Commentary: It's time for 1000-ft. Across the board (4 Viewers)

[JF]

COMMENTARY: IT'S TIME FOR 1000-FT. ACROSS THE BOARD

 

[Silly Savage]

nope....1000ft is not the answer.

 

[JF]

Since the feedback option on Comp Plus was not working here is my reply

Although I do not dispute the fact we need a solution. 1000Ft is not it. Yes it would achieve the purpose. But the where do we stop 660Ft when someone crashes at 1000. 330 when they crash at 660. I personally took care of a Q/R driver who was unconscious after a 660 run. @ 140MPH Let’s cut it to 60 ft. We all have data on our 60ft times.

Just this year in my city 3 Kids died while playing football. Reasons are unknown by me. But no one asked to change the rules. They just accept the fact that someone might get hurt and they try to find better ways to play the game as the game was meant to be played.

Does it cost money? HELL YES it costs money. WILL NHRA spend it? The answer is NO.
Have we tried every available option to build safer tracks? NO. I have never seen Styrofoam walls (I don't know if it would work but i haven’t seen anyone try it either)

Has Englishtown thought of having more shut down by moving the Starting line back. OH wait, there’s that big building in the way they couldn’t move it or tear it down and build another. But who’s going to be in it anyways when there are no more races there because of track safety.

The answer lies in MONEY we need to find Money from NHRA/IHRA/ADRL/TRACKS/SPONSORS/RACERS that will design and build better safer tracks and think outside the box. Water traps, Styrofoam, retractable netting, automatic shutoffs, and better driver protection. Don't change the game because no one wants to spend the time or MONEY to fix the problem.

It’s not time to find new fans its time to find management and money that get it.
AND that get it done.

 

[Gordon]

It's very difficult to argue with any of the points Bobby made in that article... Very difficult, indeed.

 

[Dick]

I for one did not like the fact when the NHRA changed from 1320 ft. 1/4 mile racing to just 1000ft.

but the more I read up on it,the more I did like it.
it gave everyone 320 more feet to slow down at every track.

and I'll tell you this.....
while I was at the summit nationals at Norwalk,I could not tell the difference if the fuelers where going 1320,or just 1000 ft.
it is still a great show!

if it saves just one life...all the better!

 

[clwill]

One thing is clear, everybody needs to run the same distance. As I noted in another thread, a good friend of ours was nearly killed in a Super Comp car within days of the initial 1000' change thanks to the different track length/prep. And the pro stock cars see that every weekend. Heck even Jeff Foster and the timing crews screw it up now and then.

Clearly trying to run two different races on the same track doesn't work (maybe that's a legitimate reason for ZMax...). But I still find a 1000' a downer.

Can't we make 1320 work for everyone? Isn't there a place in the sport for more than one lead change during a race? Aren't some of the best races you've ever seen the ones where it's a battle all the way down the track? Don't you occasionally find yourself feeling stupid when you try to explain to people that you love a sport that takes just three, maybe four seconds?

I'd much rather see slower cars and great racing. I'd gladly give up 300mph. I'd love to see the nitro cars race like they used to, not just blow off the tires and give up.

1000' isn't a panacea. It was going to save parts, did it? It was going to slow them down, but they're almost back to 1/4 mile speeds. It wouldn't have saved Eric or Scott. It's just a band-aid and it's starting to smell of gangrene.

 

[TAFC 5 81]

I have to admit that I am open to 1000 ft in spite of the fact I have not raced in almost 30 years. I also raced several 1/8th mile events back then. It seems like there are more 1/8th mile tracks today than back then (is that the case?). We raced (Pro Comp) at old Warner-Robbins; a 1/4 mile track with minimal shut down space. We were having some master cylinder issues and went into the pea patch several times; but just straightened out the front wing and removed some grass on to the next round (but an extra 320 ft would have been nice). Is this a problem with Alky and or Pro Mod cars at non National Event tracks?

 

[d'kid]

Thank You Bobby, Very Well Said.

But I am partial to 1/10th for a 'short' track (528 feet) and 2/10th for a 'long' track (1056 feet)

nope, never did street race

d'kid

 

[Greg]

Bobby,

Sorry, but with all due respect, the article comes across arrogant as hell. I may take some heat for this, but I'm okay with that. I understand the emotion of it, but you lose credibility when you basically say people who don't agree with you are stupid. Jesus you make it sound like people who want 1/4 mile racing support drivers dying. I really don't care if they race 660, or 1320, the bigger issue here is safety equipment. How about we get some parachutes that don't fail? That has been the problem with the last two fatalities. That is the issue that needs to be properly addressed at this time. Also, why is the "optional" safety equipment mentioned in the article, not mandatory? There are so many other elements that come into play here, besides 1/4 mile or 1,000 ft.

We also have to look at this realistically. Let me preface this by saying, no death is acceptable. However, the sport of drag racing has suffered approximately 14 deaths over the last 26 years. I know there have been more when you count local tracks, testing, etc. That is an incredible testament to the safety of this sport as it stands, considering how many thousands upon thousands of runs are made at the Divisional and National Event level. 70% of those deaths have come in the last 10 years. Of those, only the last 3 were a direct result of 1/4 mile racing, and we know the last two were chute failures.

Deaths in IHRA

* Walter Henry, 1989
* Wayne Bailey, October 2000

Deaths in NHRA

* John Hagen, August, 1983
* Lee Shepherd, 11 March 1985
* Blaine Johnson, 31 August 1996
* Carrie Jo Neal, 25 July 1997
* John Lingenfelter, 25 December 2003
* Darrell Russell, 27 June 2004
* Shelly Howard, 2 April 2005
* Eric Medlen, 23 March 2007
* John Shoemaker, 8 March 2008
* Scott Kalitta, 21 June 2008
* Neal Parker, 11 June 2010
* Mark Niver, 11 July 2010


1,000-foot racing would not have made a difference in the vast majority of the deaths that have occurred. Scott's accident is really the only one in the last decade where the configuration of the track absolutely contributed to someone's death. Let's also keep in mind that his death, probably prevented the death of Alexis Dejoria the following year.

It seems the biggest change needs to come in the safety equipment that is utilized, and mandating more safety equipment where needed. I have always felt that downforce is one of the most critical safety elements of any car, so I don't see why they don't allow more of it where needed, especially in the pro stock cars. If they have more downforce, they will be safer without a doubt.

As someone who says they are part of the "silent majority" who "prefer their nitro cars of the non-watered down type", sorry, but you're already getting watered down nitro. Especially when they could preferably switch to a single pump, smaller blower, and 100% nitro. You'll slow them down, and still run more nitro than they do now.

I'm sure many here will disagree with my point of view, and that's fine. A driver dying is a touchy subject to say the least, and my heart breaks for his family and friends. I just don't like when people use a horrible event like this, as a reason to lecture people.

 

[Speed1288]

I just don't think enough forward thinking is going inside the nhra. I don't know if this is an accurate comparison but what if Garlits would've just kept running the slingshot since most rear engined diggers were unsuccessful? Were would we been now? It was great minds and innovation that got us to this point. I'm not going to blame nhra entirely but I do think that if they put some of the great minds of the sport together (Johnson, Armstrong, Coil, etc.) and listened closely they could fix the problems. I may be far off, I could be dead on but thats my .02 cents as worthless as it is at this point.

 

[Tim5636sc]

It's no hidden secret that I often agree with Bobby, however, what makes our friendship unique is I'm not afraid of disagreeing with him. For example:

Bobby likes his door cars, super modifieds, pro mod, those super stockers....i'm a Dragster and Funny Car kinda guy. Bobby is a die hard Tampa Bay Buc's van....I BLEED CHARGER POWDER BLUE...Bobby Loves him some BBQ PORK...Carolina Style...where everybody knows MEMPHIS BBQ is MUCH better than Carolina BBQ.... This has been, for the better part of three years the major point of contention between us.

However, in the matter of "It's time for 1000-ft across the board", I couldn't agree more.

1,000 foot for ALL RACING IN NHRA accomplishes several things:

1 - a prepared track for all cars. Pro Stock get's their "GLUE" under acceleration
2 - extra distance to slow the cars down when (things go wrong). We'll touch on this one in just a few sentences.
3 - no need to invest MILLIONS of $$$ we don't have to water-down the fuel cars, build safer barriers, extend race tracks that can't be extended or any of the countless suggestion fans have had to 'BRING BACK THE TRADITION' of 1320.
4 - 1,000 foot racing provides...BETTER SIDE-BY-SIDE racing.
5 - allows all classes to be uniform, causing less confusion to the new racing fans everybody says we need to draw to the sport.

as for the Extra Distance to slow the cars when things go wrong. Those of you who have been ANIMATE about "i'd be OK with Top Fuel Dragsters running right at 300 MPH" need only to look at this Video from Pomona in 2009 and Randy Eakins who was running about 265 I believe on this pass.

YouTube - Randy Eakins No Parachute Brakes Crash Pomona 2009 dragster Wreck

Now, for those of you who saw Mark Niver's accident from this past weekend, can you tell me what the difference between the end result in Eakins accident and Marks was?

I'll tell you the difference... about a foot. The parachutes did not "HIT" on either car, (one due to failure to deploy, the other due to the chutes detaching from the chassis). The drivers apply the brakes smoothly in both cases and the cars hit the sand traps at about the same rate of speed, (between 60-80 mph in both cases). The chassis folds up, (which is what a Dragster Chassis is supposed to do by design) JUST LIKE Mark's did. However, the chassis did not go 'straight back' as it did in Mark's case. In Randy's case, the chassis bent slightly to the left. One foot to the right and Randy may not alive today.

Both Mark and Randy's car would have NEVER hit the sand trap nets with an extra 320' off distance to stop. That's one life and two race cars we would have saved. Is that enough reason to end the debate about "Tradition"?

As for the endless question..."well, what happens when somebody dies at 1,000'? Do we go to 660'?"

Who knows?

But in the meantime, NHRA can live up to Wally's BIGGEST tradition, which was to provide racers with a SAFE RACING FACILITY. And right now, at 1320...we don't have that.

Great column Boss....and yes Memphis BBQ is better.

 

[Roadsters]

I'm not aware of any other racing sanctioning body in the world that has shortened its race tracks to lower the speeds of the cars. If you want to slow the cars down, you do it mechanically, simply and inexpensively. You mandate that everyone running in the Top Fuel, Top Alcohol, and Funny Car classes run a single mag instead of two, run slicks that are several inches narrower, and use a shorter rear gear.

Of course that won't happen, because since it's not possible to lengthen the shut-off area at Pomona, the NHRA has decided that if they can't have a track that's as long as it should be, they'll just turn their back on over sixty years of tradition and drag racing history and make everyone shorten their tracks.

 

[FuelFC]

1,000 ft has not helped fully in the way it was intended.

Slow the damn cars and all run 1320 and be done. Cheap solution, cost effective, help the smaller funded independent teams...

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Tim is right. 1,000ft is the best answer.

No obsolete parts
no obsolete tracks
no new cost to teams
no cost to tracks
automatically lowers speed with out mechanical changes
automatically lengthens shut down area

whats not to like?? a win-win for all.

 

[Huge]

Y

One thing is clear, everybody needs to run the same distance. As I noted in another thread, a good friend of ours was nearly killed in a Super Comp car within days of the initial 1000' change thanks to the different track length/prep. And the pro stock cars see that every weekend. Heck even Jeff Foster and the timing crews screw it up now and then.

Clearly trying to run two different races on the same track doesn't work (maybe that's a legitimate reason for ZMax...). But I still find a 1000' a downer.

Can't we make 1320 work for everyone? Isn't there a place in the sport for more than one lead change during a race? Aren't some of the best races you've ever seen the ones where it's a battle all the way down the track? Don't you occasionally find yourself feeling stupid when you try to explain to people that you love a sport that takes just three, maybe four seconds?

I'd much rather see slower cars and great racing. I'd gladly give up 300mph. I'd love to see the nitro cars race like they used to, not just blow off the tires and give up.

1000' isn't a panacea. It was going to save parts, did it? It was going to slow them down, but they're almost back to 1/4 mile speeds. It wouldn't have saved Eric or Scott. It's just a band-aid and it's starting to smell of gangrene.

Yes a 1000' saves a lot of parts.

 

[Tim5636sc]

1,000 ft has not helped fully in the way it was intended.

Slow the damn cars and all run 1320 and be done. Cheap solution, cost effective, help the smaller funded independent teams...

Old Bull...You rock! Wish it was that SIMPLE. But, we are talking about the NHRA here... Nothing is SIMPLE..you know this

 

[Tim5636sc]

The answer lies in MONEY we need to find Money from NHRA/IHRA/ADRL/TRACKS/SPONSORS/RACERS that will design and build better safer tracks and think outside the box. Water traps, Styrofoam, retractable netting, automatic shutoffs, and better driver protection. Don't change the game because no one wants to spend the time or MONEY to fix the problem.

It’s not time to find new fans its time to find management and money that get it.
AND that get it done.

You must have gone to the Tony Mantana school of Drag Racing management....

"In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women."

But, let me ask this simple question.... How do you get the money? Perhaps the Sheik will dump a few months allowance to improve these tracks? Besides that, I don't know of ANY corporation who would invest in improving "Safety" without a SOLID Return on Investment. And unfortunately, a human life is not ROI to most business....

The idea sounds great...but how are you gonna pay for it?

 

[Jer]

If they go 1000 ft all across the board then im done going to the races and im sure im not the only 1. NHRA needs to step up and fix some of the racetracks if they cant fix some of them then dont go to those tracks.

 

[big guy]

If they go 1000 ft all across the board then im done going to the races and im sure im not the only 1. NHRA needs to step up and fix some of the racetracks if they cant fix some of them then dont go to those tracks.

I doubt you will be missed.

 

[Paul]

If racing to 1,000ft saves 1 life in the Alcohol categories, than it is worth the change. I am not saying Niver would have been fine if they would have been racing to 1,000ft, but it certainly would not have made the situation any worse.