1000 FT for everyone? (1 Viewer)

[scsp390]

the tradition of 1320 ft or the quarter mile does not means that much to me, i just find 1000ft racing, just to short and much less appealing

Yes, I completely agree with James. It is too short and not that appealing. Ok, here is the problem. In order for us to ever see a side/side 4 second drag race there has to be some MAJOR changes to TF & FC. In order to make these changes there has got to be Testing. Not Pre-season testing. I mean hard core testing. Well as long as NHRA is controlling the Nitro it will not happen.

I have also read on this topic that accidents/deaths happen before the 1,000 ft. mark. While that is correct the MAJORITY of crashes happen at the 1320 or right past that mark.

It should and will be a very interesting off season for NHRA. Who knows what will happen in '09. Stay tuned!!!!!

 

[racer83]

Quote "The choice is any fans as to whether they like or dislike the distance used in competition...but to justify it on some sort of tradition is a little thin. I can attest to the use of varying distances throughout my history in drag racing...tho the majority was 1320 feet...but it was not engraved in stone."


Thanks for the reply Dave my point exactly....

TK

 

[mike]

the tradition of 1320 ft or the quarter mile does not mean that much to me, i just find 1000ft racing, just to short and much less appealing

that's pretty much it...

(losing the "tradition" is just another straw on the camel's back)



btw, you could all hear Dave's voice in your mind when reading his post couldn't you?

 

[Rexfiles]

I could not have said this any better. If 1,000ft racing saves one life in the future then it is worth the change. I don't ever want to experience what I did at E-town this year again. What I don't get is how almost every driver likes 1,000ft racing but the people who are not in the seats are the ones saying it is the end of the world.

Careful Paul, lest you be ridiculed by dimbulbs that do not understand the difference in being there, experiencing the horror firsthand, and looking into the faces of Scotts family, crew, and friends, not to mention comrades (fellow racers), up close and personal. And watching it on the Boob (in their cases) tube.

I was, and those people with their snide comments, are idiots.

REX

 

[Toejam]

Hi all,

Just a quick note to follow up on Bob Cole's comments. I was there, working and racing in the dark ages of drag racing...and if you think the cars haven't changed, you probably could use a few good books and related information about the eras you are referencing.

While I have no idea how many races I have been to...most of which I was working as an announcer...I can recall that for over 30 years at least...I was working every NHRA National event...plus a host of divisional and local shows every year. As I recall...as early as 1964 I was working every weekend at some track across the country from the first of April till the end of October. So I guess that would count for quite a few, considering I worked as an announcer for 45 years.

The cars of today are dramatically different in so many ways...a whole lot not generally visible. But to me, the important thing is they are incredibly superior in safety over their early counterparts.

I unfortunately was on the working end of a large number of major incidents, both with serious injuries and too many fatalities. I can also tell you the majority came in the first couple of decades since my announcing debut in 1959.

The choice is any fans as to whether they like or dislike the distance used in competition...but to justify it on some sort of tradition is a little thin. I can attest to the use of varying distances throughout my history in drag racing...tho the majority was 1320 feet...but it was not engraved in stone.

The change coming after the Kalitta accident was one that lengthened the shutdown area of EVERY national event track with almost no expense to anyone. We will have to wait and see whether it stays or reverts back.

Till then, I would suggest you enjoy the competition, the cars, the noise, the spectacle...and most importantly, the people of drag racing.

In reality...the last item is what its all about.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

MaC

There you go Big Dave spoiling our rant with logic and facts! I've been to 3-1000' races (Denver, Seattle and Indy) and it took some getting used to at Denver for sure! But 2 TF Drivers who I knew were opposed to it at first told me they didn't think it was that bad! Now I've always sat in the 100 to 150' range on the track so how those who sit past half-track think about it is their call.

Since then I've heard from crew members and one team owner who told me 1000' has been a Godsend on Parts attrition! And for that I would rather NHRA keep the 1000' rather than Forcing all these costly engine changes to go back to 1320 at only 300 MPH! And one more thing; leave everybody else at 1320 please!

 

[Bobby]

Boy Joe you've sure softened your stance.

I 'm just honored Dave McClelland mentioned my name in a post , even if it was to disagree with me.

After I read my post I thought it was too harsh and maybe should have edited it, surely the cars have changed in 50 years, dramatically.

What I do think however , is that they have not changed dramatically in the last 20 years , and they need to.

I think when KB broke 300 ; that should have been the last speed barrier in the sport - they just don't need to go any faster. They don't even need to go that fast but I digress.

Watching the few rounds I've seen on TV bugs the crap out of me. I watched all races but one on the tube, so it matters .

I read Robert Post's book on the history of drag racing, obviously there were great strides made thru out most of drag racing's history.

I just don't see many people being grabbed by drag racing on the tv with this distance - and I only see it getting worse. What happens they reach 1320 speeds at 1000 pretty soon? Is this the only answer we can come up with ? A shorter track?

Dave , thanks.

 

[d'kid]

Bob,

Once more a 1000Ft tread is closing on 100 posts.

And I'm thinking we are NOT the Target Market, in fact I'm starting to think 'they' just wish us old timers would just go away...

Heck the sport has passed the MTV generation, it's now marketing toward today's INSTANT Gratification Generation. The I'm-a-Pod generation.

1/8th or even a 1/16th would make better TV... a whole race in an hour and a half live... heck they could have enclosed stadiums...

but I'll keep going, I'll keep watching... it's in the blood

d'kid

 

[FC138fan]

Drag racing (like football, baseball etc.) is a both a spectator sport and a participant sport. But televised professional drag racing (like the NFL, MLB) is a spectator sport.

If there were no spectators, there would be no market for investors (advertisers). If there were no investors, there would be no money. If there were no money there would be no professional sports.

If that were true, people would continue to play football, baseball (etc.) but they would play for fun, they would be participant sports. The players would not be professionals, though, and the games would be less fun to watch.

It seems to me that the NHRA is both racer friendly (with their sportsman classes) and fan friendly (with their pro classes), with the purpose of the professional classes being spectator friendly and the purpose of the sportsman classes to be racer friendly.

It is the professional classes we see on TV (like the Steelers, Cowboys, Yankees etc.) and the sportsman classes we don't see. You would then think that the NHRA would do all it could to satisfy the spectators of the sport if they want to continue the professional classes. It seems from all these posts that the majority of pure spectators want to see 1320' unrestricted whatever their justification is.

NHRA has a big decision to make. Do they go to 1000' foot and hope to attract enough younger fans to replace the old ones who are stuck on 1320, or do they go to 1320' and keep the old fans in addition to gaining those younger fans.

Do they go to 1320' and possibly lose well known drivers and hope to gain newer no name ones? (BTW has any big name said they would quit if they went back to 1320?) Or do they go to 1000' and keep all the drivers happy?

Can they find a solution that satisfies both spectators and racers?

These are difficult questions.

NHRA nitro racing is dangerous and risky. Is it more dangerous at 1320' then 1000', certainly. Is there some threshold of unacceptable risk that gets passed between 1000' and 1320', apparently. What happens in those 320' that pushes over that threshold - don't know for sure. Do they know how to fix those problems - not yet.

What is a good interim measure - cut the cars off at 1000' until they can identify and fix the problem.

If your a real fan, hang in there until the NHRA says "1000' is our permanent solution" Then you can either give it up, or deal with it. Keep in mind it may take lots of time (years) to propery answer those questions.

Me personally as a pure spectator, I'll keep going to the races and watch occasionally, even if it is only 1000'. But if 1000', or slowing the cars down is the their final answer, then I will be dissapointed in the NHRA for not finding the solutions to the problems at hand.

 

[Super Mod]

The die is cast. The bottom line will prevail. Too many positives going for the 1000 ft. fuel cars. My question is .....will this become the standard for everyone fuel.alcohol. and gas alike? That would be to my dismay.

 

[none]

IMO they should run a quarter mile at the tracks that can handle it, and run a 1000 feet at a select few. I think most tracks would be able to handle the 1320 (Pomona, Norwalk and few others being the exception). There's no reason the Motorplex can't handle a quarter mile especially after the improvements they made at the top end. Phoenix and Vegas run off into the desert there's no reason either one of those places couldn't do 1320. I don't like watching 1000 feet on TV, and like it even less in person. It probably hasn't effected them at the gate this year because A) people bought tickets for the races prior to 1000 feet being announced and B) some people will probably give it a shot in person and then decide if they want to return. They won't gain any fans over 1000 feet, but they will probably lose some.

 

[rollingthunder]

Where is the animated guy beating the horse at ?

 

[Z28LT1]

Ok, so it has been determined that the argument of the 1/4 mile being the traditionally accepted distance is thin, fine. With that said, the argument that "this is a performance sport" so let’s stay at 1000' is equally as thin. There have always been rules mandated to keep performances in check. I will name a few examples and am probably forgetting quite a few as well; the Nitro ban WAY back in the day, changing the rear end gear, putting the axe to the two speed blower, limiting the nitro percentage. Those are just examples; I know there are many more then that as well. Heck, you could even argue that oil down fines are in that mix as well if you use the thought that teams won't push it as hard as not to blow up and lose points and money. So, 1320' fans can't use tradition, 1000' fans can't use performance and advancement as an argument; now what? It’s all down to personal opinion now. Nobody is going to be able to change my mind as to how I think it should be, nor will I be able to convince anyone else who doesn't see thing my way to change there mind.

What does this all mean? I think it means that we are all wasting our breaths or life of our keyboard in this case.

If you'd like my opinion feel free to ask!

 

[d'kid]

This is 93... 7 more to 100 on the 90th 1000 ft thread

lmao... you're right Nate... the only one that can change my mind will be me in two weeks...

d'kid