NHRA Tech says to DSR Top Fuelers "Take It Off"!

[mick]

who pissed off who to trigger this decision with 3 races 2 go?

let's see if nhra allows espn to interview opposing viewpoints.

 

[Silly Savage]

Funny, the first thing I thought when I saw the shrouds was that it was a great way to clean up the air going over the cage area and into the front of the motor....seemed pretty obvious and that MAYBE it was a safety improvement at the same time.

 

[Draw 3D]

Just curious, does everyone here want teams to hire aerodynamic specialists just to keep up?

It's obvious that the shroud FAILED at its "intended" design and that should have concerned dsr and be an embarrassment to its designers.

The way I understand the Comp+ article, the "other" team were looking for approval to start their own research and development in that area and that is when NHRA started their own investigation. It sounds to me like the approval was only for dsr built cars, other cars would need their own approval.

As for accusations of other teams using illegal parts, throwing them out without officially submitting it through the standard policy seems petty to me, and, if NHRA didn't think highly of dsr, they would not have given approval based on dsr word alone.

 

[luxexpress]

Good thing Grahm Light was not in charge when Big Daddy came out with his rear engine car.

LMAO. Good one.

 

[Rajunz]

who pissed off who to trigger this decision with 3 races 2 go?

let's see if nhra allows espn to interview opposing viewpoints.

Well ESPN is usually all over stuff like this. If they don't cover this issue from both sides, that will really tell you what a ChickenChit move this is by the NHRA.

 

[mike]

Just curious, does everyone here want teams to hire aerodynamic specialists just to keep up?

It's obvious that the shroud FAILED at its "intended" design and that should have concerned dsr and be an embarrassment to its designers.

The way I understand the Comp+ article, the "other" team were looking for approval to start their own research and development in that area and that is when NHRA started their own investigation. It sounds to me like the approval was only for dsr built cars, other cars would need their own approval.

As for accusations of other teams using illegal parts, throwing them out without officially submitting it through the standard policy seems petty to me, and, if NHRA didn't think highly of dsr, they would not have given approval based on dsr word alone.

THIS.

said what I was trying say, but much more coherently

 

[shoe]

If paul or mike knew anything about innovation and aero they would know that the teams use there own pedo tubs, cameras and pressure sensors. We increased the pressure in the cockpit. Never mind. Lack of first hand knowledge means you should not make technical statements.

 

[mike]

sorry, I don't see anybody making technical statements, just people speculating and trying to understand what appears to be a really poor decision on NHRA's part...

 

[Huge]

This just goes to show what a class act Don is. As busy as he is on a race weekend he will still take the time to come on here and give out some great advice.

 

[Rat]

Ok let's say the Shroud failed like it was said in the threat, if it failed, that Antron incident was the first proof of that because that has been maybe the only situation it failed in. I do not think it failed, I do not think DSR "misled them" them being what the NHRA said. I think it's bull 100% and it's amazing what really goes on behind the scenes a fan would never know. Illegal parts? Winning pomona with an illegal blower? parts inside blowers? These teams must hide it well, or just hide it well from anyone who would give them trouble over it.

Don, is there any appeal process for this? As I said, this is the first incident I seen with that could relate the shroud. I believe you guys have made the cockpit safer with it. Fight it, let the NHRA have it.

 

[Dragracer]

Obviously when DSR approached NHRA about the use of the shrouds and the reason behind them it looked like a good safety improvement.
Now that it is has been determined by aerodynamic experts that it is not a safety improvement as everyone thought it was I agree with the decision to remove them, and it was also proven it didn't work at Redding.
Whoever brought this up to NHRA shouldn't be accused as the bad guy or rat. The shroud does not do what it was intended to and possibly could be doing quite the opposite.
Obviously the proper research was not done on them, at least by NHRA, only DSR knows what research they did prior to installing them, but once it was found not to provide the protection intended and could possibly be dangerous the proper decision was made by NHRA to have them removed before something negative happened.

As far as a performance advantage I don't think that should even be an issue as the reason for this ruling is the safety issue.

I don't particulary care for DS but don't believe DSR should be accused of cheating or trying to pull off something for a performance advantage disguised as a safety item until it is either proven or disproven by a proper analysis.
I can understand DS being upset but if it's a safety issue it needs to be taken care of as soon as it identified before someone becomes injured and DS should be one to agree with that. NHRA has been accused in the past of not making decisions in a timely manner but I don't believe that was the case this time.

I'am very definitely not a Graham Light fan and it is rare that I ever agree with what he does and the only thing that could change that is if he put in his resignation today but in this case I believe he was right in what he did.

 

[Wayne]

Thank you, Terry!
Well said & thought out!
Are ya ready for the bashing that you're gonna start to get?

 

[Dragracer]

That sometimes is the price you have to pay for your opinions.
Thanks

 

[Wayne]

10-4!!!

 

[Rat]

Obviously when DSR approached NHRA about the use of the shrouds and the reason behind them it looked like a good safety improvement.
Now that it is has been determined by aerodynamic experts that it is not a safety improvement as everyone thought it was I agree with the decision to remove them, and it was also proven it didn't work at Redding.
Whoever brought this up to NHRA shouldn't be accused as the bad guy or rat. The shroud does not do what it was intended to and possibly could be doing quite the opposite.
Obviously the proper research was not done on them, at least by NHRA, only DSR knows what research they did prior to installing them, but once it was found not to provide the protection intended and could possibly be dangerous the proper decision was made by NHRA to have them removed before something negative happened.

As far as a performance advantage I don't think that should even be an issue as the reason for this ruling is the safety issue.

I don't particulary care for DS but don't believe DSR should be accused of cheating or trying to pull off something for a performance advantage disguised as a safety item until it is either proven or disproven by a proper analysis.
I can understand DS being upset but if it's a safety issue it needs to be taken care of as soon as it identified before someone becomes injured and DS should be one to agree with that. NHRA has been accused in the past of not making decisions in a timely manner but I don't believe that was the case this time.

I'am very definitely not a Graham Light fan and it is rare that I ever agree with what he does and the only thing that could change that is if he put in his resignation today but in this case I believe he was right in what he did.

Boo! What happend with Antron in Reading is something we have not seen from a DSR car this year. If the shroud failed ok, but maybe it was only that run. It is for sure not an aero advantage, but I disagree and I may no nothing technical to comment about this it really is common sense.

What looks safer? DSR's shroud or the open closed back panel roll cage everyone else has? I'm going with DSR because it's common sense, there's less open as opposed to an open square criss cross all the others have. Right above the driver's head in a DSR car is a closed rollcage, I like that.

 

[PJ]

So one incident means it doesn't work? I'd be interested to see how many fires the DSR dragsters have had this season. In any scientific research 1 case does not make a study.

Regardless, I don't care if it was performance or safety, NHRA approved it and should have left it alone. In the off season, make changes if they wish. But to do it now especially during the "playoffs" is crazy. Just further undermines their own countdown if they are willing to change rules and manipulate outcomes in the middle of it but I digress

I think its a shame that Alan Johnson wont be able to be with his teams anymore. He is obviously a performance advantage and other teams can't afford him so its only fair, per nhra logic, right?

It was approved, leave him alone for the rest of the season.

 

[Dragracer]

"WHAT LOOKS SAFER" SInce when was that the determination on whether it is effective or not? That's a pretty dumb statement.
Look again at the reason the shroud was approved. It was not approved because it was a better shield around the drivers head, even though it probably is, or because it "looked good".
It was approved to keep the fire out of the cockpit. It didn't work!
How many times does something have to fail before it's decided it doesn't work?? Should we wait until someone is injured!!
If obviously doesn't perform the function it was approved for and could possible cause a safety problem so what's the problem with removing it or does it improve performance? That's unknown at this time.
DS is not the first racer that have spent large amounts of money on changes/improvements that were approved by NHRA and they didn't work.

 

[Bobby Bennett]

did anyone even consider whether this shield also deflected shrapnel coming into the cockpit?

 

[Dragracer]

That's what I originally thought it was for and thought it was a good idea.

 

[Rat]

"WHAT LOOKS SAFER" SInce when was that the determination on whether it is effective or not? That's a pretty dumb statement.
Look again at the reason the shroud was approved. It was not approved because it was a better shield around the drivers head, even though it probably is, or because it "looked good".
It was approved to keep the fire out of the cockpit. It didn't work!
How many times does something have to fail before it's decided it doesn't work?? Should we wait until someone is injured!!!

No we don't wait, but you can't say what you are cause you have no idea if it did it's job or not. We are told it failed are we told how? Unless there is an enclosed cockpit we are never gonna get fire out of the cockpit. Who says it did or didn't do it's job based on what? how did it fail worse than what the other teams have.

You say my statement was dumb to say, you just agreed and disagreed with me in the same post. You told me it's dumb, yet you say "it was probably better." The shroud was approved for safety from day 1, what are you talking about "approved to keep fire out?" what do you think it got approved for, of course all that had to be in the minds of NHRA Tech during approval.

I do not accept your statement not because I think i'm a genius, or know it all, but because of 1 reason. You can't tell me it was approved for safety, but was a piece of crap because of what happend to antron, so you are saying it automatically means the shroud never a good safety part? We don't have enough evidence to say that. Bottom line, this was the only failure we know of with the piece and it can't be, "oh it failed over A TF car that almost never has issues that blows up, so let's throw it away." NHRA should not be saying that, they should be saying, "it failed, make it better or throw it away." They approved it, they just can't take it away over 1 instance. Where's the investigation then?