need some advice asap on this maverick ..per these rules

this maverick

http://syracuse.craigslist.org/cto/4305389594.html



to these rules http://www.atcoraceway.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10.0-Index.pdf



the maverick has stock front frame rails , but is this considered a tube chassis car ???
hell the aje front end is prob worth 2k alone


Thanks
guys

Buy it..... Not many "rust free" cars up there.

I don't know, but Buy It!  

im pretty sure im going to ,

hard to beat for that price .....should be pretty light ,


just curious if that is considered 100% a tube chassis car ?

The lack of stock floor and firewall prob not gonna fly under those rules.....

yep thats what im thinking , basicly a stickly

open comp /bracket car

Looks like a good deal, just may not fit the rules you
Posted

aje front end is prob close to 2k with the rack alone

im just curious if i want to be held to only a bracket car

F the rules....for 3 g I'd be all over it!

is that normal that the rear section is all tube and not a frame like 2x3 for the back half is that how its done ??


sucks i wante dto index race might have to run PRO

Can't go wrong with that IMO.

Any reference to the phrase that only says "tube chassis car" in any rule book is always going to be a fuuked up deal that's going to cause disagreements. In my opinion any car that has a decent amount of the main OEM factory frame replaced with tubing is technically a "tube chassis car" (that includes SS, mini tub, back half & full tube chassis cars). The correct term IMO if a class/rule maker wanted to exclude any full tube chassis car should be the phrase "full tube chassis car" .   


The way I read the rules in that PDF this Maverick should be 100% legal for this class because......

(A) Rule 8 says..... "8. Stock frame and back half cars permitted (full round or square chassis cars prohibited)" ....and this Maverick is in fact a "back half" car and not a "full tube chassis car".

(B) Nowhere in these rules does it mention what type front suspension can/can't be used (stock or aftermarket). It only implies that the front frame it's self has to be OEM (again the reference to "full tube chassis car" being prohibited).

[Edit].......
(C) These rules don't say anything about the firewall placement. Or if it has to be OEM sheetmetal, or if it can be a replacement material. So that also means it should be legal.

And first glance I was assuming it still had the stock OEM front frame rails because I could see what's left of the towers & I could also see the OEM 5 mph safety front bumper shock/stub assemblies on what should be the front of the OEM frame rails. And now after looking at the pics a second time I still think the OEM front rails are there. So if the OEM front rails are in fact there then it is a "back half" car.



As for buying the Maverick it's probably not a bad deal for 3K if used as a bracket(ish) type car. A decent Maverick shell it's self is getting harder & harder to find these days regardless of price.

About the only thing I kinda don't like about it is that the main hoop isn't sitting directly on the ladder bar Xmember & that the diagonal "D" bars from the main hoop don't attach to the ladder bar Xmember at/around the ladder bar chassis bracket placement to help make the Xmember more rigid (so it's harder for the ladder bars to bend/flex the Xmember). It almost looks like they originally intended the car to be a 4-link deal (because of where the main hoop is placed), but then changed their mind & went with the ladder bar instead.

heck, this is in my back yard...never seen it...cool ride....I looked to see if it was my old car, but its not, mine was 2x3 back half

NOS42 wrote:heck, this is in my back yard...never seen it...cool ride....I looked to see if it was my old car, but its not, mine was 2x3 back half

 
when I seen Syr. I also thought it was yours, then Binghamton - B Fritz's, his was made to 108 w/b
Only one I can think of is Bucky or one of his down that way

Fritz 's car was very cool.....his was a early Maverick...small numbers....mine was a 73 large front small rear 74 on was big and big bumpers

Just some useless info...lol

DILLIGASDAVE wrote:Any reference to the phrase that only says "tube chassis car" in any rule book is always going to be a fuuked up deal that's going to cause disagreements. In my opinion any car that has a decent amount of the main OEM factory frame replaced with tubing is technically a "tube chassis car" (that includes SS, mini tub, back half & full tube chassis cars). The correct term IMO if a class/rule maker wanted to exclude any full tube chassis car should be the phrase "full tube chassis car" .   


The way I read the rules in that PDF this Maverick should be 100% legal for this class because......

(A) Rule 8 says..... "8. Stock frame and back half cars permitted (full round or square chassis cars prohibited)" ....and this Maverick is in fact a "back half" car and not a "full tube chassis car".

(B) Nowhere in these rules does it mention what type front suspension can/can't be used (stock or aftermarket). It only implies that the front frame it's self has to be OEM (again the reference to "full tube chassis car" being prohibited).

[Edit].......
(C) These rules don't say anything about the firewall placement. Or if it has to be OEM sheetmetal, or if it can be a replacement material. So that also means it should be legal.

And first glance I was assuming it still had the stock OEM front frame rails because I could see what's left of the towers & I could also see the OEM 5 mph safety front bumper shock/stub assemblies on what should be the front of the OEM frame rails. And now after looking at the pics a second time I still think the OEM front rails are there. So if the OEM front rails are in fact there then it is a "back half" car.



As for buying the Maverick it's probably not a bad deal for 3K if used as a bracket(ish) type car. A decent Maverick shell it's self is getting harder & harder to find these days regardless of price.

About the only thing I kinda don't like about it is that the main hoop isn't sitting directly on the ladder bar Xmember & that the diagonal "D" bars from the main hoop don't attach to the ladder bar Xmember at/around the ladder bar chassis bracket placement to help make the Xmember more rigid (so it's harder for the ladder bars to bend/flex the Xmember). It almost looks like they originally intended the car to be a 4-link deal (because of where the main hoop is placed), but then changed their mind & went with the ladder bar instead.

do you think this type of work would be okay or should it have some bars moved ?? looking to head out next sat and pick up , just thought it was a good buy for what im getting . Nothing more than a 9 sec car doubt id ever be in the 8s

NOS42 wrote:.......mine was a 73 large front small rear 74 on was big and big bumpers.......

Cool info   . I always assumed Mavericks had either small/small or big/big bumper sets.

5pointslow wrote:.........do you think this type of work would be okay or should it have some bars moved ??.......

Well you probably don't need to go way overkill & install a full double frame rail in the car to better support the ladder bar Xmember if it's just a bracket/bracket(ish) deal. But depending on where the seat/seats will be installed (& how much the seat is reclined) you might have enough room to add another set of diagonal "D" bars that attach to the frame directly behind the seat base (and as close to the ladder bar Xmember as possible). It's usually a good idea anyway on most any chassis structure that is an all round tube build to add a few extra diagonals here & there that might not really be needed as much on a 2x3 deal.

Another thing I noticed (if it's not an optical illusion) is the ladder bars do look like they are longer than the average 32" bar.

what if any gain with longer ladder bars ?

any reason they did that due to the bbf being more nose heavy in the short wb maverick?

check out cecil county raceway ,, pro dial class

5pointslow wrote:what if any gain with  longer ladder bars ?  

any reason they did that due to the bbf being more nose heavy in the short wb maverick?

it looks like they are long.IMO.....only down side to it with this car would be seat mounting.my old chassis had 32"bars and the left bar was under the seat.with the seat flat on the frame rail i still had issues with head room,and i aint very tall,lol

5pointslow wrote:what if any gain with  longer ladder bars ?  

any reason they did that due to the bbf being more nose heavy in the short wb maverick?

 
longer the ladder bar - less lift force

5pointslow wrote:what if any gain with  longer ladder bars ?.......

There is no "best" ladder bar length. It kinda depends on how much power you have to work with & what you want the car to do. Some people only look at what effect bar length has at the front of the ladder bar (lifting the chassis upward), and some only look at the effect length has at the back of the ladder bar (suspension extension & pushing the slick downward). But both play a part at the same time and have to be factored in together.


The front of the ladder bar......

For testing purposes lets say all ladder bar lengths in question all had the exact same set amount of rear housing rotational force/energy created by a given amount of engine torque (X amount of housing rotation measured in degrees) to work with. And lets say a car's C/G placement & total weight wasn't a factor in this testing and we are just talking about how much distance/movement different mechanical leverages can create. In this case the front of a longer & longer ladder bar would actually try to raise the front rod-end up higher & higher (longer lever lift point lifts a higher distance with the same amount of rotational energy input vs a shorter lever lift point). But in the real word a car's C/G placement & total weight does factor in & have a big effect.

This means that while a longer & longer ladder bar might be trying to lift the front rod-end a higher & higher distance, at the same time that longer & longer ladder bar is also having to try to lift a greater & greater amount of the car's total weight as the bar length gets closer & closer to the car's C/G (longer lever lift point can't lift as much total weight with the same amount of rotational energy input vs a shorter lever lift point). It's like trying to lift a car with a floorjack that's lift point is moved farther & farther away from rear housing and/or closer & closer to the C/G. The closer the jack is to the C/G, the harder it is for the jack to lift the car. So the longer ladder bar is usually said to be "less violent" than a shorter bar because while the longer bar might be trying to lift the front rod-end a greater total distance, it can't easily lift the greater amount of weight at that point.



The back of the ladder bar......

Since every action has an equal/opposite reaction, as the ladder bar is trying to lift the car at it's front rod-end, it's also at the same time trying to push the rear housing/wheels/slicks away from the chassis assembly & down into the track surface. And the same "leveraging effect" (mentioned above) happening at the front of the ladder bar is also happening at the back of the bar. So while the longer ladder bar's increased mechanical leverage should be able to push the housing/rims/slicks away from the chassis and into the track surface a greater distance, at the same time it can't push/compress as much "weight" (compressive resistance from slick sidewall & air pressure) as a shorter bar can. Which again is why a longer ladder bar usually said to be "less violent" than a shorter bar.


And ladder bar length is only one part of the whole picture since shock valving is also another important factor. With X amount of HP/TQ to work with you can sometimes "calm down" a too short/violent ladder bar setup with stiffer-tighter shock valving settings, and sometimes "wake up" a too long/lazy ladder bar setup with softer-looser shock valving settings.

5pointslow wrote:this maverick

http://syracuse.craigslist.org/cto/4305389594.html



to these rules http://www.atcoraceway.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10.0-Index.pdf



the maverick has stock front frame rails , but is this considered a tube chassis car ???
hell the aje front end is prob worth 2k alone


Thanks
guys

You did not mention the race PowerGlide two BBF's new connecting rods (what brand and part#) and other race parts mentioned in the add. Depending on what they are, this could be worth quite a bit also. I noticed the paint also looked very good also in the pictures, if that matters to you. Looks like a good deal to me if it will work with your rules, and I would jump on it myself. The add also said OBO I believe? As for as it not technically being a full tube chasis, it sure looks close, but maybe it will squeak by the rules, as has been mentioned.

Looks like a good deal imo. Don't get many parts these days for 3k.