CompPlus story on the FC chassis problems (1 Viewer)

[Hutch]

Torco Racing Fuel's Competition Plus.com - Drag Racing's Internet Magazine - TUBULAR TALES -- AN INVESTIGATIVE STORY

 

[Randy]

Read the story, then read the list below.

Column one is the chassis builders who support the use of heat treated tubing.

The second column is a list of those who support the use of normalized (non heat treated) tubing.

The third column was those who failed to respond when asked.

RG

 

[Bob]

I sat here reading this article in utter amazement. This thing is going to be beaten to death and I know nothing about building a chassis so I have just a few comments.

Hats off to Comp+. One heck of a job. You have gotten into the depth of this problem that otherwise would have been just speculation by many. Amazing article.

This is a quote from the article that may be mis-leading to some but I understand John would probably not know this unless he were an engineer.

"Military Specification MIL-T-6736B. This document, which is dated 1965 and has since been superseded". ALL military specs that I know of have been superseded but not necessarily changed. The military is simply no longer maintaining these records.

I find this statement almost unbelievable.

"Despite the comment of a prominent NHRA official in a meeting with team owners on Friday at the Dallas race – two days before Force’s accident -- that we will have to accept fatalities as a part of drag racing, this is clearly a matter of major importance that needs further and immediate study. There’s simply no other choice."

Who in their right mind would make a statement like that? He obviously hasn't much regard for a human life.

 

[Bob]

Randy, I don't know where you got this list from but it sure is an eye opener. Thanks.

 

[.]

Wow, that's quite an eye opening list! NHRA better do something and do something quick.

Dumb question...who is Ty Baumgartner associated with? I remember meeting him several years ago at Cordova and speaking with him for a little bit but I can't remember which shop he's with. If I remember right didn't he and somebody else buy out another shop many years ago, correct?

 

[hellfirejim]

It never ceases to amaze me is how hard it is for people to say. "I was wrong. I made a decision based on what I thought was good information that proved to be flawed.".

I know a few of the people on the list for Normalization and if they say that is the way to go then I believe without hesitation. I would put my life in their chassis any time 24/7.

Why should it matter, "he said - they said"? All that should really matter is finding the correct answer without all the "cyoa" going on. All anybody wants is a safe car. Why is this so difficult to put aside ego's and fears and make the proper decisions to get this done?

jim

 

[Toejam]

I know this doesn't have anything to do with Funny Cars, but I was talking with a crew member of Bill Miller's at some race I guessing 7-8(?) years ago? I brought up Russ Collin's Blowover(Bill Miller car) at the '91 Winter Natl's, and how spectacular the crash was. What shocked the hell out of me was the car they were running at this preticular race was the very car they replaced after Collin's Blowover! I'm guessing that car had to be 8-10 years old give or take? Who knows how many Passes that Don Long car had on it? And to be honest I can't think of any Chassis Failure of a BME car?

 

[.]

This is incredible:

Fact: The SFI Funny Car chassis spec does not call for the use of heat treated tubing.

Fact: McKinney Corporation’s owner, Murf McKinney, has publicly stated he’s used, and continues to use, heat treated tubing in Funny Car chassis construction.

Conclusion: NHRA, despite knowing about the use of heat treated tubing, and despite their own rules that demand strict adherence to the SFI chassis spec, has allowed this to continue, with their logic apparently being that the word “equivalent” in the spec allows a builder to substitute the called-for Condition N tubing with heat treated tubing of greater dimensions.

Does this possibly mean that since NHRA refused to enforce their own rules that one driver was killed and another was seriously injured? Why would they let a chassis that obviously does not comply with the rules be entered into competition?

I also didn't know there was video of Medlen's crash until now:

I looked at videos of both of them, and I don’t think there’s any question about Medlen’s.

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

Randy, I've read your posts about this chassis crisis since John's major failure. I believe you have really stuck your neck out in an effort to bring greater safety to our sport. Your name is on the line with each post but I find your credibility to be flawless in this mission to bring the truth to light and I want to thank you for informing me and others about the truth of what is being otherwise shaded or rationalized away. I sincerely appreciate your effort to provide such information. It's QUITE enlightening!

Let's get the NHRA and SFI to agree with the masses, experience, test results and experts opinion that there needs to be some eyes opened with relation to hardened tubing.

A very small chassis builder (yet a very wise man) built our funny cars named Hal Canode. He insisted upon using the heavier wall tubing for all our main frame rails and we had no reason whatsoever to question since his cars are solid, run straight and true, last well beyond our decade of use and are as safe as any we've seen. I suppose you could add his name to the middle column as well.

 

[davey]

All I can say is "Wow". What a great article.

 

[none]

It never ceases to amaze me is how hard it is for people to say. "I was wrong. I made a decision based on what I thought was good information that proved to be flawed.".

I know a few of the people on the list for Normalization and if they say that is the way to go then I believe without hesitation. I would put my life in their chassis any time 24/7.

Why should it matter, "he said - they said"? All that should really matter is finding the correct answer without all the "cyoa" going on. All anybody wants is a safe car. Why is this so difficult to put aside ego's and fears and make the proper decisions to get this done?

jim

Probably just the result of the world we live in and the fear of litigation

 

[Jay]

Read the story, then read the list below.

Column one is the chassis builders who support the use of heat treated tubing.

The second column is a list of those who support the use of normalized (non heat treated) tubing.

The third column was those who failed to respond when asked.

RG

Kudos! Nice work, Randy!

 

[Jay]

It never ceases to amaze me is how hard it is for people to say. "I was wrong. I made a decision based on what I thought was good information that proved to be flawed.".

I know a few of the people on the list for Normalization and if they say that is the way to go then I believe without hesitation. I would put my life in their chassis any time 24/7.

Why should it matter, "he said - they said"? All that should really matter is finding the correct answer without all the "cyoa" going on. All anybody wants is a safe car. Why is this so difficult to put aside ego's and fears and make the proper decisions to get this done?

jim

To be more specific, are you referring to the powers that be at the NHRA? Here is why I ask....And this is what has been told to me, so please correct me if I am wrong here.......Murph McKinney sold the idea to the NHRA that the back half of the T/F dragsters had to be heat treated, so the NHRA listened to him, as one could find reasonable (to a point, anyway) because of his experience...For WHATEVER reason, this wasn't duplicated on the Funny Car chassis....my first question would be why not? He DOES use the heat treated tubing on the Funny Cars that HE builds...

Now, from the standpoint of major breakages, I have only heard of Murph cars experiencing this...No major problems from Pluegers, or Worsham's, even considering the nasty crashes that he has had...

But furthermore, in this poll that Randy posted, if all but one chassis manufacturer said "regular tubing" instead of heat treated tubing SEVERAL DAYS AGO, and the NHRA has still not done anything about it, then I am quite concerned why they would withold this info, and not have instituted the change imediately once the vote amongst these experts was so unanimous... for putting safety second to ANYTHING....

 

[Tim5636sc]

BOBBY;;;;

You were right....SCARED!

Give Asher a huge PAT ON THE BACK FOR ME! ACTUALLY, I'LL BUY HIM A DIET MOUNTAIN DEW IN VEGAS!

Timmah!

 

[Ugly one]

Bill, Jon & Randy,
Excellent job. In a world where the masses feel that been politically correct is correct. It's refreshing to find a group of gentlemen who still have balls enough to call it what it really is.

KS
www.hotrodsbystith.com

 

[dog]

Read the story, then read the list below.

Column one is the chassis builders who support the use of heat treated tubing.

The second column is a list of those who support the use of normalized (non heat treated) tubing.

The third column was those who failed to respond when asked.

RG

nuff said
/thread

 

[Keith Burgan]

A lot of people seem to forget that there were several major T/F chassis failures prior to the implementation of the heat treated (not hardened as such) tubing. None of these were McKinney cars and subsequent to the introduction of the modified tubing for all cars there have been no major failures (impact situations not included).
There have also been no major chassis failures in F/C apart from the Force camp. And anyone who tells you that funny cars from any manufacturer don't suffer from cracks in various places has their head up their arse. I have seen enough of them over the years to know that no builder is immune.
I have tried to stay away from this issue of late (too busy having fun at the CHRR) in anticipation of Asher's story but there are a number of big holes in the article in respect to some issues. It is also obvious that at least one person on this board is having his strings pulled by others.

Roo

 

[Big John]

A lot of people seem to forget that there were several major T/F chassis failures prior to the implementation of the heat treated (not hardened as such) tubing. None of these were McKinney cars and subsequent to the introduction of the modified tubing for all cars there have been no major failures (impact situations not included).
There have also been no major chassis failures in F/C apart from the Force camp. And anyone who tells you that funny cars from any manufacturer don't suffer from cracks in various places has their head up their arse. I have seen enough of them over the years to know that no builder is immune.
I have tried to stay away from this issue of late (too busy having fun at the CHRR) in anticipation of Asher's story but there are a number of big holes in the article in respect to some issues. It is also obvious that at least one person on this board is having his strings pulled by others.

Roo

There have been many failures in the funny cars that we dont know about. The ones in the Force camp were catastrophic to say the least.

 

[Suzie Q]

I think the proper thing to do here is to stop speculating. There are people's reputations on the line here. I don't think it is very fair to be calling anyone a liar on here. That is just not good manners. Wait until all of the facts are out there and then say what you will. There is not enough information on this yet.

just my 2 cents!

 

[Ugly one]

There have been many failures in the funny cars that we dont know about.

Is this a statement or is this a question? Inquiring minds would like to know.

KS