Top Fuel and Funny Car: A modest proposal inspired by Alan R. (1 Viewer)

[Cliff]

Man, lots of food for thought here. I was thinking of the nostalgia T/F. Those cars have been limited to 6:71 blowers & a 12" tire for years, yet have managed to go from 6.0 to 5.40's. I think that with a Top Alky tire, they could go 5.20's. Anyhoo, point I'm making is that they are loud & can put on a good show. So what if current T/F would go to a 12:71 blower & narrower tires? The teams could still figure out a way to run over 300 in 1000' with side by side racing.
I dunno, T/F has always been the quickest & fastest class. I well remember when 200 MPH was the barrier & how excited everyone got when the cars did run 200. Now, 340 is the barrier & I would love to see that happen. One thing I've noticed is that the speed & ET are a bit down for both T/F and F/C, maybe cuz of the 2 Q runs allowed? Well, just my 2 cents. I really hope drag racing stays around for the next 50 years......

 

[Muddy]

I've said this before and very few agree with me but the simple way is to limit fuel tank size and let the teams adjust. If there is limited fuel the need for huge blowers, dual mags, dual fuel pumps that can empty a swimming pool in 12 sec etc. goes away. Each team can then find their own path just like they used to do. Tank size can be further adjusted year to year as the need arises

This method could be used for Pro and top sportsman classes

 

[mike]

I've said this before and very few agree with me but the simple way is to limit fuel tank size and let the teams adjust. If there is limited fuel the need for huge blowers, dual mags, dual fuel pumps that can empty a swimming pool in 12 sec etc. goes away. Each team can then find their own path just like they used to do. Tank size can be further adjusted year to year as the need arises

This method could be used for Pro and top sportsman classes

If they go to one mag- double innovatory immediately--jesting

 

[Pete]

This debate has been going on for year, since the costs started getting out of hand. Now that the genies out of the bottle, stuffing it back in is the problem. The expense to reduce the equipment allowed may be easier for the Big 3, but the little guys/girls will get priced right out of the sport....no one wants that. So what did NHRA do? They took away traction and for a while, it worked. The under-funded teams were having competitive races, even winning rounds and dare I say events. It caused everyone to adapt, which they eventually did. What do they do now, that won't financially cripple anyone...my opinion is they keep the current format. Lets say it costs the smaller teams $3500-$5000 per run, I think thats reasonable and hopefully one of our fellow Maters that know will chime in (T. Smith/M. Minnick?). A 2 day race weekend immediately becomes more affordable for teams and the sponsors they are seeking.

 

[4onthefl4]

I wonder what "Mr. NHRA" John Force would have to say about this?

 

[Cliff]

The biggest "problem" is that drag racers always want to go quicker & faster. Even if you change the rules, someone will figure out how to get back to where we are now. Look at Indy Car. Years ago, they had cars with much bigger engines & could hit close to 230 on the backstretch at the Indy 500. Now they have cars with turbo V-6 engines, on alky, 140 CI, and they can still go over 220 MPH. Same thing with drag racing. Limit the track to 1/8 mile and watch how long it would take before someone runs 330 in the 1/8. Kenny Bernstein ran the first 300 run in 1/4 mile and now teams have gone 299 in the 1/8. We just have way too many really smart people in drag racing.

 

[T.Smith]

Lets say it costs the smaller teams $3500-$5000 per run, I think thats reasonable and hopefully one of our fellow Maters that know will chime in (T. Smith/M. Minnick?). A 2 day race weekend immediately becomes more affordable for teams and the sponsors they are seeking.

Folks wanna talk about rule changes, hell you can't get teams to agree on what it actually cost to run a car.

For us, I can assure you it isn't 5k per run. Calling us a smaller team probably isn't a total fair assessment. In some ways we are, but in other ways we are not.

 

[Pete]

Folks wanna talk about rule changes, hell you can't get teams to agree on what it actually cost to run a car.

For us, I can assure you it isn't 5k per run. Calling us a smaller team probably isn't a total fair assessment. In some ways we are, but in other ways we are not.

But can you agree the actual cost to run the car down the track, with normal wear and tear on parts, doesn't reach the 25K that Schumacher claims?

 

[stitcherbob]

Remember how exciting this run was?

 

[mgty3whlr]

$25k, You hafta factor in that Schumacher has like 20 guys working on 1 car, Payroll. Also, I am exaggerating about 20 crew members per team but, A lot more than a small team.

 

[Professional Fan]

I attend 9-10 races a year but am not a car guy so I have no great suggestions to add to the above. However, would it be possible to put a group of motivated people from all aspects of fuel to come up with a solution. Say one big team (Connie or DSR) one medium team (Wilk) and one small/not every race team (Zizzo) to come up with a solution. Maybe they couldn't agree on anything as Tony Smith seemed to say but my guess is they would be more likely to come up with a workable solution than NHRA officials would.

 

[none]

I didn't realize I typed blocks twice. oops!

There is not much market for used Nitro parts if you change the rules. Injected Nitro cars use different heads, cranks etc.

You have to think like a racer, as soon as you say: "Change the blower" guys like AJ and DSR will go to work on new manifolds, cylinder heads, camshafts, and such trying to overcome the restriction. It's what racers do. And it won't save money.

Did you know that back when we went from 85% to 90% Alan Johnson designed a new cylinder head?

And I wasn't meaning to start a discussion on how to change everything. I was trying to make the point that to go back to 1320 Very Large changes would be needed, and in my mind would not be taking place. I don't know of anyone that wants to do away with the blowers, but that is the level of change that would be necessary to get the 320 feet back.

To be clear, I am NOT advocating for huge changes, I think that a guy leaving first and running 3.68 at 330 for the loss is Holy Sh!t great racing. (Sorry Steve)

Just my humble opinion,
Alan

 

[stitcherbob]

...I dunno, T/F has always been the quickest & fastest class. I well remember when 200 MPH was the barrier & how excited everyone got when the cars did run 200. Now, 340 is the barrier & I would love to see that happen. One thing I've noticed is that the speed & ET are a bit down for both T/F and F/C, maybe cuz of the 2 Q runs allowed? Well, just my 2 cents. I really hope drag racing stays around for the next 50 years......

Don Garlits about his Monowing car:
Fans might not know, but I also ran my fastest career speed, 323.04 mph, at the Gatornationals in 2003 with my monowing car. Here’s something that people probably don’t know about that run: Because the track is so long, I drove it 200 feet past the finish line under full throttle, and the wheel speed that was recorded by the computer was 340 mph. We took the engine apart, and there wasn’t anything wrong with it.

 

[Nunz]

Don Garlits about his Monowing car:
Fans might not know, but I also ran my fastest career speed, 323.04 mph, at the Gatornationals in 2003 with my monowing car. Here’s something that people probably don’t know about that run: Because the track is so long, I drove it 200 feet past the finish line under full throttle, and the wheel speed that was recorded by the computer was 340 mph. We took the engine apart, and there wasn’t anything wrong with it.

That makes sense. Imagine the difference in running 340 in 1000ft vs. doing it in 1320, or maybe 1500 ft? I'm talking about the load on every component in the 2 different scenarios.

 

[mick]

just get this sound back. really don't care how it's done.

 

[Nunz]

just get this sound back. really don't care how it's done.

Don’t they sound like that now?

 

[cknight]

I didn't realize I typed blocks twice. oops!

There is not much market for used Nitro parts if you change the rules. Injected Nitro cars use different heads, cranks etc.

You have to think like a racer, as soon as you say: "Change the blower" guys like AJ and DSR will go to work on new manifolds, cylinder heads, camshafts, and such trying to overcome the restriction. It's what racers do. And it won't save money.

Did you know that back when we went from 85% to 90% Alan Johnson designed a new cylinder head?

And I wasn't meaning to start a discussion on how to change everything. I was trying to make the point that to go back to 1320 Very Large changes would be needed, and in my mind would not be taking place. I don't know of anyone that wants to do away with the blowers, but that is the level of change that would be necessary to get the 320 feet back.

To be clear, I am NOT advocating for huge changes, I think that a guy leaving first and running 3.68 at 330 for the loss is Holy Sh!t great racing. (Sorry Steve)

Just my humble opinion,
Alan

There are a number of sites out there featuring vendors that seem to do rather well at selling used nitro parts to a wide variety of disciplines.
The good teams are always trying to improve and refine their parts/products/procedures, no matter what the rules are. The 85% to 90% situation with rampant development, finally resulted in a truce on new products, generating a moratorium on "improved" blocks, cylinder heads, and intake manifolds. I was under the impression that was still in effect, as AJ had to get approval on his new block last year, that had additional main cap bolts. This was allowed based on it being a safety and reliability enhancement, rather than having a superior performance factor. Has that changed?
These folks do not sit around on their hands all day, but they might have to shift their direction at times.
Please notice that nowhere did I suggest turbochargers........... Chase

 

[T.Smith]

But can you agree the actual cost to run the car down the track, with normal wear and tear on parts, doesn't reach the 25K that Schumacher claims?

Who said that? Don or Tony?

 

[T.Smith]

just get this sound back. really don't care how it's done.

They sound like that right now.

 

[T.Smith]

I attend 9-10 races a year but am not a car guy so I have no great suggestions to add to the above. However, would it be possible to put a group of motivated people from all aspects of fuel to come up with a solution. Say one big team (Connie or DSR) one medium team (Wilk) and one small/not every race team (Zizzo) to come up with a solution. Maybe they couldn't agree on anything as Tony Smith seemed to say but my guess is they would be more likely to come up with a workable solution than NHRA officials would.

That has happened...it's called PRO...Professional Racers Organization.