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

[Paul]

Patrick- If the majority of drivers, owners, and the NHRA are happy racing to 1,000ft do you think they will consider 1,320 again because of a few people on a message board? I don't want to rain on your parade, but I don't see the sport going back to 1,320 for many reasons one of many including the financial reason with the current economic downturn and the most important reason is that the people of have political pull are happy with the current racing.

 

[Rat]

who says it has to be as expensive as it is to race TF, the price has EXPLODED and no one controlled it. It's not this board who is ever gonna get the NHRA to change. It's members in the NHRA community that want 1320 back, but give up because no one listens to them. The sport needs a makeover. The cars need it first. It a proposal needs to be taken to the NHRA and it needs people who are willing to consider it and not just buy in to the It's 1000 feet cause NHRA says so and they feel the waters are fine right now.

 

[Bullet]

Run a combination of 1000' and 1320' races depending on shutdown area.

The best of both worlds!

 

[Gregg Pickens]

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

In what way? NASCAR slowed down their cars and the sport grew from the increased competition. What happens when the cars get so fast that 1000 feet is to much? The problem is not the length of the track its the speed of the cars. Slow them down. I highly doubt the average fan can tell a 340 mph pass from a 300 mph with out the aid of the scoreboards.

 

[Cymon Sez]

NHRA lost my money!

Yeah I know some of you will say big deal!

Well it wasn't just the 1000' that killed it for me. I am tired of seeing the same faces on TV and the same questions asked in interviews. I am tired of seeing JFR vs DSR! I'm tired of seeing the lame attempt of making a wedge look like a mustang or charger with decals.

I have chosen to spend my hard earned money going to nostalgia events, PSCA races and local drag nights. Yeah they dont go as as quick or fast, but I feel its better bang for my buck when you can look at a car for its build quality or custom paint, and the racing is great also.

320' extra shut down, ok that's a good thing, but at the cost of 50 years of history! I don't agree with that. I as a racer want the safest track possible for all racers. When a company out grows its current location it seeks out a bigger facility to accommodate its future growth, sometimes that means moving a great distance to do this. Should we go back to 1320'? Absolutely! Will it bring back lost fans? Maybe. Is it safer? That will always be debated, but it will HELP keep cars out of the nets(but so would slowing them down a bit).

It will take more than 320' to really get me interested in the NHRA again.

 

[Mooseman]

Whats interesting is in australia top fuel is still 1/4 mile, I am waiting on the day that an australian fueler at 1/4 mile goes quicker then the nhra equivelant 1/4 mile records.

I have been wondering two things regarding current nitro performance for a long while now, one thing being that is adding weight to the nitro cars just fuelling the fire since they always say nitro likes load more load more power, well is weight not a type of load?

Also imagine the added momentum all that weight creates, to look at that imagine a 300mph train and a 300mph vw beetle, which would be easier to stop? I am willing to beat on the 300mph vw.

Also whats up with the minimum engine displacement rule I can understand maximum displacement rule but how much damage is that 4.5inch crank creating?

 

[none]

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

OK, I think I understand, you want a combination that would have the cars run the 1320 at 4.60ish 318ish and as soon as they get to 4.50 at 325 you want to change the rules again to slow them down. So if you have to change the rules four times a year, is that acceptable? But you don't want to back them up to 4.9 at 300 then let them progress because that would be to slow. And you don't have a suggestion about how to do it without bankrupting the smaller teams, you just want it to happen. And preferably by the time we get to Phoenix. Do I have that right?

Alan

 

[Clark W.]

OK, I think I understand, you want a combination that would have the cars run the 1320 at 4.60ish 318ish and as soon as they get to 4.50 at 325 you want to change the rules again to slow them down. So if you have to change the rules four times a year, is that acceptable? But you don't want to back them up to 4.9 at 300 then let them progress because that would be to slow. And you don't have a suggestion about how to do it without bankrupting the smaller teams, you just want it to happen. And preferably by the time we get to Phoenix. Do I have that right?

Alan

Alan,
I appreciate your view and candor on this subject. I really don't think it would take four times a year to control the speeds. Maybe a six month review and make the changes in the winter and summer if needed. As far as bankrupting the smaller teams, that's a moot point, we already have 3 or 4 owners fielding 75% of the cars. Don't you get tired of interviewing the same people all the time? Our sport is like the movie "Groundhog Day". Its time for a change.........

 

[FC138fan]

Here are a few obvious, yet pointless things that I would like to see (and hear) at the track -
Loud engines - quarter mile - full fields (more then 16) and a variety of cars, teams and body styles

Make it so that a sub 5 second run over 300 is a good FC run
Make it so that a sub 4.60 run over 315 is a good TF run

Make it so anyone can be competitive, not just those with massive amounts of money

How to do this? Time warp back to the mid 90's.

 

[Reese]

NHRA will not slow the cars down and go back to 1/4 mile racing if it will mean that a NHRA top fuel will have a slower e.t.and speed than a IHRA top fueler. Personally, I wish they go back to 1/4 mile racing.

 

[andujar]

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?

If in the true interest of safety we needed to give them more room to slow down! Why was action not taken when Schumacher went 337.58 at Columbus a few years before the Kalitta Death. I believe in 2006 or 2007 Bazemore went 333 or 334 in a Top Fuel dragster at E-town? These tracks were short and were always worrisome..(Columbus no longer on the schedule) there may have been discussion of this but no real action...How about slowing the cars down to reduce expenses and the risk of another catastrophic incident.We keep talking about the tracks but what about the cars. Whats wrong with 4.60's at 315-320 at 1320 feet?

 

[.]

....when Schumacher went 337.58 at Columbus....

That was Brainerd!

 

[onfire]

That was Brainerd!

He did it in Columbus too, Brian.


Mitch

 

[mick]

That was Brainerd!

he did 337 at both - think the columbus run was backed up for record;
the brainerd run was and still is the quickest but was not backed up.

 

[Rat]

OK, I think I understand, you want a combination that would have the cars run the 1320 at 4.60ish 318ish and as soon as they get to 4.50 at 325 you want to change the rules again to slow them down. So if you have to change the rules four times a year, is that acceptable? But you don't want to back them up to 4.9 at 300 then let them progress because that would be to slow. And you don't have a suggestion about how to do it without bankrupting the smaller teams, you just want it to happen. And preferably by the time we get to Phoenix. Do I have that right?

Alan

Your absolutely right expect for one part you reset to 5.0 at new circumcirstances and keep letting them come back to 4.60. I doubt it gets reached in even a season and a half.

 

[Rat]

NHRA will not slow the cars down and go back to 1/4 mile racing if it will mean that a NHRA top fuel will have a slower e.t.and speed than a IHRA top fueler. Personally, I wish they go back to 1/4 mile racing.

That's an interesting point. IHRA TF is not even a threat. IHRA is 1320 cause hardly ever does 1 leave the 4.60 zone yet even run a 4.70.

 

[Toejam]

Virgil Hartman had the best solution for slowing the cars down, without costing a TON of Money! Eliminate 1 Mag, and mandate a 4 disc clutch!

 

[TooTall999]

I think we should go back to 1320...95% nitro...and mandate that you have to keep the same block in the car for the entire race..and keep the turnaround time the same...if you had to keep your one engine alive you wouldn't be pushing it as hard...

 

[mick]

........I'm tired of seeing the lame attempt of making a wedge look like a mustang or charger with decals.

couldn't agree more - hence my other thread 'nitro fc's' and comments about
how PM cars look.....there is sooooo much the pro nitro fc class could do
to improve it's appeal, that it used to have in spades, now regrettably
it has lost.

someone should ask terry mcmillen if he is saving any money running to 1000'.

series sponsor coca-cola even tried a new formula years ago and is known as
one of biggest blunders in business history, but they realized it.
maybe nhra should get some opinions from unrelated businesses......
like their series sponsor

do not change the distance back to 1320' - still race to 1000' and
start introducing new parts over a 2-3 year period....one to two changes
per year - after the 2013 season see where you're at with et and speed,
if low enough do not hesitate to bring back 1320'.
do this slowly so manufacturers can sell inventory and re-tool for next.

and keep nitro @ minimum of 95% like david suggests.

and alcohol classes running similar to pros?... so what - run them at div.
races and let the pros run the nat. events. what do think would have
happened if that HD partners deal went through?
could you tell a busch car if it was running in pack of cup cars?
damn near same thing - 2 different series, 2 different budgets,
same racing

 

[.]

He did it in Columbus too, Brian.


Mitch

Was the run in Columbus an exact copy "337.58" of the run in Brainerd? Down to the hundredth?