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

[vegasnitro]

First of all, the IHRA as a professional racing entity is dead. NOTHING will change that. Anyone thinking the IHRA is a potential viable alternative to NHRA is stuck in the 80s or just hasn't been paying attention.

Second, it is not realistic to run some 1,000 and some 1,320. The tuneups and parts requirements would be dissimilar, only widening the already huge gap between the haves and have nots. Also, as Alan said, you open up yourself to myriad of insurance and liability issues.

Third, the only way the NHRA is going to change anything is if they are forced to either internally or externally. Externally if ratings and attendance go way down from a fan perspective, and that doesn't seem to have happened. Internally if the teams draw the line in the sand and demand 1320. That doesn't seem to have happened either.

Now, my 2 cents, and it's way over-priced at that rate. I feel the NHRA has MUCH bigger fish to fry than 1,000 or 1,320. They need to grow the sport, attract new teams and drivers, satisfy track owners and promoters, enhance the fan experience and get new eyeballs on the TV and new butts in the seats, and keep the teams and sponsors they have somewhat happy, engaged and viable. The fulchrum of all of that is rules stability. Changing the rules is expensive on many fronts and invites the law of unintended consequences to a seat at the table. As it is now, EVERYBODY knows what they are getting. Fans know what they are buying a ticket to see. Owners know how much it is going to cost. Promoters know what it is going to cost to put on the show. Sponsors know what it is going to cost. There is something to be said for that.

Now for the original posit of the thread:

Is racing to 1,000 safer? YES. They have an extra football field to slow down and stop and a football field less to accelerate, very simple physics. Reminds me of the old saying popular among private pilots, takeoffs are optional, but landings are mandatory. It would probably be real cool to see a car go 340MPH in the 1320, but it is much cooler to see most everybody make the turnoff safely at the big end. Racing is dangerous no matter what class you race, danger will never be completely eliminated from the sport, but at least you should take every step you can to mitigate the danger. 1000ft mitigated some danger without costing the tracks or team owners very much money.

Is racing to 1,000 better? I will argue yes. Fields are tighter in qualifying, there are more side by side races and there seems to be more holeshots these days. And I would absolutely agree that if you turned off the scoreboards, 90% of the fans in the stands wouldn't know the difference, it's only us hard core types that somehow feel we are missing out on something, even though we probably aren't.

(sorry for the length of this post ... thanks for reading if you made it this far)

 

[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?

Great post!!!

 

[None]

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

Great post #2!!!!!

 

[Rat]

Is racing to 1,000 safer? YES. They have an extra football field to slow down and stop and a football field less to accelerate, very simple physics. Reminds me of the old saying popular among private pilots, takeoffs are optional, but landings are mandatory. It would probably be real cool to see a car go 340MPH in the 1320, but it is much cooler to see most everybody make the turnoff safely at the big end.

Yes it's true right now, but the main point it the cars are being ran just a violently and give it 2 years, we will be a 340, we will hit 330 next year 100%. So I can see the path of this thread is the extra 320 seems to be winning but I ask someone good with physics to answer me this?

If the cars hit 340 or 350 to 1000 here if the interesting question, What speed does the dragster need to hit to make the extra 320 stopping distance no longer an extra anything?

The fastest speed right now is 327, at 1320 right now the car is down to what? 290? If they reach 350 at 1000 at 1320 could they be at 310?

 

[none]

Patrick,

Have you ever been in a situation where you said, "Boy, I wish I didn't have so much room to stop?"

More is ALWAYS better than less. No matter how fast you are going. Your math equation is ridiculous. There is NEVER a time that extra stopping room is bad.

If I told you that you are going to be traveling 350 mph, and ask do you want some extra room to stop, are you going to tell me no?

As I stated earlier, if the extra room doesn't matter then how can you say that some tracks are long enough and some aren't?

Alan

 

[willy]

Consider that extra 320 is covered in less than a second at 300 mph.

This has got to be the 124th thread related to this topic..and they basically all end the same...the same way they started.

 

[Mooseman]

Alot of things affect dusting off of speed, weight being the main thing, something that weighs less is going to be easier to stop then something that weighs more, also you have the drag caused by the chutes and brakes.

I still think the cars are too damn heavy for their own good.

I actually wonder myself where drag racing will be in 30 years.

 

[FC138fan]

Yes it's true right now, but the main point it the cars are being ran just a violently and give it 2 years, we will be a 340, we will hit 330 next year 100%. So I can see the path of this thread is the extra 320 seems to be winning but I ask someone good with physics to answer me this?

If the cars hit 340 or 350 to 1000 here if the interesting question, What speed does the dragster need to hit to make the extra 320 stopping distance no longer an extra anything?

The fastest speed right now is 327, at 1320 right now the car is down to what? 290? If they reach 350 at 1000 at 1320 could they be at 310?

You'd have to know how many negative G's the chutes pull to figure that out. Or just start taking the speeds at the 1320 and average them.

I would guess that if they're running 330 at 1000' today they'd be at around 330 at 1320 because it takes time for the chute to blossom, and time to pull the chute itself. The thing is the distance they are coasting and the chutes are blossoming starts to take place before the 1320, and not after, meaning that there will always bee about 320 extra feet of deceleration lane if they are running 1000'.

I think the speed thing though isn't the big deal. Cars can run 390, as long as the engine stays in tact, the chutes work properly, the brakes work properly, it's safe. The NHRA and staff would argue that the 1000' was to limit engine and parts damage leading to catastrophic failure. But as predicted by a famous driver give them enough time they'll be blowing them up at 1000' just like 1320, so we're right back to square one.

I also thought that the 1000' was implemented as a temporary measure until a solution to the problem could be figured out... such as safer shut downs (done), automatic chute deploy (done)... and probably a host of other safety improvements that I don't know about. So now we are here asking again... why are we still running 1000'?

Here's a conspiracy theory: No owner wants to go back to 1320' because it's more expensive to run for no additional reward. No driver wants to go to 1320 because they haven't figured out a way to keep the engines from blowing up and that 320' is just 320 more feet to explode on.

If I were a driver or an owner, I wouldn't want to go back to 1320, but as a fan of course Id rather watch them go that extra 320 feet because its 320 feet further then I can watch now.

 

[Rat]

Patrick,

Have you ever been in a situation where you said, "Boy, I wish I didn't have so much room to stop?"

More is ALWAYS better than less. No matter how fast you are going. Your math equation is ridiculous. There is NEVER a time that extra stopping room is bad.

If I told you that you are going to be traveling 350 mph, and ask do you want some extra room to stop, are you going to tell me no?

As I stated earlier, if the extra room doesn't matter then how can you say that some tracks are long enough and some aren't?

Alan

You don't get what I'm asking. There has to be a point where the cars go so fast at 1000 feet it's really not to much of a difference when by the the time they hit 1320 there still goin 300. Yea, it's fine now, but we're at the point where if they hit 350 at 1000 by the time they hit 1320 your still maybe 310 so how much safer is 310 at 1320 then racing 1320 and going 320?

What i'm saying and look at it this way Alan, these cars could get so quick at 1000 that they start decaying the extra 320 feet window

 

[You!]

I actually wonder myself where drag racing will be in 30 years.

Bigger concern is where it will be in 3-5 years.

 

[Deuce]

You don't get what I'm asking. There has to be a point where the cars go so fast at 1000 feet it's really not to much of a difference when by the the time they hit 1320 there still goin 300. Yea, it's fine now, but we're at the point where if they hit 350 at 1000 by the time they hit 1320 your still maybe 310 so how much safer is 310 at 1320 then racing 1320 and going 320?

What i'm saying and look at it this way Alan, these cars could get so quick at 1000 that they start decaying the extra 320 feet window

I get what you're trying to say.

What will happen when the ET/MPH negates the "safety net" that going from 1,320 ft to 1,000 ft. gave us? All I can say to that is hopefully a decision will be made before they get to that point. I have no interest is seeing 1/8 mile racing the standard.

 

[Rat]

I get what you're trying to say.

What will happen when the ET/MPH negates the "safety net" that going from 1,320 ft to 1,000 ft. gave us? All I can say to that is hopefully a decision will be made before they get to that point. I have no interest is seeing 1/8 mile racing the standard.

Thanks for wording it better. No one ever considers that point and it needs to be. We went 57.5 years of 1320 in the NHRA and I really have no idea if the NHRA thinks 1000 ft. would work for another 54 years.

 

[PDQ]

Some where the tires are going to halt the et's and mph's they have to be on the edge now.

 

[mike]

Bigger concern is where it will be in 3-5 years.

Agreed.

 

[George.]

Any time that you alter the foundation of something, anything.. Then you are messing with the building blocks that everything that comes "after" is built on.

I personally have no interest in watching anything "Fuel" because the NHRA has effectively erased all the history from which the class was built. Not only is it a joke to watch, but the time slips are now in a foreign language to those who have been around from the start, and really mean absolutely nothing, and carry "zero" merit in what was American drag racing.

The reason the NHRA is in this position is because of more attention paid to stroking their own out of control egos, strong-arming participants instead of listening, and dealing out sponsorship assignments to those who they favor, instead of doing what they should have been doing, and that was looking forward to where safety and performance would fall in the next 5-10 years. This would have allowed plenty of time to make proper performance and safety changes to accomodate their aging facilities, while preserving the foundation of which all was built, the quarter mile..

Since they failed miserably in planning for the future and fast rush of incredible technology, they have outrun their own facilities with no other option. Now, a hole is leaking in the mother ship, and she lists a little more each year.
Personally, I don't see a bright future at all.

 

[SoCal Racer]

I personally have no interest in watching anything "Fuel" because the NHRA has effectively erased all the history from which the class was built. Not only is it a joke to watch, but the time slips are now in a foreign language to those who have been around from the start, and really mean absolutely nothing, and carry "zero" merit in what was American drag racing.

I think you have very eloquently stated how most of us feel. Thank you. Now if we could get NHRA to listen ....

 

[Rat]

Any time that you alter the foundation of something, anything.. Then you are messing with the building blocks that everything that comes "after" is built on.

I personally have no interest in watching anything "Fuel" because the NHRA has effectively erased all the history from which the class was built. Not only is it a joke to watch, but the time slips are now in a foreign language to those who have been around from the start, and really mean absolutely nothing, and carry "zero" merit in what was American drag racing.

The reason the NHRA is in this position is because of more attention paid to stroking their own out of control egos, strong-arming participants instead of listening, and dealing out sponsorship assignments to those who they favor, instead of doing what they should have been doing, and that was looking forward to where safety and performance would fall in the next 5-10 years. This would have allowed plenty of time to make proper performance and safety changes to accomodate their aging facilities, while preserving the foundation of which all was built, the quarter mile..

Since they failed miserably in planning for the future and fast rush of incredible technology, they have outrun their own facilities with no other option. Now, a hole is leaking in the mother ship, and she lists a little more each year.
Personally, I don't see a bright future at all.

I completely agree and anyone that can connect the dots to the main theme of this post and read between the lines all of this is related to the strength of the NHRA. They did nothing 2000-2008 to slow these cars down until tragedies happen. NHRA seems to also regulate these cars after the face and racing at 1000 feet I don't care what you say is not DRAMATICALLY different than pulling the chutes at 1320. And as I stated, these cars are gonna get so fast that the 320 foot extra window you guys talk about is only going to start to be minimized.

I've seen runs where drivers are not even on the chutes till about 1200 or more. no one is taking advantage of the full 320 extra feet unless your pullin the chutes as u cross the finish. That's what I been trying to say, it's not much different cause it's not much safer anymore. I agreed with you all when we were trying to break 310 to 1000, now it's 330. 1320 speed for an 1000 foot run could be at 295-300. Why not run 1320 and choke the cars down to 300 then let the cars go 1000ft and still be at 295-300 at 1320 depending on when the chutes come out.

 

[SoCal Racer]

Let me understand this - yer proposing a 4.60 break-out for TF then let the teams slow them selves down.........interesting concept.

I don’t think necessarily TF index or breakout racing, but slowing the speeds enough to allow some room for innovation to continue to increase speeds until it again becomes necessary to slow them down. Historically for the past 50-plus years we’ve seen a few hundredths and a couple mph improvements over each previous season, and it is this challenge of constant performance improvement that drives almost every racer or crew chief to do what they do. But we have reached a threshold where it is going to require some kind of limits on performance due to facilities. So if the cars were throttled back to 4.80 @ 300 it would buy the sport several years of improvement (depending on the “ultimate performance threshold” that is chosen - maybe the 4.60 mentioned) before they would have to be slowed again. That would give the crew chiefs the ability to continually strive for performance improvements. Yes, it would be a repeating theme, but it would still be a challenge.

As much as we would love to see the cars be unlimited and pushing ETs and speeds farther than ever, it’s unrealistic and it’s not good for the sport because it’s driving costs to the moon. That equates to smaller fields and less value to the fans. It’s wiser to rein them in a little now, get back to 1320 to preserve the sport’s heritage and record books. And if that brings competing in the fuel classes within reach of more teams, the sport grows and everyone is happy.

 

[none]

Patrick,

I think I get what you were saying, that if the cars run 320 at the 1000' then they are still going 300+ at the 1320. Right?

The shorter distance is still a safer option. If the chutes fully blossom at say 400 ' past the finish line, then on the 1000' course they are open at 1400'. On the 1320 course they would be open at 1720' And you don't think the extra room is better?

You have stated many times that the longer tracks should go back to the 1320. Then you say that lengthening the shutdown buy 320' doesn't make any difference. You can't have it both ways. Either a longer shut down is better or it isn't. I think it's interesting that if you watch PS they almost all have the chutes coming out as they cross the line, but the TF and FC guys, don't.

One of the things that you may not have thought about is that every crew chief that has a plan to slow the cars down also has a plan to get around it. If a crew chief says that lower compression is the way to go, it's because he has a good low compression tune up that he thinks will give him an advantage. Same with the Blower OD rule. the guy with the best blower would have a HUGE advantage if OD was limited. The guy that says one mag or small pump believes that he can make his car run better with that combo, so that's what he wants.

Another thing that has to be considered is the lesser funded teams that survive on used parts. If you said that starting in Pomona, you were going to the 413 combo, the big budget teams would be there and ready to go, but it takes time for the parts to get used and filter down to the other teams. If the bore shrinks enough then the heads might not work either. Let's just take cranks for instance. If there are no used cranks, and I don't have $4000.00 to buy a new one, my car is parked for a while. You would also make my inventory almost worthless overninght, so selling the old stuff to afford new would go right out the window. Who would buy my used crank, that A: is no longer good for anything, and B: the new ones sitting on the shelves would be blow out priced as well. Maybe I could sell it to someone who wants a really cool mailbox post.

After Dale Armstrong ran the low compression and low OD on Dixon's car a few years ago in (I think Dallas) on a Monday he made runs in the 4.80 range, right at 300MPH, and never hurt so much as a bearing. He probably could have made three runs without pulling the heads off. Many people still point to that as the best solution. But what you don't understand is that he wasn't racing, he was testing. I called him the following week when the discussion was raging and asked him simply. If Bernstein was in the other ln the would you have run the car the same way? His candid answer was Heck no! If he had been racing he would have leaned on it much harder.

I think that Lee Beard had an interesting answer when he was asked, he said in essence that he had never thought about it and didn't know how to slow them down, he had spent his life trying to make them faster, and whatever restriction was put on, he would immeadiately try to find a way to overcome the restriction.

That's what racers do,

Alan

 

[TSK]

The PS contingent throws the laundry early hoping that the loss of weight helps their ET.
They're not doing it due to safety concerns.