|
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
This is a change that may or may not be temporary. It will be in place for the rest of this season. It was the one thing that they could do that wouldn't have immediate significant financial impacts on both the teams and the tracks. Remote shut off of some systems and activation of others is definitely worth looking into. Measures to slow the cars down is too, but they shouldn't be measures that will cause even more engine carnage than there is now, or reduce the likelihood of side-by-side racing because the changes render the cars more prone to getting out of shape and/or losing traction. The end of the racing surface most certainly needs to be addressed at many tracks. How it is addressed differs from track to track due to the availability or unavailability of real estate to expand it. None of them should serve as launch pads producing airborne race cars. They should all have real sand traps. There should be nothing to run into other than catch nets, and there should be multiple catch nets at every national event track. While there are no absolute guarantees that any of these changes will prevent another driver from dying in a racing accident, they could well go a long way toward reducing the number of funerals the sport has experienced in the last few years. Some folks don't watch or care about some classes of drag racing, and that's fine. I watch and care about them all. When too many people die doing something, the companies that insure the activity stop doing so - see rocket cars in the USA and class B rally cars world wide. I think it is far better to do this (move the finish line) now, and spend some time looking at other remedies to prevent potential catastrophes than to lose more lives and the ability to contest the sport at all. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
|
![]()
Just another late night thought, If the grand stands were moved to the finish line, all of the classes would make more sense to the fans as they would see the point to altered start times and throttle stops. Also I am not against moving the fuel cars to 1000 feet. But I fear we are not addressing the problem with this measure. The big money sponsors and events along with the insurance companies will leave if we keep killing people. We may have to leave some tracks just like NASCAR.
__________________
Jeff Beckman 318J ET, SG 318T SC |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wadsworth, Ohio
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
I personally do not agree with the 1000 foot deal, I think it is a bandage for the problem.
My thoughts are as long as there is a contest for speed, there will always be danger. Just try to keep improving on safety. BB |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
I agree, it is a band aid, but one that needs to be put on until other things can be figured out. I don't believe they can make the cars run any harder to the 1000' mark, they can't change the gear rule or tire size. I think it is great of NHRA to do something fast. I don't know much about the forces involved in these cars but someone who does in Jim Head (if you did not know, he is a scientist) The first words out of his mouth is "we should be racing to 1000' and when they had a drivers meeting, all the other drivers agreed. I think we should all stop bench racing and let the people who put their lives on the line to entertain us decide whats best for them. I believe that drag racing should be 1320' and would not be happy if it stayed @ 1000' but if it is what needs to happen for now, I think we should all be o.k. with it.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
Here's my 2 cents.
It should be the race tracks responsibility to ensure that there is ample turn-offs and track distance. PERIOD. It is NHRA's responsiblity to determine what that track distance should be (based on the speeds). And it is also NHRA's responsiblity to ensure the tracks comply with the rules. Hell! That's one of the reasons we pay our membership dues for isn't it? So I say, (1) don't slow down; (2) don't shorten the run; and (3) don't put band-ads where they aren't needed. If lengthening the track means I pay a bit more to race, so be it. Hell I'm already poor, what's a few more dollars. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
|
![]()
Sorry Bill I disagree with you!!!! on the paying part!!
If NHRA tells me new seat belts every 2 years, i change them. If NHRA says new flex plate every 3 years, I change it. If NHRA tells me new trans and housing shield every 5 years i change them. Track owners do not help pay for it!!! If NHRA says your track needs to be another 1000ft longer THEY PAY IT! The sportsman guys are nickeled and dimmed to death all ready. I feel it is up to the track owners to make it right not me and you. That is my 2 cents
__________________
The Doughboy Lee Lones S/ST 323L |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
It's still 1320' for everything but the two nitro classes. Let them work it out for those two classes before the national event schedule gets reduced due to impossible-to-meet mandates. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|