What's wrong with Stock?

FS Fan · 09-02-2014, 02:29 PM

I'm a long time lurker on here and I've seen this pop up many times.

I see a number of questions that I don't think anyone is asking.

Without the package cars how could a late model car ever be competitive? An older engine combination can make big gains within the Stock rules, but a new engine is WAY more optimized for performance as delivered. A new street legal showroom engine combo can never hope to get 1.70 times the rated hp from the showroom to be near the top of a qualifying sheet.

If NHRA decided the new cars had to be factory street legal combos what if they put all the old cars out to pasture? Stock used to be only back to 1960 and I believe that came about in 1972. If they decided that Stock Eliminator was only back to 2002 would that be ok with your sense as to the spirit of the class? One could argue that when that rule was in place it was the heyday of Stock racing. I see many posts about how great those days where, and the cars they were racing were actually fairly new. I can't think of any other motorsport where you could win a "world" championship with 40 year old technology. I can go to a dealer and order a new GM DR head from the performance parts catalog, I cannot order a 369 big block anything. If the factory doesn't support it any longer should it be relevant?

Do you care if the factories are involved? Factories get involved when its marketable. I see a bunch of dealers sponsoring new cars, I don't see them sponsoring older cars so much. If the dealers don't care I wouldn't expect the factories to care. I don't see how racers can have it both ways asking for factory help and contingency money but not running what they actually sell. A window manufacturer wouldn't continue to help someone who bought windows 40 years ago.

Regarding the disparity in MPH between cars what if NHRA decided to put slow cars out rather than move fast cars to Super Stock? The new Dodge Hellcat went 10.80's on sticky tires with an IRS. As a solid axle stocker that could easily be a 9-second car (of course there is no weight break for it currently but we're talking theoretically). I bet a new Camaro V6 can run 13's in total street trim, maybe 11's as a Stocker. It is the National HOTROD Association, and if the slowest modern version of a hot rod can run 11's modified to race is that the new bar?

Is it important to bring new and/or young people into the sport? Is everyone ok with the same people racing the same cars for the foreseeable future? A 16 year old kid who might get bit by the racing bug has only seen LS based Chevies, Modular Fords, and Gen 3 Hemi's. These are the powerplants that are easily available in junkyards and have parts readily available. If the spirit of the class is to be able to build a fast, inexpensive car, with parts that you can get at a dealership then I think a new Mustang is about as cheap as you can get.

Interesting facts:.
2008 Indy qualifying (before the package cars) top ten average model year:1976, on average they were 32 years old! Almost all had carburetors despite the fact there hadn't been a carburated car sold new in the US since 1985 (23 years prior).

2008 qualfying for 1960 Kingswood
#49, U/SA John McCarthy Jr., Lyndon KY, '60 Kingswood 14.073, -1.077

2014 qualifying for 1960 Kingswood
#31 U/SA Roy Dean, Bloomville OH, '60 Kingswood 13.756, -1.094

I like the new cars but I see why there is angst about them. Nothing is perfect. To me it looks like years of not doing anything to keep the classes growing & relevant has resulted in big changes quickly which upsets the norm.

09-02-2014, 02:29 PM	#16
FS Fan Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 34 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: What's wrong with Stock? I'm a long time lurker on here and I've seen this pop up many times. I see a number of questions that I don't think anyone is asking. Without the package cars how could a late model car ever be competitive? An older engine combination can make big gains within the Stock rules, but a new engine is WAY more optimized for performance as delivered. A new street legal showroom engine combo can never hope to get 1.70 times the rated hp from the showroom to be near the top of a qualifying sheet. If NHRA decided the new cars had to be factory street legal combos what if they put all the old cars out to pasture? Stock used to be only back to 1960 and I believe that came about in 1972. If they decided that Stock Eliminator was only back to 2002 would that be ok with your sense as to the spirit of the class? One could argue that when that rule was in place it was the heyday of Stock racing. I see many posts about how great those days where, and the cars they were racing were actually fairly new. I can't think of any other motorsport where you could win a "world" championship with 40 year old technology. I can go to a dealer and order a new GM DR head from the performance parts catalog, I cannot order a 369 big block anything. If the factory doesn't support it any longer should it be relevant? Do you care if the factories are involved? Factories get involved when its marketable. I see a bunch of dealers sponsoring new cars, I don't see them sponsoring older cars so much. If the dealers don't care I wouldn't expect the factories to care. I don't see how racers can have it both ways asking for factory help and contingency money but not running what they actually sell. A window manufacturer wouldn't continue to help someone who bought windows 40 years ago. Regarding the disparity in MPH between cars what if NHRA decided to put slow cars out rather than move fast cars to Super Stock? The new Dodge Hellcat went 10.80's on sticky tires with an IRS. As a solid axle stocker that could easily be a 9-second car (of course there is no weight break for it currently but we're talking theoretically). I bet a new Camaro V6 can run 13's in total street trim, maybe 11's as a Stocker. It is the National HOTROD Association, and if the slowest modern version of a hot rod can run 11's modified to race is that the new bar? Is it important to bring new and/or young people into the sport? Is everyone ok with the same people racing the same cars for the foreseeable future? A 16 year old kid who might get bit by the racing bug has only seen LS based Chevies, Modular Fords, and Gen 3 Hemi's. These are the powerplants that are easily available in junkyards and have parts readily available. If the spirit of the class is to be able to build a fast, inexpensive car, with parts that you can get at a dealership then I think a new Mustang is about as cheap as you can get. Interesting facts:. 2008 Indy qualifying (before the package cars) top ten average model year:1976, on average they were 32 years old! Almost all had carburetors despite the fact there hadn't been a carburated car sold new in the US since 1985 (23 years prior). 2008 qualfying for 1960 Kingswood #49, U/SA John McCarthy Jr., Lyndon KY, '60 Kingswood 14.073, -1.077 2014 qualifying for 1960 Kingswood #31 U/SA Roy Dean, Bloomville OH, '60 Kingswood 13.756, -1.094 I like the new cars but I see why there is angst about them. Nothing is perfect. To me it looks like years of not doing anything to keep the classes growing & relevant has resulted in big changes quickly which upsets the norm.