Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
1/4 mile or 1000ft
- Thread starter camaro
- Start date
Andy
Nitro Member
Give me 1320 
That's what Wally Parks founded the sport on.
1,000' just has to go. That'd be like NFL cutting the game to 3 quarters to reduce risk of injury. It's be like MLB cutting the games to 6 innings to reduce fatigue, or NASCAR cutting the Daytona 500 to 350 miles to reduce the risk of the big one, or hockey games being reduced to 1 period to reduce risk of injury.
Does it actually work? No. It just looks like a good safety plan on paper.
That's what Wally Parks founded the sport on.
1,000' just has to go. That'd be like NFL cutting the game to 3 quarters to reduce risk of injury. It's be like MLB cutting the games to 6 innings to reduce fatigue, or NASCAR cutting the Daytona 500 to 350 miles to reduce the risk of the big one, or hockey games being reduced to 1 period to reduce risk of injury.
Does it actually work? No. It just looks like a good safety plan on paper.
Give me 1320
That's what Wally Parks founded the sport on.
1,000' just has to go. That'd be like NFL cutting the game to 3 quarters to reduce risk of injury. It's be like MLB cutting the games to 6 innings to reduce fatigue, or NASCAR cutting the Daytona 500 to 350 miles to reduce the risk of the big one, or hockey games being reduced to 1 period to reduce risk of injury.
Does it actually work? No. It just looks like a good safety plan on paper.
Well said.
Last edited:
mick
Nitro Member
race to the 1/4 with less speed & e.t. = setback of current technology.
also lengthen tracks that can, dump those that can't.
i'm not opposed to it and would prefer it.
race to the 1000' with current technology = sport still innovating within present
rules, not setback leaving comments of 'how it used to be'
also lengthen tracks that can, dump those that can't.
i'm not opposed to it and would prefer it.
race to the 1000' with current technology = sport still innovating within present
rules, not setback leaving comments of 'how it used to be'
Z28LT1
Nitro Member
Mike,
There have always been rules mandated to keep performances in check going bact to the 80's or even sooner. I will name a few examples and am probably forgetting quite a few as well; changing the rear end gear, putting the axe to the two speed blower, limiting the nitro percentage, moveing the spped trap back (ok, this ones a stretch), adding more and more weight. We've all come to live with them being slowed down, over the last 25 years it's become a fact of life in drag racing.
Just my $.02
Last edited:
Meeks
Nitro Member
Give me 1320
That's what Wally Parks founded the sport on.
1,000' just has to go. That'd be like NFL cutting the game to 3 quarters to reduce risk of injury. It's be like MLB cutting the games to 6 innings to reduce fatigue, or NASCAR cutting the Daytona 500 to 350 miles to reduce the risk of the big one, or hockey games being reduced to 1 period to reduce risk of injury.
Does it actually work? No. It just looks like a good safety plan on paper.
You're exactly right!
The 1000' doesn't bug me as much as it bugs others but I feel like drag racing is meant to be 1320 not 1000 so lets keep it that way.
Gordon
Nitro Member
I'm a traditionalist like a lot of other folks, but I voted for 1,000 feet. There's a time to hold onto tradition and there's a time to evaluate the necessity for change. I feel this is a time to evaluate the necessity for change.
For a long, long time death and serious injury were extremely rare in our beloved sport - but not lately. As injuries and unfortunate deaths have increased, we've all but depleted the options, within reason, that can be applied to the cars themselves. At no time, until now, has anyone made an attempt to change the racing surface itself - which is EXACTLY what NASCAR did following Dale Sr.'s tragic loss - they looked at the track itself. Tracks can only extend the shutdown area so far, so the logical compromise is to shorten the racing surface... particularly if we're interested in preserving at least some tradition. Pomona? Englishtown? I'm sure there are others, but these are traditionally great places to race. By forcing an extended shutdown area we would be asking NHRA to eliminate these two facilities from the tour. Where's the tradition in that? Is it perfect? No. But it beats the hell out of burying my heroes.
In closing, consider this. What if when you went to your first drag race, regardless of when, it was 1,000. That's all you would've known, right? These race cars are still the baddest machines on the planet, bar none.
For a long, long time death and serious injury were extremely rare in our beloved sport - but not lately. As injuries and unfortunate deaths have increased, we've all but depleted the options, within reason, that can be applied to the cars themselves. At no time, until now, has anyone made an attempt to change the racing surface itself - which is EXACTLY what NASCAR did following Dale Sr.'s tragic loss - they looked at the track itself. Tracks can only extend the shutdown area so far, so the logical compromise is to shorten the racing surface... particularly if we're interested in preserving at least some tradition. Pomona? Englishtown? I'm sure there are others, but these are traditionally great places to race. By forcing an extended shutdown area we would be asking NHRA to eliminate these two facilities from the tour. Where's the tradition in that? Is it perfect? No. But it beats the hell out of burying my heroes.
In closing, consider this. What if when you went to your first drag race, regardless of when, it was 1,000. That's all you would've known, right? These race cars are still the baddest machines on the planet, bar none.
Leebone
Nitro Member
If the NHRA is reading this, PLEASE don't slow down the fuel cars, if that's what it takes to go back to 1320. That extra 320 means a hill of beans to me if you have to slow the cars down to accommodate it. We've already had alcohol car tragedies at the quarter mile. How far will you have to slow the Top Fuel and Funny Cars to race the quarter mile, ......down to Pro Stock speed??? We already have that class.
I'm fine with 1000 feet. It's made the races very interesting. Please don't take power away from those magnificent machines. Feeling the ground shake when they launch is part of the appeal for me.
Just my honest opinion as a fan.
Leebone
I'm fine with 1000 feet. It's made the races very interesting. Please don't take power away from those magnificent machines. Feeling the ground shake when they launch is part of the appeal for me.
Just my honest opinion as a fan.
Leebone
kingcobrafan
Nitro Member
If NHRA has tracks that are so unsafe that they're thinking of going to 1000 feet for everyone, then they've got no business racing at such tracks in the first place. I voted for 1320. If they stay at 1000 feet for nitro only, I'd hate it, but I'd accept it to get my nitro fix if I were able to watch the other classes at 1320. If they go to 1000 feet across the board, I'll yank my 09 Gators motel reservation and look at nostalgia meets instead. And if Glendora screws those up as well, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Tim5636sc
Nitro Member
ok....I'll play this game.
I say keep it at 1000'....
The TOP FUEL and FUNNY CAR catagories of today have OUTGROWN the ability to realistically go back to 1320' and here are a few reasons why.
a) How are you going to slow the cars down to right at 300 mph at 1320'? No matter what you do, there will be a HUGE initial cost in doing this. A SPEC Compression Ratio perhaps....a shorter gear...Single Mag and smaller fuel pumps, changes in clutch management systems? All great ideas, and all new parts and they will cost a lot of money to develop these systems..... then, we need to apply it to the race track. This means....
b) Increase in COST in testing for all teams. With these new set ups it will take at least a dozen or so runs to get a FIRM baseline set-up. Some of the major teams may be able to do this, but many of the smaller teams will not. So, if they don't that means Pomona, Phoenix, Houston, Gainsville, and perhaps Vegas will be some really boring, tire smoking racing.
c) Once the cars are "SET UP" to run 4.70's @ 300 how long will it be until they "tune them up" to run 4.60's @ 310?....then 4.50's @ 320? We'll be right where we left off in Englishtown. Also, how are you going to fix tracks like Pomona and Englishtown and increase the distance in the shut down area, to help get them stopped? How many times have we seen cars going into the BEACH at Pomona...and many of these are with chutes that are a "TAD" bit late. The extra 320' to get those chutes out, get on the brakes have really helped stop these cars.
Believe me, I am a fan of our sport, and truly understand and appreciate our sports history. But, times and technology have changed. These cars just can not slow down much more. Not without many HUGE changes in the way these cars are built and tuned, and HUGE improvements to many of our tracks...(which are physically impossible at some of our most historic tracks) and an increase of budget in running these cars, which I don't know of any team that can afford this. Are we ready to have a season of R & D just to keep the 1320' race track? I like the 1000' racing. The pro "SHOW" runs better, the racing is closer, and like it was stated in another thread, "the DRIVERS" are able to WIN more races.
Keep the 1/4 mile for cars under 280....but let the nitro cars provide a better "SHOW" at 1000'.
I say keep it at 1000'....
The TOP FUEL and FUNNY CAR catagories of today have OUTGROWN the ability to realistically go back to 1320' and here are a few reasons why.
a) How are you going to slow the cars down to right at 300 mph at 1320'? No matter what you do, there will be a HUGE initial cost in doing this. A SPEC Compression Ratio perhaps....a shorter gear...Single Mag and smaller fuel pumps, changes in clutch management systems? All great ideas, and all new parts and they will cost a lot of money to develop these systems..... then, we need to apply it to the race track. This means....
b) Increase in COST in testing for all teams. With these new set ups it will take at least a dozen or so runs to get a FIRM baseline set-up. Some of the major teams may be able to do this, but many of the smaller teams will not. So, if they don't that means Pomona, Phoenix, Houston, Gainsville, and perhaps Vegas will be some really boring, tire smoking racing.
c) Once the cars are "SET UP" to run 4.70's @ 300 how long will it be until they "tune them up" to run 4.60's @ 310?....then 4.50's @ 320? We'll be right where we left off in Englishtown. Also, how are you going to fix tracks like Pomona and Englishtown and increase the distance in the shut down area, to help get them stopped? How many times have we seen cars going into the BEACH at Pomona...and many of these are with chutes that are a "TAD" bit late. The extra 320' to get those chutes out, get on the brakes have really helped stop these cars.
Believe me, I am a fan of our sport, and truly understand and appreciate our sports history. But, times and technology have changed. These cars just can not slow down much more. Not without many HUGE changes in the way these cars are built and tuned, and HUGE improvements to many of our tracks...(which are physically impossible at some of our most historic tracks) and an increase of budget in running these cars, which I don't know of any team that can afford this. Are we ready to have a season of R & D just to keep the 1320' race track? I like the 1000' racing. The pro "SHOW" runs better, the racing is closer, and like it was stated in another thread, "the DRIVERS" are able to WIN more races.
Keep the 1/4 mile for cars under 280....but let the nitro cars provide a better "SHOW" at 1000'.
Z28LT1
Nitro Member
I think with DA's plan, it will be simple to slow them down once they get too quick again. once the first growing pain is over, it will be much easier to keep them where they're at.
The biggest problem is the way NHRA has decided to slow them down over the last 25 years. They have done several things, but the one thing they did over and over is to throw more weight on them. Let’s think about that action for a moment. I'm sure we have all hauled a trailer before (ask Paul Songas about hauling trailers, Ha ha sorry Paul). It takes a little longer to stop with that extra weight, huh? Well, NHRA has kept adding weight again and again, in the area of 500+ pounds in the last 25 years. 500 pounds is a four wheeler, that's a lot of weight!!! Now, what were the running 25 years ago vs. now? See the problem yet? Your going to have a problem stopping 500 extra pounds while going 60, 70, even 80 MPH faster then they were 20 to 25 years ago. I know braking materials have changed in the last 20 years, but I think a lot of it was to save weight, not to help then stop better, plus, I haven’t seen and major advancement in the chutes over this time. NHRA just kept making short term fixes to a long coming problem; basically swept it under the rug all of these years. Now the problem is perceived to be so bad they actually have to shorten the racing surface. I’m not saying that the added weight is the one and only thing that has lead us to where we are at now, but it is a BIG part of the problem.
Were not solving the BIG problem here, we are just putting another band aid on it. I think that is why people are saying “what happens when they get to fast or dangerous again in 1000’? 1/8 mile?”.
The time has come to stop covering up the problems with a band aid. It’s time for long over due surgery. Yes, the healing prosess is always longer after surgery, but the results are always better in the long run.
Last edited:
yoda
Nitro Member
Sounds good, but it again comes back to that argument that some teams will take a while to catch up to the "retro-technology" that would be necessary to go slower, to say nothing of the cost to revert to the new pieces. Cost is an amazing thing with this sport- no matter how high it goes, there always seems to be several cars, of all different financial levels, competing in the sport.. What really is the budget to run a nitro car, with just the bare minimum in expenses- enough vehicle to get the car to the track, enough parts to service it for a weekend, and enough people to handle that job? Anybody know what a bare bones team does it on?
Tim5636sc
Nitro Member
24 events...might be able to be done for $900K...MAYBE...and that's sleepin in the trailer, PBJ for lunches...you know the drill...
yoda
Nitro Member
So, the operative word there is "retro"....
Amazing, just amazing... A mil to go racing on the cheap. How the hell did that happen Timmah?
John D.
Nitro Member
Me? I'm OK with 1,000'. If the alternative is to not be able to race at certain tracks, then as a competitor, I'm OK if we even have go to 1/8-mile. Racing is racing. Yes the speed is thrilling, but the competition is really what it's all about. We have a story in our newest edition of Drag Racing Action Magazine which deals with the whole issue of slowing the fuel cars down. It's an editorial type piece by Phil Elliott, but it brings up some important points. "...100% safety in 100% of all scenarios is an unrealistic goal." But we need to do what we can to help the situation. As racers, we always will push the envelope (or rulebook) to go faster regardless of the restrictions placed on us. Even at 1,000' we're seeing 300-mph. Left alone, we'll probably see 310, then 320, etc. The obvious answer would be to lengthen the shutdown areas, but that's unrealistic. So if the the question is race or not race, then shorten to whatever is necessary. We'll get over it.
John DiBartolomeo
John DiBartolomeo
FC138fan
Nitro Member
If you could travel through time would you rather go to a drag race in 1988 or 2008?
I'd rather see 1988 even with slower times and speeds. The cars were still loud (maybe louder on 100% nitro), still the fastest and quickest motorsport, still competitive. But there were more cars, and they were running a quarter mile. The cars looked better back then too I think.. the engines still had some chrome on them.
If they only restrict performance, then 1000' unrestricted is better.
If they radically change the class (which they won't) by changing body styles (to better resemble production cars instead of bubble mobiles - ya know a more nostalgic look), and somehow find a way to increase car counts by making it cheaper to run- then a slower 1/4 mile would be better.
Although the latter would piss alot of tuners and drivers off and cost a TON of money up front so I guess realistically 1000' is the way to go.
I'd rather see 1988 even with slower times and speeds. The cars were still loud (maybe louder on 100% nitro), still the fastest and quickest motorsport, still competitive. But there were more cars, and they were running a quarter mile. The cars looked better back then too I think.. the engines still had some chrome on them.
If they only restrict performance, then 1000' unrestricted is better.
If they radically change the class (which they won't) by changing body styles (to better resemble production cars instead of bubble mobiles - ya know a more nostalgic look), and somehow find a way to increase car counts by making it cheaper to run- then a slower 1/4 mile would be better.
Although the latter would piss alot of tuners and drivers off and cost a TON of money up front so I guess realistically 1000' is the way to go.
None of the above !
