Was watching the event from Norwalk late last night on the DVR and noticed and alarming issue with more than a few nitro cars. The most glaring example was Hot Rod Fuller's car in his second round pass. As he crossed the finish line you could see the pilot chute start to exit the pack. Approximately .7 seconds later it finally cleared the pack and began to blossom. It stayed blossomed for just about a half second then started to fall limp. It bounced off the wheelie bar three times then actually started traveling forward towards the right rear tire. It struck the tire surface which threw it backwards enough to start to catch real air. The pilot chute then had enough pull to yank the main chute and shroud lines out of the pack. I timed 1.9 seconds between the time you can see the pack start to bulge (or when Rod pulled/pushed the lever) and when the main chute started to blossom. That's too long. Do the math and you can see how far down track Hot Rod traveled before the cute started to help slow the car.

Potential remedies include location of the chute packs, angle of the chute packs, and air lauchers. It would appear that Hot Rod's packs are too close to the car and are not allowing the pilot chute to catch air. The same can be said about the angle. If the pilot chute is being deployed straight out from the pack then it will be flying in a vaccum and unable to catch air. A more upright angle is needed. Air launchers are commonly used on Pro Mod and Pro Stock cars where the packs are mounted in a huge void and the chute needs all the help it can get to get into the 200+ MPH air flow. Why not install them on Top Fuel and Funny Cars?

NHRA noted that they were going to look into better materials and possibly having and SFI spec regarding mounting and deployment mechanisms. They also need to look at the overall design from the pack to the pilot chute to the lines to the main chute. Looks like the teams could beat them to the punch by solving some of the simple issues by using existing technology...like air launchers, "alternative" designs (Stroud!), and a lot more attention to where and how the packs are mounted.

__________________
Wes Tarkington
www.galaxywest.com

That brings up a question that I have always wondered. Why do most Pro Stock teams use the triangular shaped chutes while the nitro teams use a different chute design? Is one superior to the other, or is it a design difference?

For some reason everyone wants to focus on 1000' tracks and single Mag engines! If Scott had just one parachute blossum all of this would be academic right now!

__________________
Shift for Brains!!!!

I agree. TF and FC need the air launches like PS have. That way, even if the pack wasn't packed right or the guy lines get tangles, we know SOMETHING will come out.

does anyone else notice the severe angle that the JFR cars deploy their chutes? They have them mounted in such a way that when they do come out they are not directly behind the car, really just another way for them to catch air quicker i think. I was wondering if anyone else noticed this or if you think it is really helping or not?

Isn't the difference using a spring launch out of the pack instead of a spring loaded pilot chute? The air deployment is just a choice over a cable. Going back and looking again on TIVO, some chutes were out way early and some were out late and some were waaaaay late. Looks the Worsham deal is a big step up and relieves the driver of that chore when things are happenin in the chair.

I don't know if the Worsham's new system would have helped Scott, but Del got a kiss from John for a very good idea! Cable attached to the body burst panel activates the chutes if a blowup causes the panel to separate from the body. If I understood John correctly (usually a little difficult) this has already been implemented on the JFR cars. It's a small step, but a perfect example of the KISS theory. Anything that might help is good . . . kudos to Del and Chuck!

__________________
"The Counterfeiter"

Yes, I like Worsham's idea very much. Makes you wonder why people didn't think of it before when the TF guys straped cables to the wings.


I want to know, what was greg Anderson THINKING? Did he deliberately not pull the chutes in quals #2 and finals, or did they just not deploy? He barely got that car stopped in time both times, but kudos to him staying 100% calm on the in car getting it whoa'd up.

Or is he doing experiments for the blue box? G's for chutes, chutes + brakes, and brakes only?

The air launchers are not simply a choice over a cable system. They are designed to more effectively push the chutes out into the air flow for cars that create a large void behind them...ala Pro Mods, Pro Stock, Top Sportman. Those cars are more likely to have the chute packs mounted very low in the rear of the car so they need the help. Not to mention the launcher systems save weight. The spring launchers (not the traditional pilot chute systems) use a cable release but have a very strong spring behind the folded chute and lines.

Anderson had to be having some sort of problem in his release system. From the in-car shots he had his thumb on the release button both times the chutes failed to come out.

__________________
Wes Tarkington
www.galaxywest.com

For the post above, the "triangle" chutes are made by Stroud Safety in Oklahoma. For a quick plug, I have used Stroud chutes since the early 90's when the first came out, the guys that developed them was at a race and stopped by to talk to us. He is super sharp, if I remember right he designed parachutes for the military before making drag chutes. They are super popular in sportman, Pro Stock/Pro Mod, and some of the Alcohol cars but not sure I've ever seen any of the fuel cars use them. They pack easy, and have a inner bag that keeps the canopy from snapping open and upsetting the car/increasing the G-load. Most (if not all) of the Fuel guys use a "cross form" type chute, such as Simpson, Impact, Chute Metal (not sure if any use Diest, they are also distinctive and not sure I have seen any in while on a fuel car). I would be interested to know if there is a reason the fuel guys don't use them, if it's a product issue, or just a sponsorship/contingency (sp) issue.

Also there are a couple different "air" things out there that I know of. One is just a air ram that pushes the handle forward on the push of a button to keep the drivers hands on the wheel, if it fails the handle is still there (and attached with conventional cable to the pack) and he can pull it conventionally. The other uses a air ram and does away with the spring in the pilot (it has a springless drone much like jump chutes), it is under pressure all the time and when the cable comes out the pressure from the ram "throws or launches" the inner deployment bag (a Stroud system only) into the air stream, it is MUCH more effective at getting the chute out then traditional pilot systems. They also have a "spring launcher" that does not have a air ram but a spring mounted in the base that throws the inner bag out and has no spring on the pilot.

__________________
Nemo

I like Worshams idea too, but remember that a totally seperate issue with Scott was the burst panel did NOT come out, therefore the Worsham system would not have helped initially, until the backhalf of the body left which drug the chutes out of the pack anyway.

__________________
Bob Meyer Race Cars / San Diego
2005 Our 40th Anniversary

Not to disgree, but with Worsham's system, depending on how tight the line is, it may have kicked the chutes when the body split in half.

But even then, as hot as the flames were, the chutes still would have been burnt to a crisp before being effective.

Steve - from what I could see, Scott's chutes did not burn, they just never opened. That being said, I received an email from a TF team manager who stated that fuel car chutes are not required to be constructed from a fire resistant material (i.e. Nomex). Rule book is at the office - too tired to search for this. If this is correct - why?

__________________
"The Counterfeiter"

That would be a REALLY good question. Weight?

This may sound just too simple, I worked for Mickey Thompson in the late 60s when we ran the two Mustang Funny cars with Danny Ongais and Pat Foster driving. For one reason or another the Mustang's chutes seemed to often not deploy for an extended length of time. Mickey and Danny came up with a foolproof remedy. Danny tied a regular crescent wrench on the pilot chute spring, when the pack opened the wrench dropped and the pilot chute followed EVERYTIME . Once in a while somebody would comment on the sparks from the rear of the cars at shutdown, but I don't think it was ever really discovered , it was not a secret but the competion was more interested in the radical chassis that Foster and Buttera put together, the drop wrench tactic may be abit basic but KISS. wonder if NHRA would outlaw it, as they have ruled out improved engine designs. For some reason they will not let hot rod ingenuity solve obvious obsolence of the old 1964 440 Chrysler specifications. How about a letting a real race engine be developed?? Joe Schubeck came up with one 20 years ago, Nick Arias has developed two of them , but we are still using a 45 year old design that was made to contain 400 horsepower not 7-8000 , you can only put so many band aids on one engine, Come on NHRA, encourage Brad Anderson, Allan Johnson and others,do not hinder them. Sure it would have an initial cost for the fuel team, it may take a few month to rotate into a new design as the old parts become junk, life does not have a declared value. There would be many other benefits, less engine failures would certainly make for a better show, and less down time for cleanups