Is 1000ft. any safer or better than 1320? (1 Viewer)

[Pete]

Patrick I understand yer pain, tradition and all. But besides lowering the speeds, it preserved several tracks. Many tracks are land locked, they can't buy more land for shut down area. Under todays rules TF would be at or near 350mph. Going to 1,000ft gave them the added room they needed. NHRA keeps adding weight so it takes longer to stop them.

Your idea about slowing Nitro to 5.1's sounds good at first, but that opens another can of worms. TAD is running 5 teens and 20's. NHRA likes a big gap between sportsman and Pro's. So then we would have to slow the alky cars costing them big $$$.

1,000ft, much like the countdown, is here to stay sir. We may not like it, but...

I have total confidence in our crew chiefs, ET's will continue to fall - MPH will continue to raise.

Excellent post Paul.

 

[none]

Patrick 320' more shut down is safer. No matter what speed you are running. If you can't see that, then you're not looking. If you don't believe that a longer shut down is safer, then how can you say that some tracks are long enough to (safely) handle 1320 racing? Either extra shut down is good or not, you can't have it both ways.

As for the run them 1320 at some tracks, who is going to determine just how long is long enough? If something went wrong, I sure wouldn't want to be they guy that said "This track is long enough" if it turned out not to be. Would you?

Alan

 

[Rat]

Sorry, but the closest speed I've seen to 340 was Tony Schumacher's 337.58, and that was back in the 1320' days (2005). If you're saying that 340-350 is what we'll be approaching at 1000', then what would it be at 1320'?

So yes, 1000' has slowed the cars down and 320' does make a difference on the top end, especially with carbon fiber brakes and twin parachutes!

If we stayed 1320 all along i'm guess we would be approaching 350 if not over. If 337.58 scared the NHRA (supposedly that began all the rev limters and related) then are we gonna wait till we get to 337.58 only at 1000ft? Distance really does not matter when taking in to equation no matter what ever becomes of this, there's going to be still about the same accident to good run ratio. Even at it's worse this sport has been pretty safe overall. We can't be worried about death because your over 280 at 660 and that could kill anybody given the right issues come into play.

 

[Rat]

Patrick 320' more shut down is safer. No matter what speed you are running. If you can't see that, then you're not looking. If you don't believe that a longer shut down is safer, then how can you say that some tracks are long enough to (safely) handle 1320 racing? Either extra shut down is good or not, you can't have it both ways.

As for the run them 1320 at some tracks, who is going to determine just how long is long enough? If something went wrong, I sure wouldn't want to be they guy that said "This track is long enough" if it turned out not to be. Would you?

Alan

Actually I would. I would of done my homework to begin with. I would NEVER run a fuel car at 1320 where it's a short track. Keep it 1000 or 1320 at 5.0's at E-town, pomona, reading, A track like Sonoma, INDY, Brainerd, Vegas, Concord. More than ok for 1320. Everyone knew E-town and pomona were the shortest tracks on the schedule and they were accidents just waiting to happen. Even if NHRA would go 1320 at just 1 or 2 next year give it a shot. INDY and Sonoma have more than enough room if a car gets outta shape. No excuse to be 1000feet there.

I admire your insight Alan, but it takes an idiot say 1320 is ok for all tracks on the tour, and my opinion makes me no idiot. I want someone with power to actually take this case to the NHRA or help me find the path to just let me make sure that they heard the case on this.

 

[DAN]

Is it true that some of the top teams are now using 107 gallon pumps?

 

[none]

So if someone gets hurt running 1320 at one of those tracks, are you willing to explain to the lawyers that this track was safe, while another one wasn't? And you should have some formula for deciding this, not just that this one "looks OK to me"

Something else that hasn't been brought up is the tires, I don't believe they are rated to go 350MPH so if you make the teams have a combination to run all out at the 1000' tracks, and another to run choked down at 1320, how many of the lesser funded teams have you just put out of business?

Alan

P.S. Have you contacted NHRA? You said that someone should, why not you?

 

[BrianT]

my $.02, why wouldn't this work? quit applying VHT (the traction compound), years ago it was a real hoot to watch them smoke 1320 feet. that way no other restrictions would be required (I don't think)
talk about getting back to real racing.
just my never to be humble opinion.

 

[PJ]

So if someone gets hurt running 1320 at one of those tracks, are you willing to explain to the lawyers that this track was safe, while another one wasn't? And you should have some formula for deciding this, not just that this one "looks OK to me"

?

I understand the point but we've lost people before 1320' or 1000' spots on the track as well. ADRL just lost someone in 1/8th mile. Does this mean we have them burnout and just launch. Whoever has the best reaction time wins? How short is safe? How did the NHRA convince insurance that 1000' was ok but 1050 wasn't?

 

[mike]

Paul, Mike, this is an educated discussion and if I want to make it a thread and let people see it and contribute, i'm free to do so. You guys have NOTHING to contribute but to tell me it's a dead horse. So I invite you to leave the thread. Was the title not a hint to what it was about? Thanks for the advice, that horse is perfectly alive!

I gave an opinion. I could also say I think 1000ft is better and that the extra 320 of shut down is safer, but like others in this thread who have agreed that the extra 320 helps, you have shut them down and argued with their opinions. After all I believe the title of your thread asked people the question if it "is safer or better" So allow people to have their opinions. When I can be bothered, I'm going to tear your other posts apart. You contradict yourself, you ramble in completely different directions from the topic of the thread. You should have created a thread titled "My name is Patrick, I don't accept any pro views on 1000ft nor do I like people who don't agree with me. I have no money invested in fuel racing and these are my opinions" That probably would have been a better title.

 

[Rat]

So if someone gets hurt running 1320 at one of those tracks, are you willing to explain to the lawyers that this track was safe, while another one wasn't? And you should have some formula for deciding this, not just that this one "looks OK to me"

Something else that hasn't been brought up is the tires, I don't believe they are rated to go 350MPH so if you make the teams have a combination to run all out at the 1000' tracks, and another to run choked down at 1320, how many of the lesser funded teams have you just put out of business?

Alan

P.S. Have you contacted NHRA? You said that someone should, why not you?

Alan I agree with you the cars need to be the same 100% whether 1320 or 1000, but your disagreement with alot of what i said only pertains to what circumstances they decide to take. If you choke the cars down then 1320 everywhere, if not leave it the way it is not and run 1320 at maybe if i have to pick 1, just indy cause it has more than enough space. I'm not trying to disagree with anybody and alot of guys on here are 2 year olds who can't handle a disagreement like you can sir.

All I am trying to say, whether my points are fuzzy or not, we should return to 1320 and not return with a solution that puts us back at square 1. At least choking the cars down will buy about 3-5 years maybe longer before we have to implend a new restriction

 

[Rat]

I gave an opinion. I could also say I think 1000ft is better and that the extra 320 of shut down is safer, but like others in this thread who have agreed that the extra 320 helps, you have shut them down and argued with their opinions. After all I believe the title of your thread asked people the question if it "is safer or better" So allow people to have their opinions. When I can be bothered, I'm going to tear your other posts apart. You contradict yourself, you ramble in completely different directions from the topic of the thread. You should have created a thread titled "My name is Patrick, I don't accept any pro views on 1000ft nor do I like people who don't agree with me. I have no money invested in fuel racing and these are my opinions" That probably would have been a better title.

Keep saying all you want. I accepted all views except for people like you who just dont want to accept my view and bring theirs to the table or want to tell me i'm beating a dead horse. Go back and read and show me where I rejected someone's opinion? not one. Your for 1000 and you will not let me breathe the air in your "earth" until I agree with you. So continue to say all you want about me. You and guys like you are not contributing to anything useful. You made your point I accept it then I see clearly you like to judge me because you dont agree with me. So I want to hear it Mike, how would you return to 1320? I understand you invested millions in the sport so how would Mike return to 1320?

This thread is not mean to be an elementary playground. It's not about check yes or no if you like 1320. It's about if 1000ft is better and safer than 1320 and why and if we did go back to 1320 how? It's either state your opinion and step up to the plate or just don't freakin click on it.

 

[Von Halen]

1000' hasn't stopped me from going, but I know at least 6-7 people who I used to see at 2-3 races per year who refuse to pay to see 1000' racing, Barry Fegh is one of them! And if I know a few people, I'm willing to bet most of us here do.

You haven't seen me at a 1000' race, and you won't.

I used to spend a lot of money on this sport (as a fan). They lost me with the 1000' deal.

 

[none]

So purely hypothetically, if NHRA said,

#1 Take the blowers off, and run everything else the same

#2 No more AFD, you guys can add management and run TF. (increase the field size)

#3 TAD will be just that Alcohol ONLY!

In my mind, the New TF would be in the 4.90’s near and soon at 300. Would you be ok with that?

I think part of the TF experience is that you feel the cars, not just watch and hear them. And I appreciate the AFD’s as much or more than anyone, but they don’t “feel” the same.

I keep thinking that at 90% then 85% how many people were saying that it just wasn’t the same. I honestly don’t think those same hard core fans are going to like a neutered TF class more than the 1000’ version they have today.

Again, just my opinion,

Alan

 

[Rat]

So purely hypothetically, if NHRA said,

#1 Take the blowers off, and run everything else the same

#2 No more AFD, you guys can add management and run TF. (increase the field size)

#3 TAD will be just that Alcohol ONLY!

In my mind, the New TF would be in the 4.90’s near and soon at 300. Would you be ok with that?

I think part of the TF experience is that you feel the cars, not just watch and hear them. And I appreciate the AFD’s as much or more than anyone, but they don’t “feel” the same.

I keep thinking that at 90% then 85% how many people were saying that it just wasn’t the same. I honestly don’t think those same hard core fans are going to like a neutered TF class more than the 1000’ version they have today.

Again, just my opinion,

Alan

Alan, I am useless to the mechanics about how to run one of these cars down. My optimal position was to have these cars peak at no more than a 4.55-4.60. Even with the clutch idea I am no way an advocate of staying at 4.9's. In a perfect world these cars would top out at a mid to high 50 and that's it and no more than 318 or so. I'm sure there's ways to do it. I'm not worried about spec, dont prevent a crew chief from trying to go faster, just throw curve balls. You'll never have a field of 16 with a 4.60 # 1 and a 4.61 bump. There will always be a weekend as always when 1 team has a better edge on it then the other at a different location

 

[Paul]

Sorry, but I don't want to see a watered down car running 1320 and the extra 320ft of stopping distance will only help in the event of a catastrophic incident. I was at E-Town in 2008 when Scott had his crash and the pure horror and sadness in the pits after the incident is something I hope myself or no one else ever has to see. The shortening of the distance and the numerous top end improvements that have occurred since than are a direct result of what happened that day and all have allowed the sport to continue. From 2003 thru 2008 we lost 2 fuel drivers due to top end incidents and John Force was seriously injured, since Scott's crash the safety record has improved. Are we on borrowed time, who knows, but recent results show the safety of the sport is moving in the right direction. If the drivers and owners feel safe racing at 1,000ft than I am all for it.

 

[BF]

Okay, since we're doing hypotheticals. What happens when the fuel cars start going consistently around 340MPH at 1000'. It will happen eventually...then what?

 

[Rat]

Everyone would feel just as safe with 1320 if it was brought back the right way. It just can't be, "hey let's go 1320 again," it has to be really thought out and this is what this thread is for. Can the sport go back to 1320 right now? Absolutely Not. Safety has come a long, long way, but we did not need to lose Scott and Darrell to know this. We knew these cars were going to fast 10 years ago and the NHRA did nothing. I saw this coming and here we are. 3.50's will come, 340's will come at 1000ft. I hope the NHRA is aware that 1000ft is not the best option to stay the course on. Just because technology is out there to run 4.42 do we have to use it? I'm not saying take the excitement outta nitro, I'm saying make these cars a tad slower so the sport can return to 1320 in someway. 4.60's at 315's are just as good as 4.420/337. The excitement can stay.

 

[Gregg Pickens]

Don Garlits had the solution years ago. One mag and one pump. The reason the cars are so fast is the crazy amount of fuel they can burn. Limit that and the speeds will come down.

 

[Rat]

Ok now I can see if maybe Don's wrong (doubt it) but would it hurt the NHRA to try that or AA Dale's compression ideas

 

[JF]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Alan, Are you on drugs? NHRA listening to a racer or even a Fan! You have to be out of your mind. Thats the most ridiculious thing I have ever heard you say.