[bill dedman]

Seems to me there are two mindsets as regards the makeup of a class like Pro Stock, and though their goals are the same, their methodologies are diametrically opposed.

On the one hand, you have Wally's old saw, "The Cars ARE the Stars," which carries with it the tag-along, age-old "Ingenuity in Action" philosophy. This was played out in the early days of Pro Stock when the game was new, and variety and engineering one-upmanship were the keywords. There was no dominating combination for very long, because NHRA tech would change the rules regarding pounds per cubic inch for a given combination, or make a new rule regarding weight differentials for long or short wheelbases... making it difficult for any one combination to dominate for very long.

Under that set of parameters, we had Maverick 4-door sedan Pro Stockers, Pinto and Vega Pro Stockers, American Motors engines with welded cylinder heads (take 4 and make two), and everything in between.

Chrysler Hemis dominated for awhile, until NHRA eventually piled so much weight on them (per cubic inch) that they couldn't win anymore, and all of a sudden, this killer combination was abandoned by everyone, including the factory, who just quit running them in Pro Stock.

That was one scenario.... which disappeared overnight, when NHRA finally tired of playing referee in an unending battle to stay on top of things and provide a level playing field by legislating weight breaks, etc. It was replaced in one fell swoop with the "one size fits all," 500cid/2,350 lbs. formula that we've had for the last 25+ years.

The "new" formula, whether inadvertantly or not, shifted the focus from the cars to the drivers (or, "personalities") as the cars soon became "cookie cutter" in many ways, and have at this date, evolved to the point that a 16 car field may only be separated by about seven hundredths of a second, making it pretty much a "drivers' race."

But, over the years, the class has stagnated technologically to the point that even though it's close racing (no argument there), it's not very exciting for some of us, because the cars are either based on Rat Motor derivitaves, or "new" Hemi technology, with no truly competitive Fords in the mix. Not for a long, long time.

Clutchless shifting has taken a lot of the driving aspect out of the performance, and the prohibition of fuel injection is a head-shaker that defies explanation; Detroit hasn't make a car with a carburetor on it in at least 20 years, and these cars are supposedly Pro STOCK.... heavy on the "Stock."

So, with the technological stagnation and resultant lack of mechanical innovation and "ingenuity" in evidence, it seems like Pro Stock is over-ripe for a re-think to regain some of the luster of its first few years.

Is it time to start including a different kind of powerplant in these cars? When the rules were written for Pro Stock, a lot of the things that cars now come "stock" with, weren't being built. To wit; distributorless ignition systems, computerized fuel injection, 4-valve cylinder heads and turbos and superchargers.

If these Pro Stockers are "Detorit Hot Rods" as NHRA used to call them, maybe it's time to think about a re-do on the rules to add some fresh new combinations and some powerplant variety to spice up a moldy, old recipe. Or, change the name of the class to Pro Nostalgia Doorslammer, or something equally descriptive.

What they now have isn't as exciting as it could be, I think. It fulfills the "drivers are the stars" philosophy, but I think that while that seems to work for NASCAR, the NHRA cars have so much more to offer the paying spectator... or, could, if NHRA will allow them to be built and raced, it may be time to look at the situation in the light of "CHANGE".

Change "for the sake of change" isn't necessarily good, but this has some merit, I think.

Food for thought...


Bill