rollingthunder
Nitro Member
I wonder if someone is going to tell them " If you don't accept 1000ft racing you support drivers getting killed. " ?
Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Houston raceway park supports return to 1320
- Thread starter rollingthunder
- Start date
e-town iceyman
Nitro Member
did anybody else notice that tony shumacher went 325 this weekend
Dougster
Nitro Member
Oh yeah, I noticed that alright and it got me thinking what's next? If 330 in the 1/4 was too quick, what's the difference between that and 325 at 1000'? I know, 5 mph and 320 more feet of shutdown room if things go pear-shaped.
BUT if the goal of going to 1000' was to make things safer in all but a running off the end of the track scenario, how does this make it safer when speeds are getting close to 1/4 mile speeds?
I'd be all for going back to the 1/4 IF something substantive is done to slow the cars down. I fear that something radical may be coming so why don't us fans propose something radical? Here's my radical idea:
Adopt the A/FD package as the package for TF and FC. You'd still have nitro, quick cars and a nice cackle. They'd also be .5 - .7 sec slower and 40-60 mph slower. I've also heard it's a lot cheaper without the blower.
TAD would then be an all-blown alky class, perhaps with a few restrictions to slow them down so as to not upstage TF.
BUT if the goal of going to 1000' was to make things safer in all but a running off the end of the track scenario, how does this make it safer when speeds are getting close to 1/4 mile speeds?
I'd be all for going back to the 1/4 IF something substantive is done to slow the cars down. I fear that something radical may be coming so why don't us fans propose something radical? Here's my radical idea:
Adopt the A/FD package as the package for TF and FC. You'd still have nitro, quick cars and a nice cackle. They'd also be .5 - .7 sec slower and 40-60 mph slower. I've also heard it's a lot cheaper without the blower.
TAD would then be an all-blown alky class, perhaps with a few restrictions to slow them down so as to not upstage TF.
HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
d'kid
Nitro Member
Oh HECK YES!!!!!!!!!
HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
Come on Karl. Remove the supercharger and you remove the appeal of Top Fuel and Nitro Funny Car. Watch the attendance drop if they do that!
Here's my take: Reduce the CID to 426 just like the classic HEMI's, less blower overdrive, less wing attack and a smaller fuel pump. Leave the mags alone because even with the smaller displacement 1 would not be enough.
NitroRichFire
Nitro Member
Would someone please explain why this theory would not work. Wouldn't lowering the gear ratio in the rear ends solve this problem? Wouldn't that put more load on the engine and take the engine longer to reach high RPMs, causing the nitro cars to be going slower at the end of the quarter mile? PLEASE LET ME EXPLAIN, I am not a mechanic, not even close. Back in the 70s when I purchased my first used pick up truck, the gearing was 410, a friend of mine's father changed the rear end gearing to 308. The truck got better mileage and it took longer to build up RPMs when changing the gears. Is it just the fact that these NITRO engines make so much horsepower that this would not even matter? Many thanks to those, who take the time to explain why this wouldn't work to my simple mind. Please stay safe out there! Thanks again!
Lets remember Gainesville had a 20-25 MPH Tailwind most of the weekend! The speeds were up for a lot of classes! Second, 1000' was more for extra shutdown as opposed to slowing cars down!
mike
Nitro Member
Back in the early 90s Joe Amato ran like a 5.0 something with no wing. ('ground effects package')
I can't be bothered discussing this topic, I'd rather watch paint dry on a wall. That taking the supercharger away idea... HAHAHA! PLEASE!!!!!!!!
Back in the early 90s Joe Amato ran like a 5.0 something with no wing. ('ground effects package')
I can't be bothered discussing this topic, I'd rather watch paint dry on a wall. That taking the supercharger away idea... HAHAHA! PLEASE!!!!!!!!
But how about doing it without the ground effects package?
A ground effect package is mainly a diffuser which is a wing...
If i'm correct it makes the air underneath the car moving faster and therefor suck the car to the asphalt.
Now the cars run a max of 2,5 degrees wing attack.
They're using 3 element wings.
What about going back to 2 elemental wings and to start with an no limit wing attack.
The cars would be able to run into the 4,59's but i guess it won't go anyfaster...
I really think it should be left up to the Top Fuel drivers, nobody forces anybody to go fast, its just the nature of drag racing, fastest car wins. Top Fuel is a dangerous sport and drivers know anything can happen. Its a sport, i dont think it will ever be 100% safe no matter what is done. Nitro is nothing nice and nothing easy about it. All teams know anything can happen at anytime. This sport develops as things happen, there is no way to cover everything that can go wrong in 3.8 seconds,or the forces you are messing with and what will break under a freak load on a part. You dance with the devil everytime a top fuel car is fired up.
I can't believe I would ever see the day where someone would suggest removing the supercharger. For me I think its gastly from a performance standpoint but for a fan I would hate to see how many fans would suddenly think why do they sound different? Without the blower its not top fuel.
SundayNiagara
Nitro Member
1000' racing SUCKS!
The Swegian
Nitro Member
One mag, one fuel pump, one spark plug per cylinder. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. It seemed to be quite appealing to the masses back in the 70's and 80's before "two of everything" became the norm. I understand it would cost a considerable amount of money for teams to go back to this, but I would think a considerable amount is already being spent trying to figure out how to slow 'em down.
Smiley
Nitro Member
Richard, I'll give this a shot - someone please correct me if I am wrong..
A Nitro motor LOVES to be under a load, the more you load it, the more you get out of it. I think the current 3.20 ratio was put in because of the high MPH the cars were seeing years ago. It was actually a move to a lower (numerically higher) ratio to bring the RPMs up at speed and use them kind of as a limiter down track.
Move to a Higher (Numerically lower) gear ratio and they will pick up MPH like nobody's business.
Move to a lower (Numerically higher) gear ratio and they'll blow up.
Nitro cars aren't your typical setup, they do not "bring up" the RPMs as you accelerate. They pretty much hit about 9,000 RPM at the hit of the throttle, and then the clutch brings the drivetrain up to meet the engine speed over the course of the track, locking up 1 to 1 somewhere around 3 seconds into the run depending on the tuneup.
The problem I see Mark is that most fans don't want the cars to go slower. Through the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and so on, the cars have continually gotten faster and I think people want and "need" that speed to get excited nowadays.....at least for the Pro categories, which is what puts peoples butts in the seats. Yes, the speeds and ETs back in the 70's and 80's were appealing then, but maybe not so much now. I compare it to starting your career and making a certain salary....as that salary increases, you get used to a standard of living commensurate with your salary. Yes, you thought your salary was great back then, but would you really want to go back and make less less money than you do now and be forced to live a different lifestyle?
It's just an analogy.....I guess I'm saying that I like fast cars and would be less excited if they slowed them down too much. Would I still go and watch it, sure, but something would be missing knowing how it "used" to be. And I agree, you can't lose the supercharger!
