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

[Bullard Anderson]

I just don't think speed is the necessity of good racing. It surely doesn't equal good racing in oval and road course racing (sorry F1). Sorry if I have committed the unforgiveable sin comparing drags to ovals.

The TF and FC classes have the big guns, the names, the sponsors, the drivers, the owners, the personalities the folks want to see. And I'm not saying alcohol doesn't have the personalities. Fans just don't know them as well. I admit I don't know them as well. Top Fuel and Funny can carry themselves.

I believe slowing the cars down would tighten the curve from 1st to 16th.
I prefer to sit near the finish line at Bristol and Charlotte so I notice the difference. I cherish the speed records and et records set through history but starting over is something I can get used to at 1/4 mile. It's the win lights and championships that matter.

Just my opinion.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

At national events – ALL classes run 1000 feet/same track prep for all.
Lucas oil points meets – ALL classes run 1320.
(No Nitro, so no need to shorten)

no need to retrofit, I believe all tracks have 1000 foot clocks already.

 

[BigDaddyB]

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??

Jeff,

Addressing the TFC/TAD issue it might be a good thing to see Chris Demke run Schumacker, or maybe Manzo vs. Arend, Reichart vs Dixon might be interesting. LOL You know, I know, whatever conditions are layed down for the PRO's that in months they will have found away to increase performance. I think what most people want to see is the consistent go down the track as in TAFC/TAD. The oildown ratio in TAFC/TAD is way lower than Top Fuel/Funny Car. Plus, they race a full 1/4 mile. If I had extra 320 ft I would race to the finish line. Now if that is the case then you still have the same stopping distance that you would have if you ran the quarter mile. Am I right?
I think what we would all like to see is that the mean time before destruction be lengthen a bit. In 1000 ft racing rt is most important comodity on the market if you are late by just a samll amount cancel christmas. Now if you were running the the full 1/4 you might be able to catch'em at the finish line.

 

[vegasnitro]

Jeff,

Addressing the TFC/TAD issue it might be a good thing to see Chris Demke run Schumacker, or maybe Manzo vs. Arend, Reichart vs Dixon might be interesting. LOL You know, I know, whatever conditions are layed down for the PRO's that in months they will have found away to increase performance. I think what most people want to see is the consistent go down the track as in TAFC/TAD. The oildown ratio in TAFC/TAD is way lower than Top Fuel/Funny Car. Plus, they race a full 1/4 mile. If I had extra 320 ft I would race to the finish line. Now if that is the case then you still have the same stopping distance that you would have if you ran the quarter mile. Am I right?
I think what we would all like to see is that the mean time before destruction be lengthen a bit. In 1000 ft racing rt is most important comodity on the market if you are late by just a samll amount cancel christmas. Now if you were running the the full 1/4 you might be able to catch'em at the finish line.

I don't believe it would be good business for NHRA to have watered down nitro cars competing with/being beat by alcohol cars just so they could run the full 1320. I gotta lotta respect for the Alcohol racers, but the average ticket buyer doesn't want to see Force trailered by O'Bannon, or Dixon trailered by Demke. That would also be a very difficult thing to explain to sponsors, either why you didn't qualify after some alcohol cars did, or how you lost early rounds to an alcohol car. The novelty factor would wear off real quick. Also, how would you classify the alcohol championship points? Do they only earn points at Divisionals? Do their Pro category points count towards a Sportsman championship? Nitro is nitro, alcohol is alcohol, and never the twain shall meet in my book.

Whether we like it or not, Nitro is the tail that wags the dog, the straw that stirs the drink, "the show" if you will. It is a hell of a lot cheaper to back everyone else up to 1,000ft than it is to completely makeover the fuel classes and every subsequent class after the others catch up to the fuel cars. And if the track prep continues to be a problem for the nitro guys (tires chunking etc.) changes will be coming sooner rather than later.

Lastly, things change. Evolve or die. We don't have to like it, or accept it even, but it will surely happen. I HATED 1,000ft racing when it was first announced, but like Jeff said, I could hardly tell the difference these days and I have been to A LOT of races.

 

[Shaggy]

Does the rulebook state that you can only run Nitro in TF and FC? I always thought that these 2 classes were run what you brung... ie Top Eliminator... Am I correct?


Oh and I prefer watered down nostalgia funny cars at 1320 than I do the Big Show at 1000'...

 

[Bob]

Would Mark Niver still be alive if the Alky classes ran to 1000' instead of 1320'?

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

Would Mark Niver still be alive if the Alky classes ran to 1000' instead of 1320'?

Or Neal Parker?

Better yet.............Phil Burghard if Super Gas ran 1,000-foot?

Forget it, Bob. The people that insist that the facilities are the problem don't get it and never will.

Sean D

 

[Gregg Pickens]

About 20 years ago NASCAR was having the same problem, cars that were to fast for the tracks they were racing on. They made the decision to slow the cars down and there were many comments that no one would come to watch the "slow" cars. We all know what happened. Drag Racing is not NASCAR but to blindly dismiss slowing the cars down (Nitro and Alky) could be a mistake. I understand Jeff's point of wanting to rip it all the way as fast as possible but even his class has limitations that limit the performance of the car. Blower speed, cubic inch, fuel percentage, gear ratio are all limitations. In Denver mother nature limits the performance somewhat, the stands are still just as full there as other tracks. I think slowing the cars down and running 1/4 mile needs to be part of the discussion. If we keep going at some point we will be right back where we started and the cars will be to fast for some tracks even when racing to 1000ft.

 

[DaveRenk]

Two things that I would like to see: Slow the cars down and run 1/4; Slow the cars in such a way that engine failures (the real safety issue) become a rare thing.

 

[Von Halen]

I have stated several times, I went to the last 1/4 mile NHRA race at Norwalk, and then a few weeks later went to the Night of Fire 1,000' race also at Norwalk. I did not like the 1,000' racing, and haven't been to an event since. Sorry. I am 47 years old, and that makes me old (and stubborn). I have been around this sport for a long time. That picture that is my avatar is me with The Greek when I was a kid. That wasn't just some posed photo that was taken as we were passing by The Greeks pit. I grew up around the pits. I can appreciate what Jeff Arend is saying, but I do not believe 1,000' racing is the solution. It tortures me to say it, but I do not believe the shorter distance will eliminate death from the equation. It is only a matter of time. Then what? We go to 660'? Heck, why not just have them do long smokey burnouts, and be done with it? Anybody remember the crowd reactions when Skuza and Force used to do those long burnouts? For me, seeing 1/4 mile racing is more important than seeing 350 mph. The distance is much more noticeable to my eye, than the speed is.

I don't know. Sorry to ramble. I just prefer 1/4 mile racing over 1,000' racing. I definitely don't want safety jeopordized though. I really struggle with all this. In a perfect world, we'd rebuild all the facilities to handle 1/4 mile racing safely. Of course, somebody would still end up dying somehow, and then we'd be back to square one.

Maybe I will head down to Norwalk and give it another chance this year. I sure do miss it...

 

[Reese]

Oh and I prefer watered down nostalgia funny cars at 1320 than I do the Big Show at 1000'...

I would have not agreed with that statement 3 weeks ago but after watching Pro nostalgia funny car at a IHRA race in Baton Rouge, I agree with it now. Those cars are awesome to watch.

 

[Greg]

About 20 years ago NASCAR was having the same problem, cars that were to fast for the tracks they were racing on. They made the decision to slow the cars down and there were many comments that no one would come to watch the "slow" cars. We all know what happened. Drag Racing is not NASCAR but to blindly dismiss slowing the cars down (Nitro and Alky) could be a mistake. I understand Jeff's point of wanting to rip it all the way as fast as possible but even his class has limitations that limit the performance of the car. Blower speed, cubic inch, fuel percentage, gear ratio are all limitations. In Denver mother nature limits the performance somewhat, the stands are still just as full there as other tracks. I think slowing the cars down and running 1/4 mile needs to be part of the discussion. If we keep going at some point we will be right back where we started and the cars will be to fast for some tracks even when racing to 1000ft.

Dead on. This is what I don't understand. I don't really know what the big deal would be about the alky cars. Should we limit them too? Simple answer, yes. If fuel cars are going to be restricted, and we know they are the main show, then yes, you have to implement some restriction to alky cars. It wouldn't take much, and you'd still have 5.6-5.70 et's.

Like I said before, maybe I just don't get it, but the answer is not continually shortening the race track, and that's exactly what would have to happen. Something eventually has to be done to slow down the cars themselves.

 

[mike]

the previous posts from Gregg, David, Vaughn, Armand and Greg are all are all dead on.

 

[Dougster]

At national events – ALL classes run 1000 feet/same track prep for all.
Lucas oil points meets – ALL classes run 1320.
(No Nitro, so no need to shorten)

no need to retrofit, I believe all tracks have 1000 foot clocks already.

Initially I liked this idea of a "two-tier" track length. Much as I'm in favour of the same track length and prep for everyone I'm not so sure about going 1320 for Lucas events. Yes there's no nitro (except for A/FD's) but that didn't matter to Parker and Niver last year, did it?

Maybe ALL the classes should run to 1000 no matter what - would give everyone the extra 320 feet to stop if things go wrong. Or slow down TF, NFC, TAD and TAFC by about 30-40 mph and let them go the whole quarter...

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Dead on. Should we limit them too? Simple answer, yes. If fuel cars are going to be restricted, and we know they are the main show, then yes, you have to implement some restriction to alky cars. It wouldn't take much, and you'd still have 5.6-5.70 et's.

Greg is right, if we slow the fuelcars - we gotta slow the Alky classes. So again we're back to cost issues. What ever method you choose to slow them, it's gonna make some parts opsolete. And there will be some R&D needed to sort out the "NEW" combo.( NHRA should drop the test ban-at least the first year )

Be ready for smoke-a-thons, and oil downs till the crew chiefs get a handle.
jmo

 

[vegasnitro]

I think it is unwise to assume slowing the cars down will equal less parts failure and oil downs. Nostalgia cars run high 5's the full quarter with a smaller blower, 1 mag and 1 small fuel pump and they still blow them up and oil down the track plenty. It is good to work towards that as a goal, but crew chiefs will ALWAYS be ahead of the rules makers, they will find the pieces of the tuneup they can push to make performance, and performance equals blowed up stuff and oil slicks ...

 

[twostep]

Nitro cars were running 330+ at 1320 feet, both classes. OK, let's try slowing them 50MPH, which is a BUNCH, and return them to quarter mile racing. They'll be running 280 or so.

Niver and Parker were both under 270 when their incidents occurred.

You can still get killed at 280. Slowing them may be an answer to certain issues, but it wouldn't have saved Niver, Parker, Medlen or Scott. I say 20% overdrive and less compression, and a return to 1320'. They'll run approximately 4.60@310, and 4.90@300, respectively. Spend the rest of the money, time and resources developing safer track-end containment systems. And stop all this 'race 'em all to 1000 feet' crapola.

 

[BigDaddyB]

I think if you put a restrictor plate on these cars you will not incur any high cost of implementation. Well what you have now is smoke-thons and self destructing motors all over the place. The race between Brown vs. Langdon at the Winternationals was a winner by default because both of them blew up the motors. I would like to see races decided by two cars going down the strip under power best man win. Yes, I know you can't account for broken parts but if you look at the TAD/TAFC races they don't seen to have all the mechanical issues and still run good times. One car in TAD/TAFC at the Winternationals broke. Let's take the go for broke mentality out of TF/FC. I'm for one tired of hearing that they are going to do is take a big swing at it and generally winds up being a delay on the track for 30 to 40 minutes. An in Mr. Arend's comments he eluded to the fact there a few racers still under power at the 1320. So what is thte big deal. Is not a 4.10 run with a healthy engine better than a 3.80 run with oil all over the tarck.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

I think it is unwise to assume slowing the cars down will equal less parts failure and oil downs. Nostalgia cars run high 5's the full quarter with a smaller blower, 1 mag and 1 small fuel pump and they still blow them up and oil down the track plenty. It is good to work towards that as a goal, but crew chiefs will ALWAYS be ahead of the rules makers, they will find the pieces of the tuneup they can push to make performance, and performance equals blowed up stuff and oil slicks ...

Bingo. But I still think this is the way to go in the long run. They're gonna' blow 'em up no matter what, but if slowing them down can make a positive impact on the bottom line, more teams might get out there and that's what needs to happen.

Sean D

 

[turbo ken]

The NHRA has dropped the ball on this years ago.
When the first car showed up with two fuel pumps, they should have said no way, and came out with a one pump with a max inlet, and outlet dia rule.
When the first car with dual mags showed up, they should have said no way, one mag only!

If they would have acted on those two things alone we "possibly" could be seeing an occasional 4.999 et, and 300 mph speed in the 1/4, and a few of our favorite drivers would probably be still alive, and racing today.


But hind sight is 20/20