One of my favorites a ‘63 Swiss cheese Catalina. One of its time trial passes was in the mid 11s. Randy Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
Car Craft All Star Drag Racing Team. Milt Schornack of Royal Pontiac, Stock Division Sponsor, Royal Oak, Michigan. Chevy Power
All things considered, I'm doing well. There's no sense complaining.....can't do a damned thing about it!
A guy I know who is not computer literate (read that as he doesn't even OWN a computer) wants to know if anyone has a list of class winners at the 1971 and 1972 Indy Nationals. Anybody?
My apologies Terry. I must have been in another world. I didn't even think to ask you how you're doing. Truly hope all is well on your end.
From my issue of Car Craft August '69 in the Larry Walker article-an official went down the track with a boost gauge checking the pressure-he got tore down a few times cuz it was so fast. This Jr. Stock thread is the greatest!!!!
Those class winner lists are a priceless illustration of the effects of the transition of Stock Eliminator from the era that we celebrate as "Junior Stock" to a much more restrictive format of "Stock Eliminator" that began with the "Great Purge of 1972." The 1971 U.S. Nationals featured Stockers prepared the way we remember them and have discussed them since the appearance of this thread, including model years back to the mid-50s or even before. By contrast, the 1972 U.S. Nationals included "Stock" cars prepared under the new format, i.e. no headers, stock pistons, driven to the track, "treaded" tires, seriously curtailed contingency sponsorships, and no models older than 1960. In order to appreciate the real financial, emotional, and physical implications of the "Purge" one really had to live through it and be faced with the decision of what to do with instantly obsolete equipment, combinations that did not fare well from the transition, and essentially having what amounted to a way of life erased by a sweeping change in the Rulebook. Comparing the lists shows that many (but not all) 1971 Stock competitors were entered in the vastly expanded Super Stock field after the transition. Some were able to adapt their cars to the new format but most were in the position of experimenting with things such as camshafts of unrestrained lifts and duration, more sophisticated valve trains, aftermarket intake manifold configurations, bigger tires, broader horsepower curves, looser torque converters, etc., etc. Thanks to Skip for asking the question and thanks to Jim for providing the data. c
Lyle Dokken won in D/SA and he is Wayne Dokkens brother but I never knew he drove the car or drag raced back in those day's.
Wow.....That's a LOT of stockers DQ'ed at the 72 event. 1st year of the new stocker rules. The "REAL" tech guys were hard at it. I bet NHRA wished they could get that many Pro Stockers at one event today !
I forgot about the PRO race in '72. That explains why some of the big names that I was expecting to see were missing from those qualifier sheets.
This has probably been asked and answered before but I'll ask anyway. Why doesn't NHRA perform teardowns anymore ?
They are starting to do more again.The racers demanded it. That's what separates them from the .90 bracket cars. They still do 30-40 cars at Indy.
CHEATER CAM QUESTION: A few pages back there was a discussion of NHRA teardowns. I thought it might help with some of the old 1960s cars I’m trying to match with the Gonkulator. Pg505 Post 15131 Loudbang Post 15138, 15147 Terry Bell Pg506 Post 15156 Chuck Norton Post 15155 Terry Bell As I understand it, as of 1968 (maybe even before then informally), you could run any cam profile you wanted in NHRA stock, as long as it had factory lift, and factory “advertised” duration. In between, say at .050” lobe or .100” lobe, you could grind the cam as fat as the valve springs would allow. Did I get that right? MAIN (LONG) QUESTION: 1957-61 250-250 degree cam vs 1962-66 300-300 degree cam So then I thought, one reason the hydraulic Chevy cams did so well is, their advertised duration was “seat to seat”, so you had grocery-getter cams with “advertised” durations of over 300 degrees. That would leave a lot of “room” to grind a big fat cheater profile and still be within NHRA Stock rules. So it made sense, and also helped explain how those doggone little Mouse motors ran so well, namely the 55-57 Shoeboxes. But on looking deeper, the 1957-61 283 Chevy ran the 3733431 cam, with duration 250-250-111 advertised and .400 .400 lift. That’s not very “fat” – how much “cheater duration” could fit inside that envelope? Then in 1962-66 came the same cam, .400 .400 lift, but this cam #3732798, was advertised at 300-300-111 duration. LOTS of “room” in there to grind a cheater profile. I’m assuming both cams were near identical, about 186-186 duration (factory, non-cheater) at .050” lobe. So I’d expect the 1962-66 hydraulic Mouse motors to walk all over the 1957-61 hydraulic Mouses with the tighter-spec 250-250-111 cam. But we know that’s not how it turned out! I bet you could fit at least 40 degrees of extra .050 duration inside that 300-300 advertised cam and still meet the NHRA “stock” spec? I wonder if, at some point, the bigger-spec 1962-66 300-300 duration cam became the “replacement” cam for the 1957-61 cam, so then those cars (1957-61) could run a fatter profile too? Otherwise how would a “cheater” cam fit inside that little 250-250 duration envelope?
Need competent tech officials, Not just S/G, S/C, and S/ST safety tech officials. It cost the multi million dollar race ASSociation money to have people with some brains, takes to much time, to much electronic crap in late model junk cars of today, I could go on and on !
This thread has evolved into a really great history of Junior Stock. The innovation, you may call it something else, was just incredible. Thanks to all who have posted pics, history, stats and stories. Incredible times.
The Jalopy Journal
