Back to the 1/4 Mile??? (1 Viewer)

[camaro]

if i'm oswald , schumacher , or whoever races top fuel, i would be in favor of any changes, given the current state of top fuel, where the the same guy is winning every race and showing no signs of letting up!

 

[Nunz]

if i'm oswald , schumacher , or whoever races top fuel, i would be in favor of any changes, given the current state of top fuel, where the the same guy is winning every race and showing no signs of letting up!

That has nothing to do with track length. Over the decades, there have been times when a team just becomes dominant for awhile.

 

[ironpony]

Just my 2 cents. The thing about nitro racing is the noise & the excitement of seeing two nitro cars race. Even better at night when you can see the flames. I've noticed that even the nostalgia fuelers make enough noise to deafen you. So to see two fuelers race, even if they only run 4.80 & 305, that would still be really exciting, especially side by side. By the way, I well remember when T/F broke 300. There really was a lot of excitement about that. I remember Doug Herbert running 299 at Firebird. He signed a hero card for me & I asked him to write the speed too. I also remember when 200 was broken and that was "over the top" at the time. The 300 barrier was (to me) the ultimate, because we will never see 400.
FWIW: people in the stands get more excited at night, seeing the nitro cars run. That is a show unlike anything else, and yet all we get is daytime racing.

And xx years ago we would never see sub 10 second runs
then XX ago we would never see 200 mph
then xx ago we will never see sub 5 secodns
then xx we will never see 300 mph
then we will never see.........................
Now we see sub 4 seconds over 300 mph as normal

 

[Cliff]

Yep, it's the nature of the beast. Nitro engines are based on a design from the early 1950's, OHV and they still put out a gazillion HP. Scotty Fenn said no one would break 150 and that barrier was broken in 1955. By the way, I think that nitro cars of today could run 350 within a few years. Also think that if we had super long shut off areas, that one day in the future someone could run 400. Probably run a 2.90 ET with that 400 speed. But could a driver stand the G's that would happen on a run like that? Interesting to think about, altho I really do think it will never happen.

 

[TooTall999]

if i'm oswald , schumacher , or whoever races top fuel, i would be in favor of any changes, given the current state of top fuel, where the the same guy is winning every race and showing no signs of letting up!

What about when Tony Schumacher and Alan Johnson owned top fuel? I'm no Torrence fan, but the guy is legit. He's dominating right now, and if you think anyone wants to change the rules to stop him you're very wrong.

 

[Z28LT1]

My $.02, and I've said this before. NHRA is the last major motorsports sanctioning body that has yet to make large changes in an effort to slow down their top touring pros. The track record at Indy for the 500 is by Arie Luyendyk from 1996, 2019 pole sitter was 7 mph slower. ASSCAR (misspelling intended) has restrictior plates for for super speedways and has for... what? Almost 30 years? Alky cars are going quicker and faster than fuel cars were when I first got into this. I'm all for going faster, but it's time to take a hard look at the path this sports pros in all major classes (Alky cars, Pro Mods, Pro Stock and Fuel classes) are going down because it's likely not sustainable. Someone needs to step up and make the hard decisions that no one else has has had the balls to do. Regardless what which direction or distance we go. It's like ripping the band aid off. it's going to sting for a second, but it'll get better.

 

[r2]

My $.02, and I've said this before. NHRA is the last major motorsports sanctioning body that has yet to make large changes in an effort to slow down their top touring pros.

1000' feet, 11 years ago = Large change.

 

[Z28LT1]

1000' feet, 11 years ago = Large change.

How did that slow them down?

 

[r2]

How did that slow them down?

-320' of acceleration equaled 15-20 mph slower when they switched.
It's not my fault they run 290++ at 660' now.


1320 is not going to happen.

 

[Z28LT1]

-320' of acceleration equaled 15-20 mph slower when they switched.
It's not my fault they run 290++ at 660' now.


1320 is not going to happen.

15 mph on average in TF, maybe... but, you're actually proving my point. There has only been tweaks to try to slow them down. Most other motorsport sanctioning bodies have made major changes. Other than NHRA throwing some weight at them every couple years, and throwing a few more tenths in the box, there has been virtually nothing done to reign them in. This isn't about 1000' or 1320', It's about taking hard look 5, 10, 20 years down the road and make this sustainable. If they stay on the path their on, how long before there are 8 car fields at some races? Without any major changes I'd say it'll happen within a decade. Connie, Shoe and Force aren't getting any younger to think their teams will carry on business as usual when they are gone is laughable.

 

[r2]

15 mph on average in TF, maybe... but, you're actually proving my point. There has only been tweaks to try to slow them down. Most other motorsport sanctioning bodies have made major changes. Other than NHRA throwing some weight at them every couple years, and throwing a few more tenths in the box, there has been virtually nothing done to reign them in. This isn't about 1000' or 1320', It's about taking hard look 5, 10, 20 years down the road and make this sustainable. If they stay on the path their on, how long before there are 8 car fields at some races? Without any major changes I'd say it'll happen within a decade. Connie, Shoe and Force aren't getting any younger to think they're teams will carry on business as usual when they are gone is laughable.

I'm not disputing the fact that heads need to roll and a group with vision and communication skills with teams need to take control of this out of control situation. I know I proved your point, because you helped me prove mine. Nothing has changed! 2 different track lengths will kill it. There is your 8 car fields. You are much more optimistic on your outlook of this sport than I. I do not disagree with any statement you made Nate.

What you are saying should have started over a decade ago though. Maybe 2.

 

[RM FAN]

-320' of acceleration equaled 15-20 mph slower when they switched.
It's not my fault they run 290++ at 660' now.


1320 is not going to happen.

1000 ft was put into place to give them an extra 320 ft to get the cars stopped and NOTHING else.

I agree 1320 will not happen.
F1 made major engine changes over the years and the sport did oik.

 

[r2]

1000 ft was put into place to give them an extra 320 ft to get the cars stopped and NOTHING else.

NOTHING?

The aim was to lower the cars’ top speeds and give them more room to slow down in the “shutdown area” past the finish line if anything went wrong.

Shorter races make speed records unattainable

Shorter races make speed records unattainable

www.latimes.com

Let's stop with Nascar, Indy, and F1 comparisons.
They limited speeds for completely different reasons.

I am a 1320 diehard, but my eyes are not wide shut.

 

[mick]

i could glady get used to 300mph @ 4.60 - 4.70 et's, and make sure the nitro percentage remains at least 90%......i don't care what anyone thinks. when the length was 1320', there was a lot
more passing on the top end. the line today is, 'the racing is so much more closer'......yeah, cuz the car that was coming on in the back half while the car leading is failing and both run out of space
and race ends very close. that being said, i have no problem watching 1000', and i would have no problem with a slower package to 1320' either.
bottom line seems to be cost to participate at the 'pro' level. maybe someone should figure out what a 24 race sponsorship is really worth with nhra's ratings and spectator counts;
then figure out a rules package and budget to run a car all season within that number........which i think is just about what jim dunn does already.

 

[TooTall999]

i could glady get used to 300mph @ 4.60 - 4.70 et's, and make sure the nitro percentage remains at least 90%......i don't care what anyone thinks. when the length was 1320', there was a lot
more passing on the top end. the line today is, 'the racing is so much more closer'......yeah, cuz the car that was coming on in the back half while the car leading is failing and both run out of space
and race ends very close. that being said, i have no problem watching 1000', and i would have no problem with a slower package to 1320' either.
bottom line seems to be cost to participate at the 'pro' level. maybe someone should figure out what a 24 race sponsorship is really worth with nhra's ratings and spectator counts;
then figure out a rules package and budget to run a car all season within that number........which i think is just about what jim dunn does already.

Well then you can fund all the lower budget teams when they have to buy all new equipment and pay for their testing to develop new tune ups just to satisfy your quest for nostalgia!

 

[Cliff]

I don't think it's about nostalgia, but rather a way to run 1/4 mile. I agree that the combination would have to change, but that is something that happens all the time. If you would look at a 1000' combination from, say, 2-3 years ago, I think you'd find a lot of differences compared to today. Even if (as an example) NHRA says run a 12:71 blower, within a year, the combination would change quite a bit as teams figured it out. Just my 2.5 cents.

 

[Rudos1]

As this topic didn't come up once on last weekend's broadcasts I wonder if it is already a dead issue?

 

[Z28LT1]

Let's stop with Nascar, Indy, and F1 comparisons.
They limited speeds for completely different reasons.

Seems fair to compare to me regardless of reason.

 

[TooTall999]

I don't think it's about nostalgia, but rather a way to run 1/4 mile. I agree that the combination would have to change, but that is something that happens all the time. If you would look at a 1000' combination from, say, 2-3 years ago, I think you'd find a lot of differences compared to today. Even if (as an example) NHRA says run a 12:71 blower, within a year, the combination would change quite a bit as teams figured it out. Just my 2.5 cents.

Of course it's about nostalgia, what if they had started with 1,000 feet to begin with?

 

[Cliff]

Well, maybe a little nostalgia. I read that when drag racing first started, there were 1000' tracks, 1/5 mile, 1/8 mile, etc. Kinda whatever space was available to run on. 1/4 mile distance came from the dry lakes, where they had a 1/4 mile timing trap for speed. For whatever reason, that became the distance for drag racing. Also dirt tracks. When Pete Robinson won the Nationals in 1961, he said that he was running times on dirt that were close to asphalt times. I guess sand drags are the closest to that today.