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

[Toejam]

Jeff. It was my understanding that the Main reason for the 1000' was short Shutdowns at some tracks! That being sid, I believe had Scott not gotten killed we would still be running the 1320!

 

[Rajunz]

You guys have to know that Jeff is laughing his butt off right about now.........

.......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.

I'll go with Jeff on this one, I would much rather keep them at 1000' and hauling, than to go back to 1/4 mile and watch watered down racing.

Not sure about bringing all of the classes to 1000', hopefully the new tire machines will solve all of the problems for the Pro Stock cars.

 

[Usual password less 1]

Jeff. It was my understanding that the Main reason for the 1000' was short Shutdowns at some tracks! That being sid, I believe had Scott not gotten killed we would still be running the 1320!

Knowing what I know, I don't think you can narrow it down to one specific point. The short shutdowns at probably 4 or 5 tracks definitely was a main point. Tire problems, engine damage from dropped cylinders or from hitting the rev limiters were probably a couple of others. While on the surface most fans think we are going faster to the 1000' then what we were a few years ago is also wrong. I ran Robert Hight in the semi's at the Winternats in 2007 and he went 3.96 to the 1000' on that run so we are not to that point yet.

IMO it was getting to the point where I am sure NHRA was looking at ways to slow the cars down anyways. You have no idea what NHRA has to deal with as far as getting insurance for their events. I think that Scott's accident had a lot to do with the timing of the decision. NHRA had to do something fast and the 1000' racing for the fuel cars made the most sense and still does to me. They didn't have time to come up with a new , slower combination.

As I said before, right now if you look at my computer data after a good run, like a 4.09 at 310mph at the thousand, assuming you lift close to on time and get the chutes out, you are only going around 250mph at the 1/4 mile mark, so by trying to make them run in the 290-300mph range in the 1/4, how is that going to be safer than it is now?? You are still going 40-50mph faster! The extra 320' of shutdown makes a HUGE difference in getting the car stopped if there is a problem. Also with the advent of the transponder a bigger problem like a stuck throttle or something is not as bad as it once was because at approx. 1400 ft, the chutes are going to be deployed automatically and the fuel and ignition systems will be shut off in a case where the driver is unable to get to them in time.

If one day NHRA decides to go back to a 1/4 mile and slow them down, trust me when I tell you that the majority of drivers will get back in and do their jobs just like they do today. It's impossible to make a nitro car or really any race car totally safe because lots of accidents happen even before the 1000' let alone the 1/4 mile but again IMO with all the issues we were dealing with at the time, the 1000' made the best sense and still does.

I guess that if all the tracks had a long enough shutdown for the speeds we are going now, and there were no tire problems or insurance issues we could go back to the 1/4 mile....but they are not and with Pomona being in NHRA's backyard and being about the shortest track on the circuit, I don't see it happening anytime soon, unless it is in the "watered down" form. It's not really fair for a team to have to fix a wadded up race car if the chutes don't work for some reason on a short track, and trust me, I bet on a full run in the high 320mph range at Pomona with no chutes, 7 out of 10 drivers are going into the sand at some rate of speed...and if you have a fire or explosion, you can bump that close to 10 out of 10.

I say, enjoy the racing as it is for now. NHRA is still far and away the best sanctioning body and boasts the best fields and fastest cars in the world!

 

[Baron]

So, Jeff, what do you think about running the nostalgia combination in T/F anf F/C? As it is now, the 1000' comes up so quick I haven't got time to find a way to look around the nitwit that stood up in front of me before the run is over.
The way I see it we've either got to get back to 1320' or change the lyrics to a bunch of Beach Boys tunes. Then there's Jan and Dean, the Daytonas . . . .
Cheers,
Ed Arcuri
P.S. I agree with you on one thing, for sure: Conrad Kalitta is a great racer and a great owner.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Remember a few years ago when they dropped the Nitro percentage and we all screamed because " they just don't sound the same".
Today we are quickly approaching 330 mph in 1000 foot. Yet in order to return to the full quarter, you're willing to slow the cars to 290mph. Do you realize what it would take to slow them nearly 40mph??
" WATERED DOWN" is putting it mildly. I truly doubt that any of us would like the feel, or sound, of a 1320/290mph fueler.

The idea of going 1320 on the long tracks, is a possibility. But to do it across the board, no thanks.

 

[clwill]

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 ?

1. We already have two set of records, for each length. What's the problem?
2. There are indexes for 1/8th and 1/4th mile today. What's the problem?
3. See #2. Just add 1000'. NBD.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Good point Christopher. As far as different indexes go, we already have special indexes for Denver only. Don't the .90 classes run something like .04?

 

[Toejam]

Remember a few years ago when they dropped the Nitro percentage and we all screamed because " they just don't sound the same".
Today we are quickly approaching 330 mph in 1000 foot. Yet in order to return to the full quarter, you're willing to slow the cars to 290mph. Do you realize what it would take to slow them nearly 40mph??
" WATERED DOWN" is putting it mildly. I truly doubt that any of us would like the feel, or sound, of a 1320/290mph fueler.

The idea of going 1320 on the long tracks, is a possibility. But to do it across the board, no thanks.

Paul it was the drivers and crews who *****ed about the Nitro Percentage, they were killing the Rods with such High compression to make up for the % loss. Plus running bigger Fuel pumps! That being said, most still dont run 90% even though it is legal.

 

[clwill]

Good point Christopher. As far as different indexes go, we already have special indexes for Denver only. Don't the .90 classes run something like .04?

Out west here, we run different indexes at every other track it seems. We run 9.05 at Boise, Spokane, Vegas, Calgary runs 9.20, Denver 9.50, etc., etc. all altitude based. The numbers you have for 8.90 at sea level are no good. No big deal, make a couple of passes, figure the number out, move on. It's just a target. Everyone can hit it, you just have to agree on what it is.

Chris

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

I believe the rev limiters were also killing motors, you don't really want to go back to those days do you?

 

[Greg]

I really don't understand the problem here. Maybe I'm just not smart enough. There are only 3 main factors that result in horsepower:

1) Fuel
2) Fire
3) Air

We know we can reduce the fuel variable, and still allow the cars to run 100% nitro. We know we can restrict ignition and cut down on the fire variable. We know we can reduce blower overdrive and cut down on air. Any combination of these should easily allow the cars to run 290-300 safely without being watered down.

Me personally, I don't care if they slow them down. I loved it back in the 1992-94 era when 300MPH runs were a rare treat, and something really special. Same with 4 second funny car runs.

I would imagine that teams have so much data and investment in the variations of their current setup that they don't want to make such a dramatic change. I can see them wanting to maintain the current setup, and go to a shorter track, in order to avoid having to start over with a radically different configuration.

I think no matter what happens, eventually there's going to come a point where they have to slow them down. When they are running 340 at 1,000ft, are we going to go to 1/8th mile? When they are chunking tires at the 1/8th are we going to 330? It may sound ridiculous but putting off the solution is only passing the problem off to future generations. It's stupid.

 

[BigDaddyB]

Fiirst of all I'm not an authority on fuel racing. 1) If the teams went back to the 8-71 blower would that slow the cars down? 2) Would limits on cyliinder head construction slow the cars down? 3) Would a restrictor plate work for tracks that are to short? 4) Would limiting cubic inch displacement be an avenue to slowing the cars down(500 to 450)? I'm a traditionalist I would like everyone at 1320. I think that the track prep should be for the whole 1320. Why do only 32 cars get the advantages and the other racers are not afforded the same conditions. On the golf course the greens are fast for everybody.The challenge is can you adjust you stroke for the increase in speed. Has there beeen a study commissioned by NHRA to investigate the possibility of going back to 1320. I heard mentioned the insurance issue, well has the NHRA ever considered being a self insured entity with a third party administrator? I think going back to the 1320 is doable. An just as a side note the reason you have all the oildowns is because teams are not spending their money but other peoples money. I guarantee if was their money they would be a little bit more careful in pulling pin on the engine.

 

[BigDaddyB]

Just another thing I'd like to say. You mean engine builders over in NASCAR can build engines that turn 9800 rpm for 500 miles and there is not an engine builder able to construct engine to go a 1/4 mile on nitro an live. It seems like the innovation and creativity levels in the NHRA are stagnant. Is it just teams telling sponsors this is the cost of doing business is, we have to blow up 40 motors to be competitive.

 

[Rajunz]

...........and there is not an engine builder able to construct engine to go a 1/4 mile on nitro an live. It seems like the innovation and creativity levels in the NHRA are stagnant.........

Why don't you go tell that to Alan Johnson and Mike Green next time you get to a National Event.

 

[Usual password less 1]

I don't think there is any issue at slowing them down at all. There has been some pretty promising testing with the restrictor plate already, which is a cheap solution for all the teams involved..ie..don't really have to buy any new parts.

What nobody has chimed in on though is that Alcohol Funny Cars have run in the 5.40's at over 260mph and the Dragsters in the teens/low 20's at well over 270. Should the "Pro" cars only be 20-30mph faster and a few tenths quicker??

With "hard" restrictions on what we have to run to go back to a 1/4 mile, how long will it be before Alcohol/Injected nitro cars close that gap up. What would you guys do? Put restrictions on them and slow them down??

Plus you realize that though the track at 1000' is 1/4 shorter distance wise than the 1/4 mile, the time it took for the average fuel car to cover that distance was approx .7 of a second! That's right 7/10ths of a second. Add to that the fact that most tracks don't have stands past the 1000' meant the finish line was still a football field away and you really had no idea who won till the win light came on..and certainly not looking past the thousands of people in your way.

If it was that obvious to you guys, how come nobody has pointed out the handful of fuel racers that still run pretty well to the 1/4 mile if not past. If a guy did a burnout to half track instead of the now standard christmas tree one, we would all notice that right away, but what I am saying is that with the delay in sound and the speed that the cars go and the distance to the finish line, it is obviously hard to tell exactly where drivers are lifting without the benefit of watching it in slow motion on tv.

I always said that when they went to a 1000' if they had just added 7/10ths of a second to the et and flashed that up on the board, the majority, NOT everybody (especially the experts on this board), probably wouldn't have noticed a big difference. The thing that screwed everybody up was the ET's that came up...it was like..is a 4.20 in funny car a good run??

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

If we gave the full quarter back to top fuel they would be running nearly 350. It's been suggested to slow them to 290. To back them down nearly 60mph would mean a ton of restrictions. Lots of R and D, lots of money.
This would be hard on all the teams, but even more so on the low funded, single car teams. It also puts us back to blowups and oil downs.

The TAD record is 284. Do we really want T/F, and TAD that close???

Do we really by go through all this, just to see the Nitro cars accelerate for another 320 feet???

The move to 1000 feet, was the best, fairest, and cheapest for all involved.

 

[clwill]

Just another thing I'd like to say. You mean engine builders over in NASCAR can build engines that turn 9800 rpm for 500 miles and there is not an engine builder able to construct engine to go a 1/4 mile on nitro an live. It seems like the innovation and creativity levels in the NHRA are stagnant. Is it just teams telling sponsors this is the cost of doing business is, we have to blow up 40 motors to be competitive.

They don't HAVE to live. They just do ~4 seconds then destroy themselves. Force has been doing that for years. If you can afford to, get every last ounce of life out of the thing, replace it and go on to the next round.

If you want to stop that, force teams to use one block, one set of pistons through eliminations. Once Sunday starts, you can change anything except the bottom end of the motor.

This is an interesting discussion, but isn't why we're at 1000' though.

 

[clwill]

The move to 1000 feet, was the best, fairest, and cheapest for all involved.

Fine, OK, let's assume I'm there with you. But this begs the question, for what classes? Today it's TF and FC, but no one else. This is causing problems (tire chunking, etc.). So, do you make everyone else go 1000' too?

That's the interesting question.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Due to the conflict over track prep, based on the needs of some going 1000 and others going 1320, I would think that the cheapest and simplest solution would be........ yes run ALL to 1000 feet.

Doesn't cost anyone anymore money, solves the tire problem.

 

[clwill]

Due to the conflict over track prep, based on the needs of some going 1000 and others going 1320, I would think that the cheapest and simplest solution would be........ yes run ALL to 1000 feet.

OK, then, define the term "all". Everybody? Sportsmen? Only at national events where fuel cars run (e.g. Full Throttle events)? All divisional (Lucas Oil) events too? Alky cars run at both, so don't answer too quickly. What about tracks that run both Lucas Oil and Summit events, shorten them all? So to a track an NHRA sanction is equivalent to 1000' (or shorter)? And who's going to pay to get all the tracks in the country changed? How soon do they have to retrofit?

Just trying to point out that nothing is "the simplest solution"