|
![]() |
#11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canyon, Tx
Posts: 551
Likes: 127
Liked 353 Times in 102 Posts
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NOO JOISEY nexta NOO YAWK
Posts: 5,879
Likes: 38
Liked 100 Times in 45 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
Former NHRA #1945 Former IHRA #1945 T/SA |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
VIP Member
|
![]()
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"....
__________________
Gary Hampton '86 Z24,173 V6 CF/S #5824 (#78 in 2021) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]()
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!
__________________
Bill |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Hill, Georgia
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
![]() Quote:
And you don't get any Television coverage for a big buck sponsor to pay the bills.
__________________
Art Leong 2095 SS |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Hill, Georgia
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
![]() Quote:
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
__________________
Art Leong 2095 SS |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: TOLEDO,OHIO
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 0
Liked 241 Times in 100 Posts
|
![]()
at 1985 gaotrs , didn't write down how fast it went.........
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lake Placid, Florida
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 1,047
Liked 235 Times in 110 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Verrry South Jersey
Posts: 537
Likes: 134
Liked 251 Times in 125 Posts
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|