Port 2014

Discuss Miscellaneous Fendered Car Racing
Post Reply
User avatar
vaportrails
Pit Member
Pit Member
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Perry County

Port 2014

Post by vaportrails » Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:31 pm

I think it's a great idea to have a second late model class and get rid of the pro stocks like they are doing. All the info about it is on the website.

User avatar
pajamie
Junior Crew Member
Junior Crew Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:31 pm

Re: Port 2014

Post by pajamie » Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:03 pm

we shall see...

sporttraveler
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Port 2014

Post by sporttraveler » Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:10 pm

I just read those rules nothing econo about them.

User avatar
pajamie
Junior Crew Member
Junior Crew Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:31 pm

Re: Port 2014

Post by pajamie » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:16 pm

shocks.. motor.. driveshaft... tire rule...

dustyroad
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:40 am

Re: Port 2014

Post by dustyroad » Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:36 am

I don't get Port's reason for changing the Pro Stocks. Most cars were late models with front factory clips. The fast cars were already chassis manufacter built race cars, Krape had a Sleeper chassis and Garman had a sleeper chassis. The body parts could be bought out of a speed shop or local auto parts. I don't understand why they said about the cash for clunkers affecting the car count if a team raced with a "stock" car they were taking a knife to a gun fight.

Also just what racing needs two classes of cars that look the same, it is bad enough that the 410s and 305s look the same now the late models. Port was great because the three main classes all looked different and a new fan could tell the classes apart well not anymore. And just try and get sponsors for cars that look the same but cost different to run. The potential sponsor can't figure out why you need more for a car that looks the same and runs at the same track the lower cost car does. Believe me I know of what I speak I own a 410, so I run into the 305 issue. Also I drove a pro stock in 2008 and am good friends with a pro stock team owner. So to me this move was not well thought out and if Port is going to change the class just go to 358 late models so the Port cars can run anywhere and cars can come to Port.

User avatar
hotrodney
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4714
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:44 pm
Location: 704 Houser St.

Re: Port 2014

Post by hotrodney » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:27 pm

I think the real reasons for the change are obviously the low car counts in the pro-stock division and also to create a feeder division for the LM's where all a team has to upgrade is the engine. In that sense I think it's a good idea but it will take time to grow. I'd expect very low car counts in this division next year. I don't think the problem with the pro-stocks is the availabilty of cars and parts as much as motor costs. I've heard reports of teams having $15-20,000 in a pro-stock motor. Maybe a crate late model class would be a better option. :dontknow: I wonder what the purse is gonna be like? Generally, even limited and crate lm's run for a much larger purse than pro-stocks.
Stimulate the economy- buy made in the USA.

sporttraveler
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Port 2014

Post by sporttraveler » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:43 pm

I think racers will buy 15-20 thousand dollar engines no matter what you call the class.If they really wanted to upgrade the pro stock class they could have let them use a LM frame and body along with coil-over gas filled shocks with solid 3 pt rear suspension with a floater or quick change rear with a mandatory gear ratio and the same motor (wet system) and tire rules. I think if any racer that had the money to run in this new class would be running in the 358 Late model class. That is why I stated there is nothing econo about this division.

User avatar
pajamie
Junior Crew Member
Junior Crew Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:31 pm

Re: Port 2014

Post by pajamie » Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:37 pm

they should have went with the same rules as williams grove or susky.. guys who wanted to run the 355 should have gotten a weight break.. add a 1600 RR tire rule.. open shocks.. wet sumps.. manual fuel pumps..

But whatever they do.. 1 rule I am totally against is the driveshaft rule.. Steel or aluminum drive shafts in my book should be outlawed...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests