Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What Can't The NHRA Do This?
- Thread starter Bobby Bennett
- Start date
Patrick, look at the chart again. The number in gray is the distance from STRIPE (finish line) to the sand trap. Add 1320 to that number to get the total track distance.
From the looks of that chart, everything from Bristol down should be 1000'
MM
Nitro Member
What makes that the magic number?
Nothing really, just taking the 5 tracks with the shortest shutdown is all. Fact of the matter is; when Both chutes Blossum those cars stop very quickly! Even at Norwalk when you see both chutes deploy those cars stop well before the turnoff! But since that's not always the case....
Exactly and things could happen anywhere so I would agree with you any track shorter than bristol should never even consider 1320. I think it's logical to at least have the right people aware that a return to 1320 could be possible. Nobody knows the true inside deal with the insurance. 1000ft was it a move made by the NHRA or as Bill said was it told to the nhra "this is how it's going to be"?
Thanks and that's why I never said I was wrong. It's a confusing chart to read tho. Like I said as well, many tracks have alot of red behind the current sand trap, could those tracks possibly move the sandbox and pave more road for a bigger shutdown or would the cost be out of control
Denver and Bristol are pretty short tracks, but there shutdowns are uphill, how much of a help is an uphill shutdown as opposed to the traditional? I feel that 2500 is the magic number is start considerin and 2700+ would be definate. Every track I see on the list 2500+ are tracks I dont remember hearing many problems about. We lost Niver at Seattle, but when you have no chute, it does not matter how long the track is to the sandbox, We lost Medlen at G-Ville, that played no role in shutdown. We had Russell lost in Madison, that was not due to the shutdown, Tony Larry and Memphis, was not due to shutdown. All major problems I can name with tracks over 2500+ on the chart are all incidents where the shutdown never played a role.
Last edited:
MM
Nitro Member
Patrick, if you honestly think you are right, and that Englishtown's shutdown area is only 914' long, than you my friend are in need of strong dose of reality.
clwill
Nitro Member
That chart isn't completely accurate. Pacific Raceways has a sandtrap, it's probably at least 30' long, and behind it is another probably 30' before you get to the next "natural barrier" (the barrier on the other side of the road course banking).
But it doesn't really matter, does it? I watched Mark Niver plow into that trap and die. He would've needed another couple hundred feet to safely come to a stop.
As many people say, it's not all about length.
But it doesn't really matter, does it? I watched Mark Niver plow into that trap and die. He would've needed another couple hundred feet to safely come to a stop.
As many people say, it's not all about length.
2234 is the total from tree to sandbox -1320 = 914. How is that wrong, that's what it is. I'm going by the chart and 2234 feet - 1320 feet will give you a shutdown (finish line to sand box) of 914 feet, my math is 100% in line with the data supplied, so if i'm wrong, the chart must be first. Either way I am guessing how accurate the chart is because from memory, video, and pictures, some look alot longer than the chart states.
Last edited:
MM
Nitro Member
No it isn't, it is from stripe to sandtrap. Forget the chart for a second and think of it from a standpoint of logic. These cars are the quickest accelerating vehicles on the planet. Do you honestly believe that they would then have only 3/4 of the distance to stop as they did to accelerate, as you are saying?
Chris, I believe this chart was constructed before NHRA mandated to the new catch net system. I don't believe SIR has always had a sandtrap, but I could be wrong?
Last edited:
Please correct me then, under E-TOWN, it says the grey box is 2234, the grey box is from the tree to the sandbox. I cannot be wrong Mike, it's what the chart states. Grey is tree to sandbox, red line across is finish line. Yellow is sandbox, red is unused land. What's not to get?
MM
Nitro Member
Look at the chart key in the upper right hand corner. There is a grey dot next to it and it clearly says FROM THE STRIPE TO THE SAND.
Better?
clwill
Nitro Member
Correct. The track is quite long, and ends in the banking of a curve on the road course. If you ran off it, you'd get a nice ramp off the end, and then into nothing (sloppy extra parking about 15' below). I don't think anyone considered it a problem. When they added the motocross course, with a messy wall/banking out there, they put in the sandtrap with the crash barrels. Then a couple of years ago NHRA mandated the whole trap catchment system, and that was just put at the end of the trap.
As Mike has said to you over and over and over.....STRIPE to sand!!!! Do you know what STRIPE means Patrick????? I'll give you a hint, it sure as hell doesn't mean tree!!
Forget the red line on the chart....the way it was inserted makes it misleading.
Last edited:
Correct. And READ THIS:
"From STRIPE TO THE SAND" means all grey bars start at 0 it shows the FINISH LINE, RED LINE AT 1320! There is no other way to look at it because it shows where the finish line is. This is a chart that IS BASED ON 1320! The chart clearly SHOWS where 0 is and 1320 feet is a finish line and there is 100% no other way to read the chart, it's not counting the waterbox, not counting staging area, IT'S COUNTING TREE (O, AND GREY) TO PAVEMENT END AT SANDBOX (YELLOW). I will not agree with you because the chart SPECIFICALLY SHOWS that 1320 feet is where they illustrate a finish line, it's based on 1320. There can be no other 1/4 racetrack area in that chart cause IT SHOWS that the chart design is to start at 0 being the tree and it ends any question with a finishline being at 1320. I am correct. If I am wrong tell me, in words, what is it counting that i'm off on? Impossible cause in this unique case, there is no way to read this chart any other way.
MM
Nitro Member
What does stripe mean to you Patrick? Ask anyone in and around the sport what is meant by stripe and they will tell you one thing, finish line! The way chart is displayed, 0 is the finish line. That is where they start measuring the distance for this chart. The vertical (that means up and down) red line is shown to give you an idea of how the shutdown length compares with the length of the racing surface. Nowhere on the picture is it identified as the finish line. If you want to go on believing that a track would give cars capable of 330+mph in 4.4 seconds less room to stop than they have to accelerate, be my guest. However, if you continue to do so, please do not expect any of future posts to be taken with any degree of seriousness.
Last edited:
yoda
Nitro Member
With declining attendance, at best two National events a year that draw a somewhat decent crowd barring bad weather, and the cost of real estate, IF they could get zoning permission (friendly town council??), where do some of you get the idea that tracks can just extend the shutdown area as needed to get back to 1320? Who's supposed to foot the bill for that, especially since they are already making some sort of money racing at 1000 feet?
I am a huge fan of the 1320 racing of the day, as well as happy to watch a couple of wild and wooly six second passes by any class. But unless the law comes down to slow the cars to a reasonable speed for the distance they can slow down on all tracks, nobody is seriously going to consider an extension of racing surface on a few tracks that will allow quater mile runs safely.
Maybe the next generation of the sport will require that no less than a mile of racing and stopping surface be required before sanctioning is granted and ground is broken, just to contend with cars that will be within striking distance of 380 within a decade (if the tires hold up).
I am a huge fan of the 1320 racing of the day, as well as happy to watch a couple of wild and wooly six second passes by any class. But unless the law comes down to slow the cars to a reasonable speed for the distance they can slow down on all tracks, nobody is seriously going to consider an extension of racing surface on a few tracks that will allow quater mile runs safely.
Maybe the next generation of the sport will require that no less than a mile of racing and stopping surface be required before sanctioning is granted and ground is broken, just to contend with cars that will be within striking distance of 380 within a decade (if the tires hold up).
Don't take it personal i'm not trying to mess with you, this chart could of been made a hell of alot better and the more I look at it the more confused I got, and I would have to think I am not the only one when you look at this chart. My appology, but it's a very misleading chart cause the finish line makes you think that's where you begin. The creator should of never made a finish line as everyone knows 1320 and 1320 is 2640. The creator should be shot because the red line is meaningless and does nothing but confuse people like me. Give me some credit on the chart. It's not fully my error.
Thanks Mike and Michael.
Last edited:
