I have always wondered why someone would build a heads-up class race car without first checking the rules for the class. I have a problem in identifying with a racer's thought process when, either purposely or through ignorance, he creates a combination that is not legal for the heads-up class in which he desires to compete.

For instance, if a racer desires to compete in PRO 5.0, he shouldn't build a Mustang with a 600 cubic inch big block engine. PRO 5.0 is for small block engines. Here is another one. Don't show up with a PRO 5.0 car designed to run nitromethane fuel. Nitro is not permitted.

You would think that had the racer simply read the rulebook prior to building his car, he wouldn't have created an "illegal" car.

There is another option here. Let's suppose that a racer wants to build an "illegal" combination for a specific heads-up class. He then has two options. He can be DQ'd for the class each time he goes through tech, or he can just forget about it and run in the brackets. Or, he can have a third option. He can make so much noise about it that eventually, the promoters may change the rules to allow the illegal combination to be legal.

This doesn't always work, however. The Mustang racers running twin turbos found out that no amount of screaming would change the rules enough to make their cars legal for PRO 5.0. The promoters figured that the twin turbo crowd had too much potential for the rest of the PRO 5.0 field. This was a fairly easy decision and didn't upset too many guys. After all, no one held a gun to their head and made them install twin turbos, right?

Now, somewhere along the way, someone found that they could increase supercharger or turbocharger boost (and horsepower) by cooling the incoming air charge using an intercooler. This has been proven time and again by sports car and Indy car racers. The intercooler of choice were all of the air to air design.

Eventually, the drag racers (God bless 'em) discovered that by circulating cold water through an intercooler, they could cool the inlet charge even more than the air to air systems. (By the way, there are those who claim that this may not be true.)

The problem is that the process of circulating the water requires a 3 to 5 gallon water tank. Since water weighs 8.4 pounds per gallon, a 5 gallon tank will add 42 pounds to the car, plus the weight of the tank and circulation pump. Given the dynamics of drag racing, most of these tanks are mounted in the rear of the car.

The only problem with all of this is that the most prominent sanctioning body, the NHRA, has a specific rule AGAINST having any water being mounted to the rear of the firewall. This rule is spelled out on page 199 (under Ballast) of the 2000 NHRA Rulebook. In case you don't have the Rulebook in front of you, this is the related text. "Any liquid other than engine fuel being used, located behind the front firewall (on a front engine car), is considered ballast and is prohibited." Ouch. Interestingly enough, this sentence is not in the IHRA Rulebook, just NHRA.

Apparently, the first few racers who installed the rear mounted water tanks never noticed this rule. The same must be said about the safety tech inspectors. No one noticed that these tanks were illegal at NHRA facilities.

As a result, other racers installed the water cooled intercoolers, until all of a sudden, there were a fair number of blower or turbo cars with these "illegal" water tanks.

So, these rear mounted water tanks were illegal then and they are illegal now. But, a lot of racers have them, and since the event promoters want as much participation as possible (car count), this little "problem" has generally been ignored by the racing organizations, particularly organizations that cater to the 'street" scene. This includes the NMCA, NSCA, NMRA, FFW, and WFC. The other funny thing about this is that almost all of the tracks, including the NHRA tracks, also ignore this rule.

I know that several of the event promoters have discussed this problem with the NHRA, and are trying to change the rule. It's kind of like this. "If nobody is going to enforce it, let's get rid of it."

Then there is another issue. Let's suppose a racer, maybe a nitrous racer, decides to file a "protest" against a competitor's rear mounted illegal water tank. There he is, Mr. Nitrous, cash in fist, holding up the NHRA Rulebook (open to page 199) in front of the Tech Director's face. Now what? Will it be OK with this racer if the Tech Director explains that while the water tank is not acceptable to NHRA (in Glendora), it is OK with the NHRA (at this track). I don't think so.

This could get ugly.

And why not? The event promoters and the tech officials are not in a position to pick the NHRA safety rules that they are willing to "accept" and other rules that they just don't want to enforce.

Let's face it. As of this moment in time (June 30, 2000), the rear mounted water tanks are illegal at NHRA tracks, period. And the last time I checked, no one held a gun to the racer's head and told him he had to have these illegal tanks.

But, you know the reality. I'll let these "illegal" racers run at the FFW events because we want their business ($$). If we don't they'll just go somewhere else.