The general NHRA thought is that they would like to return to quarter-mile racing for next year...

__________________
Learning From Our Past

The empty seat doesn't buy a hot dog...

I would hope that they would return to the full 1320 by next year. There are countless people who refuse to watch / attend racing to the 1000' mark. As far as the cutoff at 305 MPH, that just seems stupid to me. Race your car to the max, not to a pre-determined speed.

__________________
WILL POWER!

Hillary Will #1 Fan

I heard talk of teams in Brainerd wanting to return to 1320.... and it wasn't a Pedregon.

It also sounds like they're going to give Dale Armstrong's solution a try.

1320............................................

__________________
"Classic Funny Cars Rock"

i'm ok with slower speeds.....i think i can tell the difference between
1000' and 1320' much easier than i can tell between 300mph & 330mph.

slower to 1320' without rev limiters (or similar) would be my preference.
will still watch and attend whatever the decision.

I really hope they get back to 1320' next year. I see the Dallas "roll call" thread and cringe because I had every intention of being there this year after going to Memphis last year. I will not drive, for now, 8 hours or so for 1000' racing. If it stays at 1000' next year I may have to change my attitude because I'm not sure I can stay away that long. Tony Schumacher owes me big too. I quit playing the fantasy games. I used to pick Schu every week. He's picked it up a bit since I quit playing. It goes right along with my Sean Alexander pick in last years NFL draft, and the two times that I had Jerry Rice (his worst 2 years in the NFL) and way too many other picks that didn't turn out so well. Anyway, back on subject, the cars will have to be slowed down eventually and not just the Nitro cars. The alky classes are not too far behind where the nitro cars were not too long ago.

Don't feel bad I picked Tom Brady and Randy Moss #1 and #2 this year, this could be a long season . Sorry for the hijack. I agree with 1000' for the tracks that can't be lengthened but return to 1320' without any limitations for the tracks that can be.

Well if they take a vote, I'ld vote 1,000'. I like seeing BOTH cars under power at the finish line instead of one or both coasting.

Also no more costly restrictions. Like Coil said "We're already racing to 1,000ft. " no change in set up.
jmo-Zap

__________________
1K IS A-OK

I also say bring the safer bring the SAFER barriers from the NASCAR world to the tracks. Can't be that costly to implement.

As for 1000' or 1320,' I say only having 1000' on tracks that can't be lengthened is a good compromise. I also like the ideas for slowing them down, as a spectator I can't really tell the difference between a 305mph run and a 330mph run.

__________________
Tim Wilkerson: The REAL 2008 champion.
NY Giants: 11-1.
Visit my page on Youtube for eye candy, cars and racing clips!

1/4 mile all the way period.

__________________
HOLLA!!

They did: NHRA News: New top-end safety system at O'Reilly Raceway Park (8/26/2008)

Can anyone explain why low compression pistons and a pulley set would cost the the dollar amounts that were quoted?

__________________
Dave Renk'....
http://www.DavesDraftingService.com

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about those soft guardwalls that NASCAR tracks have.

__________________
Tim Wilkerson: The REAL 2008 champion.
NY Giants: 11-1.
Visit my page on Youtube for eye candy, cars and racing clips!

I think the parts are cheap. (relatively) I think it's the testing that would be required to dial-in a new tuneup that would be expensive.

I could be dead wrong though.

Read the last paragraph?