Motorsports media asks, "Is this the time to bring back 1,320 foot nitro racing?" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Raconteur
- Start date
tx_trojan
Nitro Member
Quoting Dixon in a Comp Plus article regarding 1000' vs 1320':
“It would even be tighter and safer if you want to race 60 foot,” Dixon said. “I don’t know how to comment other than that.”
http://competitionplus.com/drag-rac...-majority-of-nhra-fuel-drivers-prefer-1000-ft
“It would even be tighter and safer if you want to race 60 foot,” Dixon said. “I don’t know how to comment other than that.”
http://competitionplus.com/drag-rac...-majority-of-nhra-fuel-drivers-prefer-1000-ft
Sounds like the majority of drivers/owners want nothing to due with 1320.
tx_trojan
Nitro Member
It's hard to tell with that article, with the minimal amount of drivers mentioned. But it very possibly could be the case.
Having said that, and with all due respect to the Terry McMillens and Chad Heads of the world, Dixon's opinion on the matter holds much more weight. At least to me.
Why is it the military uses the metric system for distance but the rest of us Americans do not?
d'kid
Nitro Member
5th grade Garden Grove, Ca Edgar Elm. 1967
Leebone
Nitro Member
I got used to 1000' racing. If there are people staying home and/or not watching because of it, then they must not be very big fans to begin with. Go watch NASCAR. Besides, the only way they can go back to 1320' is to take short tracks like Pomona, Englishtown and Norwalk off the schedule. Ain't gonna happen !!!
stitcherbob
Nitro Member
If you are not a very big fan of drag racing, then why the h*** would you care about the quarter mile and it's history??? All the "heroes of the quarter mile" like Big Daddy and Snake and Shirley and Force. Eddie Hill with the first 4 second QUARTER. Kenny Bernstein with the first 300mph in the QUARTER. The fastest side by side QUARTER Mile races? Anyone remember who was first to any of those records in the 1000ft? All they talk about now is finishes in thousandths of seconds, because there's nothing else to remember anymore....they even had to add the Stat Guy on TV to fill in drag racing audiences on past trivia because the new stuff is forgotten so fast.
They could make them race the 1/8 and would the stands be filled or empty?
Would the cars blow up more due to trying everything to win in that short a distance... if you rotate the earth in the first 60 feet all you have to do is coast across the 1/8 finish line dragging what remains of the motor? Talk about adding expense.
More explosions mean more accidents. And the NHRA gets more TV exposure....from nightly news programs.
The 1/4 mile offered more exciting racing and come from behind finishes...imo
They could make them race the 1/8 and would the stands be filled or empty?
Would the cars blow up more due to trying everything to win in that short a distance... if you rotate the earth in the first 60 feet all you have to do is coast across the 1/8 finish line dragging what remains of the motor? Talk about adding expense.
More explosions mean more accidents. And the NHRA gets more TV exposure....from nightly news programs.
The 1/4 mile offered more exciting racing and come from behind finishes...imo
1/4 mile racing is gone forever. Take that to the bank.
You will see 1,000 ft. for all classes before you would ever see fuel cars back to 1,320. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Goodyear would never sign up to make a tire that could be rated for 350 mph. And as the cars continue to get quicker and faster, what do you do with the "shorter" tracks? Just cut them off the schedule and kiss more of the historical aspect of the sport good-bye?
Don't want to hear about all the good ideas that the experts have had to slow the cars down. How long will it take to overcome those changes. Most here think the top Crew Chiefs are geniuses so it wouldn't take so long. Look how fast we got to TF at 330 mph in 1,000 ft racing and 325+ in FC. Didn't take very long.
If you are truly a fan of NHRA Pro racing, you need to embrace 1,000 ft racing or move on to another passion.
You will see 1,000 ft. for all classes before you would ever see fuel cars back to 1,320. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Goodyear would never sign up to make a tire that could be rated for 350 mph. And as the cars continue to get quicker and faster, what do you do with the "shorter" tracks? Just cut them off the schedule and kiss more of the historical aspect of the sport good-bye?
Don't want to hear about all the good ideas that the experts have had to slow the cars down. How long will it take to overcome those changes. Most here think the top Crew Chiefs are geniuses so it wouldn't take so long. Look how fast we got to TF at 330 mph in 1,000 ft racing and 325+ in FC. Didn't take very long.
If you are truly a fan of NHRA Pro racing, you need to embrace 1,000 ft racing or move on to another passion.
Jimbo
Nitro Member
Joe Sherwood comment was the following
The only way NHRA will bring back 1320 for the Fuel cars is if there is a rule change reducing speeds.
Maybe that's the answer to making the fans happy and also reducing speeds at the same time.
Jim Hill
http://www.nostalgicracingdecals.com
The only way NHRA will bring back 1320 for the Fuel cars is if there is a rule change reducing speeds.
Maybe that's the answer to making the fans happy and also reducing speeds at the same time.
Jim Hill
http://www.nostalgicracingdecals.com
Never gonna happen Joe. So many questions / variables ...
- Who decides what a safe speed reduction is? 320, 300, 290 ... ?
- How do you validate effectiveness?
- If it didn't work, do you give up and go back to 1,000 ft? Do you tweak it some more?
- How long is the "trial" to determine effectiveness?
- What does the picture of success look like?
CrewMan
Nitro Member
I think you are right Jim. I think we all like to see fast speeds, and we all like the 1/4 mile regardless if you like the 1000ft call or not. I have yet to talk to someone who now is a fan of NHRA because the fuel cars only run to 1000ft.
A couple things from above...in addition to the article that started this discussion being poorly written...
1. Dixons' comments I think were kind of tongue-n-cheek. And if they were he has a point...hell you could really just do a coin flip....what's the worst thats going to happen...the starter gets a bruised thumb from flipping it all day long?
2. Just because someone does not like 1000ft racing does not mean they are not a "real fan". I think we are all real fans, we don't want to see the sport go away, so we cling on to whatever product NHRA decides to put out.
3. Honestly I think if NHRA did take some lessons from NASCAR they could back it back to the 1/4 in a safe manner. All those NASCAR crew chiefs, they don't like all the stuff NASCAR imposes on them when it comes to power, down force, etc....I don't care what they say they all want to go fast, but a good majority of the time (don't even bring up the package change that brought along the 2 x 2 or "Ark Racing" as I call it - I think they disposed of that guys body with Jimmy Hoffas') NASCAR gets it right.
All that being said, we all know this is a dangerous sport. Racing in general is a dangerous sport across all different types. Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt or worse. But what they do want to see is a quality product...and to me a quality product is something that is 100% complete and gives me what I expect. I can't provide my clients with 3/4 what they pay me to do and call it a great product. That's just me personally, but to each his own.
Honestly guys, it is probably going to take current sponsors and potential sponsors to say hey...let's figure out a way to bring it back.
Just my 02.
A couple things from above...in addition to the article that started this discussion being poorly written...
1. Dixons' comments I think were kind of tongue-n-cheek. And if they were he has a point...hell you could really just do a coin flip....what's the worst thats going to happen...the starter gets a bruised thumb from flipping it all day long?
2. Just because someone does not like 1000ft racing does not mean they are not a "real fan". I think we are all real fans, we don't want to see the sport go away, so we cling on to whatever product NHRA decides to put out.
3. Honestly I think if NHRA did take some lessons from NASCAR they could back it back to the 1/4 in a safe manner. All those NASCAR crew chiefs, they don't like all the stuff NASCAR imposes on them when it comes to power, down force, etc....I don't care what they say they all want to go fast, but a good majority of the time (don't even bring up the package change that brought along the 2 x 2 or "Ark Racing" as I call it - I think they disposed of that guys body with Jimmy Hoffas') NASCAR gets it right.
All that being said, we all know this is a dangerous sport. Racing in general is a dangerous sport across all different types. Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt or worse. But what they do want to see is a quality product...and to me a quality product is something that is 100% complete and gives me what I expect. I can't provide my clients with 3/4 what they pay me to do and call it a great product. That's just me personally, but to each his own.
Honestly guys, it is probably going to take current sponsors and potential sponsors to say hey...let's figure out a way to bring it back.
Just my 02.
Leebone
Nitro Member
Nope, never gonna happen. The simple fact is, the cars outgrew the tracks. The answer isn't slowing them down. We already have that. It's called Top Alcohol. For the record, Ive been following drag racing since the mid 60s. I remember all the great records set and great racing at 1320. I'm also aware of the records set by Antron Brown and John Force in the 1000' era. It's all good. What I'm getting tired of seeing is Darryl Russell and Scott Kalitta being laid to rest. That's not saying 1000' will eliminate it. There will always be danger, but if shortening the track by 320' will help eliminate it, then I'm all for it. I'm not going to let the lack of 320' ruin my love for this sport. So far the worst thing I've seen is Dixon's car snapping in half. Not the track's fault. Something goofy happened to the chassis.
Dragracer
Nitro Member
For some reason while I was watching the race this past weekend I looked at the spectator stands a few times. Denver is a neat track with the stands built into the hills, really cool. After a while I looked at where the stands ended - way before 1320', not even to 1000'. I have been racing since the beginning at Santa Ana and have seen quite a few tracks but I don't remember seeing any where the stands went the full 1320. 1320 was not always the standard. If a track was long enough 1/2 mile was also run - Riverside and a few others. 1320 was kind of a standard that C.J.Hart started using when he started Santa Ana at the old airport. That was way before Wally Parks started NHRA.
If the stands went to 1320 how many people are going to sit way down there where the cars are going so fast that it would be real difficult to see who wins. At Lions in Long Beach sometimes I used to sit in the little tower on the left side of the dragstrip at the end of the 1320. That was a long time ago and even being right on top of the track the cars were going so fast you couldn't tell who won some times and they were going over 100 mph slower than they are today.
When T/F and F/C were running 1320' you had to watch the cars go by and then look at the finish line lite to see who won. One of the few tracks that had stands to 1320' was Bakersfield and when they had the Smokers meet once a year the stands were full but they were also running 64 car T/F races on both saturday and sunday. The stands are rarely filled today even with stands not going 1320'. With the pro racing as close as it is, and the cars going as fast as they are, you can't tell who won even at 1000'. So what's the big deal. People go to the races to see a good race, fast cars and cheer for their favorite cars. At 1320' you would just be watching them go by and then have to look at the scoreboard to see who won. If you look at where most of the spectators sit you see most of them are in the starting line area down to the 660' areas. The people in the stands gets less and less after 1/2 to 3/4 of the 1000'. The majority of the tracks don't even have stands to 1000'.
Why bring back 1320? If you sat in the stands at 1320', and I can't think any track that has stands that far down the cars would be coming by so fast you most likely couldn't tell who won anyway. At a few tracks like Las Vegas you can stand by the fence at 1320', which I have done a few times and it's real had to tell who won even in the Alcohol classes.
Spectator count is down in every form of auto racing and most NASCAR tracks have closed some stands, as has NHRA. Even at Daytona, which used to be full has quite a bit of the stands covered over. NASCAR used to be a sell out at almost every race and you needed to get you tickets a year in advance at some tracks. For the Indy 500 getting a ticket was almost impossible 6 months before the race. Now you can get tickets the day of the race and there are still empty seats.
Back when NHRA was filling the stands at Pomona I was talking with a good friend who was a NHRA official and mentioned the spectator cost kept going up every year and when was it going to stop. His answer was that as long as they sold all the seats they would keep raising the price - Just like Disneyland does.
Now that the spectator count is down maybe it's time to start lowering the spectator cost and that would go a long ways to attract people to come back and fill up the stands. 1000' back to 1320' ain't going to happen, just ask Goodyear and NHRA's Insurance Company.
JUST A FEW THOUGHTS..
If the stands went to 1320 how many people are going to sit way down there where the cars are going so fast that it would be real difficult to see who wins. At Lions in Long Beach sometimes I used to sit in the little tower on the left side of the dragstrip at the end of the 1320. That was a long time ago and even being right on top of the track the cars were going so fast you couldn't tell who won some times and they were going over 100 mph slower than they are today.
When T/F and F/C were running 1320' you had to watch the cars go by and then look at the finish line lite to see who won. One of the few tracks that had stands to 1320' was Bakersfield and when they had the Smokers meet once a year the stands were full but they were also running 64 car T/F races on both saturday and sunday. The stands are rarely filled today even with stands not going 1320'. With the pro racing as close as it is, and the cars going as fast as they are, you can't tell who won even at 1000'. So what's the big deal. People go to the races to see a good race, fast cars and cheer for their favorite cars. At 1320' you would just be watching them go by and then have to look at the scoreboard to see who won. If you look at where most of the spectators sit you see most of them are in the starting line area down to the 660' areas. The people in the stands gets less and less after 1/2 to 3/4 of the 1000'. The majority of the tracks don't even have stands to 1000'.
Why bring back 1320? If you sat in the stands at 1320', and I can't think any track that has stands that far down the cars would be coming by so fast you most likely couldn't tell who won anyway. At a few tracks like Las Vegas you can stand by the fence at 1320', which I have done a few times and it's real had to tell who won even in the Alcohol classes.
Spectator count is down in every form of auto racing and most NASCAR tracks have closed some stands, as has NHRA. Even at Daytona, which used to be full has quite a bit of the stands covered over. NASCAR used to be a sell out at almost every race and you needed to get you tickets a year in advance at some tracks. For the Indy 500 getting a ticket was almost impossible 6 months before the race. Now you can get tickets the day of the race and there are still empty seats.
Back when NHRA was filling the stands at Pomona I was talking with a good friend who was a NHRA official and mentioned the spectator cost kept going up every year and when was it going to stop. His answer was that as long as they sold all the seats they would keep raising the price - Just like Disneyland does.
Now that the spectator count is down maybe it's time to start lowering the spectator cost and that would go a long ways to attract people to come back and fill up the stands. 1000' back to 1320' ain't going to happen, just ask Goodyear and NHRA's Insurance Company.
JUST A FEW THOUGHTS..
Last edited:
StockersRock
Nitro Member
Great points!
This makes me wonder how many that complain hard about 1000' racing are the ones that love to sit at, or even behind, the starting line...
CrewMan
Nitro Member
Well if it is truly about driver at speeds eclipsing 330 or whatever the tire can handle....if you check the NHRA National Records...(which by the way the 1000 foot records are still filed under 1/4 mile...really NHRA? LOL):
TF: Dixon holds the 1,000-foot record at 332 mph. Tony Schumacher's has the 1/4 record at 337mph.
FC: Courtney holds the 1,000-foot record at 325 mph. Ashley has the 1/4 record at 335 mph .
TF: Dixon holds the 1,000-foot record at 332 mph. Tony Schumacher's has the 1/4 record at 337mph.
FC: Courtney holds the 1,000-foot record at 325 mph. Ashley has the 1/4 record at 335 mph .
mick
Nitro Member
i believe tony ran the 337 at BIR in '05; so now it's 10 years after and they are near the same mph in 320 less feet.
1000' is the length for the nitro cars and i hope they do not consider shortening it again. i wish these cars were at performance levels
from 90's and still ran to 1320', but they are not and i do not see them going backwards with technology; maybe leveling off, but not backwards.
1000' racing is exciting when the track does not have cool dry air at sea level.
1000' is the length for the nitro cars and i hope they do not consider shortening it again. i wish these cars were at performance levels
from 90's and still ran to 1320', but they are not and i do not see them going backwards with technology; maybe leveling off, but not backwards.
1000' racing is exciting when the track does not have cool dry air at sea level.
Similar threads
- Article
