  • Posts: 13
    • Racetech
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2014, 01:23:10 AM »
Looking forward to seeing this build. I am a huge third gen fan. Glad to see a lot of participation from the NW group here.

Offline Sumner

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4078
  • Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere
    • http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/sumnerindex.html
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2014, 11:29:49 AM »
.... I mounted the pack below the attachment point, so the chute could tumble out of the bag without wrapping behind anything. ....JimL  

This past year Hooley switch from a lower horizontal deployment where the chute would travel along the ground before filling to an angled higher one where the chute is now launched up into the air stream for faster deployment.  This all came from Stroud.



In the picture above you can see the chute in the air just after being launched.  This was done during tech inspection when they asked to see the chute deploy.  Tony did a good job of catching the deployment with the chute in the air.



Above you can see that it launched it quite a ways from the car just with the spring pressure.  So far we are very happy with the new system.  



The chute pack's top is flush with the deck lid and...



One can also see that our attach point is below the common 'cam shaft' height location but has always worked very well with no effect on the handling of the car.  One thing to keep in mind is that we don't need chutes the size you would need running over 200 on the drag strip or even at one of the mile venues.  Our chute does not hit hard and there is no real need with our stopping distances we have.  It has done its job and straightened the car out when it has been sideways before.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU59SUocJoA

The large spring is wound back down into the pack with a socket on a speed handle type tool.  The tether detaches similar to what Jim described but we wash the chute in a 5 gallon bucket out on the salt and hang it in the pits unless we are getting back in line to run again,

Sum
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 11:51:23 AM by Sumner »

Offline overdue

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #55 on: March 29, 2014, 12:50:37 PM »
Work's been killing me. Anyway, I'm one who feels every sincere question deserves a reply, I just lack time, and for that I apologize. Please forgive me that.
 I am feeling a bit disgruntled toward these rules. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that even if I were to show up with a new, showroom-stock Bugatti Veyron SS on a trailer, on new, x-rayed, Veyron-specific tires, and a driver already licensed to go 300 at B'ville, these rules would prohibit this combo from running the 268 MPH that the car is known for, right?
 Now, if this be the case, then that confirms that these rules are more about selling speed parts than safety. In which case I need an '85-'90 Trans Am hardtop as my salt car. My 'maro will have to see 255 somewhere else.
 But if the SS would be permitted to run 268, then there's real hope for  running my 'maro on the salt.
The temporary, stock, LSx V8 is final-installed and waiting for me to bolt up a 4L80E.
 To the yellow T/A, it looks like you have the skinny front tires front and rear, right? It looks like Goodyear makes wider LSR tires for the rear, so is traction really that much less important than drag? Or are you just that lacking of any real horsepower? No insult intended, but I really don't get it, that's how it seems to me. I do thank you for the pic, I've saved it.
 I'll be back when I have more time.

Offline Dynoroom

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2192
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #56 on: March 29, 2014, 01:46:35 PM »
Work's been killing me. Anyway, I'm one who feels every sincere question deserves a reply, I just lack time, and for that I apologize. Please forgive me that.
 I am feeling a bit disgruntled toward these rules. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that even if I were to show up with a new, showroom-stock Bugatti Veyron SS on a trailer, on new, x-rayed, Veyron-specific tires, and a driver already licensed to go 300 at B'ville, these rules would prohibit this combo from running the 268 MPH that the car is known for, right?

Correct. But don't be "disgruntled", if you did have an accident you would be glad you had all the safety gear required.
Almost every safety rule in the book is there because of some incident. It has been said the rules are written in blood, we don't want it to be yours. 




 Now, if this be the case, then that confirms that these rules are more about selling speed parts than safety. In which case I need an '85-'90 Trans Am hardtop as my salt car. My 'maro will have to see 255 somewhere else.

You could check out the 130 or 150 mph club with the USFRA


 But if the SS would be permitted to run 268, then there's real hope for  running my 'maro on the salt.
The temporary, stock, LSx V8 is final-installed and waiting for me to bolt up a 4L80E.


There is no chance you could run at Speed Week without the required safety gear.


 To the yellow T/A, it looks like you have the skinny front tires front and rear, right? It looks like Goodyear makes wider LSR tires for the rear, so is traction really that much less important than drag? Or are you just that lacking of any real horsepower? No insult intended, but I really don't get it, that's how it seems to me. I do thank you for the pic, I've saved it.
 I'll be back when I have more time.

You will see some on wide rear tires but most on narrow, best of luck with whatever you choose.
Michael LeFevers
Kugel and LeFevers Pontiac Firebird

Without Data You're Just Another Guy With An Opinion!

Racing is just a series of "Problem Solving" events that allow you to spend money & make noise...

Offline Freud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5419
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #57 on: March 29, 2014, 02:54:06 PM »
Please post a foto of your car.

We would enjoy seeing it.

FREUD
Since '63

Offline Dynoroom

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2192
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #58 on: March 29, 2014, 03:35:06 PM »
Please post a foto of your car.

We would enjoy seeing it.

FREUD

1st post 1st page...
Michael LeFevers
Kugel and LeFevers Pontiac Firebird

Without Data You're Just Another Guy With An Opinion!

Racing is just a series of "Problem Solving" events that allow you to spend money & make noise...

Offline Stan Back

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5879
Re: '86 Camaro for B'ville
« Reply #59 on: March 29, 2014, 04:45:38 PM »
Boy!  If I hada Bugatti Veyron SS, I'd just take it to Daytona and kick their stock car as-ses for 500 miles!
Past (Only) Member of the San Berdoo Roadsters -- "California's Most-Exclusive Roadster Club" -- 19 Years of Bonneville and/or El Mirage Street Roadster Records