Lack of track prep (1 Viewer)

[ANDY]

I think if we want to keep racing nitro we should only run them to 660 ft 1/8 mile...
the cars dont have to be slowed down, the track can go back to 70% - 30%,
theres more room to stop at every track including pomona and e- town (?)
after everything that has been done this makes the most sense...y/n?

 

[Porkchop]

I think if we want to keep racing nitro we should only run them to 660 ft 1/8 mile...
the cars dont have to be slowed down, the track can go back to 70% - 30%,
theres more room to stop at every track including pomona and e- town (?)
after everything that has been done this makes the most sense...y/n?

I think you should go back and play in your lil sand box. Horribly stupid idea!

 

[Porkchop]

Bob Tasca just said it best...........LET THE TUNERS TUNE AND THE DRIVERS DRIVE. Everyone needs to seriously quit whining bout track prep. If you don't like it as a fan don't watch, problem solved!

 

[ironpony]

the only difference with 1/8 mile will be the crew chiefs will figure out how to blow them up sooner.

 

[ironpony]

Bob Tasca just said it best...........LET THE TUNERS TUNE AND THE DRIVERS DRIVE. Everyone needs to seriously quit whining bout track prep. If you don't like it as a fan don't watch, problem solved!

be careful what you ask for, people will leave and you will not have any fans to pay the bills.............
Oh wait thats right Nitro is just a bunch of rich kids playing in the sand box they built.
They do not "need" fans.
Tasca just got put on my "list"

PS is this not what some of the NFL players said too, look at their ratings drop

 

[Chili]

I think if we want to keep racing nitro we should only run them to 660 ft 1/8 mile...
the cars dont have to be slowed down, the track can go back to 70% - 30%,
theres more room to stop at every track including pomona and e- town (?)
after everything that has been done this makes the most sense...y/n?

You may have more experience tuning a nitro motor than most of us but I don’t think any of us want to see 1/8 Mile fuel racing. The new track prep doesn’t bother me like it does most. Living in Denver the cars generally are slower so seeing 4.0’s instead of 3.90 isn’t a big deal. Qualifying was poor this weekend but I’ve seen the same results on fully prepped tracks in years past.

 

[ANDY]

You may have more experience tuning a nitro motor than most of us but I don’t think any of us want to see 1/8 Mile fuel racing. The new track prep doesn’t bother me like it does most. Living in Denver the cars generally are slower so seeing 4.0’s instead of 3.90 isn’t a big deal. Qualifying was poor this weekend but I’ve seen the same results on fully prepped tracks in years past.

all i'm saying is it suks to go out and race slower then u r capable of but running that fast cost a lot of parts breakage which nobody wants to see.what i do see is that most of the cars that run hard but have had big explosions make it to 660 ft before they do have any problems so nhra does the next best thing according to them and prep the track with less vht giving us all the same thing we had minus a track that we to use to praise them for. so in order to save a big to-do they decided to do this and there's not much we can say about it because its their sandbox and they make the laws for it like it or not. I don't want to run 1/8 mile either its always been 1/4 mile for most of my time out racing but with all the things happening this year with everybody throwing everything at it u can to go fast it has thrown back the hint that we r past what this setup can take. so if we all agreed to run 1/8 mile with no track changes or any other rule change until we all see that we r at the max or not .once we show ourselves that we r safe then we can discuss going back to 1000 ft or 1/4 mile.
that's what i really meant to say and it is just my opinion, nothing more or nothing less....

 

[Chili]

all i'm saying is it suks to go out and race slower then u r capable of but running that fast cost a lot of parts breakage which nobody wants to see.what i do see is that most of the cars that run hard but have had big explosions make it to 660 ft before they do have any problems so nhra does the next best thing according to them and prep the track with less vht giving us all the same thing we had minus a track that we to use to praise them for. so in order to save a big to-do they decided to do this and there's not much we can say about it because its their sandbox and they make the laws for it like it or not. I don't want to run 1/8 mile either its always been 1/4 mile for most of my time out racing but with all the things happening this year with everybody throwing everything at it u can to go fast it has thrown back the hint that we r past what this setup can take. so if we all agreed to run 1/8 mile with no track changes or any other rule change until we all see that we r at the max or not .once we show ourselves that we r safe then we can discuss going back to 1000 ft or 1/4 mile.
that's what i really meant to say and it is just my opinion, nothing more or nothing less....

I respect your thoughts on the subject because you have way more knowledge on it than I do. I don’t think the distance matters. They ran 1320’ and cut it to 1000’ ft. Just as much destruction now as they had then. Shorten it to 660’ and they will push the engine to expire at 600’. Look at the 1/8 mile pro mod series’. They blow up and crash just as much as the NHRA promods despite being half the distance. IMO, no matter the distance the tuners and drivers will push the cars to the limits. That is just human nature.

 

[.]

Yeah, keep shortening the track because the cars are getting faster. Great idea! Pretty soon they'll be racing to 60 feet.... but probably not because by then, there will be nobody buying tickets to watch that shit.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

I'll stand by my push for TC with these cars, but I also believe that if that's not an option, then what they're currently doing with the track prep is the only way to get this done. I still feel like the amount of aborted runs sucks and robs from the show, but I guess it is what it is. If they can get on top of it (Crew Chiefs and crews) and get down the track with regularity, then the show, while slower, shouldn't suffer. People talk a lot about the records constantly being broken, but a 3.80 Top Fuel Car and a 4.10 Funny Car are still entertaining as hell when they make full pulls.

Sean D

 

[Huge]

Actually this thread title "lack of track prep" is a little misleading. They are spending just as much time if not more prepping the tracks...they are just not over spraying them with as much of that sticky hair spray.

 

[Nunz]

Actually this thread title "lack of track prep" is a little misleading. They are spending just as much time if not more prepping the tracks...they are just not over spraying them with as much of that sticky hair spray.

Correct, NHRA has just adjusted the alcohol/glue ratio. What's amazing is the drop in glue isn't that radical, but with the power of the fuel cars, it makes a big difference.

 

[Jeff]

So you're saying instead of reducing track prep, develop a new tire and force the owners to shoulder yet another expense instead of tuning the current combination to current track conditions?

Sorry, Bristol is a long haul from my house and there was no time to look at the mater during the race.

I grew up owning a Goodyear franchise, and I was the family member responsible for all of our racing tire sales. While I haven't made a racing tire myself, I've stood right next to the guys making them a few times (almost as many times as I've flown the blimp .... which is boring except for the landing process, but customers love it). Developing racing tires happens constantly ... it's not a huge new expense. My thought was primarily to narrow the section width some to take away some of the traction level to more closely match the desired MPH. If you take away some of the tire growth you are going to limit MPH absolutely ... unless you take away the RPM limit.

 

[Dragracer]

It's real easy to understand that if you have to run your car at 100-110% you are going to break more parts than if you run it at 90%. The most economical ways to slow these monsters down without costing team's money is narrow the tire or less traction compound. Making a new narrower tire doesn't make sense, cut back on the sticky stuff. Actually, the current tire is now safer as it is not running as close to its max design capability. The same with engine components, they are going to have less stress, less stress = less breakage and allows the lower buck teams to be more competitive. As far as one lane being better than the other, we have always had that situation and changing the glue isn't going to change that.
it's going to take team's time to get their tune-ups adjusted to the new conditions, they have years of data that is now useless.
Look at Pro Stock, they changed from carburetor to fuel injection. It took them a while for everyone to adjust but you now have the closest fields ever.
Just give it a little time and the team's will get it figured out, some sooner than others, and the operating costs will be less, allowing the second tier team's to run more races and actually be competitive. To me this is one of the smartest changes NHRA has made in years. This change is proactive instead of reactive, not normal for NHRA.
Ed McCullough is Right.

 

[Mike]

Everyone has the same track to run on, teams have to adjust. Nice seeing some of the underfunded teams making rounds and earning more money now while the big buck teams are having trouble adjusting to a little less glue!!

 

[ironpony]

Yeah, keep shortening the track because the cars are getting faster. Great idea! Pretty soon they'll be racing to 60 feet.... but probably not because by then, there will be nobody buying tickets to watch that shit.

Funny you say this, on Long Island they have no drag strip so they came up with Holeshot Drag Racing, they launch and go 60'...............

 

[Nunz]

Funny you say this, on Long Island they have no drag strip so they came up with Holeshot Drag Racing, they launch and go 60'...............

Let me guess, since going to 60 feet, the racing is closer than ever! And the show moves faster!
Sorry, couldn’t resist, lol.

 

[Pete]

It's real easy to understand that if you have to run your car at 100-110% you are going to break more parts than if you run it at 90%. The most economical ways to slow these monsters down without costing team's money is narrow the tire or less traction compound. Making a new narrower tire doesn't make sense, cut back on the sticky stuff. Actually, the current tire is now safer as it is not running as close to its max design capability. The same with engine components, they are going to have less stress, less stress = less breakage and allows the lower buck teams to be more competitive. As far as one lane being better than the other, we have always had that situation and changing the glue isn't going to change that.
it's going to take team's time to get their tune-ups adjusted to the new conditions, they have years of data that is now useless.
Look at Pro Stock, they changed from carburetor to fuel injection. It took them a while for everyone to adjust but you now have the closest fields ever.
Just give it a little time and the team's will get it figured out, some sooner than others, and the operating costs will be less, allowing the second tier team's to run more races and actually be competitive. To me this is one of the smartest changes NHRA has made in years. This change is proactive instead of reactive, not normal for NHRA.
Ed McCullough is Right.

Well said Terry...my thoughts exactly!
My opinion is that you have to look at the long term health of the sport. Whats happened over the last 20 years, is that people have been priced out of the sport, period. Perfectly prepared tracks mean that you can pour the coals to it and the cars will stick, causing huge performance. While good for the fans, leaning on parts causes a few things...manufacturers build better parts that cost a heck of a lot more and it reduces their life expectancy and the tuners can lean on them harder, which also causes their demise.
One of the topics on the "mater" has been "short fields" and no bump spots....each qualifying run is a test & tune, well, this is a direct correlation of that. I believe it was Schumacher that said these cars are between 25-35K per run....and doing the math, even if the car wins an event, they lose money. That makes the sport NON-SUSTAINABLE.

Either the sanctioning body limits the parts that can be run (i.e., smaller wing, fuel pump, single mag, etc), which would cost a ridiculous amount of money to configure and refine (see 100K for PS switching to fuel injection) or they level the playing field the easiest & most economical way by limiting the surface. These cars have traction, just not world rotating traction and tuners will have to learn how to pull them back. Also, for those that say NHRA hasn't tried to do anything to slow the cars down, remember (1) rear end gear limit (2) nitro percentage (3) rev limiter (4) track distance.

 

[ironpony]

Well said Terry...my thoughts exactly!
My opinion is that you have to look at the long term health of the sport. Whats happened over the last 20 years, is that people have been priced out of the sport, period. Perfectly prepared tracks mean that you can pour the coals to it and the cars will stick, causing huge performance. While good for the fans, leaning on parts causes a few things...manufacturers build better parts that cost a heck of a lot more and it reduces their life expectancy and the tuners can lean on them harder, which also causes their demise.
One of the topics on the "mater" has been "short fields" and no bump spots....each qualifying run is a test & tune, well, this is a direct correlation of that. I believe it was Schumacher that said these cars are between 25-35K per run....and doing the math, even if the car wins an event, they lose money. That makes the sport NON-SUSTAINABLE.

Either the sanctioning body limits the parts that can be run (i.e., smaller wing, fuel pump, single mag, etc), which would cost a ridiculous amount of money to configure and refine (see 100K for PS switching to fuel injection) or they level the playing field the easiest & most economical way by limiting the surface. These cars have traction, just not world rotating traction and tuners will have to learn how to pull them back. Also, for those that say NHRA hasn't done anything to slow the cars down, remember (1) rear end gear limit (2) nitro percentage (3) rev limiter (4) track distance.[/QUOTE]




None of which have worked.......................until lowering track grip

 

[Jeff]

I guess if the NHRA wants to slow some of the cars MPH some of the time, they can get all they want with just less traction compound. I'm guessing this is only a partial fix, and that they'd prefer to slow all of the cars all of the time without so many aborted runs.

You folks who think the lesser funded teams getting "lucky" (I use this word VERY loosely) and going rounds is going to last have probably got yet another economics lesson coming your way eventually. I'll admit that its fun to watch the small guys win, I just don't think its going to last (unless the big teams go away).

Jeff