Jeff Arend thinks everyone should race to 1,000' (3 Viewers)

[john]

okay, time to stir the pot once again.

just posted a podcast with Jeff Arend at RPM2Night.com

we talk Pomona, Gainesville, racing to 1,000', safety and more.

check it out when you get a chance.
thanks,
jk

 

[Paul]

Good stuff John, keep up the good work!

 

[Toejam]

Thank God Jeff's not running NHRA!

 

[Richard]

I agree with Jeff's comments, the nitro cars are too fast for some of today's tracks and the reduced nitro %'s and rev limiters haven't slowed the cars down any. 1000 foot racing is closer racing anyway and better for the fans.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

Moocho respect for Jeff Arend, but I personally have no use for 1,000-foot racing. This past year at Indy was my first go 'round with it and I just didn't like it. And I especially wouldn't like it if they took the Pro Stockers there. I get the fact that it's safer and all that, but they could back them down if they wanted to. And to me, there are more pros than cons by going that route when all things are considered.

I was also glad to hear Jeff, an experienced funny car driver with applicable knowledge, describe what happened to Scott as the perfect storm rather than bag on the length of track; Englishtown or wherever.

Sean D

 

[.]

I agree with Jeff's comments, the nitro cars are too fast for some of today's tracks and the reduced nitro %'s and rev limiters haven't slowed the cars down any. 1000 foot racing is closer racing anyway and better for the fans.

It's closer racing because the track is shorter. Just because it's closer doesn't necessarily make it better. Imagine how close it would be if they raced 660 feet, 330 feet. Hell, maybe they should only race to the 60 foot clock..... you'd need a vernier caliper to measure for the win. THAT would be close racing!

Better for the fans??? It may be better for you, but I'll speak for myself and say that it sucks!

 

[Bluey]

Everyone racing to 1,000 ft solves what I see as the 2 main issues facing racers today.

1. The no-traction for prostock vehicles on untreated tracks pass the 1,000 ft mark.

2. The tyre chunking issue for fuel cars on tracks treated after the 1,000 ft mark.

 

[JF]

Just as Jeff has an opinion, I have one also and its:

Jeff's an Idiot for even thinking his is correct

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Everyone racing to 1,000 ft solves what I see as the 2 main issues facing racers today.

1. The no-traction for prostock vehicles on untreated tracks pass the 1,000 ft mark.

2. The tyre chunking issue for fuel cars on tracks treated after the 1,000 ft mark.

you're right Alan, and so is Jeff, problem solved

 

[SkidMark]

It's closer racing because the track is shorter. Just because it's closer doesn't necessarily make it better. Imagine how close it would be if they raced 660 feet, 330 feet. Hell, maybe they should only race to the 60 foot clock..... you'd need a vernier caliper to measure for the win. THAT would be close racing!

Better for the fans??? It may be better for you, but I'll speak for myself and say that it sucks!

X2

 

[Bullard Anderson]

I know that there are some who dislike the Countdown and the fact it can change who the champion could be vs. the vintage way. The current length of the track also changes a lot of win lights through the season. I'd like to be in the "Superfriends Bizarro World" to see how this goes down for one season

You get to a point where those big speed numbers don't mean a damn thing anyway. Slow'em down and give me 1/4 mile 280mph side by side.

 

[Greg]

Worst idea since the 1957 ban on nitro.

Let's just continue to sweep the problem under the rug until we're racing to the 330.

 

[SundayNiagara]

Worst idea since the 1957 ban on nitro.

Let's just continue to sweep the problem under the rug until we're racing to the 330.

Post of the day!

 

[SundayNiagara]

it's closer racing because the track is shorter. Just because it's closer doesn't necessarily make it better. Imagine how close it would be if they raced 660 feet, 330 feet. Hell, maybe they should only race to the 60 foot clock..... You'd need a vernier caliper to measure for the win. That would be close racing!

Better for the fans??? It may be better for you, but i'll speak for myself and say that it sucks!

x3

 

[clwill]

On some tracks, I can see the logic of 1000' for everyone. The aforementioned tire chunking and track prep are good reasons. But it has to be everyone, from the fuel classes down to the lowliest sportsman class. Can't really tell some sportsman racer, "go ahead, keep pushing those last 320 feet, we just haven't prepped the track out there".

But just because some tracks have inadequate shutdown area, let's change the entire sport, top to bottom? We're about to see a race on a track so long a car with no chutes or brakes can probably coast to a stop. Seems silly to go 1000'. Do we change every divisional race to 1000'?

Why can't we run different lengths at different tracks? They do it in baseball, where every park has its own character. The tracks are already different, with different bumps, different crowns, different walls, etc. Instead of trying to make them all the same, celebrate the differences.

 

[Gregg Pickens]

Warren Johnson may have been right when he said "32 cars are going to ruin drag racing for the rest of us". By the rest of us I think he means the tens of thousands of other racers. Classic tail wagging the dog issue.

 

[Jer]

Thats just crazy,if NHRA goes 1000 ft for everything ill def not go and just watch on tv. Thank god jeff isnt running the show.

 

[TooTall999]

On some tracks, I can see the logic of 1000' for everyone. The aforementioned tire chunking and track prep are good reasons. But it has to be everyone, from the fuel classes down to the lowliest sportsman class. Can't really tell some sportsman racer, "go ahead, keep pushing those last 320 feet, we just haven't prepped the track out there".

But just because some tracks have inadequate shutdown area, let's change the entire sport, top to bottom? We're about to see a race on a track so long a car with no chutes or brakes can probably coast to a stop. Seems silly to go 1000'. Do we change every divisional race to 1000'?

Why can't we run different lengths at different tracks? They do it in baseball, where every park has its own character. The tracks are already different, with different bumps, different crowns, different walls, etc. Instead of trying to make them all the same, celebrate the differences.

While this is an interesting idea it poses a couple of problems;
1. How do you establish national records if you're dealing with different track lengths?
2. How would you establish indexes for the sportsman classes?
3. How do you run super comp, super gas, and super street ?

 

[Nick Name]

You guys all need to come to the Mojave Mile next month. No piddling quarter mile there

 

[Usual password less 1]

So I kind of figured this would be a controversial subject, and probably a no win situation regardless of the facts. Like I said in the podcast, I grew up racing quarter mile and have NO problem racing to that distance if we go back to it. As a matter of fact I am going to be racing a nostalgia funny car at the March meet in a couple of weeks and going the whole 1320 and I am looking forward to it!

Also, just because I am lucky enough to be a "pro" racer and drive for who I consider to be one of the best team owners in the sport, Connie Kalitta, doesn't make my opinion or thoughts any more credible than anybody else on this board. We all get up in the morning and put our pants on the same way and go to work and do the best job we can. I may have a little more "insider" information than most on our sport, but don't think because of what I said about ONE possible solution to what we have going on right now, REALLY MEANS that I want to see everybody race to a 1000'.

What I find surprising though is that a few of the outspoken members on this forum (in past discussions) have all said they would be fine watching side by side 280-290mph nitro 1/4 mile runs. You do realize that some alcohol funny cars cars are running in the mid 260's now, right?? Now that the alcohol cars are running within a few tenths of what the majority of 1/4 mile proponents want to see, what are we going to do about them?? Should we slow them down too? If not. in a few years you could have alcohol dragsters or funny cars running quick enough to qualify for the nitro class!

As a driver, I would much rather have the power we have now and rip to the thousand foot, than to water it down and go slow to the 1/4 mile. Think of it this way...some of the funny cars out there now are running over 270mph to half track and you only want them to go 290 to the 1320? They are going to look SLOW! And they aren't going to sound all that good depending on how they would decide to limit us.

I also noticed a few sportsman drivers on here whining about racing to a 1000'. What would you rather do with your car if you had the choice? Run as fast as you do now to the 1000' or slow your car down a second in ET and race to the quarter? You already know my answer...I am a racer and want to go as quick or fast as I can! And most of us enthusiasts have done the same thing with our street cars or race cars. Not very often did you ever go to a speed shop looking to slow your car down!

Thanks for all your comments and I will leave you with this one last thought...when you go to an amusement park to get your "thrill" , are you looking for the longest, slowest roller coaster or are you looking for the ride that you can barely see the top of that's going to try and rip your head off...I know which one I am getting on!