Does NHRA have the cart before the horse? (1 Viewer)

[Professor Dave]

Wilk and Force are testing the 60 GPM pump in St. Louis today and I read the article on Competition Plus about it and what some crew chiefs think. But my question is what is NHRA trying to do with this? I think NHRA first needs to clearly articulate its goals and priorities and then put out requests for comments by team owners and crew chiefs and drivers on what they think of the goals and priorities and then what they think are the best ways to achieve those goals and priorities. For example, here is a set of goals and priorities in one particular order (NHRA should justify why those are the goals and priorities and why in that order):
1. increase the safety of the cars
2. reduce the cost of racing
3. return to quarter mile racing

Now the car owners and crew chiefs might say the order is wrong-most would probably agree on goal 1, but some might rate returning to racing a 1/4 mile more important than reducing the cost of racing. However, once a set of priorities and goals is agreed upon, then NHRA should then go about asking for input as to the best way of achieving the agreed upon goals.

In any event, that's my opinion as to how to proceed and if you feel it's not worth anymore than you paid for it, I've got no ego-feel free to comment.

 

[Toejam]

Dave NHRA has asked the Teams about how to cut costs all the time, at least back in the 90's they were!

 

[nick name]

Wilk and Force are testing the 60 GPM pump in St. Louis today and I read the article on Competition Plus about it and what some crew chiefs think. But my question is what is NHRA trying to do with this? I think NHRA first needs to clearly articulate its goals and priorities and then put out requests for comments by team owners and crew chiefs and drivers on what they think of the goals and priorities and then what they think are the best ways to achieve those goals and priorities. For example, here is a set of goals and priorities in one particular order (NHRA should justify why those are the goals and priorities and why in that order):
1. increase the safety of the cars
2. reduce the cost of racing
3. return to quarter mile racing

Now the car owners and crew chiefs might say the order is wrong-most would probably agree on goal 1, but some might rate returning to racing a 1/4 mile more important than reducing the cost of racing. However, once a set of priorities and goals is agreed upon, then NHRA should then go about asking for input as to the best way of achieving the agreed upon goals.

In any event, that's my opinion as to how to proceed and if you feel it's not worth anymore than you paid for it, I've got no ego-feel free to comment.

I think you're exactly right, but somehow such basic concepts are getting lost in the daily work of running a drag racing organization.

I had a conversation a few years back with a successful NASCAR driver who's one of the most widely respected people in the sport. Before anyone gets sideways over me using them as an example, I'm only doing so in view of the huge success NASCAR had in bringing their sport into the mainstream.

The driver told me that there were three - and only three - reasons that anything got changed in Cup racing, and that the rule was firmly enforced by the France family.

To be seriously considered, an idea had to ensure at least one of the following:

1. Make the racing safer

2. Make the racing cheaper for the competitors

3. Make the racing a better show for the fans

That's pretty darn close to Dave's idea.

That may sound simple but if you think about it there are more than a few changes that have been made in the NHRA that might meet one of the precepts but be at cross purposes to one or both of the others.

And notice that "make more money for the board" isn't on there. The Frances figured that if you take car of the ones I listed, the "more money" thing takes care of itself. It did.

 

[Speed1288]

I think you're exactly right, but somehow such basic concepts are getting lost in the daily work of running a drag racing organization.

I had a conversation a few years back with a successful NASCAR driver who's one of the most widely respected people in the sport. Before anyone gets sideways over me using them as an example, I'm only doing so in view of the huge success NASCAR had in bringing their sport into the mainstream.

The driver told me that there were three - and only three - reasons that anything got changed in Cup racing, and that the rule was firmly enforced by the France family.

To be seriously considered, an idea had to ensure at least one of the following:

1. Make the racing safer

2. Make the racing cheaper for the competitors

3. Make the racing a better show for the fans

That's pretty darn close to Dave's idea.

That may sound simple but if you think about it there are more than a few changes that have been made in the NHRA that might meet one of the precepts but be at cross purposes to one or both of the others.

And notice that "make more money for the board" isn't on there. The Frances figured that if you take car of the ones I listed, the "more money" thing takes care of itself. It did.

In relation to #1, I think both NHRA and NASCAR missed the boat at one time or another on that area.

 

[Mooseman]

As long as entertainment does not become the number 1 priority as soon as entertainment becomes the main priority in a racing organisation things are just bound to go down the toilet.

 

[d'kid]

As long as entertainment does not become the number 1 priority as soon as entertainment becomes the main priority in a racing organisation things are just bound to go down the toilet.

That just about cover every Major Professional Auto Racing series, World Wide, Mike. If you don't put butts in the seats, you've got nothing to pay with. Be it F-1, LeManns, NASCAR, NHRA, IHRA, ADRL, AHRA, Heck, Even the Stanley Cup, MLB, NFL, NBA... PGA... Heck, Even the Olympics are about $$$$$

Rolex, the Official Timepiece of.....
It's the RoI that drives everything

Very Depressed Now....
d'kid

 

[Mooseman]

Anyone read Big Jims comments

PROPOSED FUEL PUMP CHANGE HAS THE NITRO PITS BUZZING

 

[Mooseman]

I don't think anyone likes the thought of restricting them or slowing them down but look at how Wilkerson said he went through 13 pairs of tires in 2 races that silly no matter how much money you have. Is slowing them down the answer maybe not but surely something has to be done to encourage more people into those classes. Apart from the guys out there running now how many people are building new cars for those classes?

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Wilk and Force are testing the 60 GPM pump in St. Louis today and I read the article on Competition Plus about it and what some crew chiefs think. But my question is what is NHRA trying to do with this? I think NHRA first needs to clearly articulate its goals and priorities and then put out requests for comments by team owners and crew chiefs and drivers on what they think of the goals and priorities and then what they think are the best ways to achieve those goals and priorities. For example, here is a set of goals and priorities in one particular order (NHRA should justify why those are the goals and priorities and why in that order):
1. increase the safety of the cars
2. reduce the cost of racing
3. return to quarter mile racing

Now the car owners and crew chiefs might say the order is wrong-most would probably agree on goal 1, but some might rate returning to racing a 1/4 mile more important than reducing the cost of racing. However, once a set of priorities and goals is agreed upon, then NHRA should then go about asking for input as to the best way of achieving the agreed upon goals.

In any event, that's my opinion as to how to proceed and if you feel it's not worth anymore than you paid for it, I've got no ego-feel free to comment.

Dave I'm sure yer heart is in the right place. But, If you ask 12 different crew chiefs, you'll get 12 different answers.
#1 and #2 are fine. But give up on #3, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[.]

But give up on #3, it ain't gonna happen.

Paul, you've said this a few times in the last week or two. I gotta ask... do you have inside information that says "it ain't gonna happen", or are you just saying that because you like 1000 foot racing and don't want to go back to 1320?

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

No Brian, no inside info here. But many seem to be holding out for 1320ft again. I think they are missing the point.
The main goal is to slow the cars down, right??

The poweres that be are trying to come up with a solution that (1) only changes one thing.
(2) doesn't cost a bunch of R&D.
(3) Doesn't make a lot of parts obsolete

IF they do slow the cars down.....why in the world would they turn around and give them 320 ft more to accelerate???

Seems kinda contradictory to me....jmo.

 

[.]

IF they do slow the cars down.....why in the world would they turn around and give them 320 ft more to accelerate???

Because back when the cars originally ran the speeds that the NHRA wants to slow the cars back down to, track length wasn't an issue. In other words..... I never heard people saying the track was too short when they were running 4.90's @ 300. It didn't seem to become a problem until 320 - 330. So if they slow the cars back down to when track length wasn't an issue, why WOULDN'T they return to 1320?

 

[.]

Oh, and I meant to post this in my previous reply....

Jerry Newman posted this in one of the other threads. He was the first to break the news about the new pump. I'm sure this came from one of his "big show" connections.

"Hot Rumor Alert"
NHRA is telling Nitro teams today that they will enforce a smaller fuel pump size (65+/- gals.) rule ,
and go back to 1320.
Testing after St.Louis, the change to be made this summer ?
Hot Rumor Alert only...

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

You never hear, or read anything from nhra about returning to 1320. It's not an issue for them. They just want to slow the cars down.

You may be right sir, but I just don't see it happening.

 

[rocketman]

All this stuff has been considered before. It's time for action

 

[Mooseman]

There is a great interview on the internet with the guys from keith black racing engines where they discuss the forged block versus cast block thing. Man NHRA messed then majorly according to the interview they got in touch with NHRA and were told before hand that NHRA was Not going to go to a forged block only rule so KB racing engines came out with another cast block then suddenly NHRA came out with the forged block only rule without telling anybody and aparently told keith black racing that they should have seen it coming and when Keith Black racing engines asked what the specs were supposed to be for the forged block so that they could make one they got "I don't know" as a response from NHRA.

 

[Tim5636sc]

No Brian, no inside info here. But many seem to be holding out for 1320ft again. I think they are missing the point.
The main goal is to slow the cars down, right??

It's been my understanding THE MAIN GOAL is to reduce catastrophic engine failures.... It's been talked about for years.....but as many have stated... We are dealing with NITRO here.

Slowing the cars down... by product of above issue...

Returning to quarter mile... by product of above issue...

Reduction in costs to operate nitro cars.. by product of above issue.... possibly.

So getting it down to the simplest forms, which we seem to be missing here.... finding a way to reduce the huge engine failures, which directly impact (poor choice of words but true) driver safety SHOULD be at the fore-front of why NHRA is planning to make changes.

 

[Mooseman]

Whatever they do I hope it makes things easier cost wise to allow more people to afford to race. I also hope that the worry of the big money guys just running them lean and burning the heads off every run doesnt eventuate so that it doesn't make it completely unaffordable for new guys and doesnt price little guys out of the deal.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

It's been my understanding THE MAIN GOAL is to reduce catastrophic engine failures.... It's been talked about for years.....but as many have stated... We are dealing with NITRO here.

Slowing the cars down... by product of above issue...

Returning to quarter mile... by product of above issue...

Reduction in costs to operate nitro cars.. by product of above issue.... possibly.

So getting it down to the simplest forms, which we seem to be missing here.... finding a way to reduce the huge engine failures, which directly impact (poor choice of words but true) driver safety SHOULD be at the fore-front of why NHRA is planning to make changes.

Our sport is not about endurance like Indy 500, it's beans to the wall all out. You'll never eliminate failure when you run to the max.
Main goal - slow them down, yes
return to quarter mile - not a factor. I don't think nhra is interested.
safety-nhra?? not their Prime goal, don't even get me started on that.

 

[Toejam]

I don't think anyone likes the thought of restricting them or slowing them down but look at how Wilkerson said he went through 13 pairs of tires in 2 races that silly no matter how much money you have. Is slowing them down the answer maybe not but surely something has to be done to encourage more people into those classes. Apart from the guys out there running now how many people are building new cars for those classes?

I'm certainly not going to question Tim saying he went through 13 pairs of tires in two races. But two crew guys I've talked to on different teams have told me they can get 3 runs on Slicks at most tracks! Even if your talking all 4 qualifying sessions and going to the final round, that's 8 passes X2 races? That's 13 sets of tires in 16 passes down the track? Did Tim go to the finals at both races?