Pros to race to 1000' - Page 3

Brian VP · 07-03-2008, 01:11 PM

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.

david ring · 07-03-2008, 02:08 PM

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.

Bruce Noland · 07-03-2008, 02:35 PM

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.

partsbob67 · 07-03-2008, 03:03 PM

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

Signman · 07-03-2008, 03:22 PM

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.

Bob Pagano · 07-03-2008, 04:15 PM

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.

Signman · 07-03-2008, 05:20 PM

Not griping a technical question.

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

Jim Bailey · 07-03-2008, 05:29 PM

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.

Ed Fernandez · 07-03-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Signman

Not griping a technical question.

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

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

Jim Bailey · 07-03-2008, 05:53 PM

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

07-03-2008, 01:11 PM	#21
Brian VP Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 144 Likes: 0 Liked 8 Times in 1 Post	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. __________________ Brian Van Poppel 1682 SS

07-03-2008, 02:08 PM	#22
david ring Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oneonta.,NY Posts: 889 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	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.

07-03-2008, 02:35 PM	#23
Bruce Noland VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,855 Likes: 83 Liked 444 Times in 145 Posts	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. __________________ Bruce Noland 1788 STK

07-03-2008, 03:03 PM	#24
partsbob67 Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: rohnert park,ca Posts: 414 Likes: 11 Liked 79 Times in 11 Posts	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? __________________ bob beals 7244

07-03-2008, 03:22 PM	#25
Signman Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lower Slower Delaware Posts: 535 Likes: 22 Liked 269 Times in 99 Posts	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. __________________ Frank Ferrucci I/SA 1271 "Be Thankful for the Gifts You are Given"

07-03-2008, 04:15 PM	#26
Bob Pagano VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Holland, PA Mooresville,NC Posts: 1,163 Likes: 240 Liked 16 Times in 11 Posts	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. __________________ Bob Pagano A/SA

07-03-2008, 05:20 PM	#27
Signman Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lower Slower Delaware Posts: 535 Likes: 22 Liked 269 Times in 99 Posts	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? __________________ Frank Ferrucci I/SA 1271 "Be Thankful for the Gifts You are Given"

07-03-2008, 05:29 PM	#28
Jim Bailey Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 674 Likes: 15 Liked 584 Times in 94 Posts	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.

07-03-2008, 05:53 PM	#30
Jim Bailey Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 674 Likes: 15 Liked 584 Times in 94 Posts	Re: Pros to race to 1000' The car has got to hit the net. Not the Poles that secure it.