Is 1000ft. any safer or better than 1320? (2 Viewers)

[none]

Ted,

You are exactly right, but it does insure that they get stopped quickly. And if everybody had the chutes out at that point, I doubt the sand would be visited very often.....

Alan

 

[mike]

so what does NHRA do Alan, keep shortening the track every time they think the cars are getting too fast?

I understand their is a large cost involved with change, but at some point something will have to be done...

maybe do what they have done in other forms of racing and "grandfather" in a restricted version old hardware after the new hardware is introduced? Like allowing a restricted 500 cid engines racing against less restricted 413s...I KNOW there will be an imbalance one way or the other with something like that, but it's probably better than nothing...and certainly better than continuing to shorten the track until fuel racing becomes a reaction time contest

 

[Rat]

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

I agree with 99.8% of your post. I don't want it both ways as run the 1320 and then that the extra 320 does not matter. It matters big time in the 1000ft picture i'm all about saying that if they run 330 they may still be at 305 at 1320, that's not a huge difference and that diminishes the 320 window.

On the 1320 side of the coin i am saying if were gonna have them racing now at 1000 and have them at around 300 at 1320, why not just run them 1320 at 300 as they already may be. Even the shortest tracks could handle a resticted 300. Mainly, tracks like indy, 1320 or 1000 it does not matter as it has PLENTY of racetrack. Why not at least implement 1320 at at least the big go. We should be running 1320 on tracks that have the room and should be working on a combo that gets us back to 1320 all the time. Indy, Sonoma, no problem, a few others have good space too.

Even if we keep 1000 why cant we at least have 1-3 1320 races a year at the tracks with the room. The general argument is all about savings, of course it's gonna be more pricy for teams to go back to 1320, but really; how much more? I know teams have saved $$ when the 1000ft racing era began but how much is it really?

 

[none]

Mike,

That's the $64,000.00 question. (if you don't know what that is ask your dad-LOL) I wish I had the magic solution, and I know that NHRA is looking at options. The point I am trying to make in this discussion is that there isn't an easy answer. And it's my opinion that getting it right the first time is much better than just demanding everyone change, then determining later that there was a better answer.

The simple ecomonics also play a HUGE roll in the decision. We have a number of teams that just can't afford an expensive change, so trying to find an answer that won't put the lessor funded teams out of business is very important.

Like I stated above My Opinion,

Alan

 

[none]

Patrick,

305 at the 1320 off the gas with the chutes coming out, is safer than 305 at the same point still on the gas, and just reaching for the chutes. The cars have so much drag that they are decelerating hard as soon as you lift. Did you ever notice that the Alcohol cars have a tougher time stopping without chutes than a fuel car? They have less downforce, therefore less drag, and less braking ability. Without the down force you simply can't brake as hard early. And I don't see them ever running some at 1320 and others at 1000. I just don't see how you would explain it to the insurance company if something happened.

It would be tough for me to pinpoint the savings, but they are there. I'm sure Tony S. would have a better idea. While it's true that there are still explosions and parts failure at the shorter distance, what you don't see is what happens on clean runs. If the crankshaft is good for 9 runs instead of 6 that's a big savings. Same with pistons and rods. If you're shutting down at 1000' before the retarder comes in, that's easier on parts as well. You also don't see it from the outside, but do you have any idea how many times the crew will find a black crank, or a broken spring that surely would have been a catastrophic failure had you tried to run it the extra 320'.

Here's something to think about, if an engine is running at 8200 RPM that in 4.5 seconds (1320') it only turns over 615 times? And in 3.8 seconds (1000') the number is 519, that's a lot of wear and tear that occurs trying to run 100 more revolutions at full throttle and load.

Do the math.....

Alan

 

[Huge]

Patrick,

305 at the 1320 off the gas with the chutes coming out, is safer than 305 at the same point still on the gas, and just reaching for the chutes. The cars have so much drag that they are decelerating hard as soon as you lift. Did you ever notice that the Alcohol cars have a tougher time stopping without chutes than a fuel car? They have less downforce, therefore less drag, and less braking ability. Without the down force you simply can't brake as hard early. And I don't see them ever running some at 1320 and others at 1000. I just don't see how you would explain it to the insurance company if something happened.

It would be tough for me to pinpoint the savings, but they are there. I'm sure Tony S. would have a better idea. While it's true that there are still explosions and parts failure at the shorter distance, what you don't see is what happens on clean runs. If the crankshaft is good for 9 runs instead of 6 that's a big savings. Same with pistons and rods. If you're shutting down at 1000' before the retarder comes in, that's easier on parts as well. You also don't see it from the outside, but do you have any idea how many times the crew will find a black crank, or a broken spring that surely would have been a catastrophic failure had you tried to run it the extra 320'.

Here's something to think about, if an engine is running at 8200 RPM that in 4.5 seconds (1320') it only turns over 615 times? And in 3.8 seconds (1000') the number is 519, that's a lot of wear and tear that occurs trying to run 100 more revolutions at full throttle and load.

Do the math.....

Alan

Alan you just gave the best explanation on this subject that I have seen since it started.

 

[Rat]

Patrick,

305 at the 1320 off the gas with the chutes coming out, is safer than 305 at the same point still on the gas, and just reaching for the chutes. The cars have so much drag that they are decelerating hard as soon as you lift. Did you ever notice that the Alcohol cars have a tougher time stopping without chutes than a fuel car? They have less downforce, therefore less drag, and less braking ability. Without the down force you simply can't brake as hard early. And I don't see them ever running some at 1320 and others at 1000. I just don't see how you would explain it to the insurance company if something happened.

It would be tough for me to pinpoint the savings, but they are there. I'm sure Tony S. would have a better idea. While it's true that there are still explosions and parts failure at the shorter distance, what you don't see is what happens on clean runs. If the crankshaft is good for 9 runs instead of 6 that's a big savings. Same with pistons and rods. If you're shutting down at 1000' before the retarder comes in, that's easier on parts as well. You also don't see it from the outside, but do you have any idea how many times the crew will find a black crank, or a broken spring that surely would have been a catastrophic failure had you tried to run it the extra 320'.

Here's something to think about, if an engine is running at 8200 RPM that in 4.5 seconds (1320') it only turns over 615 times? And in 3.8 seconds (1000') the number is 519, that's a lot of wear and tear that occurs trying to run 100 more revolutions at full throttle and load.

Do the math.....

Alan

I agree, yet I still feel that the NHRA could go back to a modified 1320 at a track like indy with tremendous room. I guess 1000 ft is cheaper and better when you only look at the cars that consistantly dont have an issue or have very few mechanical failures. If you continually get down the track 1000 is gonna be 100% cheaper

 

[mick]

.......That's the $64,000.00 question.......I wish I had the magic solution, and I know that NHRA is looking at options. The point I am trying to make in this discussion is that there isn't an easy answer. And it's my opinion that getting it right the first time is much better than just demanding everyone change, then determining later that there was a better answer.

would infer by your comments Alan you acknowledge that some form
of change, beyond again shortening the racing length, is inevitable as
performance again reaches unrealistic boundaries; in terms of realistic
sports entertainment bound by safety,insurance and existing facilities.

 

[none]

Mike,

I'm not on that committee-LOL. But I do know that many things have been and are being discussed.

Alan

 

[none]

And just exactly what is a "Modified 1320"?

Alan

 

[vegasnitro]

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.

I would say at Pomona and ETown they are grabbing that lever/pushing that button ASAP. Vegas or Gainesville, not so much. The environment dictates the circumstances.

 

[mike]

Mike,

That's the $64,000.00 question. (if you don't know what that is ask your dad-LOL) I wish I had the magic solution, and I know that NHRA is looking at options. The point I am trying to make in this discussion is that there isn't an easy answer. And it's my opinion that getting it right the first time is much better than just demanding everyone change, then determining later that there was a better answer.

The simple ecomonics also play a HUGE roll in the decision. We have a number of teams that just can't afford an expensive change, so trying to find an answer that won't put the lessor funded teams out of business is very important.

Like I stated above My Opinion,

Alan

thanks Alan...

I know change is going to be expensive and hurt some teams, but at some point somebody will have to pull the trigger and hope the short term loses will be made up for by long term savings...

and I'm old enough to have seen drag races in the early/mid 60's (I was with my parents, but I still remember it)

 

[mike]

And just exactly what is a "Modified 1320"?

Alan

sounds like a dirt track car

 

[Rat]

A Modified 1320 (yes sounds like a dirt class) is employing any of the ways to slow these cars down that were explored in this thread

 

[SkidMark]

From Mark J Rebilas's latest Blog ....

"Below, a young child doesn’t seem too happy to be at the drag races as he cries. Perhaps the kid is crying after finding out the nitro cars don’t race 1/4 mile anymore. I feel your pain kid…."

***LIKE***

 

[Rat]

From Mark J Rebilas's latest Blog ....

"Below, a young child doesn’t seem too happy to be at the drag races as he cries. Perhaps the kid is crying after finding out the nitro cars don’t race 1/4 mile anymore. I feel your pain kid…."

***LIKE***

that's funny. But it brings up something I always did not sit well with. How young to is too young too be a spectator? not for this blog tho

 

[TSK]

While some fuel racers want to return to running 1320 feet, I have a feeling even the mega-bucks teams have noticed an appreciable drop in costs ever since they began racing 1000 feet.
Yes, the fuel cars are the primary draw at national events but, that group of cars comprises only a small percentage of all the racers that make up the backbone of our sport. I don’t like 1000 foot racing but I’m not paying the bills for parts and I’m certainly not strapping myself into a nitro powered monster, risking my life every trip down the track.
Will I quit going to national events? No. But that’s because the super stock and comp eliminator classes are my favorites. And, I’m quickly becoming a fan of top dragster racing.
The purist in me wants to see 1320 foot racing in all classes. But, the realist in me has faced up to the fact that the fuel cars will probably never return to quarter-mile racing.
There is only one reason to return to the 1320; and that’s only because it’s been a tradition.
However, there are several reasons not to. Safety is the one big factor and one that cannot be overlooked or ignored.
Change is hard to accept. But, the change to 1000 foot fuel racing had to happen if fuel racing is to continue.

 

[Rat]

While some fuel racers want to return to running 1320 feet, I have a feeling even the mega-bucks teams have noticed an appreciable drop in costs ever since they began racing 1000 feet.
Yes, the fuel cars are the primary draw at national events but, that group of cars comprises only a small percentage of all the racers that make up the backbone of our sport. I don’t like 1000 foot racing but I’m not paying the bills for parts and I’m certainly not strapping myself into a nitro powered monster, risking my life every trip down the track.
Will I quit going to national events? No. But that’s because the super stock and comp eliminator classes are my favorites. And, I’m quickly becoming a fan of top dragster racing.
The purist in me wants to see 1320 foot racing in all classes. But, the realist in me has faced up to the fact that the fuel cars will probably never return to quarter-mile racing.
There is only one reason to return to the 1320; and that’s only because it’s been a tradition.
However, there are several reasons not to. Safety is the one big factor and one that cannot be overlooked or ignored.
Change is hard to accept. But, the change to 1000 foot fuel racing had to happen if fuel racing is to continue.

That's what is gonna deeply hurt any return to 1320. Not one team is going to want to pay the extra bills from a new 320 feet. If it's done right, that's the only way it will happen, I have no idea how

 

[mike]

of course the crew chiefs like running 1000'....

just like I'm guessing most NASCAR crew chiefs would be rather build a car for running the "Daytona 375", or the Le Mans engineers would rather deal with the "18 Hours of Le Mans"...and baseball manager and hitters would like 60 foot base paths and 225 foot fences...

I'm not looking to criticize the chew chiefs, or denigrate what they do by saying 1000' is easy or anything like that. I'm just saying that maybe the participants shouldn't be the last word on the goals of any endeavor (that's pretty much what started CART down the road to failure isn't it?)

and IMO the most important reason to return to 1320' racing is that once it is accepted that shortening the track is the best way to improve safety, then the track WILL BE shortened again (and again)...

 

[d'kid]

So. why don't we just go to 660 like Wally said in the early 70's? May been as late as 74-75.