Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Russell v. Goodyear, settled
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
__
Nitro Member
Chris, this "wanna-be mod" would like to offer an apology as well. I did not intend for my post to be a personal attack. I've seen several posts in this thread which seemed to "demonize" Julie Russell. I have an issue with that but I could've chosen my words more carefully.
To CJ and Sean, thanks for your posts. They do add a different perspective to the thread.
I'll preface this by saying I'm just a fan. I can only form opinions by what I read in the press. These are the facts as I understand them. Please correct anything I screwed up:
- Goodyear debuted a new fuel tire in 2004 (I don't recall the 4 digit model number).
- The NHRA allowed teams to use the old tire for a number of races before mandating all fuel class competitors run the new tire.
- In testing and in competition, a number of teams complained that the new tire would lose part of itself at the point where the sidewall and the tread met. The problem was often referred to as "chunking."
- Joe Amato Racing was so concerned about the performance and/or safety of this new tire that that went out an purchased a large number of the old tires.
- The NHRA chose to uphold the mandate that all fuel teams would need to discontinue the use of the old tire and begin using the new tire exclusively (I do not recall the specific race that this rule was made effective).
- Neither Goodyear or the NHRA has ever released their findings on the cause of the tragic events of June 27 2004.
- In the wake of Darrell's passing, the NHRA announced new rules governing the top fuel class. They were increased driver protection, minimum tire pressures and maximum wing angles.
- Goodyear likewise brought another new fuel tire design to the next race. The new design was described as extremely similar to the old tire which was legislated out of the class.
I agree with all that have said the drivers and teams understand the risks associated with racing at great speeds.
My questions are these:
- What was the NHRA's thought process in mandating this new tire in the face of significant concerns raised by their competitors?
- Why has the cause of the Darrell's accident never been released? Yes, I understand the issue of pending litigation. Mrs. Russell filed the lawsuit nearly a year after the accident. If the findings of the accident investigation exonerated the NHRA and Goodyear, I would believe they would have been made public. The silence from both parties is deafening.
Based on the above, my belief is that the NHRA did not fully explore the concerns raised by their competitors. Had rules governing tire pressure and maximum wing angle been issued before June 27 2004, that crash may not have happened. Yes, hindsight is 20/20. The NHRA was founded on the principle that they were "dedicated to safety." I firmly believe the group now leading the NHRA has lost the focus on prevention and improvement. The teams are doing far more safety innovation than the sanctioning body. Comparing the actions of NASCAR in the wake of Dale Earnhardt's passing and the actions of the NHRA in the wake of Darrell's passing further convinces me that the current leadership is failing to live up to the principles that Wally Parks defined in 1951.
To CJ and Sean, thanks for your posts. They do add a different perspective to the thread.
I'll preface this by saying I'm just a fan. I can only form opinions by what I read in the press. These are the facts as I understand them. Please correct anything I screwed up:
- Goodyear debuted a new fuel tire in 2004 (I don't recall the 4 digit model number).
- The NHRA allowed teams to use the old tire for a number of races before mandating all fuel class competitors run the new tire.
- In testing and in competition, a number of teams complained that the new tire would lose part of itself at the point where the sidewall and the tread met. The problem was often referred to as "chunking."
- Joe Amato Racing was so concerned about the performance and/or safety of this new tire that that went out an purchased a large number of the old tires.
- The NHRA chose to uphold the mandate that all fuel teams would need to discontinue the use of the old tire and begin using the new tire exclusively (I do not recall the specific race that this rule was made effective).
- Neither Goodyear or the NHRA has ever released their findings on the cause of the tragic events of June 27 2004.
- In the wake of Darrell's passing, the NHRA announced new rules governing the top fuel class. They were increased driver protection, minimum tire pressures and maximum wing angles.
- Goodyear likewise brought another new fuel tire design to the next race. The new design was described as extremely similar to the old tire which was legislated out of the class.
I agree with all that have said the drivers and teams understand the risks associated with racing at great speeds.
My questions are these:
- What was the NHRA's thought process in mandating this new tire in the face of significant concerns raised by their competitors?
- Why has the cause of the Darrell's accident never been released? Yes, I understand the issue of pending litigation. Mrs. Russell filed the lawsuit nearly a year after the accident. If the findings of the accident investigation exonerated the NHRA and Goodyear, I would believe they would have been made public. The silence from both parties is deafening.
Based on the above, my belief is that the NHRA did not fully explore the concerns raised by their competitors. Had rules governing tire pressure and maximum wing angle been issued before June 27 2004, that crash may not have happened. Yes, hindsight is 20/20. The NHRA was founded on the principle that they were "dedicated to safety." I firmly believe the group now leading the NHRA has lost the focus on prevention and improvement. The teams are doing far more safety innovation than the sanctioning body. Comparing the actions of NASCAR in the wake of Dale Earnhardt's passing and the actions of the NHRA in the wake of Darrell's passing further convinces me that the current leadership is failing to live up to the principles that Wally Parks defined in 1951.
Sean D, shondoo
Nitro Member
My comments in particular were admittedly based on nothing more that what I've read, no actual facts. That being said, if I need to apologize for that, consider it done. But to me, that's irrelevant because I'm not sure any amount of money is worth all the bad press they seem to get every time an accident occurs.
If I were a key decision maker at Goodyear, I would have to seriously re-evaluate their position with the NHRA until some actual measures were taken by the sanctioning body to bring the performance levels back down to the level of the current tire designs.
Sean D
Nick Name
Nitro Member
I believe Shelby does good on Goodyear racing tires. This includes sportscar racing tires, etc. Last I heard, all of that stuff, excluding fuel tires was now made in Chile. The fuel car tires are still (handmade?) in Ohio by well paid techs.
You are supposed to remember those big words "Goodyear" on those 300 mph+ tires when you go to put tires on your SUV. That's why they do it.
Jay
Buddy
Nitro Member
In Goodyears defense, any time a crash happens and a tire goes flat or tears people scream "TIRE ISSUES!!!". That being said, I have raised the tire flag because it seems so suspicious at times... I think there have been accidents/incedents where tires have caused the issue, but we seem to blame them for anything now... If I were Goodyear I would be pissed that we were always blamed...
CJ Curtsinger
DCM
Nitro Member
There appears to be plenty of people talking/speculating about things that they have no knowledge about.
My recollection is that there was a public statement by NHRA that a report would be release in XX number of days. [was it 30????].
Then, before those days were up, the lawsuit was filed, so there goes your 'public' report.
This case was to start on Monday Civil Case Detail.
I do a lot of work involving litigation and, without detailed knowledge of the circumstances, it is pure speculation to guess why the case settled.
The plaintiff's would have known for some time the findings/opinions of the defendants. That information is typically exchanged WAY before a trial occurs.
My recollection is that there was a public statement by NHRA that a report would be release in XX number of days. [was it 30????].
Then, before those days were up, the lawsuit was filed, so there goes your 'public' report.
This case was to start on Monday Civil Case Detail.
I do a lot of work involving litigation and, without detailed knowledge of the circumstances, it is pure speculation to guess why the case settled.
The plaintiff's would have known for some time the findings/opinions of the defendants. That information is typically exchanged WAY before a trial occurs.
__
Nitro Member
David, I have no intimate knowledge of court proceedings. After the accident, Graham Light said that an accident report would be issued. Likewise, I do not remember the date he predicted. Regardless of whether it was 30, 60 or 90 days, the lawsuit was filed on July 7, 2005 - more than a year after the accident. Regardless of what anybody feels about the lawsuit, it would appear that the NHRA was given sufficient time to provide their findings to the public?
Nitrohaulic
Nitro Member
Right. Disagree with what someone says or does all you want but, do it with reasons and leave the person out of it. You don't talk about someone's intentions unless you 100% know you're right and, you especially don't state personal opinion as fact in that area. It amazes me how people automatically jump to assuming the worst in others when it's the last thing they'd want others doing to them, especially in a public place. I probably look like a lifeless a**hole for the way I'll jump on people for this stuff but, it matters.
Nitrohaulic
Nitro Member
A dealer has to make a profit. I don't think the dealers can afford to buy the world a round of slicks. Goodyear is working on the old "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" marketing strategy.
This coming from someone who can't even spell his own name correctly...? Or most anything else that was of importance in the posting...? (FYI...there is automatic spell check on here, you know....)
If I were you Mr. Welling, before I started passing judgment on other people, especially people like Chris who historically HAVE credibility in this forum, I would AT A MINIMUM keep myself from being embarrassed by typing like a 10-year-old... Hmmmm......Interesting....
Last edited:
