Just hear me out. Let's go back, high speed in the early 90's, 3.20 gear. Speeds today and have been faster than ever. Let's try smaller wing area, speeds came back up. Rev limiter was next, we all know what that does. I'm sure there has been other performance altering methods tried and on every one the ingenuity and constant need of being the fastest and quickest has overcome the obstacles put in front of the racers. I understand the need for stricter measures after Englishtown. My thoughts 2 years ago were to reduce the wings even more along with outlawing the dual element design. Also have a limit put on pump flow rates-I know "spec" in unlimited but but it needs to be done. The smaller wing would also most probably take care of the tire issue.Would crew chiefs have to have new tune-ups? you betcha, they are going to have new ones anyhow on account of the 1000 ft racing. And I'll bet the chiefs have been working overtime on this already. This is just my opinion and am not trying to offend anyone. But then again maybe the owners, drivers and tuners are serious about slowing the cars down. Speaking of that, racing at Norwalk while I was there was some of the most competitive and exciting that I have seen this year. First round of TF and Fc I think the clean up crew was only on the track once, for I believe Ashley Force. Speeds were way down and it made for some good racing. Yeah people can probably tell the difference between 300 and 330 but who would care if racing was as good as the first round last week!
Yes, I admit I have never driven a vehicle over 100mph and admire those that go 3 times that and if they all feel that now is the time to limit their speed by shortening the track so be it. But I for one would still like to keep the 1/4 mile and after this interim fix come up with permanent solutions to the problems.
Thanks for your time.

Like Jeff Arrend said, another 320 ft of stopping distance would be huge, not to mention going about 30 MPH slower to boot.

__________________
The faster you drive, the further you have to walk to get back to the road.

The racers should get what they want, after all they're the ones risking their lives every week they race.

The record books for T/F and F/C should be put on hold till a permanent decision is made, since there's never been a recorded 1000' speed or ET. How will this effect the countdown a lot of issues will need to be addressed.

I wonder how PJ thinks the countdown will be effected?

Well sadly it will not effect the countdown because it still sucks and until they either do away with it or do something crazy like actually having the playoff teams race each other then it will always suck.

__________________
Click here for NHRA Points Petition
Tact is for those not witty enough for sarcasm

So cars will blow there lids at 1000' instead of 1320'.

The 1000' temporary deal, is fine, as long as the NHRA can decide on new safety issues.

The nitro cars are bombs on wheels. That's the problem.

One fuel pump.
One mag.
Less downforce.
Perhaps a smaller blower spec.
(Front grille and greenhouse/roof on F/C to match the production car.)
These suggestions aren't new.

There's alot that can be done to make the fuel class safer.

Incorrect.

Every NHRA event has 60', 330', 660', 1,000', and 1/4 mile clocks working and those times are printed on the time slips. NHRA already knows who has the quickest 1,000 foot time in TF and FC and so do all of the racers. For NHRA to institute a 1,000 race all they have to do is add one foam block and sensors to the track 60' before the 1,000 block to calculate speed for a 1,000 race.

RG

__________________
www.randygoodwinracing.com

Can someone explain to me why the crew chiefs will need a new tune up for 1000' ? If the cars are already set up to get maximum power to the ground for the given track conditions, how are they going to be able to put more clutch or fuel to it and not blow the tires off just because they are now trying to get to 1000' quicker? I can't see how the track could now hold a stronger tune up just because it is now a shorter track. I hope I'm not overlooking something obvious, so excuse me if this is a dumb question, but I just don't get it.

You are correct, some people just do not get it.

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/kb301

Right Paul,

I guess if you do not know what you are talking about, it sounds fine to others who also cannot find their ass with both hands and a roadmap (uhhhhh.....I mean GPS)

REX

Good stuff!!

__________________
http://www.myspace.com/kb301

Simple. People like Austin Coil tune the car to give every ounce it has at 1320' and then blow up. If you tell them they don't have to leg it out for another 320', they'll tune it to 1000' and then blow up.

If the clutch is pretty much not 1:1 UNTIL this point, and the tires are on the verge of traction, explain how this will be done, please?

I guess they will need to go 1:1 right at the starting line...........

REX

OK, so what you are saying is that because the fuse is set at 1320' before it blows, that now because the fuse and track are both shorter that he can now make the fuse burn stronger because it won't have to burn as long? How is that going to make the car hook up any better than it was set to do for the 1320' fuse? The cars aren't exactly lolly-gagging to 1000' and then making a hard charge for 320' before they blow.

You get it.

You don't.

You're SO right Tom. No need to change tune-up. They are already going as quick as they think the track will hold. To turn it up will just smoke the tires.