Re: Funny car driver Melanie Troxel said she hopes the shorter course isn't permanent
Rex,
I wasn't questioning anything regarding the safety issues. I was merely questioning the reasoning or the use of the argument in this particular case. The extra 320' in Scott's crash wouldn't have made any difference at all from what I saw but it's just my opinion based on just that.
The sandtrap/boom/wall/poles etc...all could have been another 320' down the track and I don't see how that would have changed anything. If there's proof otherwise please someone explain it.
That all being said, I fully understand the desire to slow them down or do something to eliminate the dangers and I was in no way questioning that. For the record...I'm neither for nor against 1000' racing. I agree that aside from the E.T.'s flashed up on the board that most won't really notice that much of a difference.
Jeremy, thanks for the support.
Well, I was not arguing with you.
You had asked if in this instance.
I saw that as specific, being a logical thinker (believe me, I actually have SOME people around me fooled

) I answered no, not in this instance.
I'm of the thinking, like Jim Head, and Austin Coil, that they run as hard as they can to 1000' anyway, at that point, they are dangerously on the limiter.
The limiter is a bad idea, IMO, and 1000', no limiter, or very little, will decrease damage.
I've blown stuff up, and basically it was running stuff for too hard too long.
It is not radical at all that less time equals less strain. Several crew chiefs and drivers have said the same thing, pure common sense.
And, not to you Drew, if any one would like to trade my experience at E-Town that day???????? You can have it. Think it was fun, that it's a easy thing to get outta' your head??
Silly me, I just can't see the joke.
REX