First Phase of Cockpit approval (1 Viewer)

[Bobby Bennett]

http://www.competitionplus.com/drag...oval-of-cockpit-canopy-for-top-fuel-dragsters

Press release here while we prepare the full story

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Glad to see it's optional, not manditory. But they are sure taking their time on this.

 

[Dry Hop Doc]

At this rate, top fuel dragsters will be powered by hydrogen by the time full approval is given.

That said, at least this moves forward ... even at its current glacial pace.

 

[DixonFan]

I was surprised that anyone would be able to purchase the (harley)..um canopy...lol

 

[mick]

thank goodness for this rigorous testing and non-exclusivity to DSR.
without it DSR would have probably won every race this year with their
proprietary equipment and by now would have been subject to
a 20lb. penalty.

 

[Bobby Bennett]

And now, the full story

http://www.competitionplus.com/drag...pe-canopy-adjusted-unit-could-run-in-brainerd

 

[you]

I'm curious. If it's made avilable to everyone, why are they so worried about aerodynamic advantage?

 

[Bobby Bennett]

Because of the teams that cannot afford it and the added issue, they really don't want the cars to run any quicker or faster.

 

[you]

Because of the teams that cannot afford it and the added issue, they really don't want the cars to run any quicker or faster.

I understand....but how is that any different from a team that can't afford to run the new front wing. Not trying to argue, just asking.

 

[Muddy]

I forget what it was called mostly because its not important anyway but there used to be a race (not drag) where the drivers all showed up and checked out their identical camaros. That's what nitro racing is becoming...can you say BORING?

What used to make drag racing interesting was seeing what someone who was not factory sponsored and had a limited budget came up with and if/how it worked. Now its mostly cookie cutter and big money. Not a lot of innovation..at least not much that's obvious although I'm reasonably sure there is some we don't see.

For example just think about the evolution of the front end assembly. From a droped axle with spring to torsion to no suspension, staggered and front mounted steering box not to mention the evolution of the front wheels.

I guess that's why I mostly stay home these days. I still care but not like I used to. Only takes me 20 or 30 minutes to watch a race because I record it and fast forward through all the PS, PSB and other fluff.

I think the race was the IROC series.

 

[TFRon]

Another blow to low buck racers!

 

[mick]

is canopy an integral part of each chassis? or can the canopy move
from chassis to chassis? i.e. buy one then use for a period of time with
more than one chassis?

 

[JB3]

I forget what it was called mostly because its not important anyway but there used to be a race (not drag) where the drivers all showed up and checked out their identical camaros. That's what nitro racing is becoming...can you say BORING?

What used to make drag racing interesting was seeing what someone who was not factory sponsored and had a limited budget came up with and if/how it worked. Now its mostly cookie cutter and big money. Not a lot of innovation..at least not much that's obvious although I'm reasonably sure there is some we don't see.

For example just think about the evolution of the front end assembly. From a droped axle with spring to torsion to no suspension, staggered and front mounted steering box not to mention the evolution of the front wheels.

I guess that's why I mostly stay home these days. I still care but not like I used to. Only takes me 20 or 30 minutes to watch a race because I record it and fast forward through all the PS, PSB and other fluff.

I think the race was the IROC series.

Question for you John ... When speaking of innovation, what is always the primary purpose of innovation? First and foremost has always been to go quicker and faster, right? There have been safety improvements with some innovations. How much faster do you want to see these cars go? Hell, in only a few years, teams figured out how to go 330 mph on a track 320 feet shorter.

We all know the DSR canopy is completely designed on the principle to improve driver safety, but if a resultant effect is another 5-7 mph top speed and even quicker ET's ... is that really a good thing? Could added speed negate some of the safety features of the canopy in a bad crash?

I guess ultimately the question always will be how fast is too fast, right?

 

[Horsepower & Heels]

How much added expense are we talking here?

 

[Muddy]

Question for you John ... When speaking of innovation, what is always the primary purpose of innovation? First and foremost has always been to go quicker and faster, right? There have been safety improvements with some innovations. How much faster do you want to see these cars go? Hell, in only a few years, teams figured out how to go 330 mph on a track 320 feet shorter.

We all know the DSR canopy is completely designed on the principle to improve driver safety, but if a resultant effect is another 5-7 mph top speed and even quicker ET's ... is that really a good thing? Could added speed negate some of the safety features of the canopy in a bad crash?

I guess ultimately the question always will be how fast is too fast, right?

Don't guess I care much about the speed but I pay a lot of attention to the ET. The only reason I even notice the speed is because its an indicator of how much HP the car is making. I'd be fine with a 3 sec ET and a much much lower MPH. I am sure the laws of physics would prohibit that but we could verify that with Dr. Sheldon Cooper if you like.