Jim O- Fix the Traps

[Sean D, shondoo]

I think Lance's idea looks very interesting. But holy cow, enclosing this from the top would be a nightmare for the safety teams to try to get in there. What if there's a fire, or a near-death medical situation. Maybe higher walls, but please, don't enclose the whole thing...

Believe it or not, I don't disagree with you, Chris. I actually believe the higher walls would be better, but I've seen cars get pretty high in the air after nose diving into the sand.

It's not like I'm saying put the top 8-feet above the ground. I'm talking about high walls (20-feet) with something across the top to keep them from going over the wall. If it's high enough, it won't impede the safety personnel.

Lastly, I sure do like Jim Read's deal. However, that seems to me like it would be just like a net designed to breakaway under X-amount of force. And the problem I see with that is what we witnessed with Niver. The nets, or in Read's case, the weight attached to the net would only be optimized by a certain vehicle weight/speed ratio. If a car is going fast enough, yeah it would break away a predetermined net or move the weights attached to the net, whichever the case may be. If it's not going fast enough, as in Niver's case, nothing moves and the chassis gives. It seems to me that there is a fine balance there.

Sean D

 

[Paul]

Paul, you keep saying this over and over again. That's simply not true. The 501(c) structure doesn't prevent shares or ownership, it simply dictates what happens to the profits. Profits can't inure to the benefit of the shareholders, they have to be reinvested to the benefit of the organization or be donated. That's it. 501(c) organizations are only "non-profit" in the sense that the shareholders can't profit, that's about it. They are corporations in every other sense of the word.

Chris, I'm not sure where you are getting your information, perhaps what you stated is true for some forms of 501(c) organizations. But if you look at any of the federal documents that specifically describe 501(c)-6 organizations you will see that they clearly state that there can be no private ownership or shares of this type of organization. Its a stand alone entity that can never be owned in part or in whole by another entity or individual, nor can it have shares. The other statements you made regarding profits are correct, and they also apply to the sales of any assets the organization has.

As verfication, if you examine the original articles of incorporation for the NHRA and their following amendments you will see that in compliance with these laws there are no shares of the NHRA. Its a stand alone entity that owns assets and currently is totally controlled by the currently listed board members, no one else has any economic interest or control of the organization.

 

[Bross Hawg]

Interesting thing about Graham Light...he was seen in one of the suites eating his lunch when Nivers accident happened. He stayed in the suite and never went to the top end after the accident. One would think that the Director of Operations should be down there, but that is JMHO.

 

[Paul]

Lastly, I sure do like Jim Read's deal. However, that seems to me like it would be just like a net designed to breakaway under X-amount of force. And the problem I see with that is what we witnessed with Niver. The nets, or in Read's case, the weight attached to the net would only be optimized by a certain vehicle weight/speed ratio. If a car is going fast enough, yeah it would break away a predetermined net or move the weights attached to the net, whichever the case may be. If it's not going fast enough, as in Niver's case, nothing moves and the chassis gives. It seems to me that there is a fine balance there.
Sean D

Sean, I understand your concern, but this balance is not as fine as you think. I believe it would be pretty straight forward to select a weight the would work pretty well for the range of car weights and speeds that are important.

Keep in mind that if a car is coming in really quickly then the weights will move farther, but this is exactly what you want. To minimize the deceleration forces on both the car and the driver the faster the car is moving, the longer the distance should be to slow the car down, and this is exactly what would happen with this system.

I think a system like this could work really well, and as has been mentioned in other posts its very similar in concept to the aircraft carrier "arrestor" systems that are field proven.

 

[d'kid]

Lance's Trap

Anyone that ever saw her in the air or on the tarmac at Edwards raise your hand....

I do know the tires were taller than I was at the time... also saw a Blackbird in flight the same weekend.

d'kid

 

[clwill]

Chris, I'm not sure where you are getting your information, perhaps what you stated is true for some forms of 501(c) organizations. But if you look at any of the federal documents that specifically describe 501(c)-6 organizations you will see that they clearly state that there can be no private ownership or shares of this type of organization. Its a stand alone entity that can never be owned in part or in whole by another entity or individual, nor can it have shares. The other statements you made regarding profits are correct, and they also apply to the sales of any assets the organization has.

Paul, none of this is backed up by the IRS documentation that I can find (see here). All it states is that the profits cannot benefit the shareholders, not that there cannot be either a) profits or b) shareholders. To wit:

Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for the exemption of business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade, and professional football leagues, which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

All corporations have shares. That's the definition of the term. To wit:

A corporation is defined as a legal entity or structure created under the authority of the laws of a state, consisting of a person or group of persons who become shareholders. The entity's existence is considered separate and distinct from that of its members.

Just because you don't know who owns the shares, how many there are, and so on doesn't mean there aren't any.

 

[Paul]

Chris, it appears to some degree that we're both right, so hopefully we can stop going back and forth on this one.

From the wikipedia overview link on non-profits it states (and you'll see this statement in many other documents):

Non-profit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Ownership is the quantitative difference between for- and not-for-profit organizations. For-profit organizations can be privately owned and may re-distribute taxable wealth to employees and shareholders. By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have owners. They have controlling members or boards..."

So this backs up my point that there can be no owners of a 501(c)-6 in the traditional sense of a corporation, and that led me to believe that since there can be no private ownership of the corporation that there also can be no private ownership of stock shares.

However, the section goes on to state:

"They have controlling members or boards, but these people cannot sell their shares to others or personally benefit in any taxable way."

So it does appear that there can be stock shares of a non-profit that are owned by an individual, but they are highly restricted, to the point of being pretty meaningless. You can never profit from them in any manner (no dividends, etc.) and you can't sell them.

However, there is such a thing as a "non-stock corporation", see: Non-stock corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition, on that link also it states:

"All not-for-profit corporations are non-stock corporations."

While that statement above is often the case, as stated in the earlier part of this post it does appear that there can be stock shares in a non-profit, but they are so restricted (no profit, no control) so as to be meaningless.

However, checking the original NHRA articles of incorporation it states:

"The corporation shall have no capital stock and is not formed for profit".

So while you were correct that it is possible for a non-profit to have stock shares, this is not the case with the NHRA.

Thus as I stated before, the NHRA is totally controlled by its current board members, who have full control of it but no ownership, and there are no other "hidden" owners of the NHRA.

 

[Ma Green]

The major problem with the top suits at NHRA and the Board, is that, with the exception of one or two, they are the same people. A bit hard to have disagreements that way. They can do anything they damn well please, including pay themselves big fat salaries. Considering three of them, Compton being one, came from a dog food company and had never seen a drag race prior to being hired, you wonder why things have gone astray?

As soon as NHRA stopped hiring racer types and brought in the bean counters, things started going down hill. After Eric's accident, it wasn't NHRA who worked on making things better, it was John Force & company.

My opinion of Light is that he's just collecting his salary until he can retire. By towing the company line, he avoids any problems along the way. Until the whole bunch is out of there and we can start over with people who truly understand the sport, it's history and where it could go, nothing will ever change. I just hope no one else has to pay for their arrogance!

 

[Paul]

Pat, unfortunately I think you summed it up pretty well. The current board members snuck a membership vote through that gave them total control of the NHRA, and as long as they conform to the general non-profit rules, which unfortunately give them a lot of lee way, they can do anything they want.

The only things that could be done about it are:

Appeal to their better nature through persuasive arguments (ok, quit laughing).

Legally challenge the "self-neutering" membership vote they snuck through. Anybody got a few million to throw in the pot on this one?

Let them have the NHRA and start a new organization.

I think option 3 might be the best way to go, but it would take a good chunk of the pro racers and track owners willing to make the jump.

 

[hotrod]

"Let them have the NHRA and start a new organization."


I've been expecting that for a while.

It'll take lots of money to start, large purses and a good television contract in place so that us couch potatoes don't miss out on our share of the racing.

 

[Silly Savage]

After Force lost Medlin and with his family in the seats of the cars I am shocked he was willing to send his cars down the unsafe track just because of his sponsors.

John sold his sole long ago....

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

Sean, I understand your concern, but this balance is not as fine as you think. I believe it would be pretty straight forward to select a weight the would work pretty well for the range of car weights and speeds that are important.

Keep in mind that if a car is coming in really quickly then the weights will move farther, but this is exactly what you want. To minimize the deceleration forces on both the car and the driver the faster the car is moving, the longer the distance should be to slow the car down, and this is exactly what would happen with this system.

I think a system like this could work really well, and as has been mentioned in other posts its very similar in concept to the aircraft carrier "arrestor" systems that are field proven.

I'll simply have to take your word for it, Paul, because I have no applicable knowledge on the subject. But I can't help but wonder, in Niver's case, if he would've entered the sand with a little more steam if the net would've given way prior to the chassis and decelerated him to a safe stop rather than stopping him on spot. I'm sure there is engineering behind what you're saying, though.

Sean D

 

[clwill]

John sold his sole long ago....

He sold his shoes back when he sold his soul?

 

[The Counterfeiter]

Sean, I understand your concern, but this balance is not as fine as you think. I believe it would be pretty straight forward to select a weight the would work pretty well for the range of car weights and speeds that are important.
I think a system like this could work really well, and as has been mentioned in other posts its very similar in concept to the aircraft carrier "arrestor" systems that are field proven.

I think this system has a huge amount of potential. It's not sophisticated, which I believe is a good thing and could be reset very quickly by simply dragging back the weights. Don't know who the genius was that decided to try tie-wrapping worn out tires together and putting them around a race track, but that has probably saved more drivers (and cars) than SAFER barriers.

I am available (if sufficiently compensated) for an expense paid fact finding trip to OZ to bring back valuable information -

 

[Mooseman]

If you are worried about a slower car hitting the net at a speed not fast enough to move the tires then just come up with some sort of variable weight system. I don't know how it would work but im sure some genius could come up with some that adds more weight the harder something hits the net or not even that but maybe as the vehicle hits the net then lighter weights are applied first to break a little bit of speed then heavier weights brung in later to really slow it down. I don't know im not an expert.

 

[mike]

This incident happened in 2008...

Lee Davis photo.

And the video...

YouTube - Pommy Steve Read Top Fuel stuck throttle crash

From memory, this may have been before the new net was put up. I've since seen a number of cars go in the traps there, and a few at my home track in Perth, some at high speeds, yet no major injuries. The gravel used seems to slow the cars down quite well. Maybe the NHRA should follow our lead....

Mike

 

[Toejam]

Lance's Trap

They only built 2 XB-70's, one of them is at Wright-Patterson AFB. I talked to one older gentleman there who said that was the Loudest plane he ever heard!

 

[Dougster]

Keep in mind that if a car is coming in really quickly then the weights will move farther, but this is exactly what you want. To minimize the deceleration forces on both the car and the driver the faster the car is moving, the longer the distance should be to slow the car down, and this is exactly what would happen with this system.

I think a system like this could work really well, and as has been mentioned in other posts its very similar in concept to the aircraft carrier "arrestor" systems that are field proven.

Yes, that's what I was thinking too - it's a GOOD thing that the weights will move with a really fast car entering the net. I'm thinking of the way the weight box in tractor pulling works - becomes heavier and heavier as the run goes on. Same thing but in reverse. I could see adding weights to the cables so that if the net starts moving the 1st set of weights, then the 2nd set would start adding gradual resistance. And even if the car drags the nets with it, it will also be dragging the weight(s) and dissipating energy slowly and evenly.

So who wants to test this system...?

 

[flapjack]

So who wants to test this system...?

Get the Myth Busters to test this. Not joking. They are good with remote controlled vehicles and probably could handle this.

 

[flapjack]

Get the Myth Busters to test this. Not joking. They are good with remote controlled vehicles and probably could handle this.

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Use a TV show to embarrass the NHRA into doing something.