Well George, I am finding hard to see your point. AJ and I are really good friends and the reason Tony said that was because AJ's car was so fast it hit the rev limiter before almost anybody else and then didn't run as hard after that. So I could see him getting excited about the 1000' rule change. He did however win what, 6 Championships in the 7 years before that during the 1/4 mile era??
Everybody is entitled to their opinion and I respect that, so what do you want to see? Give me your answers or opinions/solutions to these questions:
Is it OK to have Alcohol Funny Cars run within a 1/10 or 2 of the Fuel Cars (assuming we go back to a 1/4 mile and run 4.90-5.10) and maybe out run some of the back of the field cars at small field events?
Does NHRA slow the Alcohol cars down to keep the disparity between the classes? and do the already shrinking Alcohol fields shrivel up and die because of the added expense to do so?
I never said an independent couldn't win back in the mid 90's I said it was highly unlikely. And we did win in 96 with Paul Smith at Reading. You said it wasn't happening now. How about Bob Bode winning in Brainerd in 2010? Did you forget about that?
There are a lot of Nostalgia races within an hour or so of major populations. Didn't they race in Epping?
Are you going to be happy watching Funny Cars run between 5.00-5.20 at 285-300mph? Remember that's the same as us running 4.30-4.50.
What do you do to slow them down so that everybody is happy? I have kind of proven that the restrictor plate doesn't really work. No matter what you do the crew chiefs will figure out how to go faster. I ran a 5.07 at 303 mph with an old body, a 4 disc clutch and the old cross shaft style clutch management, no ignition managemnt and a 48 gallon fuel pump back in 1996...with a crappy (by today's standards) supercharger and Mallory point style weak mags, so the fuel pump and probably single mag deal are not going to help much.
Do you agree that most of our tracks are too short for 320 plus mph 1/4 mile runs?
Do you know that according to our computer on our best run of 316mph at Reading last year, at the 1320 mark we were only running 265mph and rapidly slowing? How is "slowing the cars down" to 300 mph, which is going 35mph faster at that exact same point going to make it safer than it is now?
Don't get me wrong, I still love 1/4 mile racing but the Pro's out way the Cons and with current tire technology and the length of most of our tracks unless they slow us way down, it is not going to be safer (see post above) and in my opinion, way less exciting.
Maybe we should just run like the Super classes and make the dial in 4.90 for FC and 4.70 for Top Fuel cause that's what you are asking for...count me out if that's what you want to see!!
Jeff, this is going to be a long one, so please bear with me. These are simply my opinions.
If you are having a hard time seeing my point, you might want to start by considering what everyone else is saying about the negatives of 1,000' racing as a genuine concern for the growth of the NHRA in the future.
First, and foremost, I want to see the NHRA succeed.
As a business person, I always look at least 5-10 years down the line to make the correct business decisions today in preparation for my future plans in 5-10 years down the line. Pro-active thinking. Not always accurate, but essential if you are serious about success.
Mistake 1. When the NHRA should have been pro-active like Nascar was with their on going development of their unpopular speed decreasing technology back in the 90's, the NHRA simple restricted gear ratios. They were full steam ahead and allowing most anything that technology and ingenuity would bring to the table. The NHRA has always played in the re-active side, and all of their mistakes and lack of foresight came crashing down with the tragic death of Scott Kalitta.
Oh my God, we have a problem here..
Ya think?
Their re-active solution was 1,000' racing.
Did anyone not see this coming, and did it have to come to that?
Reactive thinking and a reactive approach is twice as hard on the fans to reconcile than a smoother, but still unpopular proactive approach. OK, water over the damn in regards to reactive thinking, and we have the advantages of hindsight, so let's start to think proactively. That is all I am saying here. If you think that it lays with short 1,000' squirts, I wholeheartedly disagree.
Again, see Nascar, and the success of their pro-active approach.
Is it OK to have Alcohol Funny Cars run within a 1/10 or 2 of the Fuel Cars (assuming we go back to a 1/4 mile and run 4.90-5.10) and maybe out run some of the back of the field cars at small field events?
Does NHRA slow the Alcohol cars down to keep the disparity between the classes? and do the already shrinking Alcohol fields shrivel up and die because of the added expense to do so?
Alcohol.
No disrespect, but let's concentrate on Fuel, because frankly, nobody outside of drag racing really cares about the alky cars, and the future of the NHRA depends on TV, and fuel sells to TV, not alcohol. Plans for slowing down the Alky cars should be happening as we speak. If it isn't, well I wouldn't be surprised. I think you can come up with a number of ways to slow them down without me expanding on it.
How about Bob Bode winning in Brainerd in 2010? Did you forget about that?
Bob Bode?
Any other examples??..............??.....
I think you could get one every other race in the 1,320 era.
Now, it's just Bob Bode... Point taken, as well as point given.
What do you do to slow them down so that everybody is happy? I have kind of proven that the restrictor plate doesn't really work. No matter what you do the crew chiefs will figure out how to go faster. I ran a 5.07 at 303 mph with an old body, a 4 disc clutch and the old cross shaft style clutch management, no ignition managemnt and a 48 gallon fuel pump back in 1996...with a crappy (by today's standards) supercharger and Mallory point style weak mags, so the fuel pump and probably single mag deal are not going to help much.
I have no solid answers, but that's not my job, it's the NHRA's and your job. If it "were" my job, I would have the right answers because nothing is impossible if clear goals are set. Man did walk on the Moon back in 1969 if I remember. It's not rocket science my friend. It's simply a clear focus and the will to "do it".
Smaller CID, less boost, less mag, zero clutch management, outlaw electronic and pneumatic engagement, bodies that conform to stock figuration, spoiler size management, we can go on and on forever, and "making the racers happy" have nothing to do with it. Making the playing field level and less expensive and complicated should take precedence before team owners advantages. You can blow holes in any of these examples until you are finally committed to insure of the sport's future, then you will come up with a combination that will work.
Remember, at some point, a run-away performance program will encounter the same challenges at 1,000' when the cars run even faster and more out of control. God forbid, another star or a young rising star is fatally injured in a 3.60 run. What then, 600'?.
Do you agree that most of our tracks are too short for 320 plus mph 1/4 mile runs?
With the current performance? Absolutely..
Do you know that according to our computer on our best run of 316mph at Reading last year, at the 1320 mark we were only running 265mph and rapidly slowing? How is "slowing the cars down" to 300 mph, which is going 35mph faster at that exact same point going to make it safer than it is now?
Jeff, with all due respect, your example above is a little dramatic.
Are you telling me that every run, or even a greater percentage of any fuel run were slower at the 1,340 mark than the 1,000' mark? If that were the case, we would all still be enjoying the quarter mile and this conversation wouldn't be taking place.
No matter how you want to present it, what the NHRA has done by going to 1,000' has directly and absolutely affected the essence, history and tradition in which the sport was built on. The absolute CORNERSTONE is 1/4 mile racing, period, end of discussion. Mess with that, and you mess with everyone and everything that has come before you. Guys like me and others now think it's a joke because there are no real records to be broken, no references and no nuthin' to measure against. All made worse by the NHRA's reactive policies. Gradually taking control of the speeds throughout the 90's and early 2,000s would have smoothed out the abruptness of the whole situation. Again, look at Nascar and their attempt to keep the cars under 230 at Daytona.
For all of the comparisons to Nascar and any other form of racing, Nascar has NEVER deviated from the cornerstone from which the traditions were built. The Daytona 500 is still the Daytona 500. The racing records are all intact and the parameters are mostly unchanged. But, the racing is still good, looks great on TV, and the good ole' boys can still watch great racing and great suspenseful finishes, and that SELLS TV advertising and brings in sponsorship dollars. Ask me the difference between a 3.90 or a 3.80 run and my answer will be the same, who cares. I blinked and missed it. I can't reference that with anything, and yes, the last 340 feet do make a difference because THAT was where the drama was..
Maybe we should just run like the Super classes and make the dial in 4.90 for FC and 4.70 for Top Fuel cause that's what you are asking for...count me out if that's what you want to see!!
You said that, not me.
I would rather watch flies eat goat turds than watch a Super Class race. If you don't think bringing back the cornerstone of the sport is more important than making it easy and happy for the racers and owners, or giving respect to the diminishing numbers of TV ratings, the correlation of TV ratings and their effect of landing that big sponsorship, or the condition or the racing landscape in 2017, then by all means, disagree with me.
Stay safe and I'll be wishing you the best of success.
