NHRA ProStock changes coming!

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I'll offer some constructive suggestions for improving Pro Stock.

First, get rid of the goofy bodies, go back to pure production bodies, or bodies in white, checked by templates. All steel. One small spoiler, no wicker bill, no spill plates, set 30 degree angle, body width, 6" tall. Stock wheelbase. Maximum. 6" hood scoop height. Maximum 16" X 33" slick. Fuel injection, 1500 cfm throttle body, maximum of two. No exotic materials in the engine, or anywhere else in the power train. Leave the current 500 cubic inch, 2350#, 5 forward speeds, manually shifted format in place. We're already asking teams to build all new cars and move to fuel injection. Forcing them to an entirely new power train program simply is not economically feasible or fiscally wise.

Make the cars look like production cars with slicks and a small hoodscoop. Fuel injected, since carburetors are apparently an evil relic of the dinosaur era. Leave the 5 year rule in place, two door rear wheel drive sport coupe only.

That allows the current power train programs to remain relatively intact, while moving into the fuel injected era, with cars fans can relate to, and keeping performance close to where it is, with an even set of relatively simple rules that are the same for everyone. Maybe Ford will play, maybe they won't, but if Chevy and Mopar will, then Ford has no excuse.

The new television contract combined with the marketing program should make it more attractive for OE corporations and sponsors.

Like Alan described and limit them to 400 CID small block engines like the Australian Pro Stock classes.

[theman440]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I'll offer some constructive suggestions for improving Pro Stock.

First, get rid of the goofy bodies, go back to pure production bodies, or bodies in white, checked by templates. All steel. One small spoiler, no wicker bill, no spill plates, set 30 degree angle, body width, 6" tall. Stock wheelbase. Maximum. 6" hood scoop height. Maximum 16" X 33" slick. Fuel injection, 1500 cfm throttle body, maximum of two. No exotic materials in the engine, or anywhere else in the power train. Leave the current 500 cubic inch, 2350#, 5 forward speeds, manually shifted format in place. We're already asking teams to build all new cars and move to fuel injection. Forcing them to an entirely new power train program simply is not economically feasible or fiscally wise.

Make the cars look like production cars with slicks and a small hoodscoop. Fuel injected, since carburetors are apparently an evil relic of the dinosaur era. Leave the 5 year rule in place, two door rear wheel drive sport coupe only.

That allows the current power train programs to remain relatively intact, while moving into the fuel injected era, with cars fans can relate to, and keeping performance close to where it is, with an even set of relatively simple rules that are the same for everyone. Maybe Ford will play, maybe they won't, but if Chevy and Mopar will, then Ford has no excuse.

The new television contract combined with the marketing program should make it more attractive for OE corporations and sponsors.

This sounds like the way to go -

[Jared Jordan]

What do they do about aerodynamic differences? The Challenger and Camaro are both much larger cars than the Mustang in terms of frontal area (or so it appears to my naked eye, anyway...) and presumably have a larger drag coefficient, which will be even more apparent at 215 mph than it is at 165-170 mph. I love the idea of going back to stock appearing bodies, but there's a reason NHRA went away from that in the first place.

Scale down the bigger car(s)?? I'm no engineer, obviously. The changes are exciting. If nothing else, there will be short-term renewed interest in the class.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Jared Jordan

What do they do about aerodynamic differences? The Challenger and Camaro are both much larger cars than the Mustang in terms of frontal area (or so it appears to my naked eye, anyway...) and presumably have a larger drag coefficient, which will be even more apparent at 215 mph than it is at 165-170 mph. I love the idea of going back to stock appearing bodies, but there's a reason NHRA went away from that in the first place.

Scale down the bigger car(s)?? I'm no engineer, obviously. The changes are exciting. If nothing else, there will be short-term renewed interest in the class.

The further they get from factory bodies, the worse the class gets, and the less the spectators identify with the class and cars.

Part of the reason for the body rules was that everyone went to FWD, and conversions of bodies that don't fit the rules. Give them a wheelbase range to work in and leave the bodies stock.

If the factories want to race, they'll build a competitive body. They did it for years. They can do it now.

To address another post, I don't think 400 cubic inches and "Australian" blocks works. Leave the long block alone, it allows teams to use most of what they have and keeps performance close to where it is.

[Dyno]

the new 2016 Camaro body is smaller in size than the 2015 body.

[Carguy49]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

I'll offer some constructive suggestions for improving Pro Stock.

First, get rid of the goofy bodies, go back to pure production bodies, or bodies in white, checked by templates. All steel. One small spoiler, no wicker bill, no spill plates, set 30 degree angle, body width, 6" tall. Stock wheelbase. Maximum. 6" hood scoop height. Maximum 16" X 33" slick. Fuel injection, 1500 cfm throttle body, maximum of two. No exotic materials in the engine, or anywhere else in the power train. Leave the current 500 cubic inch, 2350#, 5 forward speeds, manually shifted format in place. We're already asking teams to build all new cars and move to fuel injection. Forcing them to an entirely new power train program simply is not economically feasible or fiscally wise.

Make the cars look like production cars with slicks and a small hoodscoop. Fuel injected, since carburetors are apparently an evil relic of the dinosaur era. Leave the 5 year rule in place, two door rear wheel drive sport coupe only.

That allows the current power train programs to remain relatively intact, while moving into the fuel injected era, with cars fans can relate to, and keeping performance close to where it is, with an even set of relatively simple rules that are the same for everyone. Maybe Ford will play, maybe they won't, but if Chevy and Mopar will, then Ford has no excuse.

The new television contract combined with the marketing program should make it more attractive for OE corporations and sponsors.

I like the way you are thinking. This idea might need some refining to make it work, but you are on the right track. With the new S/S cars capable of mid to high 7's, what would it take to run 7.0's or quicker?? The bodies should remain as close to stock as possible (no more goofy bodies), and work on removing unneeded items to lighten them a bit (say 2500 min.) What did P.B.Candies car weigh when it went 7.859 at Indy last year?? Well over 3000 lbs. I am sure.


Danny, I too, liked Pro Stock Truck. Shame on NHRA for getting rid of that program.

[blkjack]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Make the cars look like production cars with slicks and a small hoodscoop. Fuel injected, since carburetors are apparently an evil relic of the dinosaur era. Leave the 5 year rule in place

the five year body rule has been gone or do you want to bring it back?

SECTION 16 - PRO STOCK
DESIGNATION
PRO, preceded by car number.
Reserved for 2005 or later NHRA-accepted 2-door or 4-door
coupe or sedan (domestic or foreign) production vehicles

[blkjack]

In reality ....is this what Pro Stock should look like? wonder what Bruno thinks?

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by blkjack

the five year body rule has been gone or do you want to bring it back?

SECTION 16 - PRO STOCK
DESIGNATION
PRO, preceded by car number.
Reserved for 2005 or later NHRA-accepted 2-door or 4-door
coupe or sedan (domestic or foreign) production vehicles

The comment about "the 5 year rule" was simply a suggestion.


I'm not convinced Pro Stock has to have any real changes to survive. The reason I posted what I did was to suggest what could be done to move the class slightly toward a new direction, rather than the wholesale changes being proposed, because a lot of people smarter than I am don't believe Pro Stock could survive massive changes.

It may be that with new leadership, and the new television and promotion package, Pro Stock can become more healthy (read: more competitive teams, and more spectators) without any changes at all.

Having talked to a few Pro Stock racers over the years, I do not think the class could survive the radical changes being proposed by some. Wescott's post pretty much sums it up. If you force racers to throw away the cars they already have, AND their engine programs, the vast majority are done, whether they want to be or not. It simply is not financially feasible. Ken Black might be able to do it, maybe Cagnazzi, Skillman, and possibly Allen Johnson. Few others.

Pro Stock hasn't really been about racing what the factories are selling since around 1973 or so. Remember, they were racing Vegas with 327 small blocks, Pintos with 351C engines, Camaros with 368 big blocks, Hemi powered Arrows, and various other combinations not even remotely like new cars of the time. The closest Pro Stock ever was to what the "race what they sell now" crowd is wanting is in the earliest days, when Jenkins put a tunnel ram on a ZL-1 Super Stock 69 Camaro for match racing. Three years or so later they were racing tube chassis V8 powered econo cars.

A lot of people have been proposing FX classes to showcase the new cars. That's a great idea. I am completely in favor of a new FX class that showcases the new cars. But it is completely wrong to try to force Pro Stock to become that FX class.

I find it sort of bizarre, and somewhat amusing, that some people, who do not race Pro Stock, out and out demand that people already racing Pro Stock throw away millions of dollars of equipment, so that the people who do not race Pro Stock can have a class that they want to see, but will not invest a dime in racing in.

[randy wilson]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

The comment about "the 5 year rule" was simply a suggestion.


I'm not convinced Pro Stock has to have any real changes to survive. The reason I posted what I did was to suggest what could be done to move the class slightly toward a new direction, rather than the wholesale changes being proposed, because a lot of people smarter than I am don't believe Pro Stock could survive massive changes.

It may be that with new leadership, and the new television and promotion package, Pro Stock can become more healthy (read: more competitive teams, and more spectators) without any changes at all.

Having talked to a few Pro Stock racers over the years, I do not think the class could survive the radical changes being proposed by some. Wescott's post pretty much sums it up. If you force racers to throw away the cars they already have, AND their engine programs, the vast majority are done, whether they want to be or not. It simply is not financially feasible. Ken Black might be able to do it, maybe Cagnazzi, Skillman, and possibly Allen Johnson. Few others.

Pro Stock hasn't really been about racing what the factories are selling since around 1973 or so. Remember, they were racing Vegas with 327 small blocks, Pintos with 351C engines, Camaros with 368 big blocks, Hemi powered Arrows, and various other combinations not even remotely like new cars of the time. The closest Pro Stock ever was to what the "race what they sell now" crowd is wanting is in the earliest days, when Jenkins put a tunnel ram on a ZL-1 Super Stock 69 Camaro for match racing. Three years or so later they were racing tube chassis V8 powered econo cars.

A lot of people have been proposing FX classes to showcase the new cars. That's a great idea. I am completely in favor of a new FX class that showcases the new cars. But it is completely wrong to try to force Pro Stock to become that FX class.

I find it sort of bizarre, and somewhat amusing, that some people, who do not race Pro Stock, out and out demand that people already racing Pro Stock throw away millions of dollars of equipment, so that the people who do not race Pro Stock can have a class that they want to see, but will not invest a dime in racing in.

Good post.