MM
Nitro Member
hehehehe rapid said dicking
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
hehehehe rapid said dicking
mike
Nitro Member
I'm sorry Tim, but shaving off 320 is still not the answer! Honestly bro, 320 is nothing, sure it might be saving some wear and tear, but rid the rev limiter, and you wouldn't have all those blow ups! Then again Maple Grove we saw the same problems as in the past, so sorry b, I don't buy the 1000ft makes a difference crap! Having better shutdown areas incase of the unthinkable is what needs to seriously be looked at here... Trust me, my man Steve should not have walked away from his crash in Australia, but I think our sand traps are very good and up to scratch! Mind you our shut down areas could be longer, but least our sand traps did what sand traps were made for!
Tim, and the rest of you, did you think after all those incidents with people not stopping and going into the traps in the past, that the nhra should cut the track distance back then? I know the answer it was a NO! 1000 ft is a knee jerk reaction, and not a real fix! Fixing the tracks is the answer!
This is a real good read....
Drag Racing Internet Magazine - Competition Plus.com - ONE RACER ASKS: WHY WASN’T ATLANTA SHUTDOWN UPDATED?
Few quotes from it...
“I want someone to explain to me how the NHRA can own a track and not outfit it with the same safety stuff (that) Bruton Smith does,” Naves asked. “Please explain to me how I’m here three weeks later, making arrangements to attend his funeral because he drove through the catch net and cut it in half. Is it because the fuel cars won’t be back until spring?
sic] “?????.nhra Wants All Of Us To Spend Money On Making Our Cars Safe,when Are They Going To Make The Tracks Safe? My 2 Cents”
I rest my case!
Tim, and the rest of you, did you think after all those incidents with people not stopping and going into the traps in the past, that the nhra should cut the track distance back then? I know the answer it was a NO! 1000 ft is a knee jerk reaction, and not a real fix! Fixing the tracks is the answer!
This is a real good read....
Drag Racing Internet Magazine - Competition Plus.com - ONE RACER ASKS: WHY WASN’T ATLANTA SHUTDOWN UPDATED?
Few quotes from it...
“I want someone to explain to me how the NHRA can own a track and not outfit it with the same safety stuff (that) Bruton Smith does,” Naves asked. “Please explain to me how I’m here three weeks later, making arrangements to attend his funeral because he drove through the catch net and cut it in half. Is it because the fuel cars won’t be back until spring?
sic] “?????.nhra Wants All Of Us To Spend Money On Making Our Cars Safe,when Are They Going To Make The Tracks Safe? My 2 Cents”
I rest my case!
Tim5636sc
Nitro Member
"Tim, and the rest of you, did you think after all those incidents with people not stopping and going into the traps in the past, that the nhra should cut the track distance back then? I know the answer it was a NO! 1000 ft is a knee jerk reaction, and not a real fix! Fixing the tracks is the answer!"
ACUTUALLY... YES!!! I have been thinking that these cars have been going to fast for years, and that the shut down areas were not good enough to slow them down safely...
I have thought for the past 10 + years that we should shorten the distance of the track for the pro cars, and that the shut down areas have been not long enough to slow these cars down when "S#IT Happens". I grew up going to pomona every year and every year there was Someone who took a trip to the beach, and not just Top Fuel or Funny car either. Most of the time, it was an alcohol car! Once Bernstein hit 300 in Gainsville, both my Dad and I asked, "well, how long until 310....320...330...? and how the hell are they going to slow them down...AFTER THEY CLICK THE THROTTLE!
Besides Bruton Smith, Bill Bader and John Bandimere, how many track owners do you know that spend serious money to fix their facilities? I'll go one better....How many Physically can? So, if a track can not Extend the shut down area an extra 500' lets say does NHRA hold them to Ransom and cancel the EVENT???
The sand trap improvements NEED to happen at EVERY NHRA Sanctioned Facility, and the cars need to run to 1000'. This is how to take the safety of the drivers seriously. I agree about taking off the rev limiter. Let them see what they can do, FULL OUT to 1000'!!! If an incident occures, like:
-Throttle Stuck
-No Chutes
-Tire Failure
-Chassis Failure
-Engine explosion
then the drivers have more distance to get them stopped. Many of our tracks over here, are restricted to what they can do with the distance of the shut down area, but everyone of them can and should improve the sand trap!
Knee Jerk reaction....? Perhaps with the people in Glendora...but not this guy! Sorry Michael, YOU are wrong to assume you know how I have been thinking for the past 10 + years.
ACUTUALLY... YES!!! I have been thinking that these cars have been going to fast for years, and that the shut down areas were not good enough to slow them down safely...
I have thought for the past 10 + years that we should shorten the distance of the track for the pro cars, and that the shut down areas have been not long enough to slow these cars down when "S#IT Happens". I grew up going to pomona every year and every year there was Someone who took a trip to the beach, and not just Top Fuel or Funny car either. Most of the time, it was an alcohol car! Once Bernstein hit 300 in Gainsville, both my Dad and I asked, "well, how long until 310....320...330...? and how the hell are they going to slow them down...AFTER THEY CLICK THE THROTTLE!
Besides Bruton Smith, Bill Bader and John Bandimere, how many track owners do you know that spend serious money to fix their facilities? I'll go one better....How many Physically can? So, if a track can not Extend the shut down area an extra 500' lets say does NHRA hold them to Ransom and cancel the EVENT???
The sand trap improvements NEED to happen at EVERY NHRA Sanctioned Facility, and the cars need to run to 1000'. This is how to take the safety of the drivers seriously. I agree about taking off the rev limiter. Let them see what they can do, FULL OUT to 1000'!!! If an incident occures, like:
-Throttle Stuck
-No Chutes
-Tire Failure
-Chassis Failure
-Engine explosion
then the drivers have more distance to get them stopped. Many of our tracks over here, are restricted to what they can do with the distance of the shut down area, but everyone of them can and should improve the sand trap!
Knee Jerk reaction....? Perhaps with the people in Glendora...but not this guy! Sorry Michael, YOU are wrong to assume you know how I have been thinking for the past 10 + years.
mike
Nitro Member
Tim,
point taken bud, but I was more pointing out that people were not thinking cutting 320 off the track, after times got faster! Well the IHRA said let's go to the 1/8 at San Antonio, because it's too short to run the qtr mile.
I just don't think 1000 ft is the answer Tim. I just had a conversation with a friend who races in TF, and he said there is no problem with 1320, the main problem is the rev limiter and stating a nitro engine can't be retarded. I too have thought and other on here have said the rev limiter was and is a bad idea. Other issues were discussed, but the bottom line was 1000ft does not make a difference.
But Tim if we all had the same train of thought, the world would be a boring place bro.
Michael
onfire
Nitro Member
That 10 word sentence says an awful lot to me, Greggo. Wonder where the reporter got that little tidbit from? You don't think Glendora is actually paying attention to their fan base, do you?! Nah, I don't think so.
Late.................Mitch
MW
Nitro Member
I'm right with you. I wish NHRA would make that statement official so I can start going to the races again. We have a group of 10-15 that has attended every day of EVERY National Event contested at Vegas, and my brother and I have not missed a Southern California National Event since 1970 until now. 1320' means EVERYTHING to us.
Walter
Nitro Member
I know there are some strong feelings on this, but there are also some harsh economic realities out there...most of which folks in the thread have recognized.
Safety (and insurance concerns) mandates a change and slower speeds. Runaway costs are driving competitors and sponsors from the sport.
Going to 1000’ is easy, saves money, meets the goals outlined above and really does not change anything. It gives us less speed and more distance and time to keep the drivers safe in one brush stroke.
If you try to slow the cars thru spec changes you will cost the teams a lot of $$$, in times when money is very short, trying to find the new combo. They have the 1000’ racing figured out now.
Every tuner says that the cars are dying after 1000’ and that ending the track there saves a lot of $$$. Alan Johnson, and a number of others, say the rev limiter ends the racing (unless someone breaks) at 1000’ anyway.
We have had more races all the way to the finish line at 1000' than we used to see (due to less breakage). This is better racing and makes a better show for the spectators and for the TV audience.
Changing the tracks dramatically is just not possible in most areas due to land non-availability issues and many of the major sugested fixes would cost huge money when the tracks simply cannot afford it.
Lastly, most folks in the stands cannot tell who wins at 1320 w/o the win lights and most folks cannot discern the difference between a 300 mph and a 330 mph pass anyway.
If we want to keep tracks open and cars in the field, we need to save, not spend more, money. These concerns, when coupled with insurance and the overriding safety issues, seem to mandate 1000’ from now on. Changing circumstances sometimes just require a change from the traditional ways of doing things.
Safety (and insurance concerns) mandates a change and slower speeds. Runaway costs are driving competitors and sponsors from the sport.
Going to 1000’ is easy, saves money, meets the goals outlined above and really does not change anything. It gives us less speed and more distance and time to keep the drivers safe in one brush stroke.
If you try to slow the cars thru spec changes you will cost the teams a lot of $$$, in times when money is very short, trying to find the new combo. They have the 1000’ racing figured out now.
Every tuner says that the cars are dying after 1000’ and that ending the track there saves a lot of $$$. Alan Johnson, and a number of others, say the rev limiter ends the racing (unless someone breaks) at 1000’ anyway.
We have had more races all the way to the finish line at 1000' than we used to see (due to less breakage). This is better racing and makes a better show for the spectators and for the TV audience.
Changing the tracks dramatically is just not possible in most areas due to land non-availability issues and many of the major sugested fixes would cost huge money when the tracks simply cannot afford it.
Lastly, most folks in the stands cannot tell who wins at 1320 w/o the win lights and most folks cannot discern the difference between a 300 mph and a 330 mph pass anyway.
If we want to keep tracks open and cars in the field, we need to save, not spend more, money. These concerns, when coupled with insurance and the overriding safety issues, seem to mandate 1000’ from now on. Changing circumstances sometimes just require a change from the traditional ways of doing things.
Last edited:
Doug in the woods
Nitro Member
I was against the 1000 ft racing until I saw how close the cars are at when crossing the finish line.
Makes for a better show IMHO
the teams are not spening as much for parts and the rev limiter is now a mute subject.
keep the 1000 ft
Makes for a better show IMHO
the teams are not spening as much for parts and the rev limiter is now a mute subject.
keep the 1000 ft
Rumblebones
Nitro Member
Tracks that have safer shut off ares, 1320'.
Tracks that don't have safer shut off ares, 1000'.
If NHRA is so he11 bent on being like NASCAR. There you go. NHRA will have "superspeedways" and "short tracks", just like NASCAR.
I prefer 1320', but a variety between the two lengths wouldn't be bad option either.
Now, when are they gonna install loop-de-loops at half track and jumps at the finish line?
Tracks that don't have safer shut off ares, 1000'.
If NHRA is so he11 bent on being like NASCAR. There you go. NHRA will have "superspeedways" and "short tracks", just like NASCAR.
I prefer 1320', but a variety between the two lengths wouldn't be bad option either.
Now, when are they gonna install loop-de-loops at half track and jumps at the finish line?
Walter
Nitro Member
My concerns about about doing this include the confusion over two sets of speed and et records and potentially different tune-ups for longer tracks which = more $$$ and testing time. There is also no doubt that the longer tracks kill more equipment (= more $$$ spent) which is not good when we are faced with a shrinking number of pro teams and declining sponsorship revenue.
