CLASS RACER FORUM - Future of Pro Stock

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)

- Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - Future of Pro Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=15528)

Re: Future of Pro Stock

If you want to make it exciting for the fans just limit the wheelbase and make it full body late model production cars on gasoline.
Anything Else Goes...
It would be expensive to run but it would be heads up, fast, and exciting for the fans.
Its already expensive to run as it stands today.
My 2 Cents

Re: Future of Pro Stock

Quote:

Originally Posted by david ring (Post 103244)

I just want to point out that the class the innovative guy is racing in is comp!

Good point Dave.You race in one of the most innovative and interesting classes.Flat out no breakout,except for CIC and still the stands empty when you guys run at a national event.Some say
that more heads up (you know who you are) will be the savior of S/SS and include us in the "big show".Well that's Comp and they're in the same boat as us.But boy do they pump money into the black hole compared to us.

Ed F.

Re: Future of Pro Stock

Bill, what I'd like to know is what happened to Buddy Ingersolls Twin Turboed Buick Regal, that was banned from NHRA Pro Stock racing because it out-ran the 500 ci guys by at least two tenths? Competition Eliminator may get cars like his nowadays, but I watched a video on You Tube where he gave a V8 Pro Stocker about 1.5 car lengths, and ran it down at the stripe!!! I miss that car, because it gave a valid argument to the phrase "no replacement for displacement"....

Re: Future of Pro Stock

I have no idea where that car went, but I thought his Pinto, running high 9s at 134 mph with 120 cubic inches and no intercooler or water injection was just as impressive.

He was a wizard with turbos, no doubt!!!

There were at least two "clones" of that car, and maybe more. Butch Ball, from Division VI, had an equally-fast Pinto that held the record for awhile ( a car I got to see run in the 9's,) and "Ohio" George Montgomery built one, too. I never heard how fast it was, but given his reputation, I can only imagine!

Those cars ran Doug Nash 5-speeds and pulled the wheels on every gear-change... amazing, from just 2 liters! If they'd been allowed water injection, there's no telling how fast they might have gone.

Buddy Ingersoll's car was featured in a Car Craft tech story and he admiited to 18 pounds of boost and 11,000 rpms. With water injection, it probably could have run a lot more boost for more horsepower. As I remember, it had to weigh 2,300 pounds. According to the Wallace online calculator, which gives some pretty reasonable-sounding horsepower figures from weight and mph, it takes 430 horsepower at the flywheel to go 134 mph in a 2,300-pound car. That's 3.58 hp per cubic inch... no intercooler; no water/alky injection.

Not bad for an "economy car" LOL!

Re: Future of Pro Stock

Quote:

Originally Posted by david ring (Post 103244)

I just want to point out that the class the innovative guy is racing in is comp!

I consider Comp the "rich man's" prostock. You get to spend all the money you can afford (and then some)
And you don't get any Television coverage for a big buck sponsor to pay the bills.

Re: Future of Pro Stock

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN (Post 103149)

Why not get rid of the multi-million dollar Pro Stock class as we know it and replace it with cars and class rule/structure that already exists......Its now called TOP STOCK. Old and new body styles, carbs and FI. REAL cars not some tubed framed frankinstine that only a few can afford and even they cant run without big sponsorships. One controling factor.....HP ratings and the need of real and extensive inspections. Brings back 1970 (almost) all over again when anyone could almost afford to race in Pro Stock. Just my 2 cents.

I personally like your idea BUT
If Top Stock or Top Superstock was the highest class (and got the tv coverage)can you imagine nhra ever trying to police the rules?
Talk about an expensive class. Spend "billions" to go fast then, "gazillions" to hide it.
NO THANKS

Re: Future of Pro Stock

at 1985 gaotrs , didn't write down how fast it went.........

Re: Future of Pro Stock

Quote:

Originally Posted by art leong (Post 103328)

Its nothing different than whats been done for the last 25 + years anyway......lol.

Re: Future of Pro Stock

I haven't followed Pro Stock lately, but if NHRA is getting full fields (are they?), keeping sponsors happy, etc., why would they bother to change what ain't broke? Maybe they'd make more money if they "updated" the class, maybe not. But it seems they're happy with the status quo.
I'd rather see real 4spds and wheelstands than a .07 field. It's ironic, but as scienced out as they are, they're relatively boring.

Re: Future of Pro Stock

They're boring because as good as they are (and, they ARE very, very good...) they're "cookie cutter" and they are technologically stagnant.. nothing new is allowed to happen.

THAT is boring... Drag racing was built on change and innovation. Where is it?

Ingenuity inaction.... blah!

Bill