What Can't The NHRA Do This?

[MM]

I suggest this months and months ago. Sonoma is perfect, Indy is perfect. I'm sure there are a few more I just can't think of. E-Town, Pomona, Never.

But how do you define them is my question. You can't just say these tracks are fine, but these tracks aren't and leave it at that. Does a track need to have 2500 feet of shut down area? 3000 feet? What's the number and how do you determine it?

 

[Rat]

Jim Head told me he avoids Denver for that reason! You need much higher Compression, Blower, etc...

Jim's a genius of a guy. Especially with A TF car I was told a few years ago that the multiplication factor with downforce, the rear wing and air density it doesn’t double, it's 10 times every percent that the air is heavier I think that's why he stopped running TF. Between 5500-9000 pounds of downforce the wing was under too much stress, I can't say for sure, but I think that's what he told me. I don't know what the numbers may be now. At Denver I can only imagine it helps the TF cars with air density.

 

[Rat]

But how do you define them is my question. You can't just say these tracks are fine, but these tracks aren't and leave it at that. Does a track need to have 2500 feet of shut down area? 3000 feet? What's the number and how do you determine it?

I don't know the numbers as far as distance, but whatever Sonoma has, Whatever Indy has, there is nothing too short about them.

 

[MM]

I don't know the numbers as far as distance, but whatever Sonoma has, Whatever Indy has, there is nothing too short about them.

That's my point Patrick. You can't just say "Oh whatever those other tracks have." There has to be a concrete line drawn somewhere. My question is what is that line and how do you determine it?

Where is the cutoff on this chart?

http://www.dragracingonline.com/agent1320/2008/images/0703/chart.gif

 

[mick]

you bring the term 'majors' into the equation and let these 3-5 races be
@ a 1/4 mile
i believe norwalk, houston & firebird have the most unimpeded run-out area;
gainesville & brainerd have among the longest paved run-out.

i would like to see this happen.

 

[MM]

Norwalk's runout has an active runway about 800 feet past the sandtrap.

 

[clwill]

NHRA does not need to add another cost figure to the sportman or pro budget.

Sportsman always have run 1320'.

 

[Rat]

That's my point Patrick. You can't just say "Oh whatever those other tracks have." There has to be a concrete line drawn somewhere. My question is what is that line and how do you determine it?

Where is the cutoff on this chart?

http://www.dragracingonline.com/agent1320/2008/images/0703/chart.gif

you bring the term 'majors' into the equation and let these 3-5 races be
@ a 1/4 mile
i believe norwalk, houston & firebird have the most unimpeded run-out area;
gainesville & brainerd have among the longest paved run-out.

i would like to see this happen.

Excellent points, I'm using Mike's post. I forgot firebird. Gainesville, Houston, Reading, Dallas, Sonoma, Bristol. Those are 6 right there that are excellent. Concord looks great too. There should be the majors, We must have the countdown as the NHRA is never gonna erase it, OK, you wanna win a championship you should have to deal with hot, cold, 1000ft, 1320, NEVER EVER 1/8th. How about Chicago and Memphis, we (all in support) by 2013, 2014 make a real proposal to the NHRA, there is no reason why 4-8 races can't be 1320 maybe more.

 

[You!]

"and tell the insurance company to be ok with it,"

My nominee for "Most Naive post of the year 2011" award.

You truly have no idea how this all works kid.

 

[JF]

That's my point Patrick. You can't just say "Oh whatever those other tracks have." There has to be a concrete line drawn somewhere. My question is what is that line and how do you determine it?

Where is the cutoff on this chart?

http://www.dragracingonline.com/agent1320/2008/images/0703/chart.gif

Mike If you average all those tracks +10% for safety factor. It comes out to 2795 ft so any track over that should be able to handle 1/4 mile. Or go with 2541 without the 10%. The rest stay at 1000 ft

Just my opinion

 

[Nick Name]

Be pretty tough to switch tune-ups race to race!

You beat me to it. The cost of having two different combinations and switching back and forth between them, would probably be the straw that breaks the back of the smaller teams.

 

[Toejam]

But how do you define them is my question. You can't just say these tracks are fine, but these tracks aren't and leave it at that. Does a track need to have 2500 feet of shut down area? 3000 feet? What's the number and how do you determine it?

Other than Norwalk and Pomona, what tracks are deemed too Short??

 

[JF]

You beat me to it. The cost of having two different combinations and switching back and forth between them, would probably be the straw that breaks the back of the smaller teams.

Yes, but there is the possibility that a smaller team may be able to run better on a shorter/longer track the a larger team that concentraits on the majority of the race tracks length. The smaller team might win and afford them the opportunity to continue on.

 

[MM]

Other than Norwalk and Pomona, what tracks are deemed too Short??

Thats the question I am asking, what is the dividing distance between a track being suited for 1000 ft racing or 1320 ft racing? If we use John Farr's formula (which I think is very intriguing), only 2 tracks would be suited for quarter mile racing, with Seattle coming up 3 feet short, and Chicago being 13 feet short.

 

[FC138fan]

Isn't the length of track irrelevant? See if you can follow my logic:

The length of shutdown is based of speed at the finish and has nothing to do with time. How long have they had rev-limiters? I remember Schu ran 338 in Brainerd in 2005 and they said that number shouldn't have happened due to the rev limiter, so Im going to assume the speed limit on a TF'er is 335 and has been since around the time of that run in 2005.

Things continued business as usual until cars started blowing up prior to the finish (Im guessing in part due to fuel engines coming up against the rev limiter and thus becoming unhappy [boom]).

Between 2005 and 2008, E.T's were still decreasing - they were hitting that 335 barrier prior to the quarter mile more frequently, resulting in more frequent explosions.

Then Scott Kalitta's explosion happens, which brought the issue of how frequently and violently cars were blowing up - and substandard emergency sand traps - to the forefront.

1000' was then implemented as a temporary measure until the inadequate emergency shutdowns could be fixed at all tracks, and they could look into ways to stop cars from exploding so frequently. Im guessing 1000' was chosen for 2 reasons: 1. 320 extra feet of deceleration 2. Cars weren't hitting the 335 at 1000' yet (and not hitting the rev limiter and exploding)

To date, all emergency shutdowns have been improved, however the second part of the equation has not been addressed. In fact, I can probably say that performance is still increasing, and they are starting to come up against the rev limiter again, even at 1000'. Which, unless some changes come down, justifies shortening the track even further.

Therefore the current reasoning for the 1000' is to address cars blowing up - not a lack of shutdown, meaning that the length of shutdown is irrelevant.

The only gripe I can come up with is the lack of decision making in finding a solution to the engines exploding. I feel that NHRA needs recognize they cant make everyone happy, and that this indecision is hurting the sport.

 

[yoda]

Excellent post, Nick

 

[Bullard Anderson]

I just wish they'd slow the cars down and give the fans more time to view a race at 1320ft. And in 10 years when they get back to the point of needing to slow them down, do it. We'll get used to it, and go from there.

With me it's been about side by side, not the number on the board.

Winners. Losers. And rivalries.

 

[nick name]

I think the most important factor in this whole controversy is being overlooked.

In my opinion, the major reason for 1000' at this time is because of doubt about tires. Yes, Scott's accident was precipitated by a catastrophic engine failure. But at this point I think the reason no action has been taken is because we still haven't solved the tire chunking problem.

I remember during the VHT arguments learning that the fuel teams had to have a very specific shutdown procedure involving when they lifted. A chunked tire is not necessarily a life-threatening event but when it takes out the wing at over 300 mph all bets are off.

The NHRA and Goodyear seem to have an unusual relationship. Goodyear is very concerned about anything that brings the quality of their tires into question so we don't hear a lot about the issues still facing the fuel teams. The NHRA is absolutely dependent on Goodyear as no other manufacturer has seemed to indicate the desire to spend millions of dollars on a market that loses money with each sale.

From my research, Goodyear hit a brick wall as to the top speeds and loading that their slicks could take. They build an extremely high quality tire, but unless millions and millions are spent to re-invent the wheel there's not much more they can do. In my mind, that's why we still have the 1000' limit.

I doubt that anyone at NHRA thinks it's a permanent solution and I'd bet that there are some sleepless nights considering the possibilities of the status quo. Yes the runoff area is worthy of a lot of attention. But other than the Salt Flats, I'm not sure we'll ever find a place that can safely contain a pilotless race car at full throttle.

As for why the distance was chosen in the first place, remember that there were already timing sensors there. The tracks didn't have to buy new equipment as a simple reprogramming was about all that was needed.

I'm sure that the flames will appear charging that I've drank the koolaid and am just an apologist. Anyone who's read my stuff over the years will know that you cant' get much further wrong.

Facts are facts.

 

[clwill]

I just wish they'd slow the cars down and give the fans more time to view a race at 1320ft. And in 10 years when they get back to the point of needing to slow them down, do it. We'll get used to it, and go from there.

With me it's been about side by side, not the number on the board.

Winners. Losers. And rivalries.

Post of the thread. And it would also give people a chance to catch up, to win a round in the now-missing second half of the race.

 

[Toejam]

Therefore the current reasoning for the 1000' is to address cars blowing up - not a lack of shutdown, meaning that the length of shutdown is irrelevant.

Actually length of Shutdown was the Prime reason for 1000'!