1/4 mile (1 Viewer)

[DAN]

It costs big bucks to run 3.70s to 1000ft. I'd rather see 4.50s on the quarter - teams were doing that in 1997, without the massive fuel pumps/fuel tanks that are common now. I'm fairly certain costs were cheaper then, too. If going back to 1/4 mile with a slightly dialled-back combination lowers costs, it'll bring more cars back out of workshops. It'd be nice to see other cars make it to the winner's circle, too. The current nitro shows are a short revolving circus of Winner's Circle shots.
Dale Armstrong had the perfect solution for going back to 1/4. Maybe when there's only a handful of teams left running 1000ft will anybody listen (oh, wait).
I've seen 1000ft live - I don't mind it (I'm not a big fan of it either), but that shorter distance really doesn't convert well on TV.

 

[SoCal Racer]

David; What fuel car do you run?

No fuel car, just saying if ALL classes went to 1/8 mile I'd be out.

 

[Nick Name]

OK. In post #17 you seemed to know what all the fuel team ownder and drivers were thinking. Thought you might be connrcted.

 

[bdt]

just glad there still racin!! like old bob said! the times they are A changin!! go to your local track enjoy!

 

[Jimbo]

I don't know if you will ever see 1/4 mile make a come back for many reasons such as costs and wear and tear on parts.

After living in the south for years I must admit I have gotten used to watching 1/8 drag racing.

Jim Hill
http://www.nostalgicracingdecals.com

 

[Bluey]

The Fuel cars are running almost the same numbers over the 1,000 ft as they ran over the 1/4 mile. The speeds would most likely be over the magic 350 mph mark at the 1/4 mile mark today. Disregarding the tyres, how would you stop them, a lot of tracks were already too short for stopping if something went wrong over the 1/4 mile.

 

[Dragracer]

David, not sure who you have been talking too.
-Extra Costs: Ask the car owners, any of them you talk to agree it would cost more to have a 1/4 mile and a 1000' tuneup.
-Tune-up changes: Info they have on 1/4 mile racing is way out of date with the changes that have been made in equipment, heads, 6 disc clutches, etc.. Would take more testing (extra cost) to get 1/4 mile and 1000' tune-ups.
-No desire on the part of the drivers, etc. - How many have you to talked to? It you talk to them most of them they don't want 1/4 mile, there are additional safety issues going 1/4 mile. All the driver interviews that have been done the drivers don't want 1/4 mile. What would the Larry Dixon crash looks like if he was running 1/4 mile? I don't know but certainly wouldn't want to know.
There are only a handful of tracks that have the shutdown room for 1/4 mile racing. Again, for just a few races it's not COST EFFECTIVE to change back and forth from a 1/4 mile tuneup to a 1000' tuneup.
Tires rated to 350mph. If you run 320-330 by the time you shut off and the car starts decelerating it is already on the borderline of 350mph. With the additional momentum that a 1/4 mile run would create the 350mph limit would be exceeded.....just plain physics.
Since running to 1000' the Fuel races are much, much closer than they have ever been and in reality it is easier for a spectator to see the full run than it would be running 1/4 mile.

 

[mike]

You guys understand that nobody is asking to go back to 1320' with the current rules set right? The whole point is to slow the cars down to make 1/4 mile feasible again...because if they don't do something pretty soon the cars will be too fast at 1000' and then we'll be at 1/8 mile. It's a slippery slope.

And at least for me (and my dollars) a 1000' 3.xx race isn't worth it. But to be fair, I was always the guy that sat just before the finish line hoping for a top end change around the car that launched first.

 

[SoCal Racer]

You guys understand that nobody is asking to go back to 1320' with the current rules set right? The whole point is to slow the cars down to make 1/4 mile feasible again...because if they don't do something pretty soon the cars will be too fast at 1000' and then we'll be at 1/8 mile. It's a slippery slope.

BINGO! This is the most important thing to understand when debating the pros and cons of 1320 vs. 1000 ft.

Terry: I would submit that Dixon's crash would not have looked any different if they had been racing to 1320... it broke at 1000 ft. and would have broken there even if racing to a mile. Perhaps ironically, Larry Dixon is one of the more outspoken about wanting to get back to 1320...

 

[rollingthunder]

i say we have a spelling contest insteady to see who wins. that might be the safest bet

 

[Leebone]

I got used to watching 1000 foot racing. Besides, it would take away the possibility of setting a new national ET mark, if the conditions were there. I say no. JMHO.

 

[mick]

rite now IMO the nhra is a dichotomy......
- used to be 1320', now it's 1000' due to speed, length, insurance and safety concerns
- yet now @ 1000' the valves are bigger than ever, the air and fuel volumes are turned up to 11
- speeds @ 1000' are nearly as much as they were @ 1320', yet i keep reading goodyears are only good to a point?
- 1000' supposedly safer and less oildowns; lot of teams paying high fines @ 1000'; some fields struggling for 16 cars (17 fc's at nats)
- every track on the tour is prepped to the max; run the big et's and mph's, but don't blow up, we'll fine you.

i understand why the racers don't want 1320' back; it would be more dangerous than what they're doing @ 1000'.
how would anyone ever have had foresight at some point in the past to slow down unlimited, breaking barriers based fc and tf classes?
without certain events, i'm not sure anyone ever would have; or goodyear may have stepped in? or goodyear still may step in?
or insurance companies may step in?......i hope to never see these two classes at 1/8 mile.
300mph is a very marketable number and easily achieved in 1000'.

 

[vegasnitro]

Is setting a record a big deal anymore? (besides the 20 points to the driver)

No one in NASCAR, IndyCar or F1 cares about records. In NASCAR they constantly jack with the rules to keep them under 200 MPH, and the fans and teams don't seem too bothered. They have added chicanes to every track in F1 (even the street circuit at Monaco!) to keep the speeds down, and the current rules package is about 10 seconds slower a lap than 10 years ago, and the teams and fans don't seem too bothered. A few years ago at Indy, they were 20 MPH off at the Indy 500 what they were 25 years ago ... and speeds are just now getting back into the same ballpark as the cars from 25 years ago.

All of the other series have made their adjustments to preserve the quality of racing, so we have to ask ourselves what is most important ... races that are over in the blink of an eye with the possibility of a record run, or a better chance of side by side racing at a slower ET and less MPH.

Also remember, the teams/crew chiefs/computers/engineers will ALWAYS be ahead of the rule book. What we lose in ET and MPH the teams will get back in 5-7 years, as we have seen with the switch to 1,000ft. So whatever pain there will be is likely short term.

Are we more interested in who won or sat on pole, or are we more interested in the timeslip?

 

[Billy]

I will say - there is nothing more thrilling than an evening at the track when you know record times are possible. There is a tantalizing nature in the air that you could, at any moment, witness history. So yes, I think in this sport which so revolves around numbers, timeslips are more interesting. But this for me goes all the way from Nitro to Pro Stock, Motorcycle, Alcohol, Pro Mod, even Comp cars running seven tenths or more under the index. The last two years the Friday night session at Englishtown was such a thrill because on any pass, anyone could have run the quickest ever. And Cruz Pedregon did!

 

[Nunz]

The problem is drag racing has "matured". It's just not feasible to be running 350mph, be it 1000ft or 1320. Fifty years ago, we had all the big milestones ahead of us, most seemed impossible to achieve. Now, records are broken by fractions of mph or et. And there aren't many milestones left, 200 on a PSB is one. I think it's a little tougher for our sport, since every other motorsport has always been limited by "turning". I can deal with 1000 ft fuel cars, but I think that should have been temporary while a new rules package was created for 1320ft. Because, as others have mentioned, every few years, things need to be reviewed again. I do think it's kind of funny when people say "the racing is closer than ever" since going to 1000ft. Thinking logically, the shorter the race, the less chance for things to happen, like lead changes and pedal fests. So should we go to 660? Now that we've proven what can be done with piston engine cars (running as quick and fast as rockets did when they were around), and since there's pretty much a limit on any further major breakthrough technology, I think the best thing would be to have a fuel car that falls somewhere between today's cars and the nostalgia cars, and run 1320 ft. And, have tires that are not quite "as good" so the smoke just pours off them while doing a burnout. But again, there have been many, many threads regarding this. I'm sure there will be many more.

 

[Leebone]

We'll never see quarter mile fuel racing again. Not sure why this is a discussion. Also, sorry Chris, but a national record DOES make a difference and I think Tony Schumacher appreciates it. Remember "THE RUN" that gave him the championship?

 

[Nick Name]

Now that we've proven what can be done with piston engine cars (running as quick and fast as rockets did when they were around),.

The rocket record is 3.57 in the quarter mile. It will ber a long time before that number is even approasched in 1000'

 

[Nunz]

Jay I know the numbers, a good friend of mine Rod Phelps went 350+ in the early '80s in his rocket dragster. I wasn't speaking in absolutes, my point was the fuel cars now are capable of running in the realm of the old rockets. Some of the quickest and fastest rocket times recorded are just insane.