Well if they do change it, they dont need to change it for John. They need to change it because, it is the safe and right decision.

__________________
Cody D. Pollage "CP"
codypollage@yahoo.com
coolflashpics.zoomshare.com

I also agree there are some great thoughts so far in this tread. But, let me ask this. How many times would this rule come into play? How often do teams win the round, THEN hit the wall like this?
I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem too often that the chassis would be hit that hard and the team advance.
I have a feeling I will get flamed for this with tons of examples though.

Eric, I was thinking the same thing. I know there have been other examples, but I believe this is a very rare situation. So rare, IMO, that maybe it doesn't matter if they change the rule to allow a new car as a replacement. Think about if this happened to an underfunded team: The way the rule is now, sure, that team can use the crashed chassis if it's deemed safe, but they would still need an entire spare car to supply everything that was roasted off the first car! That's why the rule is a little silly the way it is, by mandating the use of the original chassis, you have to replace everything but the weak link. Hight's team was allowed to roll a brand new car out, and essentially put a questionable chassis under it. Again, make the rule all or nothing, because I think this situation is rare enough that it really won't hurt lesser-funded teams.

"Now why would you let them be disqualfied after the race is over? I mean it is after the finish line, and nothing else counts anymore (unless you're leaking fluid)"

Cody, if you were in the other lane, you might feel differently. I'm really glad they didn't get tangled up together. That race could have ended a lot worse. Stay in your lane or lose. Safety first, save lives and race another day.

well said, I agree

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

I am split on this.

Part of me says that winning a race involves not wrecking on Sunday.

On the other hand, these teams have so much invested that it is almost a crime to make them pull a perfectly good car apart to piece together a potentially compromised race car.

From a safety standpoint, allowing the teams to change cars would remove any possibility of a damaged race car making a run after an accident.

I agree 100% with this...Robert would have been DQ'd,thus no issues.

__________________
Real race cars need parachutes
"TooTall (indytrip winner)" on the CSK Fantasy league

Boy! There is allot to read on this subject. Great replies! I have read through the posts and I may have missed it, where was a NHRA tech person during the rebuild of the car?? That tech person should have made the call early on and saved the crew allot of work. We all pay money to the NHRA to get a car into the show and the techs should be there when a car has impacted a wall or burned to the ground. NASCAR techs are available prior to, during and post race to insure that all is safe. Why should this be any different.

The folks working on the car were the best that I have seen. I didn't think they could do it. Hat off to you guys!!!!!

DO NOT CHANGE THE RULE!!

The idea that a low budget must must "step up" and have a 2nd car is ludicrous!!

The way the fuel categories are now preclude lower budget teams from being to run as it is. You want to make that worse?

I can understand Force's lamentation. But he is wrong on this deal. You damage a car to the extent that you can't turn it around or it's safety is suspect, you are done!!

Certainly not. If that is what my post implied, then I stand corrected. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Robert and his team.

Here's a question for those with more knowledge of the Nitro classes then I have.

What does a Nitro chassis inspection consist of? Does SFI Spec 10.1e and relating inspecting state that every weld needs to be checked and magnafluxed on the car to get a chassis sticker, or is that the responsibility of the team/chassis builder?

I know on my sportsman car the inspection basically consists of ensuring the correct diameter tubes are used in the right places and they have the appropriate wall thickness.

I've also known some cars that have had major damage at my chassis guy's shop have had the cert sticker pulled off and it needed recert after the crash. Was that for the weld integrity, or just to make sure the new pipe meets the SFI spec?

The same reason you don't get to start your car again if it dies. The race starts when you start your car and ends when you turn off the end of the track. Not just green light to finish line. You can be DQ'd if you don't pass fuel or weight check after the run, so why shouldn't you be required to not hit a wall or keep it out of the sand.

Question!!! How did they check the fuel or weigh the car after the run. The fuel was all burnt up and the car returned to the pit on a flatbed. Should have been DQ'd for skipping the scales!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The issue of the sticker being pulled after a crash is not clearly defined anywhere in the rule book and seems to be at the discretion of the tech inspectors on hand. I think it is a good idea anytime this is a major impact.

This made me think of another aspect to this particular situation...

Chassis cert stickers are not fire proof. I find it highly unlikely that the sticker survived the fire that Robert experienced. If that's the case, I wonder if John Force Racing had the pink copy of their chassis certification? You'd have to have your pink copy on hand to legally run the car without the sticker attached.

Just wondering...

I say leave the rule alone if your car is unrepairable you are out just like in all other forms of racing. Letting them pull a new car out of the trailer is going to hurt the guys that only have one car. It is luck of the draw.

There are positives and negatives for both sides.

I am still undecided.

Part of winning though is not wrecking on Sunday!!