Vandergriff on 1000ft racing!!! (1 Viewer)

[Boo]

Gond article at Competition Plus about what Bob Vandergriff thinks about 1000ft racing....


Bob Vandergriff's Take on 1000ft Racing

 

[Z28LT1]

I think that Bob has forgotten that this is a DANGEROUS sport. It always has, it always will be. I agree that measures need to be taken to reduce the chance of injury, like the improvements that need to be made in Dallas. However, if Bob is this concerned about his safety, then maybe he’d be better of finding another sport such as Checkers or Chess with Jim Head. I think there are plenty of people out there whose dream it would be to would run the cars the way they are to 1320’.

This is just MHO. I'm sure there are a handfull of you who are going to come down hard on me and that's fine.

 

[Boo]

Nate, You reading the same article I posted the link too?? Although Bob certainly speaks to the safety factor. I think his point was 1000ft wasn't the save all solution. More needs to be done to the tracks themselves... I for one would have to agree.

 

[Chuck]

That's what I like about Bob, he tells it like it is and doesn't care whose toes he might step on. And, he's right!

Nate, you're right this is a dangerous sport. But since when does that mean that the drivers are supposed to throw their concerns about safety out the door? They are racing on several tracks that were built when they were only running 200-225 mph and no upgrades have been made to them. A "dangerous sport" is not a reasonable answer for the deaths of Darrell, Eric or Scott.

 

[Z28LT1]

Nate, You reading the same article I posted the link too??

Yep, this quote from the article is what inspired my previous post; "I understand they are giving me an extra 320 feet. The reality is that I am still going over 315 miles per hour. The reality is that you need to give me a better facility to get my butt stopped." -Bob Vandergriff

If he feels that is so dangerous; then quit (if he'll even be out next year).

 

[Chuck]

Nate, if it's so easy and you're not concerned about safety, why don't you hop your butt in one of them and see how puckered you get when staring at a concrete wall and trees while going 330 mph while on fire.

 

[willy]

Yep, this quote from the article is what inspired my previous post; "I understand they are giving me an extra 320 feet. The reality is that I am still going over 315 miles per hour. The reality is that you need to give me a better facility to get my butt stopped." -Bob Vandergriff

If he feels that is so dangerous; then quit (if he'll even be out next year).

You're reading stuff into that I'm not seeing either, Nate. He isn't saying to slow them down..he's saying facilities need upgraded to accomodate the speeds..and he's right. Don't know what put the hair up your butt for Bob..but he isn't saying it's too dangerous to race. He'd just like to be able to stop.

 

[Z28LT1]

That's what I like about Bob, he tells it like it is and doesn't care whose toes he might step on. And, he's right!

Nate, you're right this is a dangerous sport. But since when does that mean that the drivers are supposed to throw their concerns about safety out the door? They are racing on several tracks that were built when they were only running 200-225 mph and no upgrades have been made to them. A "dangerous sport" is not a reasonable answer for the deaths of Darrell, Eric or Scott.

did you not read my 1st post? I did say "I agree that measures need to be taken to reduce the chance of injury, like the improvements that need to be made in Dallas." Thanks for playing!

 

[Z28LT1]

Nate, if it's so easy and you're not concerned about safety, why don't you hop your butt in one of them and see how puckered you get when staring at a concrete wall and trees while going 330 mph while on fire.

My daddy's last name isn't Force or Bernstein; nor does my daddy own a big oil additive company or mail order parts company, so I guess I'm delegated to spectating.

The only person I can think of that was fliping over the walls and through the tree's at 300+ jumped right back in the car first chance he got. I haven't heard one word out of him about the sport being too fast or dangerous either.

 

[Boo]

Nate, I think what Bob was saying here is there are still pushing those speeds at 1000ft. From a safety standpoint there is little difference in the 1000ft mark. Racers will always find a way to go faster, which negates the safety factor of 1000ft. Make all the tracks safer and conform to the same standards and race to the 1320 mark.

 

[yoda]

Nate, I think what Bob was saying here is there are still pushing those speeds at 1000ft. From a safety standpoint there is little difference in the 1000ft mark. Racers will always find a way to go faster, which negates the safety factor of 1000ft. Make all the tracks safer and conform to the same standards and race to the 1320 mark.

Absoulutely perfect comment

 

[Buzzz Miller]

What a great article by Bob. Sometimes it is not popular with the powers that be to speak your mind with facts and figures to back up your emotions. I am really glad to hear Bob step up and put in print what he did. Great article. Thanks for the post.


And on another, an much less important front- who is this Nate guy? And what did Bob do, (Or drag racing do), to build this Tower of Bable chip on his shoulder?

 

[Bullard Anderson]

Drag racing is not a 500 mile race. So the Drag Racing Monarchy needs to keep all the track they can. I can't believe that there is no feasible way apparently to slow the cars down to 300mph at 1320ft. I'd go for 280mph, just give me the track back.

 

[Toejam]

Does Bob think 315 at 1000' is just as Dangerous as 330 at 1320'???? I find that hard to believe since your at speed 7 tenths of a second less than before.

 

[luxexpress]

A lot of good points in the article, but, for a guy who, justifiably so, refuses to run on his own dime, he seems willing to spend a lot of the track owners' money. Remember, times aren't just tough for racers, but I would imagine the track owners profits are down considerably also. I imagine pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into their track for one race a year is a big chunk in these times. Perhaps the NHRA, as well as the IHRA, should give them specific requirements in order to have a National Event as well as a reasonable time to get it done - not all owners have access to funds like the NHRA owned tracks do, which should be the leaders in this field anyways. In tough economic times, everyone needs to work together on what is a clear problem and placing all the responsibility and financial burden on one side is not, in my opinion, helpful. I have agreed that the 1000' distance was a good compromise until true solutions can be worked out and implemented.

 

[HEMI6point1]

I agree the tracks themselves need to be safer. 1,000 foot is only a band aid that won't completely heal the issue at hand. Plus, as was stated before many teams are lighting the cars with 999 foot fuses and are blowing up.

Many of the tracks do need to be lengthened, but in some cases that's going to be easier said then done. Take E-town, for example. A thin layer of trees then a public road on the other side. They would have to pull a Columbus and extend the track past the road. Remember that the residents of E-town wanted the track shut down, good luck with getting them to agree on this one! Also Pomona - a golf course on the other side, try telling the golfers they need to give up their space.

What would be the ideal is to make steps to slow the cars down by introducing restrictions and taking away that damn rev limiter! Restrict to one mag, put a limit on blower overdrive and introduce a slightly smaller fuel pump.

 

[FC Girl]

My daddy's last name isn't Force or Bernstein; nor does my daddy own a big oil additive company or mail order parts company, so I guess I'm delegated to spectating.

Neither is mine, but I'm a lousy spectator so I just work a little harder to facilitate being a racer.

Vandergriff has a very Valid point. He's a racer, and wants to go 1320. His article (to me) was more about the marketing and partnership of trying to sell 1000 ft to potential employers rather than the full 1320 which, is really what Drag Racing was created to be from the beginning. He's especially aware of the safety issues, as we all are.

It doesn't matter what class your in, you have to be aware of what's going on around you.

For many out there, they run on their own $$$.

But when you're dealing with Millions of someone elses money that you have to justify not only to the IRS but as a return of investment for that particular company, that's more of what he's talking about. The 1000 ft isn't a strong selling point. He's in the trenches, he should know. Fortunately, with the exception of 1 mishap race, we're going to continue racing at 1320, as it should be. Thank Goodness for the TA/FC, I don't have to justify 1000 ft in my presentations. For the Fuel presentations, unfortunately, it's a different story (for now).

 

[FABMAN]

Bob is right on! Aaron is also right on! The Forces,Johnson's,Schumacher's agree on 1000' for next year but I'm sure deep down that they know we need to go back to 1/4 mile racing eventually for the integrity of the sport. I don't see anyway the tracks can meet the standards needed quickly enough with the state the economy is and thats why the racers are going along with NHRA. The racers and the fans want racing to continue and 1000' is going to stay till things get better and the conditions are met to insure safety for the drivers. I have complained a lot about NHRA myself but for know I say lets all stop complaining and be thankful for what we have.

 

[Rajunz]

..............
If he feels that is so dangerous; then quit (if he'll even be out next year).

Here ya go Nate, this may help you figure out what Bob's speaking!

Reading Comprehension - Free Worksheets

 

[mick]

i don't think the argument that selling one less second per race is valid.
you're selling the whole package which 'at track' typically means 3 days of
fan interaction in pits with driver/car/team/hospitality. one less second per
race equates to potentially 8 less seconds on track during a winning weekend.
if the argument were valid, then reduced ticket prices due to less entertainment time would also be valid......& i don't buy that one either.

am in total agreement with improving facilities - this is bad analogy, but kinda'
like kids in old schools with asbestos.....just can't have it anymore.

as bob lagana mentions, if nhra can pass new rules for valve cover
bolts/nuts, then surely they can pass new rules to inhibit performance.
it's money either way.
maybe slowing down is much harder and more expensive than most of us couch potatoes like myself would think?