Pros to race to 1000'
 

NHRA has limited the fuel cars to 1000'.Wonder what they'll do about et and speed records?

Ed F.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

I wonder what exactly it is they think they're going to solve. Yeah they might ultimately end up shutting off 20 mph sooner, but is there really that big of a difference between 300 and 320 mph? 300 is still a LOT of speed.

Also, whoever thought of that idea is a fool if they don't think that the guys that really want to win races and are in the hunt for the championship aren't going to try and run to the 1000' mark harder than they were before and end up just grenading the motor sooner. I know if this rule were to apply to Stk and SS as well that guys would already be on their creepers pulling the rear ends out and putting a lower ratio in. Racers will be racers.

Just my $.02

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

They are saying Top Fuel & Funny Car only.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

320 more feet of shut down? I dunno. Enforcing a gear ratio rule would be an easy deal to do I would think. Jim

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

We'll see how many fuelers don't make it to the top of the hill at Denver next week end with 320 more feet of shutdown and 20 less mph.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Gear's would work to slow them down. How about NHRA looking at ALL shut down area's making the sand traps work instead of taking away from the NHRA fan's by telling them they can only race to 1000' I thought only stk/sstk guys knew how to shut off at a 1000'(lol)

I agree somthing has to give in our tracks and their safety.


Jeremy Waibel

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

To me it's like Al Gore's Global Warming Theory...or our 'supposed' oil crisis our government and speculator's have us in............this is in my opinion, a BIG over reaction. I understand the concern, but lets look at the length of proper shut down areas, gear ratios, blower's, etc...........why change mid-season?!?! Not to mention, now the tracks have the added cost of putting lights for ET and MPH at 1000' for 2 classes that will only run at the track once per/year?!?! This sport has some of the best technical and engineering minds in it...and the best solution they could come up with so far is race to 1000'???

Why not have an on board computer deploy the 'chutes in say 5.5sec. (or whatever) from the hit of the throttle, if the driver doesn't pull them manually? Larger dia. 'chutes? Use the Rev Limiter?

Not to mention, WHY start at Denver of all tracks. Fuel cars always run slow on the mountain...and the shut down is up hill........of course, they tend to blow up a lot there as well.

As a Class Racer and ticket holder for the Lucas Oil Nationals at BIR (another track with a LONG shut down), I'll be PO'ed if they only race to 1000' come that August event.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

I'm thinking a series of nets that would cushion the impact, instead of one that is 'supposed' to stop a car on a dime. That might limit overall damage also??

I do, however, remember Don Gay Jr's raging inferno that nearly cost him his life years ago at the Mile-Highs. He did make it all the way up the hill.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

just take the blowers off of em. same noise,same flames, same dog and pony show. just much safer.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

It sounds as though the drivers are the one's that pushed this...maybe they see a big difference between 300 and 320. In the interview on espn 2 Jim Head indicated there was a huge difference in 20-30 mph? It also sounds like this just may be temporary until they can develope a better way to stop runaway cars. Hopefully that is the case and something good will come out of it...afterall NHRA was formed to give hot rodders a "safe" place to race.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Another quick fix, so the rich and powerfull don't need to spend money on shutdown areas, and Pro teams don't need to build new engines, or limit power. The number of fans will decrease.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

A racer gets killed and the PRO racers group and NHRA are trying to come up with a solution to prevent this from happening again, and some racers do nothing but bitch, you should be ashamed! The NHRA stated this was temporary until a better plan can be made. Knocking 320 feet and 20-30 mph is actually a huge deal in those cars and quite frankly, I don't think it will hurt the "show" that much. Sure it is not the classic 1,320, but the average fan goes to a race to smell and hear the nitro and the will get that. You really think the extra 320 feet is going to kill the sport? Those cars cover so much ground at 300 mph that it's just a second or so of less time on the track. This is being done to save lives!

I was at E-Town and do you think the fans that got sent home after racing was cut short enjoyed that? If this brings less oil downs and closer racing, maybe it will be good for the sport.

I just wonder why folks have to be negative every time NHRA does anything. Why is that? If NHRA racing is so bad either bracket race, join the IHRA or go fishing. I agree that not everything NHRA does is perfect or best for "us," but without the effort of the pro racers, the NHRA, and money they generate, we'd all be racing at pile-of-crap tracks with little safety, if any, or we might not be racing all.

Evan

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

I agree with you somewhat Evan, but there are a lot of saftey issues, no i didn't get killed but i was real close to it..Somehow the top ends are going unattended at a lot of the tracks and this needs to change!

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

I agree with Evan. Its not a perfect solution, but if it is handled properly and the tracks would dilligently rectify any shutdown short comings then it is in the best interest of the racers. If things go unchanged then it does little. They did say it was temporary, so we'll see. NASCAR acted quickly after the Earnhardt accident, and implemented safer barriers. Hopefully some of that technology can be put to good use in our shut down areas.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Woody,

I agree with that 100%. There should be a standard system of halting a runaway car that is tested and works. This system should be in place at all NHRA tracks. A remote car can be used for testing at an actual track or test facility. No doubt, the NHRA should invest in developing and testing a suitable system. It seems like when cars hit the sand trap with some speed scrubbed they come to a stop with minimal damage, yet when they go in at full speed they get launched. Look at Force's crash years ago, Del Worsham, etc. Most systems, even the basic net, can be about $5,000, and I'm sure most racers would kick in to any track that doesn't have one.

If the nets on a carrier can stop a multi-ton aircraft at speed, we should be able to stop a run-away racecar in a reasonable manner. Unfortunately, like in most forms of racing, it takes a death before safety takes a huge stride forward.

Evan

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Maybe we should have a cable like on an aircraft carrier with a hook to grab and slow the cars down at the stripe.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

There is already a gear ratio rule in effect for T/F and F/C. 3.20 to 1 is the ONLY rearend gear allowed and has been that way since 1998. And yes the rearend ratio in T/F and F/C has been checked on a regular basis at National events since then.

Travis

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by me on this forum are exactly that, my opinions.)

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

The 1000 ft deal is a band aid to gain some time to investigate and evaluate.

The well budgeted teams will just shorten the candle. The idea is to go as fast as possible and be guaranteed if it is possible to accelerate the car harder in the middle they will. You will still see a puff of smoke from burned pistons going through the finish line.

The cause of Scott's engine failure may have been the rev limiter coming in beyond 1k ft. This short term fix may take care of things for a short time.

The cause of the wreck was the chutes not deploying and the equipment that was parked behind the catch net. Change one of these two and it's possible Connie's son is still here to race.

There are plenty of measures NHRA can take to fix this. Limit the injector air intake area and blower overdrive.
One that will work is to seal the engines before first round. Run it the whole eliminator without taking the heads off. Blow it up and your out.

Somewhere between these is the answer. The average spectator is not going to know the difference between 280 and 325 accept for the number announced. It seems that most agree that the main area of focus is the starting line. Many in the stands watching are seeing a blur when sitting near the finish line.

Time to slow them down in an acceptable manner to all.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

All,
Did many of you notice the decrease in speeds for the FC's and TFers at Norwalk. TF's were mainly around 398-307mph (very odd). Was this purposely done due to the short shutdown area at Norwalk and will this be the norm?

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

meant 298-307

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Evan I agree. NHRA made a decision that solves a lot of problems right away. Maybe they will start pushing for tracks to change things, but until that is done, is it worth the risk. The average person who go's to a race doesn't care about the last 320 feet, they care about hearing the noise, feeling the ground shake, and smelling the nitro. Those things will still be there. Most of the tracks have a hard enough time staying open and now we want them to go and purchase more land to make the shutdown longer or spend a whole lot of money on a new futuristic, space aged 'sand trap'. I am sure that our pit area's will suffer. Then we will all be complaining about that. I applaud NHRA for taking care of the problem quickly.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Jim Head spoke out in favor of 1000' racing the day after Scott Kalitta's death. He's a pretty smart guy and has no big sponsor so he's actually in a position to speak freely. So if he thinks this is OK, I say give it a try. Also note that he's looking for a driver who'll bring along some sponsorship, but he said until something is done to make racing safer, he'd be very reluctant to put another person in his car. Finally, I second when Evan, Woodrow, and Brian had to say.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Anything that has the potential to save lives is the deal for me.

nhra should reduce the nitro percentage in the floppers to get the speeds down. That way they still get their show and they won't use as much of their precious nitro. Yeah the alcohol guys may have to slow a little too. Most fans couldn't tell the difference between an alcohol run and fuel run any way; except for the smell.

Let the folks voice their opinion(s) about this issue. Pro or con, people need to get it off their chests. We don't need any sheriffs trying to stifle this conversation.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

i wonder if they switched back to 1 fuel pump and mag if that would slow them down too much?

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

When aircraft land on the deck of carriers what is their speed. For some reason remember speeds spoken about being in the 150 area. They dangerously slow down when approaching, ready to go full throttle if everything is not right.

Any of those that have been there have input? Would like to know if what is being done by the Navy has any application.

For real though, bet NASA engineers could figure this out and have the engineering. There is liaison between NASA and the racing community now, looking to get technology out into the manufacturing community to benefit all and ustify their budget.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Whats with the griping, this is what the fuel racers asked for and agreed on. The Navy has a net system that will stop a plane if its out of fuel and cant go around. If they miss the cable the net comes up.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Not griping a technical question.

Will the net system work with a 2500 lb. vehicle coasting into it at 200MPH with no brakes?

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

I don't think there are many Stocker/ SS racers that have been over 300 or under a 5 sec. ET...... So to all the expert Stocker/SS Racers I'll say this - The difference between 290 and 320 is HUGE !!! The difference between 300 and 330 is even greater. The gear ratio's are already limited to "only" a 3.20 ratio and rev limiters are already in place and inforced. The cost savings will be about 1 million dollars a year per car. ( Think how that effects John Force's retirement.) And now he might live to enjoy it! With that said, I wonder why this can't be the exception instead of the rule. Why not race 1000' feet at Englishtown, Columbus, and Pomona. Leave all the other "Modern" tracks alone.

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

Frank,I think an F-18 Hornet (Std. Navy carrier plane) comes in a about 180 MPH @ about 18.000 lbs.
Maybe a series of 3 nets each stronger than the next would be the answer.I was on the starting line during the accident and it looked like nothing in place now would have helped.I think (personal opinion) that the concussion of the engine explosion rendered Scott unconcious.The car went straight down the right lane without apparantly not losing much speed.The pea gravel didn't do much but to help launch the car into the TV crane.I think they have to rethink putting any equiptment along the track after the finish line.Only my opinion not fact.A real tragedy for Connie and the family and friends.


Ed

Re: Pros to race to 1000'
 

The car has got to hit the net. Not the Poles that secure it.

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 !