Monroe Guest/Brandon Greco Crash.

[.]

It looks like we have another double-standard courtesy of the NHRA. How come Force and team weren't suspended for 1 year following his big crash? The frame they were running, built by McKinney, did not meet spec because it used hardened tubing even though the SFI spec specifically spelled out that it had to be condition N, non-hardened tubing.

About Guest:

...caused actual damage, delay and expense, and put everyone on the scene, including participants, spectators and emergency responders, at risk, and violated several NHRA rules.

That sounds exactly like what Force and his team did. Kenny Bernstein or any other competitor could have been seriously injured or killed because of the actions of Team Force. Kenny's car was destroyed by John's equipment that did not meet spec. JFR and McKinney knew the frame didn't meet spec yet they ran it anyway.

 

[d'kid]

It looks like we have another double-standard courtesy of the NHRA. How come Force and team weren't suspended for 1 year following his big crash? The frame they were running, built by McKinney, did not meet spec because it used hardened tubing even though the SFI spec spelled out that it had to be condition N, non-hardened tubing.

About Guest:

Sounds exactly like what Force and his team did. Kenny Bernstein or any other competitor could have been seriously injured or killed because of the actions of Team Force. Kenny's car was destroyed by John's equipment that did not meet spec, yet they ran anyway.

Go read Tubular Tales Again. Monday, 22nd Oct. 2007, at Comp Plus. (That was a great bit of Writing there Jon Asher). JFR's were not the only Murf cars. I understood that all Murf cars at that time were H/T...

 

[MM]

how come NHRA tech didn't say anything about the tires BEFORE any runs were made? it's still the teams fault, but you can clearly see what the difference between a Hoosier and Good Year.

Because Hoosier did not let NHRA know of the problem. They only sent the memo to the racers.

 

[.]

Go read Tubular Tales Again. Monday, 22nd Oct. 2007, at Comp Plus. (That was a great bit of Writing there Jon Asher). JFR's were not the only Murf cars. I understood that all Murf cars at that time were H/T...

And none of them should have been allowed to run since they didn't meet SFI spec! The carelessness and outcome in both of these incidents is similar (chose to run equipment they shouldn't have, equipment was destroyed, people lives were put in danger, etc.), but one team gets a 1 year suspension and the other got nothing. Guest and team chose to run tires they shouldn't have, Force and team chose to run an illegal frame.

Flashback: TUBULAR TALES -- AN INVESTIGATIVE STORY

This quote comes from a letter that Bill Miller sent to PRO and NHRA:

“There is no provision for the use of hardened tubing in the present SFI Funny Car Spec. Without explanation the Funny Car Spec mandates normalized (not hardened) tubing…” Miller continues, “McKinney has admitted using hardened tubing in Funny Car chassis. Funny Car chassis failures, like Top Fuel, have increased since the use of hardened tubing.”

And the next paragraph from the article:

On April 9, 2006 Miller sent a letter to Arnie Kuhns of SFI. In it he writes, “Keeping in mind that McKinney has told JFR that the bottom frame rails of their chassis are not normalized SAE 4130 tubing as mandated by SFI 10.1E, please answer the following question: How did these JFR racecars get technical approval?”

Kuhns did not respond, and in Miller’s words, “hasn’t responded to anything I’ve said or written in the last two years.”

JFR and McKinney both knew the frames didn't meet spec, chose to run frames with hardened tubing anyway, and:

...caused actual damage, delay and expense, and put everyone on the scene, including participants, spectators and emergency responders, at risk, and violated several NHRA rules.

Guest and team get a 1 year suspension for essentially doing the same thing that Force and JRF did without penalty.

 

[d'kid]

Brent, you are right... I believe Murf hung his hat on the wording or equal, believing that H/T exceeded the spec... was not JFR's call on the tube, NHRA should have parked 3/4 of the Flopper field, and the same in Top Fuel.

I mean, after all JFR only had 3 of the 12 to 14 cars in field on any given weekend that Murf built in 2006 and 2007 using H/T 4130.

 

[.]

Brent, you are right... I believe Murf hung his hat on the wording or equal, believing that H/T exceeded the spec... was not JFR's call on the tube, NHRA should have parked 3/4 of the Flopper field, and the same in Top Fuel.

I mean, after all JFR only had 3 of the 12 to 14 cars in field on any given weekend that Murf built in 2006 and 2007 using H/T 4130.

The TF frames were fine because their spec allowed for hardened tubing. The Funny Car spec mandated non-hardened tubing. I don't know why the discrepancy between the two classes, but the rules were spelled out in plain language, and JFR and McKinney chose to ignore them. It's telling that Arnie Kuhns from SFI refused to give Bill Miller any answer about how those frames were approved in the first place. Force didn't even get a slap on the hand for blatantly breaking the rules and putting everyone in danger, but Guest and team get a one year suspension for doing the same type of thing in cars that are less than half as powerful.

 

[handsome]

so are the Hoosier tires heat treated? wth does the OLD issue of heat treated chassis have anything to do with a guy that caused a wreck by using unapproved tires?

 

[.]

so are the Hoosier tires heat treated? wth does the OLD issue of heat treated chassis have anything to do with a guy that caused a wreck by using unapproved tires?

Does NHRA have a rule that says A/fuel tires must meet SFI spec? I don't know. I do know for a fact that there was an NHRA rule that said the FC frames had to meet the SFI spec that mandated non-hardened tubing. If anything, JFR broke the rules more seriously than Guest but didn't get any type of punishment. I'm asking why Guest gets a 1 year suspension for breaking the rules when Force did not get suspended (or punished in any form), and Force's rule-breaking was probably more serious. Both incidents, using NHRA's own words:

...caused actual damage, delay and expense, and put everyone on the scene, including participants, spectators and emergency responders, at risk, and violated several NHRA rules.

One gets off free, the other gets a 1 year suspension. Seems like another NHRA double-standard.

 

[Super Mod]

No ontrack insurance.....Do I smell a lawsuit?"


GRECO WONDERS WHO WILL COVER HIS LOSS

 

[handsome]

Does NHRA have a rule that says A/fuel tires must meet SFI spec? I don't know. I do know for a fact that there was an NHRA rule that said the FC frames had to meet the SFI spec that mandated non-hardened tubing. If anything, JFR broke the rules more seriously than Guest but didn't get any type of punishment. I'm asking why Guest gets a 1 year suspension for breaking the rules when Force did not get suspended (or punished in any form), and Force's rule-breaking was probably more serious. Both incidents, using NHRA's own words: One gets off free, the other gets a 1 year suspension. Seems like another NHRA double-standard.

have you watched the NHRA shows? who would have kids and cats to fill the t.v. shows with if JFR was suspended for any time? Do you really think that NHRA would do anything at all to JFR if anything was discovered wrong? Hell ,NHRA made the John Force rule after Force threw a **** fit when he left before the tree was activated at Vegas the one year. . . who did it benefit? one of the daughters in the A/fuel car a year or so later. . .

 

[.]

have you watched the NHRA shows? who would have kids and cats to fill the t.v. shows with if JFR was suspended for any time? Do you really think that NHRA would do anything at all to JFR if anything was discovered wrong? Hell ,NHRA made the John Force rule after Force threw a **** fit when he left before the tree was activated at Vegas the one year. . . who did it benefit? one of the daughters in the A/fuel car a year or so later. . .

I know. It seems to me that this is just another NHRA double-standard. I understand the punishment for not taking safety serious, somebody could have gotten killed. I don't understand why John Force and JFR were not held to the same standard for blatantly violating chassis safety rules, other than it's John Force.

 

[Wayne]

almost killing himself is one thing.....almost killing the guy in the other lane takes it to another level.

+1320

 

[stanzig44]

Just curious if Guest was the only one in E-Town running these recalled tires?

I still don't understand how a manufacturer has such a safety concern of their product to send out individual letters to the racers but not alert the sanctioning body.

-stan

 

[Super Mod]

Just curious if Guest was the only one in E-Town running these recalled tires?

I still don't understand how a manufacturer has such a safety concern of their product to send out individual letters to the racers but not alert the sanctioning body.

-stan

As I understand from reading the Comp Plus article,they were not "recalled tires"

 

[Rexfiles]

As I understand from reading the Comp Plus article,they were not "recalled tires"

they should have been. Retracing all that has been reported, I'll also lay blame on Guest and co.

I wish I took pics in the pit, but I thought I saw new M&H's on the car.

my battery PAC was completely dead.

most of Guests car was intact (OK, 75%)

Most of Greckos car was in the back of a pick up.

I will still post the vid, we had massive storms come through......I am on my iPad. Not great for downloading.......


REX

 

[clwill]

I know Joe Monden. I'm almost done building a new car on a chassis Joe built for us this winter. I know he would never do anything he felt would jeopardize anyone. I'm not the least bit concerned about our car, the many other Monden cars (in TAD, SC, and TD), and/or all the many TNT cars built on chassis that Joe built.

I'm sure he felt that, since he'd been using the tires for some time, everything would be fine. He was wrong. He's a nice guy, a devout Christian, who cares deeply about the sport. I'm quite sure he is completely torn up about this. I feel terrible for him, Monroe, and Brandon Greco and his team. What a mess.

 

[qtermile14]

I just went to the Hoosier Tire site, and saw that they updated their May 18th bulletin yesterday (June 8th) to say:

"Effective immediately, we are asking NHRA competitors in the Pro Mod, Top Alcohol Funny Car and Top Alcohol Dragster classes and IHRA competitors in the Pro Fuel Dragster classes, to suspend use of the below listed tires until further notice."

This is different from the original bullitin which did not include Pro Mod or Top Alcohol Funny Car, along with just "Nitro injected A/Fuel Dragsters" from the NHRA Top Alcohol Dragster class. I was wondering why they originally did not include all configurations in Top Alcohol classes.

 

[.]

I still haven't found an answer to which rule(s) Guest actually broke by running those tires. Can somebody clarify?

TIRES
Tires must be specified for racing use by manufacturer. Maximum
rear tire: 18 inches wide x 118 inches maximum circumference.
Minimum rear tire circumference: 108 inches. Tires are to meet size
requirements when installed and ready to run at manufacturer’s
recommended operating pressures. Minimum diameter of 13 inches
on front tires for dragsters. See General Regulations 5:1.

5:1 TIRES
Tires will be visually checked for condition, pressure, etc. and must
be considered free of defects by the technical inspector prior to any
run. All street tires must have a minimum of 1/16-inch tread depth.
Temporary spares, space saver spares, farm implement or trailer
tires prohibited. Metal, screw-in valve stems mandatory in tubeless
tires, front and rear, on vehicles running 11.99 or quicker.

Rulebook doesn't say anything about what manufacturer, model number, etc. What I've read says Hoosier asked them or told them not to run them, that's all. That's about like them asking or telling you not to pick your nose. Even Hoosier's own sales manager isn't sure if they're suitable or not.

“Well, we are not sure if they are suitable or not,” Paul Menting, a sales manager at Hoosier Racing Tires headquarters in Lakeville, Ind., told a CompetitionPlus.com writer Wednesday morning. “We are just erring on the side of caution. There were a couple of incidents with A/Fuel cars that had our product on; some of them could be explained that had nothing to do with tires (and) others were not explained. We didn’t find anything wrong with the tires, however, with multiple incidents, we just wanted to make sure that we were being cautious. We wanted to evaluate the product and make sure that it was applicable for those type of cars.”

 

[clwill]

I still haven't found an answer to which rule(s) Guest actually broke by running those tires. Can somebody clarify?

Also, there is General Regs 1.3.1 Participant Conduct regarding knowingly creating an unsafe condition.

 

[vegasnitro]

No ontrack insurance.....Do I smell a lawsuit?"

I have always wondered what happens in these situations in drag racing. The Koretsky/Allen crash in Dallas a few years ago effectively ended the Reher and Morrison Pro Stock program. Is there a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts that if you wipe the other car out you will pay for it? Is there insurance available? Or is it just stuff happens ... you payed your money and you took your chances?

I doubt there are very many competitors in any class that could afford to replace their competitors cars in the event of such an incident. A wise man once said "never race a car you couldn't afford to push off a cliff" ... but the higher up the racing ladder you go, the less practical that maxim becomes.