Slowing Them Down (1 Viewer)

[Mooseman]

Im just a fan so no expert , and this wont slow them down but im thinking bigger engine capacity and your probably thinking thats a stupid idea . But if you think about it a bigger engine would rev lower the valve train would get less load put on it due to that , the crank would be spinning slower . the overal engine would feel alot less strain . Which hopefully would mean less damage and less explosions

 

[Nitrohaulic]

come on man. look at the shelf next to the windows. the greenhouse is almost as narrow as the roll cage. it's gone too far.

And Lonnie - post of the century as far as I'm concerned.

Funny , and right on the mark.

http://www.70sfunnycars.com/Photos/wshirley2.JPG

http://www.draglist.com/artman/uploads/daily_stories/14shir3.jpeg

that funny car isn't much different from this:

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/photopost/data/3234/medium/1971FordMustangBoss351FastbackRearSide.jpg

That's because the plugs for old funny car molds were made from molds that used actual cars for plugs first. Make a mold off of a car, make a fiberglass body with that mold, do the mods, then make a mold off that body. They'd still retain the lines and nose.

 

[TAFC 5 81]

I have to agree that 1000' is the best "quick solution" they have. As for slowing the cars down;
30% max blower OD
Single mag
Less fuel pump (not sure an underdrive would work on the 90 GPM pumps)
Single stage clutch

 

[Badcocrewman]

No Matter what you do there will always be Alan Johnson and Austin Coil pushing the limit. Just the wick will be 320 feet shorter, or the blower smaller, or less pump, and so on.

 

[megadeth]

I have to agree that 1000' is the best "quick solution" they have. As for slowing the cars down;
30% max blower OD
Single mag
Less fuel pump (not sure an underdrive would work on the 90 GPM pumps)
Single stage clutch

Bingo!
And give back 100% nitro once the shortage is over!

 

[Cymon Sez]

Less down force via bodies that look like cars and not rolling wedges with "Manufacturer Labels"

 

[tomslik]

I'd make every car tow a 1966 Rambler American down the track.

Jim

aw cmon, don't pick on ramblers.......i've got 2 americans...
how about a late model mustang?
there's PLENTY of them to go around...

 

[Rexfiles]

aw cmon, don't pick on ramblers.......i've got 2 americans...
how about a late model mustang?
there's PLENTY of them to go around...

Yes, they are Very popular, and Look like a car, not a POD.

REX

 

[handsome]

smaller fuel pump, no timing controls, no clutch managment, overdrive restriction, leave the dual mags to help from drop cylinder damage, and 90%. then we will see who can tune and drive.

 

[PJ]

I'm not sure how I feel about the 1000' racing but I'm willing to give it a shot. We buried one of my racing heros this week and I don't want to do that again.


As far as a way to slow them down for the 1/4, while making it relatively cheap. I would think limit the blower and/or fuel pump. The two areas where they make the biggest power.

I don't agree with smaller tire or less track prep, I feel both of those whould create safety issues on their own and of course that is what we are trying to avoid.

I think as long as they can still hit 300mph then 1000' could work. I've seen 1/8 mile nitro and it was sad. Hopefully 1000' will be ok. I would like to see them do this only on the shorter tracks, but I can see why going to it for all for the rest of the year makes sense.

My concern is that is this just a knee jerk reaction? Scott's accident was the horrible accumulation of several bad events. I believe we take any one of them away and he would be with us today. The fireball, chutes, sand trap, pole, boom, the wall, the angle at which he hit the sand. The rev limiters and 85% were measures taken to increase safety and both seem to lead to more engine failure. 1000' seems like a quick and easy step, and it may be, I just don't want the sky is falling chants and efforts to completely change the sport over this. Yes after any accident, regardless of the outcome, its always wise to study and find out if things can improve. Regardless of what we change though the fact is our sport is about fast cars going fast. You can't safety bubble 300mph or 200mph or even 60mph. Accidents will happen and I worry if we change so much after this incident, then God forbid something else happens what do we change then? Do we legislate ourselves out of business? Again not saying I'm against 1000' just trying to think full circle.

I don't think long term that this will really help with engine failure, the only benefit will be the extra shutdown length. Initially it should cut down on explosions but as teams learn they can press harder sooner I would think that instead of letting go just before 1320 that they will let go just before 1000'. Most tracks don't have stands at the finish line, however now we have moved the finish line 320' closer to fans in the stands. Have we opened up the chance for debris to injure fans? I don't know, but it is something to think about.



On a side note, I would assume that they will now have records for
1000' which means this weekend someone is going to get some bonus points. Same goes for the next race when they get back to a better alititude.

Also a while back there was some concern that the alky guys were closing the gap on nitro. If they are still going to 1320 for the alky cars and nitro will be at 1000' then at least as far ar mph the gap will be cut down a great deal. Will alky be soon to follow in 1000' racing?

 

[*******]

As a Crew Member of Eddie Hills 1993 Top Fuel World Championship Team I hate to see 1320 go away. I do agree with going back a few steps . ( smaller pumps like Uncle Daves Nuclear Pump ) worked great for us in the Nuclear Banana back then. No timing advance, hell we all know the amount of twist in the crank. Smaller clutches with less fingers. Limit the fuel and clutches to on a certain number of movements. We were the first in the Fours, and Bernstein was the first to run 300, there are no more giant barriers to break! If you want to run 350 go to Bonneville. There is so much for the crowds to do and see at the races , they will still jump every time someone waks the throttle in the pits , their eyes will still burn and they will scatter like a covey of quail , ( all crews get a kick out of these things ) . They will not be pissed because Alan Johnson tuned Schumaker to another win at 4:78 @ 299.55 against "Hot Rod Fuller" at 4:77 @ 300.10 eek:Whoops a little late Hot Rod, Ha! ) They will still pay the price and keep coming . I do not want to lose another friend to such a horrible accident ( How Old Are Those Catch Nets ??????? ) I am sure that NHRA will come up to something I mean up with something

X 2 !! Excellent post.

 

[NitroMustang65]

The problem is..........MOST, (not all) of todays cars look like "shapeless wedges, except my '06 mustang

REX

The other issue with that, specifically the production version of the 05+ Mustang is that the front end slants forward a bit - tell me that wouldn't slow JFR & Tasca III down!

05+ Mustangs rule BTW

 

[Professor Dave]

I'd get all the crew chiefs together and ask them what could be done that would lead to fewer engine explosions and reduce parts damage in order to lower the cost of racing. That would make for safer racing and hopefully increase the number of cars. I think we'd all give up 330 mph for the more cars trying to qualify. Hell what has made FC more interesting is the fact that there are so many good cars out there that some big names aren't going to make the show and that there are very few guaranteed first round wins. Compare that with the current state of TF.

 

[Old Sg]

Over the years a huge amount of money has been spent for the technology for making these cars go quicker and faster in the 1320'. I seriously doubt if even a small portion of that was spent on the "best solution for slowing them down". When the driver or mechanical systems (ie: chutes or brakes) fail whether at 1000' or 1320' nothing good will happen. If the car is at 300 mph at 1000 or 1320 I doubt if any track has a long enough shutdown runoff without having a operating braking system(chute/brakes). I don't know how fast a car would be going at the end of the pavement but I would think still well over 200. I do know to have longer sand traps would help. It doesn't take a genius to know that you can't have such things as concrete walls, ditches, camera booms, or trees after the sand traps, that could be dealt with immediately. I hope it has.
As far as slowing/stoping the cars after the finish line goes the technolgy is not that complex. Failsafe chute system(automaticly deployed after 1350', same with braking system), certainly could be implemented by 2009. Hopefully we can then go back to 1320' as I think everyone would like. It just needs to be as safe as possible

God Bless Darrell, Eric, Shellie, Scott

 

[n/a]

My first attendance was in 1961 when my Dad took me to see the "Drags". Yup, before grandstands, before Funny Car, and before the Christmas Tree. Since then we've seen dramatic evolution of the cars but not the tracks. Front engine rails, true 4 speed Pro Stock (which I wish would come back), Super Stock's running what 12's, 120 mph bikes, etc just to name a few. Now look what they run today! My point? 1320 is a drag strip to me but that being said, until a tested, proven, reliable remedy is implemented that offers as much safety for the drivers as possible it seems to me that shortening the racing surface to 1,000 or less (yep, I said it) is a good band-aid for the remaining 08 season. Should they go to 12" slicks, single mag, a more stock looking body, or a 10-71? Maybe but those changes should be announced the week after Pomona in November so the teams can develop a program/combination and adjust their budgets accordingly. As new tracks are built and those that have the room can include longer shut down areas as well as the latest and greatest safety devices and equipment and remain at 1320. Those that cannot may have to run a shorter surface or not be included in the program. My .05 FWIW

 

[Smiley]

For what it's worth, I say begin by reducing the size of the fuel tank, everything else should fall into place.

Change the gear ratio, isn't that something NHRA has done in the past to slow the cars down. My concern would be that a 3.55 or so gear may not load the engine enough, but I'm sure the Chiefs can tune around it.

 

[clwill]

I think a lot of these ideas about cutting blowers, mags, etc. are complex and hard to monitor. I think the simplest thing to do is to limit fuel. Without it, you can't do anything else.

If you limited the size of the fuel line, or the amount of fuel, or some such, you could just let everything else go. Heck, even let them go electronic ignition, computer controls, bigger cubes, any engine layout, anything else.

Just say "you have x gallons of nitro to make a pass" or "x gallons per second fuel flow", everything else will fall in line. You'd get all kinds of interesting creativity, and policing it would be easy. A new dawn for the sport.

 

[mike]

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!!!!)

AGREE...

maybe run out the season at 1000', or 1/8 mile or whatever...but next year start with a new rules package that makes those fundamental changes...it's well past time for it to have happened...

 

[Mike]

Slow'm down? Let Reinhardt tune it(LOL)

 

[Randy]

Slow'm down? Let Reinhardt tune it(LOL)