Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Lee Beard challenges NHRA to curb costs
- Thread starter Rob
- Start date
It is not neccessarily NHRA's position ot control cost, it IS however their responsibility to police their own show as to the best interest of the membership and the continued success of the product. I'm sure that given the sponsor $$, Lee would be happy to spend $5M chasing a championship at 24+ races a year, that's what we do. But his suggestion to cut back to 18 races is not in JUST an attempt to save his team owners and MATCO money and reduce their budgets....it goes to the overall health and quality of the product that we are trying to provide and showcase to the world as a good form of entertainment, competition and a good place for Corporate America to spend their Marketing/Advertising dollars....
Should the economic climate recover and attendance be brisk in 2009 and things look better for 2010, then the effected tracks would certainly be first in line for thier dates back with even some added incentives from NHRA. I am not advocating this as a permanent move as I personally think the 24 races are sustainable in a normal economy, and I am one that thinks we should continue to grow the sport to a bigger stage and learn from both the success's and the pitfall's of NASCAR teams. We know now that there was an end to the enormous growth cycle that they have been riding for the last 10-15 yrs. NHRA, and IHRA for that matter, have both been picked by the press and marketing agencies to be at that same point from which NASCAR exploded as a media and marketing goliath....I say we don't jeapordize that position now after everyone has worked so hard to get it here.
Should the economic climate recover and attendance be brisk in 2009 and things look better for 2010, then the effected tracks would certainly be first in line for thier dates back with even some added incentives from NHRA. I am not advocating this as a permanent move as I personally think the 24 races are sustainable in a normal economy, and I am one that thinks we should continue to grow the sport to a bigger stage and learn from both the success's and the pitfall's of NASCAR teams. We know now that there was an end to the enormous growth cycle that they have been riding for the last 10-15 yrs. NHRA, and IHRA for that matter, have both been picked by the press and marketing agencies to be at that same point from which NASCAR exploded as a media and marketing goliath....I say we don't jeapordize that position now after everyone has worked so hard to get it here.
clwill
Nitro Member
Yes I read your "me too", but there are a million roadblocks to that idea, so I'm back at you for a better one.
At this late date, you can't renege on the tracks, sponsors, and fans who've already booked, paid for, and planned for whatever 6 races you choose. Cancel six races to save the variable costs for maybe 50 pro traveling teams, OK. But they still have their fixed costs (salaries, truck and equipment leases, etc.) which probably are at least equal to the variable costs. The sponsors who paid for 24 races will want a 25% rebate, where's that money come from? Out of the hands of the very teams you're trying to help.
The fans who've already paid for tickets will need refunds and a lot of "I'm sorry" over lost hotel and airline deposits. And the six tracks, who probably only go in the black based on these national events, will have to find a way to refund money they've probably already spent just to stay alive this winter. I bet they'll be in court so fast it'll make your head spin.
Add to that the whole issue of NHRA retracting at the very moment when they are out trying to get new sponsors into the sport. I would mention cutting their revenue by 25% too, but people here will start making silly "Bentley" remarks.
Oh, and don't forget the hundreds of down-stream vendors who will lose out -- especially those that travel with the show. They would love a 25% cut in revenue.
All of this so that some teams, most running on someone else's dime, can save some dough. When all they'd have to do is just choose a race or two, or six, to not show to if they want to save some money. As Connolly showed, if they're good enough they'll still make the countdown and have a chance at the championship. Heck, if all the "sky is falling" people are right, there will be only 10 teams in TF, and they'll all make the countdown no matter how many races they go to...
Races are a money-maker for everyone except the teams that voluntarily choose to participate.
So randomly chopping six races is a non-starter. Got another?
clwill
Nitro Member
Cut six races, and I'll boldly predict attendance will be down by 25%...
At least. And probably more since a good portion of the burned fans, sponsors, and vendors will never return.
Try going to new sponsors and saying: "Pay no attention to the 25% dip in eyeballs in 2009, that was just a blip. No really, this sport is a great place to put your money, we're on the move, ready to move to the next level."
none
Nitro Member
Yes I read your "me too", but there are a million roadblocks to that idea, so I'm back at you for a better one.
At this late date, you can't renege on the tracks, sponsors, and fans who've already booked, paid for, and planned for whatever 6 races you choose. Cancel six races to save the variable costs for maybe 50 pro traveling teams, OK. But they still have their fixed costs (salaries, truck and equipment leases, etc.) which probably are at least equal to the variable costs. The sponsors who paid for 24 races will want a 25% rebate, where's that money come from? Out of the hands of the very teams you're trying to help.
The fans who've already paid for tickets will need refunds and a lot of "I'm sorry" over lost hotel and airline deposits. And the six tracks, who probably only go in the black based on these national events, will have to find a way to refund money they've probably already spent just to stay alive this winter. I bet they'll be in court so fast it'll make your head spin.
Add to that the whole issue of NHRA retracting at the very moment when they are out trying to get new sponsors into the sport. I would mention cutting their revenue by 25% too, but people here will start making silly "Bentley" remarks.
Oh, and don't forget the hundreds of down-stream vendors who will lose out -- especially those that travel with the show. They would love a 25% cut in revenue.
All of this so that some teams, most running on someone else's dime, can save some dough. When all they'd have to do is just choose a race or two, or six, to not show to if they want to save some money. As Connolly showed, if they're good enough they'll still make the countdown and have a chance at the championship. Heck, if all the "sky is falling" people are right, there will be only 10 teams in TF, and they'll all make the countdown no matter how many races they go to...
Races are a money-maker for everyone except the teams that voluntarily choose to participate.
So randomly chopping six races is a non-starter. Got another?
Thanks again for proving my point. You don't read before you post. See post # 35.
Nitrohelper
Nitro Member
Dale always used a low compression tune-up. I ran one of his combination's with Bill Mullens at the start of '80s high-gear. It wasn't inexpensive!
It was the start of the high torque, long stroke, small bore modern day combination with the tall rear gear.
Dale basically proposed the combination he was running at the time ,with a blower overdrive limit. He liked to burn between 95 & 98% Nitro , it ran large fuel volume & low compression.
Back then we ran maybe two different pistons (seven the same &one lower), in a run. Now they use four different compressions in one motor . The piston & rod inventory that the teams have is huge, same with cranks & heads etc. it's better to change just one part ( maybe the blower,or remove a mag).
Next problem is tech . The compression is changed between runs, Nascar has several inspectors for each car on race day. NHRA isn't paying for that!
Less parts and tech is better.... One mag or 25% max blower drive is an easy tech deal. Of course lower & smaller wings/spoilers would be simple too.
....Uranus Nitro Tune-ups.... . ... "they're out of this world" ... ..
..I knew this would cause some discussion, and I think thats a good thing for the sport...get the creative juices flowing....we are a passionate lot if nothing else....
lemme give ya this comparison....you ride the train to work....there are 24 sceduled stops on your train......have been for 8 years, adding one here, dropping one there....but for the most part the number of stops stay the same...economic issues effect certain communities along the track and the demographics shift so that some of those stops no longer have train riding patrons that can afford your service....train revenue goes down....now unless your Amtrak, and subsidized by the US GOV. a smart train businessman makes the decision to maybe consolidate stops close together so as to make each stop more profitable....Your gonna lose riders anyway...the economy dictated that, not your level of service. Say you normally pick up 30,000 passengers at each stop( yeah I know, its a looooooooonnnng train) now, due to economic conditions your gonna lose 5,000 passengers at 6 of those stops anyway...they are riding bikes, scooters, carpooling, whatever. that's one whole stop worth of passengers that your not getting on your train....
Take it a step further, say the remaining 690,000 passengers decide that after riding your train for 8 years and they have come to like the "entertainment" that you provide on your train but because of a SAG strike, all of your entertainers decide to only show up when they want too, and not all those passengers get to see their favorite "entertainer" when they board their stop.....so they decide to find "entertainment" elsewhere after a period of time....so your losing more passengers due to your program isnt as good as it used to be. Now your down another 40,000 passengers that are carpooling instead. SO as a train exec you decide to condense your stop schedule to 20 stops(you can do the math for 18 as well) and strike a deal with your "entertainers" to show up at all of those stops so as to "entertain" your remaining die hard passengers....and the people agree to buy the products that the "entertainers" are getting subsidized by to show up and compete for 'Entertainer of the Year". Now you have 32,500 to 36,000 riders getting on at stops that they MAY have to drive alittle further too, but they get to see all of their favorite "entertainers" every week, ......and there may be some new up and coming "entertainers" that will show up to play since the train they used to "entertain" on is jumping the tracks on a regular basis, and some of the old veteran "entertainers" are retiring or sitting out a year.
Does that same scenario apply here......just asking?
lemme give ya this comparison....you ride the train to work....there are 24 sceduled stops on your train......have been for 8 years, adding one here, dropping one there....but for the most part the number of stops stay the same...economic issues effect certain communities along the track and the demographics shift so that some of those stops no longer have train riding patrons that can afford your service....train revenue goes down....now unless your Amtrak, and subsidized by the US GOV. a smart train businessman makes the decision to maybe consolidate stops close together so as to make each stop more profitable....Your gonna lose riders anyway...the economy dictated that, not your level of service. Say you normally pick up 30,000 passengers at each stop( yeah I know, its a looooooooonnnng train) now, due to economic conditions your gonna lose 5,000 passengers at 6 of those stops anyway...they are riding bikes, scooters, carpooling, whatever. that's one whole stop worth of passengers that your not getting on your train....
Take it a step further, say the remaining 690,000 passengers decide that after riding your train for 8 years and they have come to like the "entertainment" that you provide on your train but because of a SAG strike, all of your entertainers decide to only show up when they want too, and not all those passengers get to see their favorite "entertainer" when they board their stop.....so they decide to find "entertainment" elsewhere after a period of time....so your losing more passengers due to your program isnt as good as it used to be. Now your down another 40,000 passengers that are carpooling instead. SO as a train exec you decide to condense your stop schedule to 20 stops(you can do the math for 18 as well) and strike a deal with your "entertainers" to show up at all of those stops so as to "entertain" your remaining die hard passengers....and the people agree to buy the products that the "entertainers" are getting subsidized by to show up and compete for 'Entertainer of the Year". Now you have 32,500 to 36,000 riders getting on at stops that they MAY have to drive alittle further too, but they get to see all of their favorite "entertainers" every week, ......and there may be some new up and coming "entertainers" that will show up to play since the train they used to "entertain" on is jumping the tracks on a regular basis, and some of the old veteran "entertainers" are retiring or sitting out a year.
Does that same scenario apply here......just asking?
Tom, I see some of the points you are making in your comparison, but I guess I see it more like this:
Some of the train cars have more amenities than others. But, it takes a minimum of 16 cars to satisfy passenger requirements. A ticket to ride cost no more for the passenger, but the first 8 or 10 of the 16 cars each cost double or more to maintain than the other half that arrive at the station.
Now, the owner IS subsidized for running that front running train car, and they feel that it is worth the extra money to arrive a few seconds earlier than the back half of the train. In fact, the more subsidizing they get, the more cars they have towards the front. Some, on multiple routes. The cost per stop isn't going to go down, just the frequency of stops.
NHRA is just the engine that is pulling the cars along the tracks.
What stops should NHRA stop service to, in order satisfy the providers of train cars, keeping in mind that once passengers are forced to find another ride, getting them back will be difficult?
Now, the engine has decided who to do business with (fuel suppliers, etc) and that affects the cost of riding the rails, but in reality, it is minimal. Particularly when the front running cars are oft times pulled along the same track, with no passengers on testing runs, in search arriving first at the platform.
Those are at the sole discretion of the owner of the train car, not the complete train, and certainly not the engine. And when the engine does intervene (testing bans) some of the train cars owners complain. As well as some of the riders. (who typically are not riding on that particular day btw)
Control the cost of the train cars and the anticipated arrival time and you can better attract more train cars. And more riders.
Some of the train cars have more amenities than others. But, it takes a minimum of 16 cars to satisfy passenger requirements. A ticket to ride cost no more for the passenger, but the first 8 or 10 of the 16 cars each cost double or more to maintain than the other half that arrive at the station.
Now, the owner IS subsidized for running that front running train car, and they feel that it is worth the extra money to arrive a few seconds earlier than the back half of the train. In fact, the more subsidizing they get, the more cars they have towards the front. Some, on multiple routes. The cost per stop isn't going to go down, just the frequency of stops.
NHRA is just the engine that is pulling the cars along the tracks.
What stops should NHRA stop service to, in order satisfy the providers of train cars, keeping in mind that once passengers are forced to find another ride, getting them back will be difficult?
Now, the engine has decided who to do business with (fuel suppliers, etc) and that affects the cost of riding the rails, but in reality, it is minimal. Particularly when the front running cars are oft times pulled along the same track, with no passengers on testing runs, in search arriving first at the platform.
Those are at the sole discretion of the owner of the train car, not the complete train, and certainly not the engine. And when the engine does intervene (testing bans) some of the train cars owners complain. As well as some of the riders. (who typically are not riding on that particular day btw)
Control the cost of the train cars and the anticipated arrival time and you can better attract more train cars. And more riders.
none
Nitro Member
How about we forget the train for a minute and evaluate the problem like this. The NHRA used to stop at many cities twice a year. But they noticed that after a number of years, the two races did not draw good crowds. They then pulled one race and PRESTO........the attendence jumped. In many cases the one race out drew the combined attendence from the two race years..................
Yeah, it is a touchy subject.
My point being, right now, the travel expenses are not the root of the evil dollar.
It is the extra bullets, tires, transporters, . There only are a few regional teams that will can even think about coming out to compete, given what it takes to make a weekend. Why spend 100k for 1 or 2 races (8 q passes, and luckily 1 elimination pass) for that kind of money a year?
A handful of teams set the mark for performance as well as the dollars it cost to achieve it.
When they spend more testing on Monday as an under funded team spends for the entire race weekend, (or in some instances, the year).
That isn't NHRA's call, or responsibility.
To cut back on races, and not cut back on testing is a cop out.
Bingo!!! it's perceived exclusivity. If you live within driving distance of 3 NHRA national events....odds are your not going to all 3... you may miss the first one on the schedule because you think " i'm busy now, I will hit #2, and if not that one...#3". Its like baseball games...who goes to all 82 home games? but once they make the playoff's attendance goes up as once your team is eliminated, there is no more baseball in your town that year.
if you knew there was only one race within a days drive of you, if your a real fan and understand the situation at hand, then you make your plans secure to go to that race for the year, with the family and would be rewarded by seeing full fields, underdog cars that can take out the top cars, more fans from a little farther distance.
Before I became so heavily involved in this side of drag racing, I lived in Central Missouri and the races that I went to on my own dime were, Topeka, Memphis, Denver once and St Louis. Chicago wasn't around at the time or I may have driven there as well. I didn't go to all of them every year, just whatever the situation allowed. If any of those were to have dissappeared, I had other options but I would make sure I hit at least one EVERY year.
if you knew there was only one race within a days drive of you, if your a real fan and understand the situation at hand, then you make your plans secure to go to that race for the year, with the family and would be rewarded by seeing full fields, underdog cars that can take out the top cars, more fans from a little farther distance.
Before I became so heavily involved in this side of drag racing, I lived in Central Missouri and the races that I went to on my own dime were, Topeka, Memphis, Denver once and St Louis. Chicago wasn't around at the time or I may have driven there as well. I didn't go to all of them every year, just whatever the situation allowed. If any of those were to have dissappeared, I had other options but I would make sure I hit at least one EVERY year.
rocketman
Nitro Member
Cutting down on events is not the answer as contract agreements are already in place and Mr. Beard should know that.
The way to fix the problem is to have a limited and unlimited class. Unlimited is what they have now in an 8 car field and the limited class would a be an 8 car spec top fuel class with 1 mag, fuel pump, etc.
The way to fix the problem is to have a limited and unlimited class. Unlimited is what they have now in an 8 car field and the limited class would a be an 8 car spec top fuel class with 1 mag, fuel pump, etc.
clwill
Nitro Member
Thanks again for proving my point. You don't read before you post. See post # 35.
I was responding to the first one - cutting six races. Well, at least you've moved on...
But your other one's just as problematic. Define the term "deserving"... Who decides? How about those who don't get it, bet they'd be happy. Maybe even lie to seem "more deserving"? And what are the criteria? Financial hardship? "Potential"? What about the actual chance for success? You just want body counts? Fields filled with a bunch of teams that are just cannon-fodder? And the sanctioning body funding teams? There's something seriously wrong with that, just on the principle.
I'm not convinced the problem is on the expense side, but rather it's on the income side. I'd much rather see the NHRA investing in making the sport more attractive to sponsors and investors, to attracting new fans to the sport, to getting more and better media coverage, and so on. A rising tide raises all boats.
clwill
Nitro Member
As long as we're in analogy mode, here's one based on a movie popular at this time of year: It's a Wonderful Life. When the depression hit, there were two people in town who didn't go crazy: Mr. Potter and George Bailey.
Mr. Potter (big team owners) used the opportunity to buy up everything in town. As people were selling he was buying. So when things recovered, he would own everything.
George Bailey (the little guys) hung on, did the best he could and made a pretty good life for himself. When things recovered he was doing just fine, and on top of that had the whole community behind him.
Both realized that the time to keep your head is when everyone else is losing theirs.
The Bedford Falls government (the NHRA) should work on getting the whole ecosystem back on track. Just like all the supply-siders will tell you, the cure for a depression is not cutting the amount of work people do, it's not taxing the rich and giving to the poor, and it's not government bailouts. That's the road to Pottersville. It's spurring on all the economic activity they can. The more businesses (sponsors) there are, the more money there is for all the Mr. Potters and the George Baileys in Bedford Falls.
Mr. Potter (big team owners) used the opportunity to buy up everything in town. As people were selling he was buying. So when things recovered, he would own everything.
George Bailey (the little guys) hung on, did the best he could and made a pretty good life for himself. When things recovered he was doing just fine, and on top of that had the whole community behind him.
Both realized that the time to keep your head is when everyone else is losing theirs.
The Bedford Falls government (the NHRA) should work on getting the whole ecosystem back on track. Just like all the supply-siders will tell you, the cure for a depression is not cutting the amount of work people do, it's not taxing the rich and giving to the poor, and it's not government bailouts. That's the road to Pottersville. It's spurring on all the economic activity they can. The more businesses (sponsors) there are, the more money there is for all the Mr. Potters and the George Baileys in Bedford Falls.
d'kid
Nitro Member
Tom,
Driving distance to me is defined as being able to drive back and forth each day. LA and Seattle are only a two and a half day drive for me, but they are not driving distance any more than Reading, Bristol, Charlotte, Atlanta, Englishtown, Norwalk, St. Louis, Memphis, Chi-town, Indy, or G-ville... all of which are 15 hours or less.
It's not the distance, nor the cost of tickets and and other things AT THE TRACK... It's hotels, food, and other expenses staying out of town. So, I guess if Richmond goes, I just don't attend any races.
Oh, and the Baseball, thing... I went to about 50% of Angel's home games from the time they moved into the Big A, until I shipped overseas in '73... one or another of my siblings went to the rest during that time frame...
d'kid
Bill
Nitro Member
Top Fuel is in need of the type of overhaul that consists of jacking up the body and driving a completely new car (chassis) underneath it.
Somebody said, "get the creative juices flowing....we are a passionate lot if nothing else...."
I am 70 years old, (still passionate, though) and went to my first drag race ~got hooked~ when I was 17... Let's see, that's fifty-three years of watching expanding hot air pushing vehicles to higher speeds, by the second. Never more than a hobby for me, I nevertheless have seen a lot, and hopefully, learned a little along the way.
What I have seen is a class of competition (Top Fuel), which was originally a basically wide-open class with few restrictions on equipment and modifications, morph into what we have today, which is, regardless of what you want to call it, a "spec" class of racing SO restricted that when Ford wanted to build Fuel motor, NHRA dictated all the pertinent parameters so that it came out a Chrysler 426-style Hemi. Bore center spacing, valve angles, and other parameters that COULD have given the new engine from Ford the possibility of a performance advantage were killed off in NHRA's zeal to "level the playing field."
So, John Force has a Mustang with a Chrysler Hemi engine, "assembled" by Ford. B-F-D!!!
For many years in the '50s and '60s, the Top Eliminator cars had a variety of powerplants; Oldsmobiles (Porter/Reis; Ratican/Jackson/Stearns, Burkholder Bros.), Pontiacs (Eddie Hill, Mickey Thompson, Ernie's Camera), Chevys (Pete Robinson; Logghe Bros; Nye Frank; Jim Bucher), and myriad Chryslers (everyone else.)
NHRA could have stopped the stampede to Hemis, but didn't. Now, we have a cookie-cutter mentality that manifests itself in a scenario that makes it a painter's delight, because in most cases, if all the cars were gray, with no lettering, you couldn't tell Rod Fuller's car from, say, Doug Kalitta's.
They all look alike, except for the paint jobs. They all sound alike. They all perform pretty much alike, within hundredths of a second of each other. Best reaction time and hook wins the race, more often than not, because they ALL have the HP to spin the tires at 300 mph, in spite of some (reputed) 7,000-pounds of downforce on the rear tires at 300+ mph.
Is this exciting, just because they produce 120 decibels as they go by?
It won't exactly put you to sleep, no, but the sameness of the cars, and the stagnation that has engulfed Top Fuel over the last fifteen, or so, years has greatly reduced the "imagination" factor among fans to unacceptably low levels.
There were Ford fans, Chevy fans, Olds fans and Mopar fans at one time, who cheered on their favorite brands in the Top Eliminator wars... and then, there was one... the mighty Hemi... and they were so FAST, that nobody dared run a wedge seriously, against them. So, they became the engine of choice.... for EVERYONE.
Then, NHRA went into their "protect the parts suppliers" act and put design constraints on T/F engines to the extent that you cannot run anything ELSE in that Eliminator. The diversity that embodied Top Eliminator, and for a while, Top Fuel, died, with lots of help from NHRA.
So much for powerplant diversity.
Now, they have a situation wherein the race cars are SO fast that a lot of strips have inadequate shutdown areas, and so the racing surface is reduced to 1,000-feet, slapping the tradition of quarter-mile drag racing in the face like a cold, wet, fish. Can you imagine the Indianapolis 378???? Neither can I.
In the interest of safety and cost reduction, I would like to propose a change to NHRA racing that could only come from an admonition to "get the creative juices flowing," to come up with a solution that will entail "thinking outside the box" in a big way.
My memory isn't the best at my age, but I can stil vividly remember NHRA Top Eliminator racing in the absence of nitro. I was at the NHRA Nationals (not yet the "U.S. Nationals" because it was the ONLY NHRA "Nationals" at the time) in 1957, '58, '61 and '62 and there was not a drop of oxygenated fuel on the property. The nitro ban had been in effect for six years when I was at the '62 Indy race and there were something like 1,200 participants. And, not a bracket car in the bunch (".90" cars hadn't been invented, yet.)
Fans filled the stands; not an empty seat in the house!
Top Eliminator featured such luminaries as Jack Chrisman, Jim Nelson, Connie Kalitta, Eddie Hill, and the engine variety even included a Pontiac 'Hemi' built by Mickey Thompson and driven by Jack Chrisman (it won the race.)
There wasn't a COOKIE CUTTER car in the mix, anywhere.
Enough talk about what is wrong with Top Fuel as regards "sameness."
I think the time is way overdue for some discussion about what can be done to inject some excitement into the Fueler program, and to simultaneously derail the train that runs fast and hard to bankrupt even well-funded independent Top Fuel teams.
My ideas will be dismissed as a deranged old man's pipe dream by probably 90-percent of the readers of this forum, because they will seem so radical, but I think the time has come for radical change to this Eliminator. The stultifyig sameness of the Top Fuel experience due to the reasons I have pointed out, coupled with the unconscionably high cost of maintaining an 8,000-horsepower car are two of the reasons we probably won't see full fields next year at some, if not all, races.
If you're not sitting down, please do so, because you're not going to want to stand up while you read the following... dizzyness might well occur.
Let's make a list of the positive attributes of nitro in a T/F car.
1. It''s incredibly loud.... people seem to like that. I know, I sure do.
2. It's incredibly powerful; produces unheard-of horsepower and speed.
3. It smells great! Nothing like the smell of nitro in the morning! Really!
4. It sets NHRA (and, IHRA) Fuel racing apart from any other kind of racing.
5. I can't think of another good thing about it.
Now, let's make a list of the negative attributes of nitro in a T/F car:
1. It's incredibly expensive, and a big part of a Fuel team's budget.
2. It is SO powerful that it destroys parts on a wholesale basis. $$$$$
3. It causes VERY extensive engine damage, sometimes, seemingly, for no
reason at all.
4. Engine explosions in Fuel motors are dangerous for several different
reasons. They can knock a driver unconscious, destroy braking systems
etc.
5. There is a lot of politics involved in the distributiion of nitro, sometimes,
driving the price up, and recently, alleged shortages have occurred.
6. It's a fire hazard of monumental proportions in an engine explosion.
7. It MAY be carcinogenic (I am not sure if that's true.)
8. Noise curfews are increasingly enforced, and nitro motors can be heard
for miles.
9. Percentages now have to be policed by NHRA tech people; another
instance of having to hire another person to run the race properly.
10. Blower explosions are prevalent, with a lot of races lost/aborted due to
"opened" burst panels.
11. An inordinate amount of oil-downs due to engine damage is the norm,
rather than the exception with "bottom-feeder" T/F teams who can't
afford state-of-the-art parts.
12. Seemingly constant rules adjustment for allowed percentages in T/F.
Hmmmm.... 12 to 4.... not a very good showing for our beloved nitro....
OKAY, what is the alternative; surely not a return to blacky carbon; gas is for washing parts, remember??? LOL!
Here's one possibility, and probably where most of you who have read this far will stop reading. If you're still awake, this is my idea (not EVEN a "proposal," but something that MIGHT have possibilities if given some R & D time to iron out the rough spots, and, there will be MANY!
Ban nitro, and replace the current race cars that run T/F with a "different" sort of Top Eliminator car.... a sort of "modified" Top Alcohol Dragster with a LOT of performance-enhancing features that will (hopefully) put its performance roughly on par with the Fuelers running today.
Is that possible? Well, maybe; let's see...
Where is it written (other than in an NHRA rulebook) that a T/F car NEEDS to have a 300" wheelbase? These cars just gained another fifty pounds for 2009, and now must weigh an axle-busting TWENTY-THREE-HUNDRED POUNDS (with driver) for the new year. Whew... that's just shy of a Pro Stocker with DOORS...
I would like to see the "new" race car I'm proposing losing about 500 pounds of that road-hugging weight, and a good place to start would be to lop off about 60 inches of wheelbase... 240 inches is twenty feet, you know... Why would a car need to be any longer than that; polar inertia can only take you so far; you have to actually STEER the car at some point. Funny Cars go almost as fast with the same mount of power on a 125" wheelbase.
Wouldn't need to carry nearly as much fuel.... weight factor.
The engine in this new-generation Top Eliminator vehicle would be geared toward making as much horsepower as you can make on alcohol with two turbochargers. It would be half again as large as its nitro-burning cousin, at 750 cubic inches, and could be a Hemi or a canted-valve "Rat Motor" derived block. Sonny Leonard (Lynchburg, VA) has made 4,000 horsepower with a dyno "mule" engine like that, and the research is just beginning on combinations like that. I think a 4,000 horsepower, all aluminum, turbo motor, with todays clutch technology, in an 1,850-pound car, could run pretty fast with some attention to aerodynamics. Wouldn't need NEARLY as much wing, f'r instance...
MIGHT need a 2-speed Lenco to get the job done, but I think it's feasible.
Look at the advantages before you walk away in disgust, please:
Minimal parts attrition, due to WAY fewer engine explosions. When it does explode, the force of the explosion will be a fraction of a nitro explosion.
CHEAP Fuel.... no more extortion by "the powers that be" on fuel pricing.
Cleaner "aero" packaging. A two turbo setup can be a lot cleaner, aerodynamically, than a mailbox on top of a 14:71... Less drag.
Smaller tires, and they'd have less rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, and maybe be cheaper.
Less blower maintenance. No Gilmer belts to break in the middle of a run... Less clutch maintenance (4,000 HP and a 2-speed won't eat up clutch disks like an 8,000 HP High-Grar-Only setup will.)
Less ignition requirement... Alky is a lot easier to ignite than nitro. No more "welder' mags....
Fewer aborted races, because these engines won't be dropping cylinders like a nitro engine does, for no apparent reason.
Fewer "out of shape" runs that nitro engines produce because the car is pushed sideways due to dropped cylinders. These plugs will fire every time.... I think.
MUCH easier on rear end gears due to the reduced torque loads.
Easier to stop, due to the reduced (500 pounds, remember?) weight.
The cookie-cutter syndrome that has killed diversity in Top Fuel won't be present in this combination for a long time... It will take months, maybe YEARS for them to science-out this engine /tranny setup to the degree that T/F has theirs worked out at the present time. In the meantime, we may see some new faces in the winners' circle. Wouldn't THAT be nice, for a change???
At least, some, of the present-day cars might be able to be shortened, lightened, and back-halved to conform to the "new" Top Eliminator formula. That possibility would have to be investigated... I just dunno...
The initial cost to teams would be high, but the ongoing maintenance costs would be miniscule, compared with what it costs to run a Fuel car in today's market. They'd make their money back on maintenance in a hurry.
Sponsorships would be easier to come-by, because due to the reduced maintenance cost, smaller amounts of cash would be required to run the operation. Racers could get by on a lot less moolah.... That equals more race cars at the strip on the weekend.
The downside is, of course, turbo motors are nothing like a Fuel motor. There's nothing in the world like a Fuel motor (I think Don Garlits said that, and I agree.)
But, is that sound worth all the downsides I pointed out at the beginning of this unconscionalbly long diatribe?
Remains to be seen.... LOL!
Question of the day: Why is NHRA so adamantly opposed to compressed air valve springs, if they care a WHIT about lowering the cost of racing?
ALL Formula One cars (20,000 rpm) have had compressed air valve springs for years, now.
You buy them once and they last indefinitely. Valve springs are a big part of the budget in drag racing, particularly, in the blown alky classes.
(okay; nobody's selling them now, but if they were allowed, somebody surely would be.)
I wonder what motivates NHRA to disallow them from ALL vehicles in competition. Don't you?
But, I digress...
Thanks for listening. I promise not to write another post this long.... ever again.
Ol' Crazy Bill, in Conway, Arkansas
Somebody said, "get the creative juices flowing....we are a passionate lot if nothing else...."
I am 70 years old, (still passionate, though) and went to my first drag race ~got hooked~ when I was 17... Let's see, that's fifty-three years of watching expanding hot air pushing vehicles to higher speeds, by the second. Never more than a hobby for me, I nevertheless have seen a lot, and hopefully, learned a little along the way.
What I have seen is a class of competition (Top Fuel), which was originally a basically wide-open class with few restrictions on equipment and modifications, morph into what we have today, which is, regardless of what you want to call it, a "spec" class of racing SO restricted that when Ford wanted to build Fuel motor, NHRA dictated all the pertinent parameters so that it came out a Chrysler 426-style Hemi. Bore center spacing, valve angles, and other parameters that COULD have given the new engine from Ford the possibility of a performance advantage were killed off in NHRA's zeal to "level the playing field."
So, John Force has a Mustang with a Chrysler Hemi engine, "assembled" by Ford. B-F-D!!!
For many years in the '50s and '60s, the Top Eliminator cars had a variety of powerplants; Oldsmobiles (Porter/Reis; Ratican/Jackson/Stearns, Burkholder Bros.), Pontiacs (Eddie Hill, Mickey Thompson, Ernie's Camera), Chevys (Pete Robinson; Logghe Bros; Nye Frank; Jim Bucher), and myriad Chryslers (everyone else.)
NHRA could have stopped the stampede to Hemis, but didn't. Now, we have a cookie-cutter mentality that manifests itself in a scenario that makes it a painter's delight, because in most cases, if all the cars were gray, with no lettering, you couldn't tell Rod Fuller's car from, say, Doug Kalitta's.
They all look alike, except for the paint jobs. They all sound alike. They all perform pretty much alike, within hundredths of a second of each other. Best reaction time and hook wins the race, more often than not, because they ALL have the HP to spin the tires at 300 mph, in spite of some (reputed) 7,000-pounds of downforce on the rear tires at 300+ mph.
Is this exciting, just because they produce 120 decibels as they go by?
It won't exactly put you to sleep, no, but the sameness of the cars, and the stagnation that has engulfed Top Fuel over the last fifteen, or so, years has greatly reduced the "imagination" factor among fans to unacceptably low levels.
There were Ford fans, Chevy fans, Olds fans and Mopar fans at one time, who cheered on their favorite brands in the Top Eliminator wars... and then, there was one... the mighty Hemi... and they were so FAST, that nobody dared run a wedge seriously, against them. So, they became the engine of choice.... for EVERYONE.
Then, NHRA went into their "protect the parts suppliers" act and put design constraints on T/F engines to the extent that you cannot run anything ELSE in that Eliminator. The diversity that embodied Top Eliminator, and for a while, Top Fuel, died, with lots of help from NHRA.
So much for powerplant diversity.
Now, they have a situation wherein the race cars are SO fast that a lot of strips have inadequate shutdown areas, and so the racing surface is reduced to 1,000-feet, slapping the tradition of quarter-mile drag racing in the face like a cold, wet, fish. Can you imagine the Indianapolis 378???? Neither can I.
In the interest of safety and cost reduction, I would like to propose a change to NHRA racing that could only come from an admonition to "get the creative juices flowing," to come up with a solution that will entail "thinking outside the box" in a big way.
My memory isn't the best at my age, but I can stil vividly remember NHRA Top Eliminator racing in the absence of nitro. I was at the NHRA Nationals (not yet the "U.S. Nationals" because it was the ONLY NHRA "Nationals" at the time) in 1957, '58, '61 and '62 and there was not a drop of oxygenated fuel on the property. The nitro ban had been in effect for six years when I was at the '62 Indy race and there were something like 1,200 participants. And, not a bracket car in the bunch (".90" cars hadn't been invented, yet.)
Fans filled the stands; not an empty seat in the house!
Top Eliminator featured such luminaries as Jack Chrisman, Jim Nelson, Connie Kalitta, Eddie Hill, and the engine variety even included a Pontiac 'Hemi' built by Mickey Thompson and driven by Jack Chrisman (it won the race.)
There wasn't a COOKIE CUTTER car in the mix, anywhere.
Enough talk about what is wrong with Top Fuel as regards "sameness."
I think the time is way overdue for some discussion about what can be done to inject some excitement into the Fueler program, and to simultaneously derail the train that runs fast and hard to bankrupt even well-funded independent Top Fuel teams.
My ideas will be dismissed as a deranged old man's pipe dream by probably 90-percent of the readers of this forum, because they will seem so radical, but I think the time has come for radical change to this Eliminator. The stultifyig sameness of the Top Fuel experience due to the reasons I have pointed out, coupled with the unconscionably high cost of maintaining an 8,000-horsepower car are two of the reasons we probably won't see full fields next year at some, if not all, races.
If you're not sitting down, please do so, because you're not going to want to stand up while you read the following... dizzyness might well occur.
Let's make a list of the positive attributes of nitro in a T/F car.
1. It''s incredibly loud.... people seem to like that. I know, I sure do.
2. It's incredibly powerful; produces unheard-of horsepower and speed.
3. It smells great! Nothing like the smell of nitro in the morning! Really!
4. It sets NHRA (and, IHRA) Fuel racing apart from any other kind of racing.
5. I can't think of another good thing about it.
Now, let's make a list of the negative attributes of nitro in a T/F car:
1. It's incredibly expensive, and a big part of a Fuel team's budget.
2. It is SO powerful that it destroys parts on a wholesale basis. $$$$$
3. It causes VERY extensive engine damage, sometimes, seemingly, for no
reason at all.
4. Engine explosions in Fuel motors are dangerous for several different
reasons. They can knock a driver unconscious, destroy braking systems
etc.
5. There is a lot of politics involved in the distributiion of nitro, sometimes,
driving the price up, and recently, alleged shortages have occurred.
6. It's a fire hazard of monumental proportions in an engine explosion.
7. It MAY be carcinogenic (I am not sure if that's true.)
8. Noise curfews are increasingly enforced, and nitro motors can be heard
for miles.
9. Percentages now have to be policed by NHRA tech people; another
instance of having to hire another person to run the race properly.
10. Blower explosions are prevalent, with a lot of races lost/aborted due to
"opened" burst panels.
11. An inordinate amount of oil-downs due to engine damage is the norm,
rather than the exception with "bottom-feeder" T/F teams who can't
afford state-of-the-art parts.
12. Seemingly constant rules adjustment for allowed percentages in T/F.
Hmmmm.... 12 to 4.... not a very good showing for our beloved nitro....
OKAY, what is the alternative; surely not a return to blacky carbon; gas is for washing parts, remember??? LOL!
Here's one possibility, and probably where most of you who have read this far will stop reading. If you're still awake, this is my idea (not EVEN a "proposal," but something that MIGHT have possibilities if given some R & D time to iron out the rough spots, and, there will be MANY!
Ban nitro, and replace the current race cars that run T/F with a "different" sort of Top Eliminator car.... a sort of "modified" Top Alcohol Dragster with a LOT of performance-enhancing features that will (hopefully) put its performance roughly on par with the Fuelers running today.
Is that possible? Well, maybe; let's see...
Where is it written (other than in an NHRA rulebook) that a T/F car NEEDS to have a 300" wheelbase? These cars just gained another fifty pounds for 2009, and now must weigh an axle-busting TWENTY-THREE-HUNDRED POUNDS (with driver) for the new year. Whew... that's just shy of a Pro Stocker with DOORS...
I would like to see the "new" race car I'm proposing losing about 500 pounds of that road-hugging weight, and a good place to start would be to lop off about 60 inches of wheelbase... 240 inches is twenty feet, you know... Why would a car need to be any longer than that; polar inertia can only take you so far; you have to actually STEER the car at some point. Funny Cars go almost as fast with the same mount of power on a 125" wheelbase.
Wouldn't need to carry nearly as much fuel.... weight factor.
The engine in this new-generation Top Eliminator vehicle would be geared toward making as much horsepower as you can make on alcohol with two turbochargers. It would be half again as large as its nitro-burning cousin, at 750 cubic inches, and could be a Hemi or a canted-valve "Rat Motor" derived block. Sonny Leonard (Lynchburg, VA) has made 4,000 horsepower with a dyno "mule" engine like that, and the research is just beginning on combinations like that. I think a 4,000 horsepower, all aluminum, turbo motor, with todays clutch technology, in an 1,850-pound car, could run pretty fast with some attention to aerodynamics. Wouldn't need NEARLY as much wing, f'r instance...
MIGHT need a 2-speed Lenco to get the job done, but I think it's feasible.
Look at the advantages before you walk away in disgust, please:
Minimal parts attrition, due to WAY fewer engine explosions. When it does explode, the force of the explosion will be a fraction of a nitro explosion.
CHEAP Fuel.... no more extortion by "the powers that be" on fuel pricing.
Cleaner "aero" packaging. A two turbo setup can be a lot cleaner, aerodynamically, than a mailbox on top of a 14:71... Less drag.
Smaller tires, and they'd have less rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, and maybe be cheaper.
Less blower maintenance. No Gilmer belts to break in the middle of a run... Less clutch maintenance (4,000 HP and a 2-speed won't eat up clutch disks like an 8,000 HP High-Grar-Only setup will.)
Less ignition requirement... Alky is a lot easier to ignite than nitro. No more "welder' mags....
Fewer aborted races, because these engines won't be dropping cylinders like a nitro engine does, for no apparent reason.
Fewer "out of shape" runs that nitro engines produce because the car is pushed sideways due to dropped cylinders. These plugs will fire every time.... I think.
MUCH easier on rear end gears due to the reduced torque loads.
Easier to stop, due to the reduced (500 pounds, remember?) weight.
The cookie-cutter syndrome that has killed diversity in Top Fuel won't be present in this combination for a long time... It will take months, maybe YEARS for them to science-out this engine /tranny setup to the degree that T/F has theirs worked out at the present time. In the meantime, we may see some new faces in the winners' circle. Wouldn't THAT be nice, for a change???
At least, some, of the present-day cars might be able to be shortened, lightened, and back-halved to conform to the "new" Top Eliminator formula. That possibility would have to be investigated... I just dunno...
The initial cost to teams would be high, but the ongoing maintenance costs would be miniscule, compared with what it costs to run a Fuel car in today's market. They'd make their money back on maintenance in a hurry.
Sponsorships would be easier to come-by, because due to the reduced maintenance cost, smaller amounts of cash would be required to run the operation. Racers could get by on a lot less moolah.... That equals more race cars at the strip on the weekend.
The downside is, of course, turbo motors are nothing like a Fuel motor. There's nothing in the world like a Fuel motor (I think Don Garlits said that, and I agree.)
But, is that sound worth all the downsides I pointed out at the beginning of this unconscionalbly long diatribe?
Remains to be seen.... LOL!
Question of the day: Why is NHRA so adamantly opposed to compressed air valve springs, if they care a WHIT about lowering the cost of racing?
ALL Formula One cars (20,000 rpm) have had compressed air valve springs for years, now.
You buy them once and they last indefinitely. Valve springs are a big part of the budget in drag racing, particularly, in the blown alky classes.
(okay; nobody's selling them now, but if they were allowed, somebody surely would be.)
I wonder what motivates NHRA to disallow them from ALL vehicles in competition. Don't you?
But, I digress...
Thanks for listening. I promise not to write another post this long.... ever again.
Ol' Crazy Bill, in Conway, Arkansas
Last edited:
d'kid
Nitro Member
Crazy Bill....
All I can say is:
He Shoots... He Scores....
(but I still like my Idea of just taking the blowers off T/F and Nitro Floppers)
But as long as we're playing on the Bleeding (money) Edge... why not morph the two nitro classes together...
but it's called a 'Rail Job' because all ya did was unbolt the body and all ya had left were the frame rails....
d'kid
All I can say is:
He Shoots... He Scores....
(but I still like my Idea of just taking the blowers off T/F and Nitro Floppers)
But as long as we're playing on the Bleeding (money) Edge... why not morph the two nitro classes together...
but it's called a 'Rail Job' because all ya did was unbolt the body and all ya had left were the frame rails....
d'kid
Reese
Nitro Member
I just browsed this post this morning so forgive me if I repeat what someone else said.
I don't see how reducing national events will save anyone money. $100,000 a race is $100,000 a race if you have 6 races or 60. To save money I think (like a lot of maters suggested) you need to see how you can save money per race.
Besides reducing races would be like taking money out of NHRA wallet and that's not gonna happened. They know which races are making money and I think that they all are since they are still on the schedule.
Maybe you can get them to give you the money upfront for 24 races and only race 18.
I don't see how reducing national events will save anyone money. $100,000 a race is $100,000 a race if you have 6 races or 60. To save money I think (like a lot of maters suggested) you need to see how you can save money per race.
Besides reducing races would be like taking money out of NHRA wallet and that's not gonna happened. They know which races are making money and I think that they all are since they are still on the schedule.
Maybe you can get them to give you the money upfront for 24 races and only race 18.
Similar threads
