Poll on what you think NHRA should do? (1 Viewer)

[Toejam]

Like I said Joe, I still dont believe we need 1000 ft drag racing as I believe as you do the tuners will compensate and we will still be blowing stuff up whether we are back to 90-95 percent nitro and no rev limiters etc.

I think there main concern is the tire since most horrific accidents occur past the 1000 ft mark. So basically for safety reasons is why, b/c they are still going to blow stuff up. I would rather watch 1000ft drag racing than none at all. Especially if the likes of Julie Russell sue everytime an ACCIDENT happens then why would Goodyear put themselves at risk for that kinda liability. But I think it has to stop at 1000 ft, 1/8th mile fuel racing isint my cup of tea.

Justin your just proving my point earlier in this thread, once someone gets hurt on a 1000' track and it WILL Happen. Here comes 1/8 mile! Blaine Johnson was going Just(?) 309 when his Motor exploded thus blowing the Tires. Had the Drag racing Messageboards been around then, how many would cry for a shorter track?? Please get over it people, THIS SPORT IS DANGEROUS! Want safe drag racing, go back to Super comp!

 

[john]

I don't know the actual figures, but am thinking a lot more S/C drivers are killed each year than fuel drivers. The sport by it's very nature is inherently dangerous, fuel cars have a pretty good record all things considered.

 

[scotty]

1) Probably the most important is that it gives you an extra 300' of stopping distance. Especially important at the shorter racetracks.

2) Most tire failures occur in the last 300'

3) Most engine failures occur in the last 300' and this would eliminate the rev limiters major harm to the engine

4) I really don't think the fans could tell much of a difference and would get used to it fast. The majority of tracks have no stands past the 1000' mark.

5) In a fuel car you traverse the last 320' in 7/10th of a second, so from a fans point of view I find it hard that people would stop going to drag races because of it

I think the above info from Justin provides good insight. I mean, these are the DRIVERS saying this...do we really need more than that?

I voted for 1000ft. But I would like to qualify that vote. My heart is with 1/4 mile. Its what I learned to race on and all I've ever raced since. I don't think ALL racing needs to be shortened to 1000 ft. Racing is dangerous and many have paid the ultimate price going far slower than 325. But racers will ADAPT to what they are given, whether it be the rules or the course.

I'd only put the nitro cars at 1000 ft, but I'd also give em back 90%, keep the wing where it is, and throw away the rev limiter. Will they be tuning for a shorter fuse? Maybe but can the track really handle such a tuneup? Everyone is pulling timing out as it is and if there was a way to yank the car harder off the line, they already would be. Shortening the track gives less time at full lock-up so how much more can they really add? Maybe the tuneups actually get safer for the shorter distance? And maybe I am naive, but I really don't think any crew chief intentionally sends their driver out with a tuneup they know is going to kick the rods.

And 330 is only 10% more than 300, but for forces you need to look at the square of the speed which means 330 is 21% more force than 300. Some here have stated that most of the tire stress occurs in the first 1/8 mile. If this is true that means the tire is potentially weakened by that point and why would you want to run any longer on an already weakened tire than you have to? Running to 1000ft takes away 0.6-0.7 seconds from the "show". To the crowd this is hardly anything but to the tire this could be an eternity. For many failures, its not always the final stress, its how LONG at that stress level.

I don't think 1000ft is the best solution, but unfortunately it fits the bill right now. It would be fairly easy to do and wouldn't really stop the "progression" of the fuel cars given the restrictions already placed on them.

 

[davey]

I don't know which is worse...the pussification of America or the litigious society that we have become. I guess it goes hand in hand somehow.

 

[Al smith]

There's a problem with A/Fuel cars chunking tires and they are only going 270-280.

 

[Nitrohelper]

There's a problem with A/Fuel cars chunking tires and they are only going 270-280.

I believe that 's because of NHRA "over-prepping" the tracks. If NHRA only sprayed to past 800' (one to one) the chunking would be less. When Jack runs the Friday night session, if he steps-off early the tires get 2" pieces missing . This doesn't seem to happen at IHRA.

I don't think the A/FD have the sidewall problems of the big cars, but a smaller & lower wing would be ok with me.

 

[Nitrohelper]

I think the above info from Justin provides good insight. I mean, these are the DRIVERS saying this...do we really need more than that?

I voted for 1000ft. But I would like to qualify that vote. My heart is with 1/4 mile. Its what I learned to race on and all I've ever raced since. I don't think ALL racing needs to be shortened to 1000 ft. Racing is dangerous and many have paid the ultimate price going far slower than 325. But racers will ADAPT to what they are given, whether it be the rules or the course.

I'd only put the nitro cars at 1000 ft, but I'd also give em back 90%, keep the wing where it is, and throw away the rev limiter. Will they be tuning for a shorter fuse? Maybe but can the track really handle such a tuneup? Everyone is pulling timing out as it is and if there was a way to yank the car harder off the line, they already would be. Shortening the track gives less time at full lock-up so how much more can they really add? Maybe the tuneups actually get safer for the shorter distance? And maybe I am naive, but I really don't think any crew chief intentionally sends their driver out with a tuneup they know is going to kick the rods.

And 330 is only 10% more than 300, but for forces you need to look at the square of the speed which means 330 is 21% more force than 300. Some here have stated that most of the tire stress occurs in the first 1/8 mile. If this is true that means the tire is potentially weakened by that point and why would you want to run any longer on an already weakened tire than you have to? Running to 1000ft takes away 0.6-0.7 seconds from the "show". To the crowd this is hardly anything but to the tire this could be an eternity. For many failures, its not always the final stress, its how LONG at that stress level.

I don't think 1000ft is the best solution, but unfortunately it fits the bill right now. It would be fairly easy to do and wouldn't really stop the "progression" of the fuel cars given the restrictions already placed on them.

THANKS for a very good understanding of what a few of us here think.

JUSTIN :
I can tell you have being reading my posts and thinking about some of my past 1000' reasoning. I like your help with this . Good statement.

JOE :
I agree with you on the safety risk is the same at 330 as 300 , but my thinking has changed from only 1320' to maybe 1000' since about 2000. My only care is for operating costs for the "Little" (?) Nitro guys & pure HATE of electric sh*t on NITRO cars.
NO BATTERIES
After living overseas for five years I sat at the 1000' mark during Indy 1999. I felt they were going too fast to enjoy the "fire at night".
My other issue is that this design size sidewall is maxed-out at 340 mph, a 35 mph safety factor would make it easier to watch my friends run Nitro cars.

Shorter Fuse ?
Please someone tell me how to set the fuse to 1350' ,? ? ? After 40 years of tuning these Nitro dollar burners I would like to know. When I was testing additives for ANGUS during 1989, I blew the rods out against Paul Smith ON THE BURNOUT is that a "short fuse" ?

PS : they said use 5% ,but of course I had 10 % in the tank .

 

[Rooster]

Heres an idea........Leave it at 1320........Shitcan the management systems........go back to the 1430, and 90%.......Bingo, cars instantly go back to 300 and 5 secs. and don't tear the crap out of every component imaginable.........Just a thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jim Curtis]

I don't really care right now. I'm getting ready for the Indy 420.

 

[davey]

I don't really care right now. I'm getting ready for the Indy 420.

Those last 80 miles were far too exciting and dangerous. Thank God they did the right thing and cut them out.

 

[farmje]

These cars will find a way to go faster. They always have. They've always pushed engines harder, ran a faster ET and MPH.

You could give a guy 1/8 mile, and 5 years, and each year, he'd be quicker, faster.

Shortening the tracks in the longrun...it's not going to help. They will ALWAYS find a way to go faster. Do you think back at the World Finals in 1986 when Darryl Gwynn ran top ET and speed of the meet at 5.46 at 257 mph, and you told them in 20 years TF would run 4.428 at over 325, ANYONE would have believed you?