Future of Pro Stock

art leong · 01-29-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-TECH MAN

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

TOM KASCH · 01-29-2009, 10:40 PM

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

X-TECH MAN · 01-29-2009, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by art leong

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

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

Dave Gantz · 01-30-2009, 08:18 AM

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.

bill dedman · 01-30-2009, 12:27 PM

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

01-29-2009, 10:40 PM	#2
TOM KASCH VIP Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: TOLEDO,OHIO Posts: 1,735 Likes: 0 Liked 241 Times in 100 Posts	Re: Future of Pro Stock at 1985 gaotrs , didn't write down how fast it went......... Attached Thumbnails

01-30-2009, 08:18 AM	#4
Dave Gantz Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Verrry South Jersey Posts: 537 Likes: 134 Liked 251 Times in 125 Posts	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.

01-30-2009, 12:27 PM	#5
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	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 __________________ Bill