Bobby Bennett
Nitro Member
Talking about 1320, slowing the cars down and of course, the state of the NHRA and drag racing ...
S#!+SCELZI SAYS - THE NHRA GRIPES, PT. 1
S#!+SCELZI SAYS - THE NHRA GRIPES, PT. 1
Scelzi Is Back At It ... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bobby Bennett
- Start date
mike
Nitro Member
love Scelzi, but I think he's dead wrong saying the fan won't like it if the cars are slower...
My opinion, and it's shared by the few folks I know in person that follow drag racing, is that the 1000' racing may be "close" but isn't very good because it is OVER ALMOST BEFORE IT BEGINS...and heck if you made the track 60' long is would be really, REALLY close but boring as heck
My opinion, and it's shared by the few folks I know in person that follow drag racing, is that the 1000' racing may be "close" but isn't very good because it is OVER ALMOST BEFORE IT BEGINS...and heck if you made the track 60' long is would be really, REALLY close but boring as heck
tx_trojan
Nitro Member
mick
Nitro Member
lead changes; a rare occurrence with the nitro cars; PS & PSB not so bad.
1000' @ 100 gal/min is for new fans who know no different.
older fans increasingly disenchanted.
3.8 seconds @ 325mph to 1000' is too fast for me. (personal opinion)
at least offer a general admission for around $35-50/day
$50 + mandated reserved seat is a death sentence.
brainerd does this and their 'then GA' bleachers used to be packed
are now 2/3 empty on sat. and sun.....do not understand motive?
keep the parking fees modest / charge going rate for concessions
next month the PGA Arnold Palmer Invitational (orlando)
adult GA: $45/day + $10 park (car load)
last night 45,600 people spectated the X games (majority youth)
... and espn advertised this number. (one day crowd)
although this is an odd comparison as i think the X games are free to
spectate; heavy sponsorship and TV cover expenses.
1000' @ 100 gal/min is for new fans who know no different.
older fans increasingly disenchanted.
3.8 seconds @ 325mph to 1000' is too fast for me. (personal opinion)
at least offer a general admission for around $35-50/day
$50 + mandated reserved seat is a death sentence.
brainerd does this and their 'then GA' bleachers used to be packed
are now 2/3 empty on sat. and sun.....do not understand motive?
keep the parking fees modest / charge going rate for concessions
next month the PGA Arnold Palmer Invitational (orlando)
adult GA: $45/day + $10 park (car load)
last night 45,600 people spectated the X games (majority youth)
... and espn advertised this number. (one day crowd)
although this is an odd comparison as i think the X games are free to
spectate; heavy sponsorship and TV cover expenses.
Last edited:
n/a
Nitro Member
Saw an article on 60 Mins. last eve about the continued growth of the NFL...
the fans are backed up by the thousands to get in;
the tv broadcasters are paying the nfl multi-million dollars for multi-year contracts (instead of having to pay for air time like the nhra does);
the players and the owners are both making money;
and the Small Market Teams CAN COMPETE with the Large Market Teams, through some sort of money expense / income sharing scheme.
Now don't shoot me, but maybe nhra should look at doing something along these same lines, because what they've been doing in the last 10-15 sure as hell ain't working.
Can you imagine the fan excitement and participation if there was just the slightest chance that one of the lil guy 1 car, fuel racers was actually able to compete against / with the force or the dsr juggernauts, in every race, and not just some year end shuffle the numbers bs!
think about it. nhra ain't going anywhere but down, the way it is.
the fans are backed up by the thousands to get in;
the tv broadcasters are paying the nfl multi-million dollars for multi-year contracts (instead of having to pay for air time like the nhra does);
the players and the owners are both making money;
and the Small Market Teams CAN COMPETE with the Large Market Teams, through some sort of money expense / income sharing scheme.
Now don't shoot me, but maybe nhra should look at doing something along these same lines, because what they've been doing in the last 10-15 sure as hell ain't working.
Can you imagine the fan excitement and participation if there was just the slightest chance that one of the lil guy 1 car, fuel racers was actually able to compete against / with the force or the dsr juggernauts, in every race, and not just some year end shuffle the numbers bs!
think about it. nhra ain't going anywhere but down, the way it is.
Last edited:
I think Gary is a mouthpiece for the owners because I am sure it doesn't fit in their plans, and it definitely doesn't fit in with an Alan Johnson tune up which favors 1,000' racing.
I think the fans attendance, or lack there-of, is the mouthpiece of reality and longevity.
I'll take a slower 1,340' race any day of the week. Somehow, I got excited when
I saw Kenny and Dale rule the universe in an actual drag race.
I think the fans attendance, or lack there-of, is the mouthpiece of reality and longevity.
I'll take a slower 1,340' race any day of the week. Somehow, I got excited when
I saw Kenny and Dale rule the universe in an actual drag race.
Usual password less 1
Nitro Member
Really?? AJ's tune up favors 1000' racing?? Did you forget who was tuning the guy/s that won the Top Fuel Championship for most of the last 14 years? I don't care if we were racing 60 feet or a half mile, AJ's cars would still probably be winning the Championship either way.
If everybody really felt like you about 1/4 mile racing then every Nostalgia Funny Car race would have 40,000 plus spectators at the track everyday...and besides the 2 races at Bakersfield that may have half that many people there, they don't. It's got all the stuff all you guys are looking for. Cars that look like the old days, over 90% if not more in the tank, cool (not corporate) paint jobs and of course 1320 racing.
Here is what I remember about 1/4 mile racing and mostly single car teams from the mid 90's and I was actually there driving them. The number one qualifier would run let's say a 5.20 and the number 16 guy might run a 6.20. Not much excitement there. It came down to maybe 3-4 guys that had the fastest cars and won the majority of the races. The guys that qualified in the back half of the field almost had NO chance of winning a race let alone getting out of the first round. There is a reason smart guys and good drivers like Gary Densham NEVER won a race as an independent before he joined Force.
Did I like 1/4 mile racing? Sure I did and I ran it last in 2007 driving for Del. Are there things I didn't like, like tires coming apart just before the finish line, hitting the rev limiter and blowing motors up only in the last 320 feet and tracks being way too short if you had a parachute failure, f yeah, but we did it anyways.
The 1000 foot fix was something that needed to happen way before NHRA mandated it. You won't talk to too many drivers in our sport today that don't like it better. Racing today is way closer and SAFER than ever before with some of our fields being separated by 1/10th of a second from 1-16. Now the driver has to be on his game every run. Before if you had a half second on the guy you were racing you didn't have to have a great reaction time (or any pressure to have one) to win the round. If you look at Top Fuel last year, the 3 Schumacher cars and 2 AJ cars usually ran within 2 hundredths of each other in any given round. If you don't think being a driver for one of those teams and having to race one another wasn't HUGE pressure (cause if you had a .070 light instead of a .050 you were probably going to lose), then you don't know what pressure is.
We now have drivers winning from the back half of the field and more upsets than ever before. Sure the cream still rises to the top and the teams with the best combination of brain power and budget still win their fair share of races but it is like that in any form of motorsports.
Could NHRA have made different rules a while back to slow the cars down? Yes. Are there better ways of promoting our sport? Yes.
But let's face it. In this economy we still have new sponsors coming into our sport. We still have races with entries for the Pro Cars in the low to mid 20's and at least full fields at the rest of them. We are back to 23 races again, have a great series sponsor and IMO we still have the best by far form of motorsports to see live!
Maybe if everybody stopped complaining and started bringing a friend or two that had never been to a NHRA race before, our sport would grow faster and you would appreciate it more. I see a lot of newbies come out to the races that are guests of sponsors in our hospitality. 99% of them can't wait to get back out to another race!
Jeff, while you are correct as far as Nostalgia racing is concerned. I can tell you as a fan who has been to many races, the disdain for 1000' is alive and well! I wouldn't expect most drivers to want to go back to 1320 anyway, why would any driver be in favor of anything that makes the sport more expensive? Just saying...
vegasnitro
Nitro Member
For the last 15 years in Top Fuel, it has been everyone versus Alan Johnson, and Alan has managed to win 2/3 of those championships. As long as Alan is out there, it is not likely to change. Track distance is irrelevant.
I disagree with Gary that tickets aren't too expensive. They are. Here in Vegas, I can buy a ticket package for $88 that will get me into the Nationwide and Sprint Cup race in March, and the Truck race in September. Cheapest tickets for NHRA are $120 for the weekend, times 2 National Events here. Even if you just went race day, cheapest is $55, times 2. Still more expensive and you get 1 less race.
I disagree with Gary that tickets aren't too expensive. They are. Here in Vegas, I can buy a ticket package for $88 that will get me into the Nationwide and Sprint Cup race in March, and the Truck race in September. Cheapest tickets for NHRA are $120 for the weekend, times 2 National Events here. Even if you just went race day, cheapest is $55, times 2. Still more expensive and you get 1 less race.
Usual password less 1
Nitro Member
I don't pay the bills so why would I care? If they could make all the tracks longer and make tires that didn't come apart at those speeds and got rid of the rev limiters, I would love to run low 4.70's- high 4.60's at over 330mph and I imagine most other drivers would as well. But the reality is that most of the tracks are way too short with many of them not able to add any more length. Goodyear has done their best to develop a great tire but there are still risks involved running the extra length and speed and they are already expensive enough at almost $1500 a pair. Last but not least I don't see us losing the rev limiters anytime soon. While I don't have any first hand knowledge of this, so it is just an educated guess, I am sure that the insurance company/ies for NHRA don't want to see 330-340mph speeds in FC and 340 plus in TF.
The racing we have now is closer than ever and more exciting to watch. The only teams making that "big top end charge" that many of you thought you saw were the big teams with all the money anyways. It seems like a lot of the 'Maters are rooting for the smaller independent single car teams anyways and most of the time they were the guys getting driven around in the last 320' by the big corporate teams. So I am confused?
I have said it before here on the 'Mater that I would rather haul a$$ to the thousand foot than go slow to the 1/4 mile. Don't you go to the races to see records broke, pedal fests or killer et's in the fuel cars or do you just want to watch 2 cars go down the track slow and side by side? Most have said they would be happy to see 5.0 et's for Funny Cars at 290 with the best being the odd 4.90 at 300mph. This is the same as watching us go 4.30's in 1000ft with the odd 4.20 thrown in. What happens when you get to a track that has bad atmospheric conditions and all you can do is run 5.10-5.20 in the quarter mile. You do realize that alcohol Funny Cars have run in the 5.40's right. Do we slow them down too? Does that make the Alcohol racer stop racing because of new rule changes?
Is the restrictor plate the way to go like most say because it is the least expensive? I saw Courtney Force run a 4.12 last year at Charlotte with the plate in place while she was testing. That's like a 4.82. Could you imagine what they could run if they had a year or two under their belts? And from the data I saw, you would never see that "big top end charge" because you just run out of boost and it lays over. She only ran around 286mph, not sure if she shut it off early but you get the idea.
Sometimes things seem better when you remember them in the past! We were all younger and you tend to remember only the good and not the bad. As I said before, the racing is closer now than ever before and the driver is a bigger part of the equation than ever before. Plus the independents have a better chance of winning unlike before ( just look at Bob Bode a couple of years ago). Isn't that what you want?
Last edited:
Umm, yeah Jeff, that's EXACTLY what he said according to his driver at the time. His name was Tony Schumacher and he was frothing at the mouth with excitement during the interview. I saw it for myself, along with the rest of the world watching the coverage that day. Why don't you walk up and ask Alan if he ever said that for yourself before jumping all over me.. I'm sure he will admit that, and then I can tell you "I told you so"....
It came right out of Tony Shu's mouth on ESPN2 that Alan said that 1000' racing fit perfectly with their style of tune up because that (1000') was the part of their tune up that was the strongest and most consistent on the track.
And guess what......
The truckload or trophies started to arrive at almost every race the next season.
You may have held the butterflies, but that doesn't make your opinion more valid than mine or anyone elses who disagrees with the current format.
Just how many times did the guy with "no" chance win at the top end? You know, the unsponsored team with a no name driver? A few times, I suspect because their was a little more track which equals a little more window for tune up inconsistency... If anyone should know that, it should be you. I remember your first race with the boys from Florida.
Since the cream always rises to the top, Paul never had a chance to win, right? If I remember, the underdog game plan back then was to run your race and let the other guy make the mistake..
If I remember correctly, you guys did damn good, (semi's or finals at Reading if I am remembering correctly) and you just don't see that anymore. IMO, you had a better chance to go rounds then, than you would have now if the same scenario existed. It was exciting, and the underdog was still a player.
Like I have posted before. The words of C.K. Spurlock. It's show business. No show, no business.
You guys can toss in any variable you want, but look in to the stands my friend. Look what part of corporate America has left, and just what replaced them? I can't get excited over remote control cars replacing the big beer companies.
Today's drag racing is about as redundant of an excercize as it gets because less track means less variables. I find it hard to watch a three second squirt on TV, and TV is what makes the seed grow or die..
Records? Utterly meaningless and without any history as a reference...
Your comment about nostalgia races and 40K fans?
Just give it time and a little money.
Last edited:
mike
Nitro Member
much respect for anyone that drives a fuel car of any kind...but please don't tell ME what I should or shouldn't like, or what I did or didn't see
1000' racing may be closer, but IN MY OPINION it is in no way shape or form BETTER than 1320' racing...sorry if some disagree, but it is what it is
and again, IMO, if nostalgia racing was promoted more and was more accessible it would draw more...for example how many more people would go for a day in Pomona with a 1 hour drive vs. Bakersfield with a 2 1/2-3 hour drive each way?
and BTW, I bet if you asked Scott Pruett today he would probably be in favor of "The 18 hours of Daytona" instead of 24 hours
1000' racing may be closer, but IN MY OPINION it is in no way shape or form BETTER than 1320' racing...sorry if some disagree, but it is what it is
and again, IMO, if nostalgia racing was promoted more and was more accessible it would draw more...for example how many more people would go for a day in Pomona with a 1 hour drive vs. Bakersfield with a 2 1/2-3 hour drive each way?
and BTW, I bet if you asked Scott Pruett today he would probably be in favor of "The 18 hours of Daytona" instead of 24 hours
My thoughts exactly! I go to races to see records broken. This is one of the reasons why I go back to E-Town and Maple Grove each year, chances are good records will fall the time of the year those races are held.
FC138fan
Nitro Member
In my opinion, records are historical... History changed when they went to 1000'. I don't have the energy to convert 1000' times and speeds to what they would have been extrapolated to the quarter. Therefore, the record breaking aspect is dead for me.
But I agree I like the "unlimited" class with killer ET's and speeds... but at some point the structural limits of the materials the cars are built with took away "unlimited" aspect.. and that point happened sometime in the last decade. The solution implemented was to go to 1000' but what happens when they come up against those structural limits at 1000' again?
The solution isn't to keep shortening the track, that seems near sighted to me. Unless something radical happens - such changing the cars fundamentally (there are a variety of ways to do this that might be better accepted then shortening the track) the sport is just going to shrink to nothing.
