www.nitromater.com

Pro Stock Question ?

This is a discussion on Pro Stock Question ? within the NHRA forum, part of the Pit Area category; I'd like to see PS go to roughly PST displacement (350-ish), allow EFI, and be considerably more strict ...


Go Back   www.nitromater.com > Pit Area > NHRA

Invite Your FriendsChat RoomBlogsHelpCenter Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Notices



Reply

 

Thread Tools Search this Thread Translate
  #16  
Old 07-05-2007, 07:44 AM
Tom Burgess's Avatar
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 945
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

I'd like to see PS go to roughly PST displacement (350-ish), allow EFI, and be considerably more strict as to body dimensions. You could have actual over-the-counter blocks and heads being used in everything from small-block pushrod and / or modular Ford, Chrysler Hemi, and GM LS1 motors in cars that actually resemble what you see on the street. Heck I wouldn't mind limiting the chassis to back-half cars only, in fact I think that would be awesome!

I just tore down a Ford 4.6 DOHC (4-valve) motor and there are a TON of pieces to the timing systems. You can pull the cam covers easily enough for access to the lifters and cam followers but the actual between-rounds adjustment would certainly take a little longer. I doubt the Ford 4-valve stuff would be allowed anyway, the GM and Chrysler camps would be at a severe disadvantage with their respective 2-valve configs. Heaven forbid Ford ever get a leg up in NHRA competition.
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/5uz3lt
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-05-2007, 11:18 AM
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 305
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Burgess View Post
I'd like to see PS go to roughly PST displacement (350-ish), allow EFI, and be considerably more strict as to body dimensions. You could have actual over-the-counter blocks and heads being used in everything from small-block pushrod and / or modular Ford, Chrysler Hemi, and GM LS1 motors in cars that actually resemble what you see on the street. Heck I wouldn't mind limiting the chassis to back-half cars only, in fact I think that would be awesome!

I don't know if I'd go as far as limiting to a back half car, but I'm pretty much with you on the rest. The step away from reality in PS was a gradual thing, so there wasn't a bunch of *****ing as we took each step into never-never land.

From my often faulty memory, here's how we got to where we are with gasonline powered funny cars:

Jenkins and Nicholson lobby the NHRA for a stronger car with tubular front and rear components. Jenkins told me he was genuinely worried running the speeds with a unibody and roll bar. I don't blame him. This is the step I dislike the least as it wasn't necessarily a bad thing as long as the tubing had to fit under a more or less stock body.

Jump a decade or so as Mopar puts all its eggs in one basket - the K car platform. They quit building rear wheel drive cars. They apply for and get a rules change that allows them to stretch the front ends of cars in order to get a 500 inch V8 installed. The other manufacturers see the benefit of racing their smallest econo models and follow suit.

Non-Pontiac racers complain that the long nose of the Firebird has more overhang and an advantage in the lights. Everybody gets to stretch the car's nose out to the same dimension.

Pro Stock Truck racing starts and immediately Mopar is having a problem again. The Dakota is larger than an S-10 or Ranger. Of course, that's how the truck was marketed in the first place, as a mid size. NHRA gives in and allows them to build a scale replica. The horse is out of the barn and the concept crosses over the the PS cars.

PS rules required a stock steel roof and quarter panels. That gets weird when the new Camaros and Firebirds are introduced with plastic roofs on the production line. The sheet metal requirement is waived and we now have a Pro Stock car with no factory parts other than maybe the light capsules.

Larry Morgan (ain't he great?) strikes a blow for the original intent of the class and installs working headlights on his Camaro. The fans love it, but nobody follows suit in their quest to perfect the Junior Funnycar.

For a reason I still don't understand, NHRA mandates one piece front ends on PS cars. Along with that, they approve a very few composite or fiberglass bodies as being legal. Ostensibly it's to level the field and stop racers from tweaking the bodywork to gain an advantage. Hmm - I though that was the whole point.

So it's now 2007 and we have a version of IROC that nobody wants to talk about. The cars are a cartoon version of what's actually coming down the assembly line. It's no longer about which manufacturer's engineers can design the best car and more about aftermarket body companies being able to get something like the stock headlight and grille appearance.

Hey, call me resistant to change. I still think we've gone down the wrong path. It was a lot more fun when carefully choosing your body style for best advantage - and then finding a builder with the smarts to develop it even further - was the way PS worked.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-05-2007, 12:29 PM
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: KENNYWOOD PARK, PA
Posts: 88
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Miller View Post
Ken Black fan huh?
One of the major reasons for the myriad of rules in PS is the cost.
Unobtainium isn't cheap but it's sure lighter, stronger and only available to those who've sold their huge corporations.
Bobby if I remember, the SUMMIT cars didn't slow down when they put in the weight rules for the engines. Everyone else did, so your dislike for the KEN BLACK team means nothing to me
__________________
AS LONG AS THERE ARE TEST THERE WILL BE PRAYER IN SCHOOL
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-05-2007, 01:02 PM
Buzzz Miller's Avatar
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Peoria, AZ.
Posts: 365
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Grossic View Post
SUMMIT cars didn't slow down . . . Everyone else did
I love blanket statements with absolutely no data to back them up. It is what Internet chatboards are all about.
Absolutely priceless. 45 or so cars all slowed down, but only two did not. That is good stuff!

*thinking about making that my new signature*
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-05-2007, 01:32 PM
Greg Stanley's Avatar
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brentwood, CA
Posts: 647
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Dan Bennet...

GREAT POST! A fairly accurate detailing of how we got to where we are in Pro Stock.

I would contend that the cat was truly let out of the bag when NHRA allowed the first fully tubed chassis car that did not start with an original "body in white".

The Pro Stock Trucks were really the last bastion of "stock" in Pro Stock, you still had to use factory stamped exterior panels for roof, cab sides, and bed sides.

I can understand the aspect of having approved body manufactures (Five * Star) in an effort to standardize things for the tech inspectors. But NHRA went off the deep end by allowing the gross modification from a factory correct body.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-05-2007, 02:42 PM
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wanganui , New Zealand
Posts: 406
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Sweeney View Post
Do you know what Bill France said when he saw that thing William?

Nope what did he say
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-05-2007, 03:40 PM
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 500
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Payne View Post
Nope what did he say
NO WAY.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-05-2007, 04:28 PM
Brent Busch's Avatar
.
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Posts: 1,806
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Burgess View Post
I'd like to see PS go to roughly PST displacement (350-ish), allow EFI, and be considerably more strict as to body dimensions. You could have actual over-the-counter blocks and heads being used in everything from small-block pushrod and / or modular Ford, Chrysler Hemi, and GM LS1 motors in cars that actually resemble what you see on the street. Heck I wouldn't mind limiting the chassis to back-half cars only, in fact I think that would be awesome!
I love big motors (especially IHRA PS) but I think this is a way cool idea.
__________________
"I got a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!"

Buell's and Hardley's suck!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-05-2007, 04:39 PM
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 51
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Sweeney View Post
NO WAY.
I think it was more like. "Time for small blocks"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-05-2007, 07:20 PM
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 500
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy Berg View Post
I think it was more like. "Time for small blocks"
This was '64, NASCAR didn't see smallblocks until what... the early '70s?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-05-2007, 10:51 PM
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wanganui , New Zealand
Posts: 406
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Sweeney View Post
NO WAY.
I just wish that chrysler put it into mass production then they would probably be heavily advanced in technology and be at the head of the game
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-07-2007, 11:03 AM
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 305
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Stanley View Post
I would contend that the cat was truly let out of the bag when NHRA allowed the first fully tubed chassis car that did not start with an original "body in white".
Sorry for the delay but I have been fighting the blank page issue for the last couple of days. I finally got the thread to load.

That's a very good point and I agree totally. I've racked my brain but can't remember when the full tube chassis started being raced. Does anyone remember who and when?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-07-2007, 11:43 AM
Sean DeWitt's Avatar
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 418
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Bennett View Post
I've racked my brain but can't remember when the full tube chassis started being raced. Does anyone remember who and when?
Wasn't it Jenkins sometime in the early 70's ('72, maybe?) with a Vega?

Sean D
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-07-2007, 09:29 PM
Chris DeGidio's Avatar
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 383
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

It was Jenkins' 1972 Vega that started the tube frame pro stocker.

What I'd like to see is the current bodies die and go away.Use the new Challenger,Camaro,and Mustang,make them use OEM bodies('glass front ends and doors OK) and make them use the FRONT TIRE to break the finish line/mph beams,(eliminates the equal front end overhang rule) keep the 500 cid engine,no electronics of any kind.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-08-2007, 08:33 AM
David Keech's Avatar
Nitro Freak
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: northern,Mn
Posts: 166
Re: Pro Stock Question ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris DeGidio View Post
It was Jenkins' 1972 Vega that started the tube frame pro stocker.

What I'd like to see is the current bodies die and go away.Use the new Challenger,Camaro,and Mustang,make them use OEM bodies('glass front ends and doors OK) and make them use the FRONT TIRE to break the finish line/mph beams,(eliminates the equal front end overhang rule) keep the 500 cid engine,no electronics of any kind.
Sounds good to me...along with that lets get nitro F/C bodies into a shape that at least resembles a real car body...we don't need 330 mph speeds...who cares if the aerodynamics slow them down.
__________________
Real race cars need parachutes
"TooTall (indytrip winner)" on the CSK Fantasy league
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site?

Need Help?




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Nitromater Ltd.

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0 ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61