Did Wally want 1000' racing?

[Cliff]

DID WALLY PARKS REALLY WANT 1000-FOOT RACING? | Competition Plus

www.competitionplus.com

 

[twostep]

1000 foot nitro racing had to happen. Like most everyone else the purist in me longs for 1320 feet but we have cars running nearly 340 at 1000 and have had for five years. 1320 racing would require either the removal of the timing retard or modifying its limits...it'd be ludicrous to run the last 320 feet with it functioning as is....and as such, we'd have cars routinely running in the mid 350s if not 360. Take away 320 feet and add 20-25mph and half the tracks in the country wouldn't have enough shutdown area. Every safety aspect of the cars themselves would be compromised. Insurance companies would run for the hills. And it's already been proven that nobody can come to a working consensus as how to slow the cars via reducing power.

Myself, I'd far prefer to see the cars at their current power level running 1000 feet than returning them to KB's power level when he ran 301 at Gainesville and I believe anyone currently campaigning one of these cars would agree. Wouldn't you?

 

[camaro]

Wouldn't you?

nope! . . . . . , as far as i'm concerned,1000 ft. stunk in 2008 & stinks now! (since you asked! )

 

[Al]

1000 foot nitro racing had to happen. Like most everyone else the purist in me longs for 1000 feet but we have cars running nearly 340 at 1000 and have had for five years. 1320 racing would require either the removal of the timing retard or modifying its limits...it'd be ludicrous to run the last 320 feet with it functioning as is....and as such, we'd have cars routinely running in the mid 350s if not 360. Take awa 320 feet and add 20-25mph and half the tracks in the country wouldn't have enough shutdown area. Every safety aspect of the cars themselves would be compromised. Insurance companies would run for the hills. And it's already been proven that nobody can come to a working consensus as how to slow the cars via reducing power.

Myself, I'd far prefer to see the cars at their current power level running 1000 feet than returning them to KB's power level when he ran 301 at Gainesville and I believe anyone currently campaigning one of these cars would agree. Wouldn't you?

Well said Carl !
As I have said in previous posts, this did indeed come up in 1984, well before the 2008 change. In 1984, I was actually one of probably many fans that wrote to NHRA, asking them to stay at 1320'. When the change was made in 2008, I could see there really wasn't a choice. We attended only the second 1000' event (2008 Seattle) and I was very pleasantly surprised that it didn't decrease my enjoyment of the event even one bit. Actually seeing 1000' racing convinced me that NHRA made the right decision.
Of course every year a thread begins about going back to 1320', but if that did happen, everyone would complain about the cars being boring with the drastically reduced power levels, and resulting loss of noise and sensory experience. Can't win !

 

[Nunz]

Well said Carl !
As I have said in previous posts, this did indeed come up in 1984, well before the 2008 change. In 1984, I was actually one of probably many fans that wrote to NHRA, asking them to stay at 1320'. When the change was made in 2008, I could see there really wasn't a choice. We attended only the second 1000' event (2008 Seattle) and I was very pleasantly surprised that it didn't decrease my enjoyment of the event even one bit. Actually seeing 1000' racing convinced me that NHRA made the right decision.
Of course every year a thread begins about going back to 1320', but if that did happen, everyone would complain about the cars being boring with the drastically reduced power levels, and resulting loss of noise and sensory experience. Can't win !

Exactly right, you can't win. When this sport started decades ago, nobody thought we'd see 150 mph in a 1/4 mile, the numbers we see today are mind boggling. The fuel cars of today are moving so fast, you really can't tell they've shut them at 1000 ft. Unless it's night racing and you see the flames go out. The NHRA big show has so much 1/4 mile racing, including the alky classes that I love, that I don't mind the two fuel classes running to 1000 ft., and putting on the ultimate display of power and acceleration. For those who complain about 1000 ft. fuel racing, I wonder if they stay in their seats to enjoy the alky classes running low 5's at 270-280 mph in 1320 ft? I mean, these cars run numbers that the fuel classes were running in what many describe as the golden era of drag racing. If people really stopped to pay attention to what modern drag racing has to offer, instead of being caught up in what's changed, I think there'd be a lot less complaining and more people enjoying the show. JMO

 

[5150 mechanic]

I remember reading the article on that in the back of a hot rod magazine back then, baskervilles notes or something like that, and as a 12yr old I was actually worried they were going to change it! I remember thinking "nooooooo!"

 

[T.Smith]

Every major form of motorsports has had to make some type of concession for rising speeds and safety. F1 no longer races at the Nurburgring Nordschleife and the long course at Spa-Francorchamps. Le Mans Muslanne straight now has two chicanes in it. You ask me, I think nitro drag racing got off easy with just the shortening of the track.

 

[Percboy]

.........nitro drag racing got off easy with just the shortening of the track.

How vocal do you think the NASCAR faithful would be if they announced the Daytona 500 is now Daytona 350 ?

 

[qualified17th]

How vocal do you think the NASCAR faithful would be if they announced the Daytona 500 is now Daytona 350 ?

Honestly a lot of them would probably be in favor... all I see on Twitter is that they should shorten all the races to 300 miles cause their goldfish attention span can't handle 3 hour races

 

[T.Smith]

How vocal do you think the NASCAR faithful would be if they announced the Daytona 500 is now Daytona 350 ?

They'd be very vocal, because shortening the Talladega 500 to 350 miles wouldn't solve the problem they were having. However I believe NASCAR has shortened other races on the circuit for other reasons.

 

[twostep]

nope! . . . . . , as far as i'm concerned,1000 ft. stunk in 2008 & stinks now! (since you asked! )

LOL Well, OK..... I asked....

 

[z28]

Nascar chose to slow the cars down. NHRA chose to shorten the track. Different sports but similar results. Just be glad they haven't gone to 1/8th mile for now. Like it or not we live in a liability infused world and the folks promoting these sports have to set reasonable limits. The salt flats is the only venue I know of where you set your own limit.

 

[twostep]

How vocal do you think the NASCAR faithful would be if they announced the Daytona 500 is now Daytona 350 ?

That wouldn't serve any safety purpose whatsoever; it would offer nothing other than to curb expenses and please the Climate Change crowd. Nitro racing going to 1000 feet did curb expenses somewhat but that wasn't the primary reason for the change - safety issues was. At one time NASCAR vehicles were capable of 230mph on tracks with no safer barriers or fencing to protect the fans....NASCAR finally did something about it despite no end of bitching about whittling 30mph off the top speeds. But it was the right thing to do. So is 1000 foot fuel racing.

 

[n/a]

Honestly a lot of them would probably be in favor... all I see on Twitter is that they should shorten all the races to 300 miles cause their goldfish attention span can't handle 3 hour races

cause their goldfish attention span Funniest thing I've read in a long time Spence.

 

[camaro]

. . . . . . Just be glad they haven't gone to 1/8th mile for now

Amen to that ! . . . . credit to NHRA for sticking to their guns, not going to 1/8th mile racing. I think they realize, while 1/8th mile is favorable to the grass roots racer, however, as a spectator sport, it's right up there with watching grass dry!

 

[Mike]

Wally was in favor of 1/8 mile for all drag racing

 

[Cliff]

If they DID go to 1/8 mile, how much $ would be saved? I don't think it would be much cheaper cuz the wick would be a lot shorter. I know T/F can go 300 in the 1/8 now, so how long before they'd be running, say, 320, 330, etc. I never thought about 1/8 miles costs before, but I think it would be close to what it is now.

 

[Al]

I have to admit that although I don't mind 1000' for the fuel cars, I would NOT like 1/8 mile. We have raced 1/8 mile with my son's dragster and although that is OK, there is a BIG difference between 1000' and 1/8 mile for the fans. So let's consider ourselves lucky that we were only reduced to 1000' for the fuel cars.

 

[Litefoot]

1000 foot nitro racing had to happen. Like most everyone else the purist in me longs for 1320 feet but we have cars running nearly 340 at 1000 and have had for five years. 1320 racing would require either the removal of the timing retard or modifying its limits...it'd be ludicrous to run the last 320 feet with it functioning as is....and as such, we'd have cars routinely running in the mid 350s if not 360. Take away 320 feet and add 20-25mph and half the tracks in the country wouldn't have enough shutdown area. Every safety aspect of the cars themselves would be compromised. Insurance companies would run for the hills. And it's already been proven that nobody can come to a working consensus as how to slow the cars via reducing power.

Myself, I'd far prefer to see the cars at their current power level running 1000 feet than returning them to KB's power level when he ran 301 at Gainesville and I believe anyone currently campaigning one of these cars would agree. Wouldn't you?

No

 

[mick]

IMO if nhra and racers could have put the brakes on performance back late 80's / early 90's just as 4 sec. and 300mph were broken, i think 1/4 mile racing would still be in place.
as ken and carl eluded to, nascar and nhra chose different paths to similar result.......now nhra mite be at same crossroads again? ...... i would like to see less performance still to 1000'.