What's new
By:
Filters

1000' or 1320' for 2009 (1 Viewer)

I would hope that they would return to the full 1320 by next year. There are countless people who refuse to watch / attend racing to the 1000' mark. As far as the cutoff at 305 MPH, that just seems stupid to me. Race your car to the max, not to a pre-determined speed.
 
I heard talk of teams in Brainerd wanting to return to 1320.... and it wasn't a Pedregon. :eek:

It also sounds like they're going to give Dale Armstrong's solution a try.
 
i'm ok with slower speeds.....i think i can tell the difference between
1000' and 1320' much easier than i can tell between 300mph & 330mph.

slower to 1320' without rev limiters (or similar) would be my preference.
will still watch and attend whatever the decision.
 
I really hope they get back to 1320' next year. I see the Dallas "roll call" thread and cringe because I had every intention of being there this year after going to Memphis last year. I will not drive, for now, 8 hours or so for 1000' racing. If it stays at 1000' next year I may have to change my attitude because I'm not sure I can stay away that long. Tony Schumacher owes me big too. I quit playing the fantasy games. I used to pick Schu every week. He's picked it up a bit since I quit playing. It goes right along with my Sean Alexander pick in last years NFL draft, and the two times that I had Jerry Rice (his worst 2 years in the NFL) and way too many other picks that didn't turn out so well. Anyway, back on subject, the cars will have to be slowed down eventually and not just the Nitro cars. The alky classes are not too far behind where the nitro cars were not too long ago.
 
Registered member said:
It goes right along with my Sean Alexander pick in last years NFL draft, and the two times that I had Jerry Rice (his worst 2 years in the NFL) and way too many other picks that didn't turn out so well.
Click to expand...
Don't feel bad I picked Tom Brady and Randy Moss #1 and #2 this year, this could be a long season :rolleyes: . Sorry for the hijack. I agree with 1000' for the tracks that can't be lengthened but return to 1320' without any limitations for the tracks that can be.
 
Well if they take a vote, I'ld vote 1,000'. I like seeing BOTH cars under power at the finish line instead of one or both coasting.

Also no more costly restrictions. Like Coil said "We're already racing to 1,000ft. " no change in set up.
jmo-Zap
 
I also say bring the safer bring the SAFER barriers from the NASCAR world to the tracks. Can't be that costly to implement.

As for 1000' or 1320,' I say only having 1000' on tracks that can't be lengthened is a good compromise. I also like the ideas for slowing them down, as a spectator I can't really tell the difference between a 305mph run and a 330mph run.
 
Can anyone explain why low compression pistons and a pulley set would cost the the dollar amounts that were quoted?
 
Registered member said:
Can anyone explain why low compression pistons and a pulley set would cost the the dollar amounts that were quoted?
Click to expand...

I think the parts are cheap. (relatively) I think it's the testing that would be required to dial-in a new tuneup that would be expensive.

I could be dead wrong though.
 
Registered member said:
I think the parts are cheap. (relatively) I think it's the testing that would be required to dial-in a new tuneup that would be expensive.

I could be dead wrong though.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that the the new combo would be more durable? If so, this would give more safety and lower operating cost.
 
we need 1320 back! i love how some people said 1,000 ft would make it more competitive. howd that work out huh ?????? $humacher hasnt lost and wont loose again under the 1,000ft scam . either tony p or beckman will win f/c , but pro stock still running 1320 ft is still very competitive.
 
Registered member said:
Well if they take a vote, I'ld vote 1,000'. I like seeing BOTH cars under power at the finish line instead of one or both coasting.

Also no more costly restrictions. Like Coil said "We're already racing to 1,000ft. " no change in set up.
jmo-Zap
Click to expand...
I agree Paul, I'd rather see 317mph in 1000' over 305mph in 1320. That just seems wrong to step back 10 years in performance................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ways To Support Nitromater

Similar threads

James
Good news for the quarter mile?
2
Replies
21
Views
5K
Nitrohelper
N
jpee
Question on 1000' ET
Replies
6
Views
3K
mike
mike
R
Is 1000ft. any safer or better than 1320?
7 8 9
Replies
171
Views
24K
Rat
R
S
1000' and some teams
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
clwill
clwill
C
Peggy's back !!
Replies
7
Views
2K
N/A
N/A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Back
Top