NHRA survey.....

[BF]

At least by one...it was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back for me

X2..I attended one 1000' race after attending about 70 events from 1984 until the 1000' started and that was it. Funny, I was actually thinking about returning to give it one more shot at Baytown next year. Seems I can't get it totally out of my system.

 

[Usual password less 1]

Zap...I know 3-4 people who post here who quit going cause of it!

Then they are not really hard core drag racing fans. The last 320' (or 7/10 of a second) of the run is such a small part of the overall experience of being at the drag races. Hope they are enjoying their couch (or darts or croquet) while we are still racing! Just kidding, kind of.

Like I have said before, be careful what you wish for cause it will be watered down racing, not nearly as loud or as quick and fast. You guys would rather see 4.90-5.00 second quarter mile Funny Cars that go 240mph at half track in 3.5 seconds and barely 300 mph speeds at the 1320 over the cars we have now that go over 270mph in 3.2 seconds at half track with 320mph speeds at 1000'??? To each his/her own I guess, but I know what I would rather see...AND DRIVE!!!

 

[none]

Does anyone really think the change to 1,000' is the cause for the drop in attendance???

I used to go to 5-6 a year. This year 2. 1,000 ft has a lot to do with it but the whole cast of characters running in the Pro classes don`t do a whole to hold my interest either. I will say I am looking forward to going to the Finals. It`s still nitro after all.

 

[BF]

Then they are not really hard core drag racing fans.

Diecast CraZy - tf330fan's Album: TOYS - Picture

Diecast CraZy - tf330fan's Album: TOYS - Picture

Diecast CraZy - tf330fan's Album: TOYS - Picture

Diecast CraZy - tf330fan's Album: TOYS - Picture

Diecast CraZy - tf330fan's Album: TOYS - Picture

Nope,not much of a fan here. So, when the cars eventually get even faster still...660'?

 

[Paul]

Like I have said before, be careful what you wish for cause it will be watered down racing, not nearly as loud or as quick and fast. You guys would rather see 4.90-5.00 second quarter mile Funny Cars that go 240mph at half track in 3.5 seconds and barely 300 mph speeds at the 1320 over the cars we have now that go over 270mph in 3.2 seconds at half track with 320mph speeds at 1000'??? To each his/her own I guess, but I know what I would rather see...AND DRIVE!!!

I know what I would rather see and it isn't watered down fuel cars. If I wanted to see that I would be watching Nostalgia racing. I can't imagine seeing ET's and speeds back to early to mid 90's levels, talk about boring.

 

[yoda]

I petition for all fuel cars to change over to hydrogen peroxide rocket power so that we can have some REAL drag racing out there... I mean- those fuel cars "only" go over 270mph in 3.2 seconds at half track with 320mph speeds at 1000'- I guess that if there were cars that went even faster and quicker, that kind of performance of those obsolete nitro cars would be considered "watered down", and since we have the proven technology to go 3.2 seconds down the ENTIRE track (not just to half-track) at speeds approaching 400 miles per hour- that would be just b!tchin'....

Even better- how about we give everyone headphones turned to 11 and just flash some giant company logos and tell everyone what a great race that was....

 

[vegasnitro]

I know what I would rather see and it isn't watered down fuel cars. If I wanted to see that I would be watching Nostalgia racing. I can't imagine seeing ET's and speeds back to early to mid 90's levels, talk about boring.

If they turned the scoreboards off, would we really know the difference between a 4.8 second quarter at 310 or a 4.45 quarter at 335 as a spectator? My money is on "No". Nostalgia cars still sound right, and still smell right ... And they are still a second slower than a late 90s fuel car. I AM NOT SAYING NOSTALGIA IS BETTER, but I am saying "watered down" is a decidedly relative term when talking about nitro cars.

I will defer to Mr. Arend's expertise to a point, it is his butt in the chair and his feet on the pedals, but something is going to give with the fuel cars. I have heard more than once, NHRA is not happy with 330MPH cars at 1,000 ft. They are also not happy with having lost some customers as evidenced by the survey. So, if they are going to slow the fuel cars down, why not come up with a solution that goes back to the full quarter? That would make more sense than shortening to 660' or watering them down at 1,000ft.

And ALWAYS remember this, the crew chiefs will ALWAYS be ahead of the rule makers, so even if they do implement a rules package to slow them down, it won't take long for them to speed them back up, no matter the distance of the track.

 

[Toejam]

Then they are not really hard core drag racing fans. The last 320' (or 7/10 of a second) of the run is such a small part of the overall experience of being at the drag races. Hope they are enjoying their couch (or darts or croquet) while we are still racing! Just kidding, kind of.

Like I have said before, be careful what you wish for cause it will be watered down racing, not nearly as loud or as quick and fast. You guys would rather see 4.90-5.00 second quarter mile Funny Cars that go 240mph at half track in 3.5 seconds and barely 300 mph speeds at the 1320 over the cars we have now that go over 270mph in 3.2 seconds at half track with 320mph speeds at 1000'??? To each his/her own I guess, but I know what I would rather see...AND DRIVE!!!

Jeff, I hear whining about 1000' at every race I go to! Now should they go back to 1320 and slow the Funnycars to 5.0's yes that would be boring.

 

[Toejam]

By that logic we should be talking about reducing tracks to 1/8th mile racing...

Mark, have you seen all the 1/8 mile crashes in ADRL the past 2 years?

 

[nitrobobby]

I like 1000ft racing. racing is closer and you can see the cars better at the finish line.Remember 1320 is is a football field longer .they are doing 325 mph now!!!

 

[RebilasPhoto]

Mark, have you seen all the 1/8 mile crashes in ADRL the past 2 years?

Good point Joe. We better go to 330ft tracks...

 

[rollingthunder]

no 60 ft racing. less crashes and it makes the driver more pivotal to the
race. It will be safe and reduce the cost for the teams.

 

[mike]

If they turned the scoreboards off, would we really know the difference between a 4.8 second quarter at 310 or a 4.45 quarter at 335 as a spectator? My money is on "No".

Well, you'd be losing your money!! It is quite obvious the difference when a car is really hauling the mail and is not. You don't need a scoreboard to show that! Even yourself would know the difference. Now, if we are talking about the casual spectator, than yes, you'd probably have some extra change in your wallet buddy.

 

[Toejam]

If they turned the scoreboards off, would we really know the difference between a 4.8 second quarter at 310 or a 4.45 quarter at 335 as a spectator? My money is on "No". Nostalgia cars still sound right, and still smell right ... And they are still a second slower than a late 90s fuel car. I AM NOT SAYING NOSTALGIA IS BETTER, but I am saying "watered down" is a decidedly relative term when talking about nitro cars.

I will defer to Mr. Arend's expertise to a point, it is his butt in the chair and his feet on the pedals, but something is going to give with the fuel cars. I have heard more than once, NHRA is not happy with 330MPH cars at 1,000 ft. They are also not happy with having lost some customers as evidenced by the survey. So, if they are going to slow the fuel cars down, why not come up with a solution that goes back to the full quarter? That would make more sense than shortening to 660' or watering them down at 1,000ft.

And ALWAYS remember this, the crew chiefs will ALWAYS be ahead of the rule makers, so even if they do implement a rules package to slow them down, it won't take long for them to speed them back up, no matter the distance of the track.

Chris, weren't you saying how much your father hates 1000'?

 

[Paul]

Well, you'd be losing your money!! It is quite obvious the difference when a car is really hauling the mail and is not. You don't need a scoreboard to show that! Even yourself would know the difference. Now, if we are talking about the casual spectator, than yes, you'd probably have some extra change in your wallet buddy.

I am with you, I can easily tell the difference between a car making a good run and a not so good run.

Sorry, I just don't see the thrill of seeing performance that we had 20 years ago. I like going to the track and potentially seeing record breaking runs (which is one of the main reasons why I go back to Maple Grove each year) and I don't like the thought of that going away.

 

[vegasnitro]

Chris, weren't you saying how much your father hates 1000'?

Yes, my dad hates 1,000ft racing. I don't really have a problem with it.

 

[vegasnitro]

Well, you'd be losing your money!! It is quite obvious the difference when a car is really hauling the mail and is not. You don't need a scoreboard to show that! Even yourself would know the difference. Now, if we are talking about the casual spectator, than yes, you'd probably have some extra change in your wallet buddy.

I was speaking of 95% of the people in the stands.

 

[SundayNiagara]

Does anyone really think the change to 1,000' is the cause for the drop in attendance???

Did you read the Jon Asher story?

 

[Toejam]

I am with you, I can easily tell the difference between a car making a good run and a not so good run.

Sorry, I just don't see the thrill of seeing performance that we had 20 years ago. I like going to the track and potentially seeing record breaking runs (which is one of the main reasons why I go back to Maple Grove each year) and I don't like the thought of that going away.

Paul, that went away when NHRA put Timing restrictors in the cars!

 

[Paul]

Paul, that went away when NHRA put Timing restrictors in the cars!

Really? The last 4 years I have gone to Maple Grove I have seen at least 1 record broken in the fuel categories each year.