Back to the 1/4 Mile??? (3 Viewers)

[ironpony]

Higher reared ratio
mandatory wing angle create enough drag that they do not have enough power to overcome
with the wing design they currently have it would not take much

 

[TK]

Dale Armstrong proposed back in 2008 that the most practical way to slow the fuel cars and minimize expense was to limit compression ratio and blower overdrive. Is this not a viable option or has this idea not withstood the test of time?

 

[none]

All of which would cost some money to implement, and a TRUCKLOAD of money to test and make work. Per team.
Again, just talking.

Alan

 

[TSK]

Watch the Australian Outlaw Nitro funny cars when they run on MavTV.
They run all types of bodies, from '57 Chevies, early-70s Mopars and late '60s Mustangs and many others. There are a few more modern, aerodynamic cars but they are the exception and not the norm.
Most, if not all, of the cars have names such as "Nitro Express", "Let's Boogie", and there's even one called the "L.A. Hooker."
They run single mags, the blowers look to be maybe 10-71s, and 90%.
They don't run monster numbers, (mid to high 5s at 250 to 260) but they are dang pretty cool. And, they run the full quarter.
They remind me of races in the U.S. in the early '70s.

 

[Professional Fan]

Maybe it's just me but I have no desire to see Top Fuel and Funny Car go a lot slower than today just to go back to 1320. I'm in favor of whatever can bring more cars back into the fields and what I have read so far seems to be going in the opposite direction. Topeka this year was possibly the worst race I have ever been to, other than bad weather races:
1. No Pro Stock
2. No Pro Stock Motorcycle (they never race at Topeka)
3. Short fields in TF and FC
4. Resulting in even less qualifying runs since the little guys could be assured of getting in the field by making just one run.

Flying all the way to Topeka from California to see 45 minute Pro qualifying sessions is not my idea of money well spent.

 

[T.Smith]

Keyboard crew chiefs...a huffin' and a puffin'.

 

[mike]

Ken,
Again, just talking, not arguing, but if the rev limiter you suggest was implemented, it would be about 10 minutes before DSR, JFR and AJPE were designing new heads. You would also be changing camshafts, and you would be on the limiter starting at the step. The best way to go fast isn't to continue to accelerate all the way down the track, it's to reach top speed as soon as possible then drive to the stripe. The quickest runs made, have had the highest MPH at the eighth.

If I'm on the limiter with the clutch locked up at 400' then I'm going to be quicker than if you don't hit lock up and limiter until 1200'

I don't know what will come of it, but I am very happy that the conversation has started.

Alan

ALAN THE THING THAT CAN SLOW THE CARS DOWN THE EASIEST IS NEVER USED, AN FOUGHT ABOUT THE MOST -limit nitro percentages no changes to combos learn how to run with less. A-Fuel fought it Many racers were against it but it brought the class closer .No major changes other than tune up everyone fought about it but it works- no one wants to give away there tune -up Let all the whining begin I heard it before and will hear again-I personally argued with Jim Collins -Who listened to the racers that it wont work -cars will die-Guess what the class is closer than every in all weather conditions-Alan call me any time if you want to discuss it-Mike

 

[RM FAN]

I thought they did lower the nitro % and only allowed more at Denver?

 

[Dave]

All of which would cost some money to implement, and a TRUCKLOAD of money to test and make work. Per team.
Again, just talking.

Alan

But didn't they do the same to all the PS teams by going to EFI?

 

[Cliff]

Cliff,

Not arguing, just discussing, how much power do you think they would have to take away to get to the 4.80 300 mph area? And how best to do it without driving everyone out of business?

I'm very happy to hear the discussion starting, and hope that I will be involved in that discussion. Just to hear the different ideas getting kicked around.

Alan

Hi Alan. I have to agree with Mike Kosky. The best idea is to limit the amount of nitro. For the sake of arguement, say 75%. I know that teams could raise compression but how quick & fast could you go on 75%??? Some years back, the teams were stuck with the 85% rule, & finally went back to 90%, so limiting the % of nitro is nothing new. If a dragster ran 1/4 mile on 75% I think it could go 4.90's at least and over 295 MPH in 1/4 mile. Maybe 80% would be better, say 4.70's at 305 (just guessing). Of course, we all know that even if the cars ran 75%, it would not be long before someone would figure out a way to go quicker & faster. But, 75% would be "easier" on the engines and less costly to run the car. So maybe some of the "bucks down" teams could run a few more races if costs were less. Just me ramblin'.

 

[none]

Hi Alan. I have to agree with Mike Kosky. The best idea is to limit the amount of nitro. For the sake of arguement, say 75%. I know that teams could raise compression but how quick & fast could you go on 75%??? Some years back, the teams were stuck with the 85% rule, & finally went back to 90%, so limiting the % of nitro is nothing new. If a dragster ran 1/4 mile on 75% I think it could go 4.90's at least and over 295 MPH in 1/4 mile. Maybe 80% would be better, say 4.70's at 305 (just guessing). Of course, we all know that even if the cars ran 75%, it would not be long before someone would figure out a way to go quicker & faster. But, 75% would be "easier" on the engines and less costly to run the car. So maybe some of the "bucks down" teams could run a few more races if costs were less. Just me ramblin'.

Yes, they went to 85% and the crew chiefs went to bigger pumps and more compression and begged NHRA to go back to 90% because 85% wasn't easier on engines, it was killing them!

Think like a Crew Chief. Can you make a car run 3.90 (or quarter mile 4.80) easily and efficiently without hurting parts? Yes, they all can.
But now put Steve Torrence or Robert Hight in the other lane. Are you still trying to run like that? No you are trying to WIN! That's a completely different mindset.

Alan

 

[none]

ALAN THE THING THAT CAN SLOW THE CARS DOWN THE EASIEST IS NEVER USED, AN FOUGHT ABOUT THE MOST -limit nitro percentages no changes to combos learn how to run with less. A-Fuel fought it Many racers were against it but it brought the class closer .No major changes other than tune up everyone fought about it but it works- no one wants to give away there tune -up Let all the whining begin I heard it before and will hear again-I personally argued with Jim Collins -Who listened to the racers that it wont work -cars will die-Guess what the class is closer than every in all weather conditions-Alan call me any time if you want to discuss it-Mike

Nest time we're at the same track I will make a point to stop by. I look forward to kicking it around.

Alan

 

[8sec71]

I’d love to see 1/4 mile back for sure but some of you guys wanna slow these cars down to what they ran 30 years ago to do it? No thanks, not me.

 

[BaldyLochs]

I really don’t see the advantage of going back to that. Will it cost less to compete? Will it entice more competitors to enter? Is the NHRA READY to look at this? I think there’s plenty of other subjects to tackle before taking on this. I someday would like to see some realistic numbers in terms of fans, who actually turned away from the sport specifically because it went to 1000 feet. There can’t be many. If so, What sport(s) are those “hardcore” 1/4 milers following and supporting now that they’re not into nitro drag racing? Where are their entertainment dollars being spent in terms of motor sports now? Do they still run races at the Bonneville Salt Flats?

 

[Cliff]

I was one of the hard core 1/4 mile fans. Did not like going to 1000' (altho even Don Garlits thought it was a good idea). Went to my first 1000' race at (then) Firebird and it was different. Had to get used to it but now it's the norm. Instead of thinking a 4.40 ET 1/4 mile, I think of 3.60 ET 1000'. So I got used to it. As far as slowing cars down & returning to 1/4 mile, I guess I'm thinking that a lower % of nitro would have some cost savings to it. Also that the fans like to see the cars run over 300, so that needs to be kept if the cars go back to 1/4 mile. Indy car racing was slowed quite a bit some years ago and the fans got used to the slower speeds and it was no big deal. So I think that could happen in drag racing. One thing I don't want to see would be some group tell drag racing that they need to run alky due to environmental concerns and a smaller engine so less emissions. Formula One & Indy Car all run tiny little V6 engines around 140 CI and sound like a motorcycle engine. Maybe I'm pessimistic but I see big cities in Europe wanting to ban gasoline cars & run electrics, not to mention groups in USA wanting to do that. So I just keep an eye on that & think NHRA should as well.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

Maybe it's just me but I have no desire to see Top Fuel and Funny Car go a lot slower than today just to go back to 1320. I'm in favor of whatever can bring more cars back into the fields and what I have read so far seems to be going in the opposite direction. Topeka this year was possibly the worst race I have ever been to, other than bad weather races:
1. No Pro Stock
2. No Pro Stock Motorcycle (they never race at Topeka)
3. Short fields in TF and FC
4. Resulting in even less qualifying runs since the little guys could be assured of getting in the field by making just one run.

Flying all the way to Topeka from California to see 45 minute Pro qualifying sessions is not my idea of money well spent.

I would have to agree that I really don't want to see them slow down a lot just for the sake of going back to 1320. I was on the traditionalist's side initially and didn't want to see the move to 1000, but after attending some races, I got used to it pretty quick, personally. Although I do think that a move to the 1/8th like has been discussed would go over the edge.

All 4 of your points are valid, whether anybody likes it or not. So we circle back to the question of what it will ultimately take to get more competitors out there. Is it a conversation solely about operational costs or solely about upping viewership in an effort to attract more marketing partners? Is it a combination of both with some new ideas that nobody has thought about? Who knows. But just like the recent article on Bobby's site clearly stated, there are a ton of egos on each side, and until those egos are parked and people come to the table ready to talk, AND ACT on some viable solutions, it might be a long road getting there.

Sean D

 

[Dennis]

Not arguing, just discussing, how much power do you think they would have to take away to get to the 4.80 300 mph area? And how best to do it without driving everyone out of business?

Stop prepping the track to the extent that it will remove your shoes as you walk on it.

 

[mike]

Yes, they went to 85% and the crew chiefs went to bigger pumps and more compression and begged NHRA to go back to 90% because 85% wasn't easier on engines, it was killing them!

Think like a Crew Chief. Can you make a car run 3.90 (or quarter mile 4.80) easily and efficiently without hurting parts? Yes, they all can.
But now put Steve Torrence or Robert Hight in the other lane. Are you still trying to run like that? No you are trying to WIN! That's a completely different mindset.
It wasn't the teams were hurting things they just did not have the right set up it was easier to go back
Alan

 

[ironpony]

All of which would cost some money to implement, and a TRUCKLOAD of money to test and make work. Per team.
Again, just talking.

Alan

So what will be the cost of NHRA saying minimum wing angle is X degrees, teams set it and tune to it.
I would say the teams all have data for it and have gradually reduced wing as track prep has gone up until recently when NHRA wanted to slow them down.
The rear wing creates enough down force to significantly slow the car down by creating drag, fine line between traction and loss of performance.
Add wickers to FC bodies create drag, don't be surprised if they actually go faster.
Wickers have been added to aircraft for years to increase performance, contrary to popular belief.

 

[Nunz]

1000 feet doesn't bother me, I've sat at the 1000ft mark, and these cars get to 1320 so fast that it seems like they're still on the pedal. A return to 1/4 mile racing at some tracks would be cool, and maybe a good marketing ploy. But to me, what would make it cool would be if at those select races, at tracks with long shutdowns, the cars were allowed to break the 340 barrier. I know this won't happen, but, consider this: If the current cars were given a couple events at 1320 but had to change their combo so that they don't run faster than they are now at 1000ft., what's really the thrill in that? Just food for thought. Also, backing down the nitro percentage should never be considered again. The sound is considerably different, even at 85%, I can't imagine anything even lower. Great discussion, who knows what may come of it?