Slowing Them Down (1 Viewer)

none

Nitro Member
Now that NHRA has decided to shorten the track in the interest of safety, I'm curious as to how you would slow the cars down. If you were the Czar of Drag Racing, what would you do?

I am willing to give the 1000ft thing a try, I can't think of anything that could be done that would be easier for the tracks to implement or cheaper for the teams. As was mentioned time and time again, a lot of damage is incurred during that last 300ft.

But if you agree that the cars need to be slowed, and you would still like to see 1/4 mile racing, try to take into account expense, limited testing, and try not to obsolete the notebooks of every Crew Chief.

How would you slow them down?

Alan
 
Last edited:
Stop the use of VHT or any track-prep gluing agent.

Clean the track and sweep it, then fire the first pair...
 
Now that NHRA has decided to shorten the track in the interest of safety, I'm curious as to how you would slow the cars down. If you were the Czar of Drag Racing, what would you do?

I am willing to give the 1000ft thing a try, I can't think of anything that could be done that would be easier for the tracks to impliment or cheaper for the teams. As was mentioned time and time again, a lot of damage is incured during that last 300ft.

But if you agree that the cars need to be slowed, and you would still like to see 1/4 mile racing, try to take into account expense, limited testing, and try not to obsolete the notebooks of every Crew Chief.

How would you slow them down?

Alan

Tapered spacer?

Perhaps putting mandates on engine horsepower?

They don't seem to run this fast in IHRA, and they don't seem to have these semi-regular occurences of tragedy either.
 
All the above ideas are good. To me there isn't much difference watching 330mph vs. 290mph. As long as the big guns are running, we'll watch. Less racing real estate as a fan is a disaster.
 
Tapered spacer?

Perhaps putting mandates on engine horsepower?

They don't seem to run this fast in IHRA, and they don't seem to have these semi-regular occurences of tragedy either.

Andy, these guys are FI'd remmeber. But a smaller blower works just the same. Althoguh going from 14-71 to 6-71 would be a good size drop...12-71?
 
Limit fuel delivery capabilities. Cut the fuel line diameter in half running through an NHRA mandated pump. One big mag, eight plugs ,99.9% in the tank, and 1/4 mile of track. Start the new rules package at the begining of the season (instead of the normal mid season changes). The long term savings for the racers would be huge, and the fans would be getting nitro cars racing on a full track (not 660 or 1000, but 1320!!!!)
 
Eliminate the MSD timing computer. If you couldn't advance and retard the timing at all, I think you would see Et's get atleast 1/10 of a second slower. The only thing you don't want to do by limiting downforce or tire size is make them smoke the tires all the time, cause that will result in more engine damage and thus more oil downs.

I am really for 1000' foot racing. I brought this up to Graham quite a few years ago (as I am sure lots of other drivers did as well). I don't see any downside. The fuel cars cover the last 320' in under 7/10th of a second so you are not missing much racing. Its going to be awesome to sit in the stands at 1000' feet at those tracks that have them. Just think, when you are a spectator in the stands you can never tell who really won in a close race. The finish line is so far away and everybody is standing blocking your view anyways...now it will be a lot closer!!

Just the fact that you have an extra 320' to stop is HUGE as a driver. You won't be on the rev limiters nearly as much, so engine damage will be a lot less as well. That and the fact that the mph will be substantially slower (even though most will be over 300mph) will make it a lot easier on the tires.

Win,Win for everybody if you ask me.

Jeff
 
I agree with Jeff , plus no new parts to buy and the tune-up stays the same without the rev-limiter pushing the rods in the pan or breaking blower belts.
 
I’m not speaking for NHRA just thinking with my fingers. HYPOTHETICALLY if you were offered, no rev-limiters, 100% in the tank and 1000ft racing would that be good or bad?

Alan
 
If I remember correctly, a few years ago, Dale Armstrong had it right by stating that the NHRA has full control of "slowing" the fuel cars down by simply addressing the blower......? Does anyone remember this commentary?

I say slow them down by tuning down the engines, don't take away a 1/4 of the already short racing surface!
 
Great both Jerry and Jeff.

keep the track at 1000, and 2.7-2.9 or so rear. would that not keep the revs down at a 1000 and make the cars launch lazier? Go back pre Terrible towel days and get rid of all the one board timers.

d'kid
 
1000 ft, Run what ya brung and hope you brung enough. That's what I'd like to see....again.
 
Mark Westfall, great idea. simple easy fix.:D

I realize that wholesale changes would be needed (notice I said long term), but alot of obsolete parts that are sitting on shelves gathering dust would again be useful, and eventually the overall health of the sport would improve. Just my opinion, but what do I know!!!
 
T/F and F/C,
14-71 standard helix blower only,
1 44amp mag only,
1 spark plug per cylinder only,
1 90 gpm fuel pump max (no overdriving the pump)
Allow 100% nitro
Leave everything else alone.
(1 less mag, 1 less fuel pump, and 8 less sparkplugs = no obsolete and more spare parts).

Similar rules can be used to slowdown other classes also.
For example in TA/FC, TA/D
14-71 standard helix blower only,
1 44 amp mag only,
1 spark plug per cyl only.
1 fuel pump only (no overdriving the pump)

In P/S
1 1150 cfm 4 barrel carburator (no "split" 4 barrels)
 
Last edited:
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users who are viewing this thread


Back
Top