Some New Safety Rules for 2010

[d'kid]

Re: Nhra 2011

I don't think I would be any more welcome in chat than I am in some of the forums I have been banned from.

Greg, I've missed the last couple of weeks due to old age issues... I fell asleep early... generally, once you get pass Lynn's happy faces, it ain't too bad... deal, if ya come in next monday, I'll be SURE to be there...

d'kid

 

[AlkyDennis]

Hey Dennis... is that Chet's Chevy-Hemi in your car? That thing is bad ass!

It's Lou Novotny's car I'm driving and the Chet engine is his own design not a chevy kind of a strange combination; he cast his own blocks and designed the heads himself on a computer. The man was a true innovator and genius ! There are about four of us still running them and I'm really starting to figure it out, running an old wore out roots blower but very competive in the quick 8 outlaw dragster class mostly at Norwalk this year!

 

[scsp390]

Unbelievable. Leave it to the Chronic Complainers on the NitroWhiner to cry about SAFETY improvements. Bet if their butts were in the race car seats instead of behind a key board they would have a differrent outlook. These are the same second-guessers that scream "Why didn't NHRA do something!?" AFTER an accident.

First off I don't know how many of the Maters on here are actual racers?? With that being said- I am all for more safety!! We(us racers) know what can happen to us when WE strap ourselves into our race cars. BUT-we make that decision. No one else!! I realize that things cost money. But the last time I checked no one could put a price tag on there own life!!!

If we want to participate in this sport called drag racing- there has to be rules- BOTTOM LINE!!! If one does not like the rules- my advice is race at an Outlaw Track. If you look close enough around you I bet you can find one!!!

My motto has and always will be- "Have FUN and be SAFE!!!"

 

[Bobby]

safety rules are great. no complaints there. but when will it be 'safe' enough to race a 1/4 mile again. how long ago did they say that was temporary I forget now.

 

[Toejam]

Re: Nhra 2011

You are assuming that I'm down on additional safety. I'm not. What I am concerned with is at what level safety becomes detrimental to the sprit of the sport as a whole.

No one ever said that auto racing was supposed to be safe. When Connie, Snake and Big got into it, it wasn't the main priority. Now the scales are tipping where the premise of what the sport is about is being outweighed by the PC concept that every racer needs to be 100% protected. That is NEVER going to happen- unless... (see above photo).

Are my flights safer because I take off my shoes and I have less than 100ml of shampoo in my carry-on? I wonder, as those rules seem to apply to only this country and the UK- everywhere else am I that much more unsafe? Their planes still seem to be in the air every day with shampoo on board...

Point is, when are the implimentation of more rules going to take away the whole sprit of the sport, which was ALWAYS MAN AND MACHINE working in a violent harmony to produce an exciting outcome?

Post of the Week!^

 

[Nunz]

Dennis that looks like a neat car. Any website with pics? And isn't Novotny an old TF racer?

 

[HEMI6point1]

Re: Nhra 2011

No one ever said that auto racing was supposed to be safe. When Connie, Snake and Big got into it, it wasn't the main priority. Now the scales are tipping where the premise of what the sport is about is being outweighed by the PC concept that every racer needs to be 100% protected. That is NEVER going to happen- unless... (see above photo).

Yeah.... let's have the drivers strap themselves into the cars in jeans, t-shirts and open face helmets.

Martin, you know I think you're cool. But your post reminds me of the people who think seatbelt laws should be repealed.

I am always for safety, and I don't think that more safety features will reduce the driver's role in controlling the car. Because these safety rules are meant to reel in a car who's driver already lost control!

I don't consider more safety "PC" - it's just smart. People in the past had that attitude of "racing is racing, we don't need more additional measures."

Well let me give four examples of those people:

1. In 1996, nobody figured that having fixed openings to service roads was a bad idea. Then we lost Blaine.
2. In 2004, nobody thought rollcages needed full shielding. Then we lost Darrell.
3. In 2007, everyone thought the tiny amount of padding in the rollcage was enough. Then we lost Eric.
4. In 2008, most people thought the existing sandtrap was adequate. Then we lost Scott.

Point is, safety is not PC. It's about protecting the men and women that strap themselves into their cars so they can fun on the weekends and entertain people like the ones that post on this board.

 

[yoda]

Re: Nhra 2011

Yeah.... let's have the drivers strap themselves into the cars in jeans, t-shirts and open face helmets.

Martin, you know I think you're cool. But your post reminds me of the people who think seatbelt laws should be repealed.

I am always for safety, and I don't think that more safety features will reduce the driver's role in controlling the car. Because these safety rules are meant to reel in a car who's driver already lost control!

I don't consider more safety "PC" - it's just smart. People in the past had that attitude of "racing is racing, we don't need more additional measures."

Well let me give four examples of those people:

1. In 1996, nobody figured that having fixed openings to service roads was a bad idea. Then we lost Blaine.
2. In 2004, nobody thought rollcages needed full shielding. Then we lost Darrell.
3. In 2007, everyone thought the tiny amount of padding in the rollcage was enough. Then we lost Eric.
4. In 2008, most people thought the existing sandtrap was adequate. Then we lost Scott.

Point is, safety is not PC. It's about protecting the men and women that strap themselves into their cars so they can fun on the weekends and entertain people like the ones that post on this board.

The idea that someone climbs into a metal coccoon and tries to get from Point A to Point B faster than the other guy in the other metal coccoon takes a whole lot more than bravery, Sam. It takes a confidence that your machine will do its intended duty and allow you to get out at the other end thinking " I have the baddest piece on the property".

Not, "Wow- I hope I make it".

Not one of those drivers you listed deserved their fate, just as the hundreds that passed before them. And the modifications implimented after their demise made it safer for those that came after them- Alexis is a perfect example of that.

Again, I am not down on safety equipment additions. As long as it does not deter from the premise of the sport. In case you may have forgotten, this is man and machine overcoming the odds to be awarded victory. Not machine with object strapped into it along for the ride. Thats what continues to make this sport interesting (for at least myself- maybe that's why I can't get jazzed up about R/C and slot cars).

That being said, I checked out the Electromotion site and am as impressed with the technology that supposedly will allow an errant car to potentially not kill its incapacitated driver or any of the folks at the other end (one in particular that is a pretty good buddy of mine). My concern again is that the driver is being moved further out of the equasion- almost all of their products allow a chip to establish the functions of the racecar. It has nothing to do with "leather jackets and open faced helmets"- it is a concern that for an organization that won't allow traction control and EFI because of the supposed "QC" issues on what all those electrons are doing, WILL allow a multitude of items to switch/toggle/activate/deativate items that a functioning driver can still do- but may not with a continued implimentation of rules under the guise of safety.

My joke about the slot car controllers stands- the driver makes up a third of the package of what makes this sport interesting to me. We can't afford to take that part out of the equasion, but every year it seems the rules try to do that under the umbrella of "advancements"...

 

[Taunsie]

I remember back in the 60s Bell Helmets had a great ad program using:

If you have a $10.00 head , then use a $10.00 helmet,

With inflation maybe that would say a $100 head and $100 helmet
today

 

[Mooseman]

Ill be the first to admit im not a racer (yet) . But when I first saw those rules I honestly thought they were good ideas , I allways thought having a device that shuts the engine off when oil pressure drops below a certain level would be a good idea aswell . Its not like it said that they were going to automatically shut the cars off right on the finish line it said after the finish incase the drivers has not allready done so . As for fire suits it doesnt matter how fast your car goes it can still catch fire . When I did training in pre apprenticeship automotive mechanics we used to have demonstrations where we would get a junk car and have the fire department come along and do crash simulations where they would cut someone out of the car . I got talking to one of the fireman and he said it is quite commen in an accident on the street to find people have slid out from under the belts and end up wrapped up in the peddles under the dash .

I would have loved to be around in the old days of racing where the drivers raced by the seat of there pants but when I look at this old nascar footage , I wouldnt want to be the guy driving the car at 2:53 YouTube - Vintage 1960's NASCAR Stock Car clips. I am sure alot of racing organisation have some sort of remote shutoff on their cars . Surely in formula 1 or something with all the stuff they can look at in the pits they can just shut em down .

 

[Toejam]

Re: Nhra 2011

Yeah.... let's have the drivers strap themselves into the cars in jeans, t-shirts and open face helmets.

Martin, you know I think you're cool. But your post reminds me of the people who think seatbelt laws should be repealed.

I am always for safety, and I don't think that more safety features will reduce the driver's role in controlling the car. Because these safety rules are meant to reel in a car who's driver already lost control!

I don't consider more safety "PC" - it's just smart. People in the past had that attitude of "racing is racing, we don't need more additional measures."

Well let me give four examples of those people:

1. In 1996, nobody figured that having fixed openings to service roads was a bad idea. Then we lost Blaine.
2. In 2004, nobody thought rollcages needed full shielding. Then we lost Darrell.
3. In 2007, everyone thought the tiny amount of padding in the rollcage was enough. Then we lost Eric.
4. In 2008, most people thought the existing sandtrap was adequate. Then we lost Scott.

Point is, safety is not PC. It's about protecting the men and women that strap themselves into their cars so they can fun on the weekends and entertain people like the ones that post on this board.

Sam what makes you think Martin doesn't care about Safety? I'm willing to bet we'd be running 1/4 mile had Scott's incident not happened, fact of the matter is anytime something happens the fans go into Panic mode and claim the sport is killing racers! I still Maintain Scott's Death had NOTHING to do with 1/4 mile racing, but because E-town's Sandtrap was a disaster! Does anybody remember Tony Pedregon's explosion at Pomona in '08, it happened at 900 ft! I'm wondering how many would demand 1/8 should that happen again! I think 90% of these rule changes are dictated by lawyers, not racers!

 

[Mooseman]

You are probably right about insurance companies and lawyers . It seems to be a sue happy society , someone allways has to be blamed for something even if its nobodies fault . Nobody wants to accept that accidents happen and people just sue sue sue . Its fair enough if someone botches a sugery or something or takes shortcuts that cause serious problems later on but when its racing its racing . Though at the end of the day commen sense prevails in all things . As for whether these rules are right or wrong well I cant say because im not a racer .

 

[nwspeedshots]

Re: Nhra 2011

But your post reminds me of the people who think seatbelt laws should be repealed.

Seatbelt laws should be repealed. One should be allowed to drink Drano if one wishes.

 

[DCM]

Unless I read the article wrong, I didn't see where any newly proposed devices affects any performance aspect of the car between the starting line and the finish line.

If anything is being taken out of the hands of the driver, it is apparently in the shutdown area, and will shut the car off at a pre-determined location, where it should already be shut off. I fail to see a real reason to complain about it. If teams discover problems and/or malfunction situations that affect the racing, then I would reconsider.


As for additional required padding, air bladder helmets, and additional fire proofing, I think it is hard to argue against such things.

 

[BrettV]

Re: Nhra 2011

I think 90% of these rule changes are dictated by lawyers, not racers!

My thought is that many changes implimented after accidents, etc. (not just in the NHRA but in general) aren't dictated by lawyers and insurance companies but by what people THINK the lawyers and insurance companies would say.

 

[G'ginna]

Actually, I had an interesting discussion with a broker once & the topic of seatbelt laws came up. In a nutshell, he did say that insurance companies pushed for seatbelt laws and in many ways now regret it because many people that would have died are living, but many have long term health issues and high hospitalization costs that they are now paying.

 

[HEMI6point1]

Re: Nhra 2011

Seatbelt laws should be repealed. One should be allowed to drink Drano if one wishes.

Not to get too political but sometimes we do need laws to protect people from being stupid (and in many case prevent their stupidity from harming others).