Poll: 1000 Foot Tracks (2 Viewers)

[Steve Haight]

i think that a 1000 ft track would solve all the problems right now, until they can come up with what ever it is going to take to solve the problem. NOT TO MANY PEOPLE CAN SIT IN THE STANDS AND TELL IF AFUEL CAR IS GOING 290 or 330 MPH. Most of the problems happen after the 1000 ft mark. Leave the gear the same it would be hard to damage the engines in that distance. The cost saving to the pro teams would be great plus help out the smaller teams even more.

 

[jim]

i think that a 1000 ft track would solve all the problems right now, until they can come up with what ever it is going to take to solve the problem. NOT TO MANY PEOPLE CAN SIT IN THE STANDS AND TELL IF AFUEL CAR IS GOING 290 or 330 MPH. Most of the problems happen after the 1000 ft mark. Leave the gear the same it would be hard to damage the engines in that distance. The cost saving to the pro teams would be great plus help out the smaller teams even more.

I agree on the perception of speed by spectators like me, but like somebody else said, I think they'd just re-gear for the 1000'. Otherwise they'd lose.
I wonder if tracks like Bandimere with a 1/2 mile shutdown (part of it a steep uphill) is good enough?

 

[Vern]

3 maybe 4 safey nets about 100ft apart. each one would slow the car some each time they are hit. Not big money and would not take up alot of land. But I think the sand traps need to be looked at first.

 

[Marchboom]

If they reduce the track to 1000', we don't gain that much shutdown room...320'. Not that much at 330 MPH. Lengthening shutdown areas would work if the track has the room. At Pomona you have a street just past the "beach" and then a fairly steep incline and golf course.

Chutes work if they don't burn off and then not at slower speeds. Brakes work if the driver can get them employed fast enough. We need something that will work WITHOUT the driver's intervention, if possible. We should look into a system that will quickly stop the car if the driver can't for some reason. Hitting a net that really doesn't move much isn't the answer. Some device is needed that will safely absorb the car then quickly stop it without causing any damage. Maybe a safety net (before any sand) that works like the arresting gear on a carrier. Will be costly but what is life worth?

Might have to do some thinking "outside the box" on this one.

 

[.]

I've seen the arresting wire theory from an air craft carrier mentioned in a few threads. Every time I hear that theory I think about the arresting cable itself being a major problem. Keep in mind when an airplane lands on the deck of a carrier it's wheels FLY OVER the cable. The first part of that plane to hit the deck is the tail hook and thats at the very back of the plane. If you strung out a 1.5 inch diameter cable across a drag strip, all four wheels of a FC/TF car would drive over it first before the tail hook could grab onto it. I highly doubt the wheels or tires could handle hitting that cable at those speeds! You would need to put the hook on the front of the car but then you open yourself up to other problems.... like what would keep the rear of the car from trying to pass the front if you weren't exactly 90 degrees to the cable when the hook(s) caught?

 

[.]

I forgot to mention.....

My initial thought for an external stopping/braking system was to use some form "Eddy current braking" (magnetic brakes) This way it can be turned on or off and nothing physically touches the car when activated. It's basically the opposite of electromagnetic propulsion used by newer trains and roller coasters. I know very little about it but it seems like a possible solution.

Cars would have a series of either north or south pole magnets on the bottom of their chassis and the shut down area of the track would be lined with pulsing electro magnets of the opposite pole. If a car passes over the magnetic field it slows down. Seems far fetched but this type of system is already in use.

I'm no expert on how it works, I'm just thinking out loud. (typing actually)
I could be completely wrong!

Brian.