Back to the 1/4 Mile??? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Porkchop
- Start date
That has nothing to do with track length. Over the decades, there have been times when a team just becomes dominant for awhile.
ironpony
Nitro Member
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
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
Nitro Member
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
Nitro Member
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
Nitro Member
1000' feet, 11 years ago = Large change.
Z28LT1
Nitro Member
How did that slow them down?
r2
Nitro Member
-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
Nitro Member
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.
Last edited:
r2
Nitro Member
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.
Last edited:
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
Nitro Member
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
Nitro Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
TooTall999
Nitro Member
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!
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.
Z28LT1
Nitro Member
Seems fair to compare to me regardless of reason.
TooTall999
Nitro Member
Of course it's about nostalgia, what if they had started with 1,000 feet to begin with?
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.
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.
