Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Would the outcome of Scotts crash been any different if they were running to 1000 ft there?

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Thank you for the reply. With that info it may be possible to re-engineer it and be effective at the given weight and speed of a drag car.

It was estimated that Scott did not apply any braking and went into the pea gravel at 200 mph.

It may only be my opinion but:
If the chutes had deployed there may not have been a severe wreck.
If the lift was not parked there the car would have flipped over into the trees, a very bad wreck but possibly no fatality. The lift did not move when the back of the car flipped over into it. The amount of energy must have been so great that items welded to the cage were torn off as if glued on with elmer's school glue.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Whoever can answer that question has the key to the meaning of life.I think it's time to put this thread to rest.

Ed F.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Had they have been racing to the 1000', Scott would have already lifted and tossed the laundry, before he got to the spot where the engine let go, so ther might not have been a serious accident at all.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

The F/A-18E has an approximate take-off weight of 67,000 lbs. After a mission, depending on how much ordnance it expended and how much fuel was burned, the approach weight is around 36,000 lbs or higher. The minimum approach speed is a minimum of 155 mph.

The carrier net is a complex piece of equipment; not just a net held by a couple of poles like a badminton or Volleyball net. The dynamics of catching an aircraft are totally different than catching a T/F or F/C. The carrier does not only have a net; the primary retrieval system is the arresting cables. There are 4 cables.

This issue is a very complex one for NHRA and the solution is not that simple.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

There was an article in Car Craft magazine somewhere between 1972-75. Similar scare as to what is the future of drag racing. Their apocolyptic vision..... Pull your car into a building that resembled a self serve car wash. Put your money into the slot. A timing tree flashed and a simulated picture of a race track would run while you shifted the gears. Then you pulled out and went home. The gas crunch of the 70's, no more factory muscle cars, political correctness, Oprah, Al Gore,$ 5.50 diesel fuel, and another knee jerk reaction to an untimely event. I think that the "PROS" need to rember that all motor sports are dangerous. People come to see a show. 1000 feet or the 1/8 mile just doesn't cut it. Maybe the T/F and F/C racers should just do a burnout and be judged on just that. Wouldn't Force just like that. The pioneers of the class such as Gartlis, Dunn, etc. should come out of retirement and show the pretty boys that the Fuel class requires solutions to problems. R.I.P Scott, Eric,Darrell.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Most of the newer facilities no longer build stands beyond the 1/8th mile...they build the horse-shoe stadium type of stands w/ vip boxes along the top. The spectator will see the exact same show they see now but will have a little better view of the chute and shut down. I was pitted at the scoreboards at Virginia last year and had a great view of the 1000 ft and 1320, there is not that much difference in the speed, noise or total experience. Go over to the comp message board and see what those guys have to say, I guess the faster you go the more this makes sense to you as a racer because most of those guys/girls think this is a great idea.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

NHRA is in the entertainment business. Being able to claim 300+ MPH speeds is a big deal to the advertisers since it helps to draw the spectators. The fact is, however, that very few spectators are in the position to experience the cars when they are at those speeds. Quite the contrary, the highest cost/most desirable seating at a national event is at the starting line where the cars are rarely moving faster than walking speed. The show is at the starting line, the burn-outs, staging and initial launch. The folks in the "good" seats see two cars heading off into the distance and the only experience they have with 300 MPH is the number that comes up on the scoreboard. A lot of tracks don't even have seating at the finish line, and if they do, those are the cheap seats (or the ones they let us lowly sportsman racers sit in).

The NHRA has been the one that has highlighted the speeds as opposed to the competition aspect of the race. "Come see 300 MPH Top Fuel and Funny Cars!" The fact that the cars are in a competition with one another is secondary to the show: the speed, noise, smoke, fumes, the pit access and activity, the "personalities" are emphasized, not the competition. As long as the speeds are the focus, it's going to be pretty hard for them to slow down the fuel cars and keep the fans happy, even though the speed is probably the least important aspect to the actual race. I guess as long as the cars are capable of 300 MPH in 1000', Joe six-pack probably won't care, all he sees is a number on a board 1/4 mile away.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Wanna satisfy the brain dead "fans" need for speed.Convert to kilometers and dont tell them.

Ed F.

Pretty dumb but just keeping with some of the content in this thread.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Why don't they just limit the nitro percentage to 50 %???????? Easy to enforce !