Massey 332.18! (2 Viewers)

[Rat]

So this 1000ft thing was supposed to slow the cars down right? Can you believe we will probably hit 337 this year or next? I thought 1000ft. was to avoid 340? At what point is 1000ft better is they are still going about 290 at 1320? Are we cutting into the 320 ft bonus window shutdown area in 1000ft racing?

Don't think I don't like the 332, I love it. At the rate of how these cars are running, I predict a 3.6/340 if not by the end of the year for sure next year. Don't agree? In the MPH department we picked up 5 MPH this year ALONE! I can't think of any season that's happend. When thinking about what the NHRA is doing, the last thing I wanna see is an article about racing being pushed back to 800 ft. As a fan I love it, but it worries the crap outta me that in 1-3 years all the Brass at NHRA is gonna do is just keep pushing them back in distance.

I rather see these fuel cars run an open 4.60 class at 1320 then watch them now and stop watching when NHRA eventually becomes 660 feet. There's gotta be a better answer.

 

[Dave]

No, I think the Charlotte track is an anomaly and we won't see these types of speeds again until maybe the september race here.

 

[Jeff]

I'm sure my eye can't see 10 or 15 miles per hour but on the overhead slow motion shot it sure didn't look like Massey was pulling on the next lane as they went through the traps on ESPN3.

Wow, I didn't realize he had gone 328 in qualifying .. . wow.

Got to hope the Goodyear guys are sleeping well at night.

 

[Rat]

No, I think the Charlotte track is an anomaly and we won't see these types of speeds again until maybe the september race here.

I can't agree it's because of where we are at. The average E.T. and MPH for the entire class is much improved this year and I think we are gonna see alot more of this.

 

[Rat]

330 MPH @ 1000ft is F*CKING AWESOME!

1000ft did slow the finish line speed down...and the cars are safe as ever right now! How many times when the cars were in the 290MPH-310MPH (1989-1994) did you see Top Fuelers have tire failures, exploding the tops off the engines, blowing over...

I like it that this year the TFs have stepped up the performance...it gives me incentive to go to the events.

I admit I can take it, 1000ft I don't love it I can tolerate it and I feel the same way you do. I am just afraid cause I dont want performance to make us any less than 1000. Scott was a freak accident, but it makes you wonder are we going 1000ft for the right reasons. These cars are safer because of what has happend at 1320 and the improvements that were made in reaction to the what has happend to fallen and injured races.

I do not feel these cars are any safer racing 1000ft. today then if they went back to 1320 tomorrow. These cars are still crazy expensive, freak accidents can happen any track, anytime, and distance is not what made the sport safer. It was smart people with minds for safety with better innovations for safety that made these cars safer, not any insurance carrier. Bring back 1320 these cars can handle it because we are not racing 1000ft for the right reason. How long until an insurance carrier says, "ok NHRA, 800 feet"

 

[none]

Unrestricted that car would be running close to 350 at the 1320. And you don't think shutting it off at 322 is safer?

Alan

And no! I don't want to see 800 foot racing either.

 

[Nitrohelper]

.....340 if not by the end of the year for sure next year......

I doubt it, about 15 years ago Goodyear warned NHRA that the current tire carcass design was only good to 340 mph with no safety factor...
Because Goodyear continued complaining about the rapid increase in speeds more than 10 years ago, they finally gave the ultimatum that the first time a car goes 340 the sale of 36.0 tires by Goodyear will cease that day...
They wanted to keep speeds under 330 so that there would be a safety factor...
So then the 1000' tracks came to be, and testing of engine combinations to slow them down - the major teams don't want change because of all the data they have developed under the current rules...
What's next ? ...

 

[yoda]

No, I think the Charlotte track is an anomaly and we won't see these types of speeds again until maybe the september race here.

Maple Grove. I think it also has the same 1% downslope. 335-336 if it's cool...

 

[Rat]

I doubt it, about 15 years ago Goodyear warned NHRA that the current tire carcass design was only good to 340 mph with no safety factor...
Because Goodyear continued complaining about the rapid increase in speeds more than 10 years ago, they finally gave the ultimatum that the first time a car goes 340 the sale of 36.0 tires by Goodyear will cease that day...
They wanted to keep speeds under 330 so that there would be a safety factor...
So then the 1000' tracks came to be, and testing of engine combinations to slow them down - the major teams don't want change because of all the data they have developed under the current rules...
What's next ? ...

That makes alotta sense to me, but what's next? I don't know, but money aside crew chiefs adapt and I would not be worried one bit.

Unrestricted that car would be running close to 350 at the 1320. And you don't think shutting it off at 322 is safer?

Alan

And no! I don't want to see 800 foot racing either.

Well, i'm not in any position to say, but from a fans perspective no. I would like someone to release an analysis of what these cars are doing at 1320. We are racing 1320, but could the speed clocks still register these cars at 1320? I would love to know what Spencer's 332 run speed at 1320 was, I am going to guess 290. All i am trying to say is sure we avoided a sandtrap with 1000ft, but minus Scott, (RIP) we have lost all our drag racers in the pro classes with 1000/1320 not being a factor.

I know im bringing up a very very touchy issue, but Blane Johnson and Darrell Russell did not lose their lives over the distance of the track. Scott was only going 300 at 1320 when he lost his life and isn't that the speeds we are almost back to at 1320. All i am saying is after 2009 and 2010, I no longer am convinced we are racing 1000 feet for the right reasons. We should be back at 1320 in an improved way. I feel the only plus of going 1000feet was that safety became as big a part as performance. Since performance has caught back up and the cars a safer, why not test 1320 somewhere?

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

With the air we had, on that track, My guess is that they would be 355mph @ 1320ft today at Z-maz.
No worry about goin to 800ft or 1/8mi. nitro for a long time yet. But I do expect nhra to add weight soon to try to slow them down after todays outstanding numbers.

 

[yoda]

With the air we had, on that track, My guess is that they would be 355mph @ 1320ft today at Z-maz.
No worry about goin to 800ft or 1/8mi. nitro for a long time yet. But I do expect nhra to add weight soon to try to slow them down after todays outstanding numbers.

Weight is not a safe way to slow these cars down. Pull the downforce and let the tuners get them all the way down without hazing at 800 feet...

 

[Toejam]

So this 1000ft thing was supposed to slow the cars down right? Can you believe we will probably hit 337 this year or next? I thought 1000ft. was to avoid 340? At what point is 1000ft better is they are still going about 290 at 1320? Are we cutting into the 320 ft bonus window shutdown area in 1000ft racing?

Don't think I don't like the 332, I love it. At the rate of how these cars are running, I predict a 3.6/340 if not by the end of the year for sure next year. Don't agree? In the MPH department we picked up 5 MPH this year ALONE! I can't think of any season that's happend. When thinking about what the NHRA is doing, the last thing I wanna see is an article about racing being pushed back to 800 ft. As a fan I love it, but it worries the crap outta me that in 1-3 years all the Brass at NHRA is gonna do is just keep pushing them back in distance.

I rather see these fuel cars run an open 4.60 class at 1320 then watch them now and stop watching when NHRA eventually becomes 660 feet. There's gotta be a better answer.

I would love to see a link where NHRA went 1000' cause of speeds? They did it to add 320' to the shutdowns!

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Weight is not a safe way to slow these cars down.

I agree Martin, I just think that will be nhra's knee jerk reaction to the 332mph. Don't get me wrong, I understand we have to slow them cause they are goin fater then the tires can go safely.

 

[vegasnitro]

Weight is a BAD idea. More weight equals more momentum, the chutes will hit harder and the brakes will have to work harder to slow the cars down in the same amount of time/distance. It also equals more energy when the car comes into contact with something it is not supposed to, like the wall or a sandtrap or another car.

PLEASE say no to weight.

My guess is a lower nitro percentage is on the horizon ... back to 85% boys.

 

[Toejam]

Weight is a BAD idea. More weight equals more momentum, the chutes will hit harder and the brakes will have to work harder to slow the cars down in the same amount of time/distance. It also equals more energy when the car comes into contact with something it is not supposed to, like the wall or a sandtrap or another car.

PLEASE say no to weight.

My guess is a lower nitro percentage is on the horizon ... back to 85% boys.

For those who remember Keith Stark, when he was a Huge hitter in Alky Dragster in the 90's. At that time NHRA just kept adding weight to the A/Fuel cars for parity purposes, he had a Bad accident when his chassis failed near the Starting line. I heard but not sure that he had over 300 lbs. of ballast in that car! I was told that caused his Chassis to break!

 

[Nitrohelper]

....add 320' to the shutdowns.....

That also provided step in top speed reduction to under 330 mph without changing the tire design...
Why did they go to a 3.20 gear first, and then later to 90% Nitro?
Both of those occurrences were the result of several letters from Goodyear that expressed concern about the design limits and the rate of speed increases per season ...

 

[Toejam]

That also provided step in top speed reduction to under 330 mph without changing the tire design...
Why did they go to a 3.20 gear first, and then later to 90% Nitro?
Both of those occurrences were the result of several letters from Goodyear that expressed concern about the design limits and the rate of speed increases per season ...

I heard the 3.20 gear was an insurance issue when they got close to 300 MPH in 1990?

 

[Bobby]

this isn't racing anymore. it's ridiculous.

 

[Nitrohelper]

.... insurance issue when they got close to 300 MPH....

It was the growing "rate of increase" in speeds per season... over 300 mph has existed for years with insurance in place...
Contrary to urban legends - the insurance companies don't tell people how to run their business, they assess the risks, and then set the rates for premiums...

 

[Nitrohelper]

..... lower nitro percentage is on the horizon ... back to 85%....

That's a good guess ,I would slow the blowers down too - from 50% max to under 20% overdrive...