Welcome 1,000 foot drag racing in 2009?

[megadeth]

Whether you're for it or against it it will impact attendance!
With the state of the economy and the changing of this fundamental tradition it will double the attendance impact once this is made public.
If this is what really is going to happen NHRA is really taking a bold chance.
If it does play out I'm sure that Bruton Smith offer that's on the table will definitely become more attractive.

 

[megadeth]

The NHRA needs major metropolitan cities like LA & NJ-NY for sponsorship and media exposure, the same way NASCAR needs those areas. Neither Fontana NASCAR race sells out, but NASCAR needs to be in the Major Media centers so sponsors see added value. Why do you think the NHRA TV show stays on ESPN? Sponsors.

Like MLB & NFL, they need the BIG cities, but please leave the NFL out of LA, who needs them.

Tell that to the NFL!

 

[megadeth]

As entertaining as I find Burke's articles I find it hard to believe that insurance has anything to do with a decision of this magnitude.
Does anybody in the know have evidence that any payments have been made to any of the competitors that have died from the insurance carrier?
Has anybody read or signed a disclaimer for NHRA to photo an event or just to be on the sidelines?
NHRA covers their butt's pretty good and I bet you a dime to donuts that every competitor has had to sign one!
The NHRA I would assume would be responsible if something they did directly caused the accident other than the mandatory rules they implement such as the tire issue which comes to mind I don't see them being held responsible.
I know you can sue anybody for anything but you still have to win don't you?

 

[clwill]

As entertaining as I find Burke's articles I find it hard to believe that insurance has anything to do with a decision of this magnitude.
Does anybody in the know have evidence that any payments have been made to any of the competitors that have died from the insurance carrier?

I don't believe it's insurance for the participants, it's insurance for the track operator and the NHRA that is the issue. And regardless of the release you sign, it doesn't prevent a talented or motivated lawyer from suing both of them -- even without a strong potential for winning, such a lawsuit could be both extremely expensive to defend and a PR nightmare for them. So being able to offload that burden to an insurance company is essential for the track and NHRA.

For that reason, I have no doubt that at least part of the motivation for a move to 1000' is the availability and cost of that insurance.

 

[Toejam]

Just thinking out loud here a second here.

The 85% rule caused carnage. Who made up that rule???

The rev limiter had caused massive carnage. Who made that rule???

Everybody race for a 1000-ft, because of the carnage from above rules. Now who is planning on making this a rule???? Humm,,,,

Rapid

They ALL are rules instituted by Tom Compton and Graham Light! The 85% rule was a panic rule change in light of the Darryl Russell Death. The Rev-Limiter rule was in response to racers who had concerns about the safety of the Tires because Speeds were approaching 335 MPH!

 

[ColeCoonce]

The Rev-Limiter rule was in response to racers who had concerns about the safety of the Tires because Speeds were approaching 335 MPH!

Tires coming apart at 330 mph these days reminds me of clutches coming apart at 220 mph forty years ago.

The solution wasn't to shorten the track then, and to some of us, it isn't the solution now.

 

[Jenn]

I don't believe it's insurance for the participants, it's insurance for the track operator and the NHRA that is the issue. .

If I'm not mistaken, an NHRA membership provides the participant, crew or even speckie with 50K on track insurance.

Participants pay an extra surcharge with their entry fee for insurance.

 

[Super Mod]

I'm for 1000 ft for everything that does NOT run on gas and is NOT naturally aspirated. Alky funnies, Pro Mod alike should be thrown in the thousand footers as well as the Fuel boys. If they put Pro Stockers in this deal you may witness a IHRA-like walk-out again

 

[afx421]

what a joke!!!!!! ill say it again, sadly scott still would not be with us today even at 1,000 ft! this isnt a fix. 1,000 ft makes the big teams more dominant. look at the army car, except for 1 holeshot loss, that car still woulndt have lost a round at 1,000 ft, who likes that???? the rich get richer @ 1,000 ft. ill continue in 09 to tape the race and just watch the real racing- pro stock- 1,320, the way it should be!

 

[Bullard Anderson]

VOTE NO on 1000ft. I'd rather vote on that in November than the other election

 

[none]

VOTE NO on 1000ft. I'd rather vote on that in November than the other election

Agreed, if they want to run 1000 feet on tracks that have short offs it's one thing, but to run them on tracks that can easily handle 1320, such as Dallas and Las Vegas, that's a different story.

 

[megadeth]

I don't believe it's insurance for the participants, it's insurance for the track operator and the NHRA that is the issue. And regardless of the release you sign, it doesn't prevent a talented or motivated lawyer from suing both of them -- even without a strong potential for winning, such a lawsuit could be both extremely expensive to defend and a PR nightmare for them. So being able to offload that burden to an insurance company is essential for the track and NHRA.

For that reason, I have no doubt that at least part of the motivation for a move to 1000' is the availability and cost of that insurance.

I get what you are saying Chris but has any of the insured, track owner or NHRA, had to pay for the deaths of any of the competitors who have recently passed?
Better yet has the insurance companies that represent either had to pay?
Premiums only go up if that was the case so if they haven't the recent deaths won't change the insurance aspect as far as cost.
There are a lot of idiot lawyers but the good ones know the cases to take they like to take the slam dunks.
Remember this nobody is holding a shot gun to these competitors’ heads they can simple refuse to race but they don't. It's really hard to sue if those individuals know what the possibilities of what could happen and as many have stated it will happen again.I hope it doesn't!
This was, so far, a very difficult year for this sport for top end accidents.
But before this year how many deaths have resulted from top end accidents?
Not many that's for sure!
I think if they make the change to 1000' the main reason will be to keep the cost down for competitors especially with the current economic environment.

 

[ramblerjay]

if they reduce the races to 1000ft, then ticket prices should come down by the same proportion. in that setting, i'm not opposed to it. otherwise, cut the races to 60ft and it will really be cost effective and safe.

i feel/hope that the nhra will be FORCED to lower ticket prices. with many traditional fans cutting back, and with the economy in shambles, they may have no choice. toss in a track smaller by 320ft and you have the potential for lots of empty seats.