We're talking Pro Stock.

#31 11-19-2007, 09:44 AM

Randy, I could really go with you on this. However, after having attended one of those NHRA import races, I'd like to see a few more years of them hashing out that combo before it happens. I don't think there'd be enough full pulls between both cars to keep fans of the current Pro Stock class interested. Those turbo cars are very impressive.

#32 11-19-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy DaRos

Randy, I could really go with you on this. However, after having attended one of those NHRA import races, I'd like to see a few more years of them hashing out that combo before it happens. I don't think there'd be enough full pulls between both cars to keep fans of the current Pro Stock class interested. Those turbo cars are very impressive.

You'd see full pulls if the Cagnazzi's, Anderson/Black's, Johnson's were in the mix. With budgets and factory assistance, the class would go through the roof. The issue would be legislating technology to control spending.

#33 11-19-2007, 10:41 AM

Cool thread! Makes me ask a couple questions of the group. Okay, you go fuel injection; presumably electronic fuel injection, not mechanical. How do you prevent teams from using traction control? F1 tried to ban it years ago and gave up because their scrutineers/tech inspectors could not find it. NHRA tech inspectors already have their hands full with classes from Street to Top Fuel. Now they're going to spot something not even the most technically advanced series in the world could find? Seems a tall order?

Also, the teams have to come up with all new motor programs and buy new hoods/front clips. So what do the teams and the NHRA get for all the headaches? Maybe a few less fans bolt for the nitro warmups? I'm not seeing the benefit?

#34 11-19-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Smith

Cool thread! Makes me ask a couple questions of the group. Okay, you go fuel injection; presumably electronic fuel injection, not mechanical. How do you prevent teams from using traction control? F1 tried to ban it years ago and gave up because their scrutineers/tech inspectors could not find it. NHRA tech inspectors already have their hands full with classes from Street to Top Fuel. Now they're going to spot something not even the most technically advanced series in the world could find? Seems a tall order?

Perhaps the answer is within your question. Why not make it legal just for Pro Stock ??? Of course that does beg the question...Are they already using it and NHRA hasn't found it??? Another time and thread....

Also, the teams have to come up with all new motor programs and buy new hoods/front clips. So what do the teams and the NHRA get for all the headaches? Maybe a few less fans bolt for the nitro warmups? I'm not seeing the benefit?

Don't see much difference in comparison when the NHRA went from Factored small blocks to Single big block use. Needed new equipment then. Or even when the tube cars came in, needed new equipment then. It is called evolution...

jim

#35 11-19-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Smith

Cool thread! Makes me ask a couple questions of the group. Okay, you go fuel injection; presumably electronic fuel injection, not mechanical. How do you prevent teams from using traction control?...

In my scenario (NA smallblock V8's, EFI), I'd say don't prevent it, encourage it.

#36 11-19-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Burgess

In my scenario (NA smallblock V8's, EFI), I'd say don't prevent it, encourage it.

Pro Stock: Professional category racing with components that are available on my car from the factory.

TC is not sci-fi stuff. Heck, my PT Cruiser came with it. It should be part of the tune-up. In a street car, whenever TC is activated it slows the car down. They key would be...don't activate it.

Anyone that thinks some form of TC isn't being used now by someone somewhere is mistaken.

RG

#37 11-19-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Goodwin

Anyone that thinks some form of TC isn't being used now by someone somewhere is mistaken.

RG

DragTraction.Com traction control devices

#38 11-19-2007, 02:09 PM

When I first read the post my reaction was that's a terrible idea. After reading the reasons why it would be good I have to agree, it would be good.
Guess I'll never see a Maverick and Vega race in Pro Stock again. You guys can sure make a man feel old.

#39 11-19-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Sherwood

While a catagory like Personett's car would make sense, I think a Turbo Pro stock class would get boring as hell! Race cars are supposed to loud, not quiet! BTW, how does Nascar still bring out Millions of fans since you can't buy any Toyota's with 360 V8's?

Actually, you can almost get that in a Tundra - the 5.7L. It's a good motor when the cams don't snap.

#40 11-19-2007, 02:59 PM

want to see innovation-watch comp eliminator. They'll be more four valve motors racing next year. Some comps cars already use EFI and more will be using it in the future.

But it is also the case that the carb wizards have really done wonders. And of course, those blown motors in all classes and the A/FD are still using mechanical fuel injection, as are some pretty good comp cars (See the cars that next year will have the numbers 2, 4, and 9).

#41 11-19-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Goodwin

On another discussion board we were talking about something totally unrelated to Pro Stock. Then I mentioned this:

If I were in charge (we'd all be in trouble) Pro stock would look more like Brad Personett's turbo Toyota. The younger generations could relate and would be more interested in a class that more resembles what you can buy today. Plus, it runs 6.40's at almost 220 miles per hour.[/i][/b]

Get rid of those big hood scoops, too. Let me zip up my firesuit first...Okay, flame away! RG

With the environmental folks wanting to get rid of the combustion engine entirely and racing being a complete waste of energy in their agenda, perhaps future performance might be linked to the size of your extension cord.

#42 11-19-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Groom

With the environmental folks wanting to get rid of the combustion engine entirely and racing being a complete waste of energy in their agenda, perhaps future performance might be linked to the size of your extension cord.

Maybe they could bring back peroxide rockets?

#43 11-19-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Busch

Maybe they could bring back peroxide rockets?

Nope, oxidizers eat ozone too.

#44 11-19-2007, 06:08 PM

Why not let them run as they are, but with EFI on them. No turbo's or blowers (if you want to use them, go run Pro Mod). Make everyone use a controlled ECU. Let them have TC, as it has been stated it mostly slows you down, but its also another tuning parameter for crew chiefs to play with.
At least that would start to bring Pro Stock out of the dark ages of carbs.
Just my 2c

#45 11-19-2007, 07:12 PM

Bo Butner's East Texas Racecars Cobalt CC/A comp eliminator car featuring a Pro-charger 400" SBC probably best represents where Pro Stock should be but will never happen. What do race teams do with all the money sank into today's 500" Pro Stock motors? Can you say LAWSUIT? Yes it would happen faster than John Force's return to FC.

We're talking Pro Stock.

We're talking Pro Stock.

New To Site?

Need Help?