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

[Von Halen]

A "dangerous sport" is not a reasonable answer for the deaths of Darrell, Eric or Scott.

Were all 3 of those deaths because the track was 1320' instead of 1000'?

How many other deaths in this sport can you attribute to 1320'?

Someone will eventually die with the distance at 1000'. Then what?

I have been attending for nearly 40 years. Not anymore. I'll still watch it on tv, and support the sponsors, but I am not going to go to anymore NHRA events.

 

[T.Smith]

Nate, I think your missing the point.

I don't think Bob has a problem with going 330mph and accepts the danger in doing just that. I think he does have a problem with whizzing past light poles, scoreboards, trees and trying to stop on a track that is to short or to rough, when going that fast. Our driver and I have the same concerns.

Drag Racing is most certainly dangerous, but why add unnecessary risks?

Formula 1 went through the same kinda thing in the late 60's and 70's. They were racing at places that the cars had far outgrown what those tracks were capable of handing. Some tracks were dropped, some were shorten and redesigned, some fit in just fine, but still had to have areas upgraded in the name of racer and spectator safety.

 

[Prestaged]

I have been attending for nearly 40 years. Not anymore. I'll still watch it on tv, and support the sponsors, but I am not going to go to anymore NHRA events.

That is my stance, too. I have spent a lot of $$$ on tickets over the last few decades, but no more. 1,320' is my minimum.

 

[The Counterfeiter]

Nate, I think your missing the point.

I don't think Bob has a problem with going 330mph and accepts the danger in doing just that. I think he does have a problem with whizzing past light poles, scoreboards, trees and trying to stop on a track that is to short or to rough, when going that fast. Our driver and I have the same concerns. Drag Racing is most certainly dangerous, but why add unnecessary risks?

Formula 1 went through the same kinda thing in the late 60's and 70's. They where racing at places that the cars had far outgrown what those track where capable of handing. Some tracks where dropped, some where shorten and redesigned, some fit in just fine, but still had to have areas upgraded in the name of racer and spectator safety.

Well said Tony. One of your best posts ever.

 

[Tom]

Does anyone know how the arresting net system works? Are they attached to an inertia cable system. If not, than the system may need to be redesigned. Slowing a car down might help the sand work as designed. It appears that the net is not working on the faster cars.

 

[Dave]

Hopefully this isn't getting too far off topic, but here goes. I was talking with a buddy of mine who is very new to Drag Racing. We were discussing this 1000' issue and he asked a question, "why don't the Jet Cars have to run 1000'? If 1000' was done as a safety measure to slow down the fast cars, why haven't we heard NHRA say anything about Jet Car Racing distance?" I didn't have an answer. So what is the answer? Why is this only for Fuel Cars? Without trying to sound like a nut, I'm just wondering if there is something that we aren't being told.

Dave

 

[AAFA-Freak]

Dave

A lot of the jet guys only run them to 1000 or less as most NHRA tracks have speed limits on the cars.
Some of the old Rocket guys only made it to half track!

Sammy I think said he only had fuel for 3.5 or so seconds .

 

[yoda]

...Sammy I think said he only had fuel for 3.5 or so seconds .

But the car alignment was set to free-coast with almost zero-resistance- almost all the friction was tire to pavement . Vanishing Point was the easiest car I ever pushed. Sammy was on coast mode after 900 ft..

 

[Nitrohaulic]

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.

If the federal government can hand out bailout money, maybe NHRA could do the same to help the tracks?

 

[Bullard Anderson]

If the federal government can hand out bailout money, maybe NHRA could do the same to help the tracks?

This sounds like our local motorsports writer David Poole. Wanted NASCAR track owners to upgrade every media center bascially so he can have a bigger buffett.

 

[megadeth]

Another driver telling it like it is!
1000' is just a band aid they need to fix the facilities to accomodate these cars and go back to 1320'.
Another driver stating 1000' wouldn't have saved Scott but a better facility would have!
Sounds to me like the teams all talk about the money they save and not addressing the reason 1000' was implemented for in the first place safety.
So NHRA wants to slow them down at the cost to the competitors instead of the track owners.
Either way someone is going to have to pony up some serious $$$$!

 

[Bobby]

"Besides the majority of the drivers out there are still driving them to the [traditional] finish line anyway.”


hate to say I told ya so.