NHRA still 1000ft
Discussion
Just read with interest that nhra are staying with 1000 ft still while evaluations of various engine combos are in effect.Also stated that there is no planned timescale for fc/tf to return to 1320ft.I dont neccesarily like this new format but i do agree with the Dale Armstrong theory on slowing them.I have not started this discussion to slurr or b
h any people/organisations so please dont join in if all you want to do is be abusive etc
h any people/organisations so please dont join in if all you want to do is be abusive etcMy opinion is that I can see the 1000ft being the standard distance for the Fuel cars. My only concern is that the FIA follow this, when speeds here are the same as NHRA's 1000ft. Introducting more devices, such as those been discuss here on other threads is only going to add more expense.
Still, I'm intrested to see how this play out. And what the IHRA do too....
Still, I'm intrested to see how this play out. And what the IHRA do too....
I think it's a great pity if 1000ft becomes the norm on all tracks, if there is a long enough shutdown area I can't see the problem with the extra 20 or 30mph of speed {they are running at over 315 at Pomona}. It's always been the quarter and it's a bit like changing the distance of say the men's 100 meters or marathon it renders all the history obsolete. If the logic of this is followed through to it's conclusion we could end up with 1/8th mile only fuel cars to keep speeds below 300.
Like most spectators it's the fuel cars I go for and if the races are to now last only around 4 seconds instead of around 5 it's 20% less time you get to hear them on full throttle.
Bill
Like most spectators it's the fuel cars I go for and if the races are to now last only around 4 seconds instead of around 5 it's 20% less time you get to hear them on full throttle.
Bill
I can understand the reasons for changing to 1000 foot as many of the US tracks seem to have short shutdown areas [ like Mantorp ]and i understand that engine damage and therefore costs can be reduced by only running to 1000 foot. I guess without any new engine restrictions the cars will soon be running the same speeds as they did at the quarter and do they reduce to the eighth then?
As far as i am concerned drag racing is over the quarter mile and a way must be found to either slow the cars down or improve the shutdown area to make driving these cars as safe as it can be and so that we can get back to 1320 racing ASAP.
As far as i am concerned drag racing is over the quarter mile and a way must be found to either slow the cars down or improve the shutdown area to make driving these cars as safe as it can be and so that we can get back to 1320 racing ASAP.
Before I start, 1000 feet is of course 990 feet but one may as well use the accepted terminology.
I recently (as in last week) asked the question and was told that a 1000 foot standard is not being considered for Fuel racing in Europe. A follow-up query awaits reply when its target returns from the USA.
My gut, however, is that should NHRA decide to stick with 1000 feet we will have our hand forced. Set-ups will change, which I guess means parts will change with them, and if so there won't be any quarter-mile stuff after a while. As you all know I am a mechanical f-wit so that last assumption may be wrong (Bob?).
Having seen 1000-foot fuel racing at Mantorp Park I honestly could not tell much difference. It was fun trying to guess the speeds though. Andy Carter in particular put in one pass in which he was really moving at the stripe, 294 mph, and from where I was seated it didn't look any slower than a quarter-mile pass.
It seems to me the choices are back to quarter mile and slow them down, stay with 1000 feet, or stay with 1000 feet and still slow them down. If you go back to quarter mile and slow them down then you may as well just stay with 1000 feet and not slow them down. But then Urs went 316 over 1000 feet yesterday and others have gone even faster, maybe we won't be seeing 336 over 1000 feet but I can still imagine that NHRA might already be getting uncomfortable about the speeds we're seeing over that distance.
This is a tricky one to argue because there is no valid argument against potentially saving lives.
I recently (as in last week) asked the question and was told that a 1000 foot standard is not being considered for Fuel racing in Europe. A follow-up query awaits reply when its target returns from the USA.
My gut, however, is that should NHRA decide to stick with 1000 feet we will have our hand forced. Set-ups will change, which I guess means parts will change with them, and if so there won't be any quarter-mile stuff after a while. As you all know I am a mechanical f-wit so that last assumption may be wrong (Bob?).
Having seen 1000-foot fuel racing at Mantorp Park I honestly could not tell much difference. It was fun trying to guess the speeds though. Andy Carter in particular put in one pass in which he was really moving at the stripe, 294 mph, and from where I was seated it didn't look any slower than a quarter-mile pass.
It seems to me the choices are back to quarter mile and slow them down, stay with 1000 feet, or stay with 1000 feet and still slow them down. If you go back to quarter mile and slow them down then you may as well just stay with 1000 feet and not slow them down. But then Urs went 316 over 1000 feet yesterday and others have gone even faster, maybe we won't be seeing 336 over 1000 feet but I can still imagine that NHRA might already be getting uncomfortable about the speeds we're seeing over that distance.
This is a tricky one to argue because there is no valid argument against potentially saving lives.
Yes, but how many accidents would have been much better at 315mph rather than say 340 ? Scott Kallita was only doing 300mph when his engine blew, if it had been at 1,000 ft doing 280 he would still probably have died as his car blew apart. I have driven round Mantop in my old Corvette and the distance between the drag race finish line and the harpin at the end does seem very short there for something doing 300 mph but somewhere like Santa Pod has plenty of slowing down strip and a big field if you still can't stop in time on the tarmac . As I said the logic of slowing the top end speeds down for safety suggests we will end up with 1/8th mile runs which I think would be the end of my spectating.
The biggest danger really is running Nitro engines which can explode is such a dramatic way but I suspect that is the nature of the beast.
Bill
The biggest danger really is running Nitro engines which can explode is such a dramatic way but I suspect that is the nature of the beast.
Bill
WJM said:
Yes, but how many accidents would have been much better at 315mph rather than say 340 ?
I completely agree. The point is that whatever we say now about 1000 feet or slowing them down, the answer will probably include Scott Kalitta's name. It's the culture now. The change to 1000 feet gained the racers all of 0.7 seconds' more stopping distance, but it seems to have made an immense psychological difference. You could equally and rightly ask how many appalling high-speed accidents have there been from which the racer would have walked away had the paramedics let them. It'll cut just as much ice. You could say "The racers know what they're getting into and they all sign disclaimers", same reply.
Again I didn't really notice the missing 0.7 when I saw Top Fuel over 1000 feet at Mantorp in July. That doesn't mean I have to like it, I would imagine few fans do, but anything which makes the racers more comfortable - and the change at Mantorp was initiated by the racers - is OK by me.
WJM said:
Yes, but how many accidents would have been much better at 315mph rather than say 340 ?
Potentially some. That's 25mph slower, and with an extra 330ft of stopping distance. Sure, there will always be cases where that won't make the slightest bit of difference. But there might also be some instances where it's the difference between a fatal accident a merely a serious one. I don't like it much, although I can see the necessity at the shorter tracks. But it's not being done to please me or you. It's making the drivers more comfortable, it's reducing the amount of damaged parts, and I'd guess it's preventing massively inflated liabity premiums for the tracks/promoters, too. I'd be astounded if the NHRA reverted to the full quarter for the nitro classes.WJM said:
Potentially some
Name 1 ?
Any accident where 25mph and an extra 330' are enough make a difference. There have been several cars that have gone into the field at Santa Pod in recent years, by varying amounts. With a shorter race distance and lower terminal speeds, it's not hard to see that some of them would have been able to stop in time. Now imagine a track where there's a concrete wall at the end instead of a field.Name 1 ?
Now imagine a track where there's a concrete wall at the end instead of a field.
[/quote]
Yes but that's my point, if thats the case it's still a risk at 315 surely. At Mantop the 1000ft thing probably added 20% to the available stopping distance but at Santa Pod it would add probably 10% or less and there is no concrete wall at the end just fields.
Dragsters have been going at 200mph plus {which is more than fast enough to kill the driver if the car hits something} for 50 years, I can't remember when the first 300mph run was in the US but I bet it was nearly 20 years ago. Now in the US they can hit 340 but I don't see how a few mph makes that much difference. If the rule was 1000ft only if the run off area is less than half a mile I could understand it but a blanket rule to slow the cars down by 5 or 6% does not make any sense to me. Knowing the US I suspect fear of litigation has something to do with this, but the Kallita type accident could still occur and what then.
Bill
WJM said:
Now imagine a track where there's a concrete wall at the end instead of a field.
Yes but that's my point, if thats the case it's still a risk at 315 surely. At Mantop the 1000ft thing probably added 20% to the available stopping distance but at Santa Pod it would add probably 10% or less and there is no concrete wall at the end just fields.Dragsters have been going at 200mph plus {which is more than fast enough to kill the driver if the car hits something} for 50 years, I can't remember when the first 300mph run was in the US but I bet it was nearly 20 years ago. Now in the US they can hit 340 but I don't see how a few mph makes that much difference. If the rule was 1000ft only if the run off area is less than half a mile I could understand it but a blanket rule to slow the cars down by 5 or 6% does not make any sense to me. Knowing the US I suspect fear of litigation has something to do with this, but the Kallita type accident could still occur and what then.
Bill
Most cars that end up in the field do so becuase of chute malfunction and/or brake failure, in both cases an extra 330ft wouldn't be enough to stop the car, my opinion anyway.
Gassing Station | Drag Racing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff