1,000 foot debate - 1984 (1 Viewer)

[Bobby Bennett]

Drag Racing Internet Magazine - Competition Plus.com - 1,000-FOOT DEBATE - 24 YEARS AGO

 

[Tim5636sc]

Drag Racing Internet Magazine - Competition Plus.com - 1,000-FOOT DEBATE - 24 YEARS AGO

I remember this article Bobby. What I remember most about this were these two quotes:

First from Carl Olson:

"“These cars are racing on tracks built 15 – 20 years ago for cars going substantially slower. We realize that with 264 mph cars this year it won’t be long until we are looking at 275 mph and up. Overall, we are doing all we can to extend our knowledge of the pros and the cons of 1,000 foot racing. We realize there is a tradition at stake in this issue but in my mind that’s far outweighed by the importance of safety to our racers and fans.”


Then from "Big":

“I can’t help but think that 1,000 foot strips would help make things safer,” Garlits said. “It’s a cold hard fact that you’d go slower plus have a couple extra hundred feet to slow down."

The fact is that 1000' has been on the mind of many people for many years. I'm glad NHRA finally took a stand and made the change.


Good write-up Bobby!

 

[Toejam]

To Think they panicked at the fact the cars were headed to 275 MPH?

 

[Rajunz]

The one thing that the story points out is that, since 1000' racing, I cannot recall any nitro cars in the sand traps, so that part is working.

This is really interesting, over 40 years ago, yet still in the interest of safely stopping the cars.

It was written in relation to the death of Q-Ball Wales in Monroe, Louisiana.

Near the bottom.
Cupit & Cunninham Dragster

 

[Z28LT1]

The one thing that the story points out is that, since 1000' racing, I cannot recall any nitro cars in the sand traps, so that part is working.[/IMG]

We'll see after Pomona if that is still the case...

 

[mick]

so 25 years later they're going 330mph on the same tracks.........
but the tires and the brakes and parachutes are so much better now
(that has to be the argument? right?)

for the 100th time.
slow em' down and runem' to 1320
or 1)put a wall between lanes and 2)fix or get rid of short tracks
and go for 340 @ 4.40

 

[Bobby]

It's like asking Daytona 500 fans to not mind if they knock down the high banks at the corners.
Or if they mind cup cars running the road course instead of the big track.

Since they referred to restrictor plates - how well have the stock car tuners overcame the restrictions at Daytona and Talladega? They haven't. They are running slower than the did even 10 years ago.

And no one cares...it's not all about speed, it's about racing, too.

 

[Super Mod]

Is this the year that a bunch of fans sat in the stands at Indy with a sign/banner saying "the thousand foot club"?

 

[Wes]

One of the biggest safety advances to come out of the early 80's top-end wrecks was the advent of properly designed and manufactured front wheels/tires. Goodyear built a great new front tire and all of the major wheel manufacurers came up with better wheels. Streaker even had a bead-lock front wheel. Soon after parachutes and brakes drastically improved and the issues subsided.

Expect NASCAR to shorten all but the "major" events in the near future...not for safety but for television. All the networks are looking for them to condense their package by shortening the duration of the races. The Daytona 500, the 600 at Charlotte, and The Brickyard are all safe at their current distances, but the rest of the races are subject to a reduction in length.

 

[Bobby]

well shortening the number of laps isn't the same as shortening the distance of a lap. There are only two laps worth watching anyway, the first, and the last.

 

[Wes]

Back when I cared about NASCAR I could watch the start of the race, take a nice long nap, and wake up for the end. I'd never feel like I missed anything!!

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Mike we've seen what happens when nhra restricts. They tryied , less nitro, different tires (several times), wing angels, tire presure, rev limiters, ect. Just made more blow-ups.

Running 1,000ft does NOT change the ture up. You gota admitt there have been FAR LESS blow ups, no trips into the sand, no tire failures. But we are seeing closer racing, we have the sound back (90%) and more runs with BOTH cars under power at the finish. Whats not to like??

Also we don't lose any tracks and thats a good thing. Give it a chance, you'll like it.

 

[Bob K.]

The reason for the "thousand foot solution" back then was that NHRA's Insurance carrier was going nuts over the speeds then. They got a new Insurance carrier and everything was cool. By the way the say intelligent (?) people at the time were saying "should nitro be banned" (That name is on a previous post, so I won't mention it. By the way, Melanie Troxel, driving the IN'Out car went 311, no chutes and stopped 10' from the trap AT POMONA. A good catch net at Pomona would take car of unexpected problems. I like the thousand foot deal now only because of the ignition retarders. 1/4 mile IS DRAG RACING but with other classes so close. What do I know, I am just rattleling on. BK

 

[MW]

Running 1,000ft does NOT change the ture up. You gota admitt there have been FAR LESS blow ups, no trips into the sand, no tire failures. But we are seeing closer racing, we have the sound back (90%) and more runs with BOTH cars under power at the finish. Whats not to like??

Also we don't lose any tracks and thats a good thing. Give it a chance, you'll like it.

Yeah, Antron has the same tune-up!!!! Lee Beard flat out said the tune up has changed. Do you think he's alone? GET A CLUE!!! 1000' SUCKS AND ALWAYS WILL!!!!

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

They are always making minor changes to the tune up. But new restrictions on the cars to "slow" them just to go 320 more ft. would just put us back to the blow up days.

Like Coil said, "we have already been racing to 1,000ft". So no major tune change, no cost to the less funded teams, and oh yes IT'S SAFER

 

[MW]

They are always making minor changes to the tune up. But new restrictions on the cars to "slow" them just to go 320 more ft. would just put us back to the blow up days.

Like Coil said, "we have already been racing to 1,000ft". So no major tune change, no cost to the less funded teams, and oh yes IT'S SAFER

It amazes me how gullible some people are.

 

[mike]

It amazes me how gullible some people are.

What about it being 'safer' ? Come on Mark, both you and I know going 1000ft has made it sooo much 'safer'

 

[MW]

What about it being 'safer' ? Come on Mark, both you and I know going 1000ft has made it sooo much 'safer'

If it was a TEMPORARY thing I could accept it, but changing the field (track) of any REAL sport is UNACCEPTABLE. Batters in Major League Baseball have been hit in the head, but they did'nt change to whiffle balls. NFL players have been parylzed , but they did'nt switch to flags. NASCAR lost their greatest driver, but still races at Daytona. Sports, especially motorsports are dangerous, and I applaud every effort to make them safer, but changing the field (track) and the history of a sport is not the answer (IMO).

 

[Mooseman]

To the person who said putting a wall between the lanes , I think physics can proove that being a bad idea . Heres is a lamens explanation as to why , If you get a tennis ball and 2 walls facing eachother that are far apart and throw it at one of the walls it will bounce back and hit the other wall but because they are far apart the rebound hit is less hard because the distance between walls allows the force to dissapate . If you put the walls close together and do the same experiment then you will the ball will keep bouncing between both walls because it doesnt have to travel as far . In otherwords if you put the walls close together you will just get nitro pinball .

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Good point. Thats why I'm against the track side walls we have now. They create an accident/crash, needlessly.