NHRA Pro Stock and spec heads

Discussion in 'The Comp Buzz' started by Jeremy Tanksley, Jul 29, 2013.

  1. Jeremy Tanksley

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering that very little has been done over the years to reduce costs in Pro Stock, and considering the cost, time of development, and the politics that goes into the cylinder head side, why would a spec head be such a bad thing for NHRA Pro Stock? Each OEM manufacturer (and OEM only), whether it be Ford, GM, Dodge, or Toyota, just like in other VERY POPULAR motorsports, provide an NHRA approved serviceable race ready spec head with an NHRA logo etched all throughout the intake and exhaust ports? Buy it, install your valve springs, retainers, and valvetrain, bolt it on, and race it? Just think if you could buy a spec set of Pro Stock heads for under $5000 brand new from the manufacturer. NHRA would be allowed to check the heads using stencils, go/no-go tooling, height parameters, volume testing, etc. No machining, grinding, welding, blasting, or etching allowed. Just a service limit on flat milling. As would be expected, each manufacturer must meet a valve size, port and combustion chamber volume, runner height, valve angle, and valve length spec. It seems like NHRA has done a good job thus far in Pro Stock in keeping things competitive between the manufacturers as far as the approved cylinder head castings is concerned.

    Would this bring more people either into or back into the class? Would this help the race engine shop economy since more engine shops could cater to pro stock, rather than the small handful that currently do now? If you currently develop winning pro stock engines, then could you still develop winning pro stock engines with this mandate? How would this not cut the engine (or providing) costs of NHRA Pro Stock in half? How would this not result in more participation from the OEM manufacturers and ultimately more corporate sponsoring of the class? How would this make the class less competitive? How do the negatives out-weigh the positives?
     
    #1 Jeremy Tanksley, Jul 29, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2013
  2. Steve Fackett

    Steve Fackett New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    NHRA would love this. Whoever greased NHRA's hand the most could get whatever they want approved. Example? Harley Davidson prior to 2013.
     
  3. Jeremy Tanksley

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    True, but wouldn't it be very unlikely with each manufacturer needing to meet a valve size, port and combustion chamber volume, runner height, valve angle, and valve length spec? It was assumed beforehand that this would be the basis of a spec head, and I added it to my first post. Thank you for pointing out this possibility.

    From what I recall, the issues seen in pro bike was from a dohc four valve harley head. Pro Stock heads don't really replicate what's on the showroom floor these days. It seems like these issues are unlikely to occur with what's being proposed here.
     
    #3 Jeremy Tanksley, Jul 29, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2013
  4. randy wilson

    randy wilson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    5
    spec head in pro stock

    It's probably the only way it will survive. It might be the only way any no-break-out classes will survive, but that's just me.
     
  5. JSwartz3300

    JSwartz3300 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Base the engine specs the same as NASCAR 358ci. same heads and blocks
    lower the min. wt. to 2100# and you pretty much have a B/A. Witch is only about .50 slower than a P/S. The fans won't tell the difference.

    ____________________________
    John Swartz
     
  6. Jeremy Tanksley

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ultimate goal is to reduce the costs associated with Pro Stock, make it more feasible for people to compete in the class, and to bring more sponsors to the class as well.
     
    #6 Jeremy Tanksley, Jul 30, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2013
  7. Craig Bourgeois

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    15
    And I'm sure NHRA would love the additional Tech inspections that would have to be done on a regular basis. Not to mention every time they change a motor, more tech inspections. I say treat it like Comp & leave it alone, the way it is. P/S is not a Sportsman class. The main reason is because of the cost. To run with the "Big Dogs", you have to ante up! And as far as spec heads go, It ALWAYS cost more to run "Spec" heads than to just let them do whatever they want to a head. My Cast Iron B/ND heads cost more to buy & maintain that any other Comp head.
     
  8. randy wilson

    randy wilson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    5
    spec

    For what it's worth, I know a guy who builds 410 unlimited sprints, and 360 spec sprints, and the spec are $20, to $25 thousand cheaper.
     
  9. Jeremy Tanksley

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig, NHRA is already having to beg (and offer money in some cases) some pro teams to show up. Perhaps hiring another tech man versus paying racers to show up wouldn't be too bad of an option? Also, as far as being more expensive, a $5000 set of heads versus what they are paying now, how do you figure it would cost more?

    The goal is to get more people to show up. Sponsors are laughing at inquiring racers. Pro Stock doesn't seem like a very good investment the way it stands now.
     
    #9 Jeremy Tanksley, Jul 30, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2013
  10. Craig Bourgeois

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    15
    Show me a stock racer that runs up on top, and I'll show you a "spec" head that cost WAY more than a stock head. The more limits you put on something, the more it costs to figure out a way to modify the heads "within" the limits to go faster. That's my point. P/S probably cost 2 million a year to run real fast.
     
  11. Jeremy Tanksley

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Different ball game. I see your point, but it's just not the same. With what's proposed, there is no slack towards limits. If it's different, in any way, shape, or form, then you're disqualified. Period.

    Thing is, in stock eliminator, the way the heads are checked, and considering the inconsistency seen in the stock parts used, most of such heads would never pass tech under the rules I'm suggesting. It would take less than a few minutes to catch it. Plus, there are hundreds, or thousands, of stocker cylinder head port dimensions that will never be documented. You will never see a tech man check port width, depth, or radius' of a head for a Stock Eliminator motor. Only volumes and basic measurements.

    Totally different ballgame. I'm refering to world class CNC machines and tools that NHRA would have for only three or four different port designs. Not hundreds. Just three or four.
     
    #11 Jeremy Tanksley, Jul 30, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2013
  12. Jeff Childs

    Jeff Childs Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    21
    Holy cow $20-$25,000 is a huge difference.
     
  13. rognelson777

    rognelson777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    36
    One challenge that is out there for prostock is who wants to travel to 23 races.
    I believe most Comp racers would love to run prostock 10 times a year but to be competitive you have to race and test fulltime, who wants to quit their job or sell their business and race prostock fulltime? Just the travel expenses a year to 23 races are probably more than the cost of some competitive comp cars
     
  14. maverick

    maverick Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some good ideas here, Pro stock cars look good to me, but they also look like a missile, any slower it would probably get boring. I really think the pro stock car should be no more than a super modifed chassis, production car ( body in white). Remember when Ford and GM changed there production cars for better aerodynamics for nascar (Thunder Bird, Monte Carlo).
     
  15. randy wilson

    randy wilson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    5
    spec

    A 360 spec, I believe is in the $48,000 range, and Clint Garner runs one at Knoxville. And the 410's, I believe, are in the $68,000 to $70,000 range, ran by Sammy Swindell. I could be wrong, but there is a substantial difference, and a rep from Brodix polices it at the 360 nationals.
     
  16. Jeremy Tanksley

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    With this mandate, the only difference between any two competitors' engines would be the shortblock and the intake. It allows the average guy to build his own engine, and with the right crew chief, he could be in the hunt. It would allow many engine shops to reinvest in the class of Pro Stock.
     
    #16 Jeremy Tanksley, Aug 1, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2013
  17. JustinatAce

    JustinatAce Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think you have a good idea there, but you'd still have the "Well what did we piss away Millions for? I don't want to change shit except how much NHRA pays us to show up."

    If we were to shove something down Pro Stock's throat like that, I think I'd still rather see race versions of current muscle car motors massaged by the badass engine builders out there. Then as the motors evolve, so does the Pro Stock Motor, so you're only on a single program for 4-5 years (or less) and you can sell it off while its still popular in the much larger aftermarket arena. No weight breaks either.. If one brand has a slow motor combo, then they better get their shit together and fix it or risk losing racers and regular car customers from humiliation! In a perfect world I guess...
     
  18. Jeremy Tanksley

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    The goal is to keep them from having to continue spending millions. Some will likely still spend millions, but with a rule like this in place, it won't be on a set of heads. In this case they'd have the same heads as everyone else in the pits.
     
    #18 Jeremy Tanksley, Aug 1, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2013
  19. rognelson777

    rognelson777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    36
    another thought, limit the RPM to say 8000, easy to police for nhra, would eliminate need for exotic valve trains, more durable, bottom ends last longer and make them run on pump gas 94 octane, no additives
     
  20. Posi67

    Posi67 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't Comp have enough of it's own problems to solve without worrying about Pro Stock? This thread sounds just like me and my late wife. We had the answer for everyone else's relationship problems but never discussed ours!

    Anyone following Comp In Seattle this weekend?

    Dale Posnick
     

Share This Page