Discussion
wirralranger said:
NHRA shortens race distance for Top Fuel and Funny Car classes to 1,000 feet as an interim safety measure
Well wht are your thoughts,views on this.
At first blush it's probably a good idea, the cynic in me says they're sh!t scared of a multi bazillion dollar lawsuit someday. Well wht are your thoughts,views on this.
It's certainly a conversation piece and one that's certainly raised a few interesting points on various other places on the 'net. I suppose the most obvious one is; will it make a difference? According to various sources, Scott Kalitta's explosion at Englishtown was caused by the engine expiring at 1100ft. hence 1000ft. being the agreed distance. The thing is though, the funny cars will still be running 300mph at 1000ft so it looks like all the emphasis (as far as I can see) is to try and prevent the engines expiring. At 300mph the cars are covering roughly 400ft per second, so that "extra" run off area will disappear rather suddenly, I don't believe for a second that an extra 7 or 8 tenths of a second thinking time will do anything to reduce an accident should the worst happen. So to that end, had Englishtown already been running as a 1000ft. facility, if the explosion would've happened 100ft. earlier would Scott still be here? I'm inclined to say not.
At the end of the day though, I'm no nitro shoe, so if it's what the PRO members want as an interim solution then they must see something in it. Thing is, will the wick get turned up so that the engines begin to dismantle themselves 320ft sooner? At the end of the day, it isn't the design of a fuel motor that causes it to break, it's the tune up and the load they have to be under to remain competitive. At 1000ft. the motors will still be under a massive load and surely it will only be a matter of time before the competitive spirit rises to the forefront oncemore and we're back to square one; like I said, at somewhere like Pomona or Englishtown, that extra 320ft. will do little to prevent an accident should a similar series of events unfold again like they did a couple of weekends ago.
As far as I can tell, the biggest factor in Scott's accident was unsuitable objects in the shutdown area. It's no place for camera booms, and certainly not concrete posts. I understand the catch net has to be supported somehow, but surely in 2008 we can come up with a better solution?
At the end of the day, the sport is dangerous, and no amount of nibbling at the race distance or nitro percentage will change it. Eric Medlen was a victim of massive tyreshake, Darrell Russell sadly passed away not to a crash but to foreing objects entering the cockpit...things like that will happen whether the cars are running to 300ft or the full 1320, all we can do is learn from each one and try and prevent similar things happening in the future (as the NHRA have). I know prevention is better than the cure but unfortunately the nature of the beast is that usually lessons cannot be learned until after the event. For what it's worth, my two penneth is that greater emphasis should be placed on the shutdown areas, not just the length but the conditions in general. At the end of the day, if you are knocked out or otherwise incapacitated, whether you're travelling at 300mph or 330mph through the finish line, hitting a concrete wall will have dire consequences.
As an aside though, it'll be a whole new ball game seing Top Fuellers lighiting up the scoreboards wil 3.70's @ 300+ !
At the end of the day though, I'm no nitro shoe, so if it's what the PRO members want as an interim solution then they must see something in it. Thing is, will the wick get turned up so that the engines begin to dismantle themselves 320ft sooner? At the end of the day, it isn't the design of a fuel motor that causes it to break, it's the tune up and the load they have to be under to remain competitive. At 1000ft. the motors will still be under a massive load and surely it will only be a matter of time before the competitive spirit rises to the forefront oncemore and we're back to square one; like I said, at somewhere like Pomona or Englishtown, that extra 320ft. will do little to prevent an accident should a similar series of events unfold again like they did a couple of weekends ago.
As far as I can tell, the biggest factor in Scott's accident was unsuitable objects in the shutdown area. It's no place for camera booms, and certainly not concrete posts. I understand the catch net has to be supported somehow, but surely in 2008 we can come up with a better solution?
At the end of the day, the sport is dangerous, and no amount of nibbling at the race distance or nitro percentage will change it. Eric Medlen was a victim of massive tyreshake, Darrell Russell sadly passed away not to a crash but to foreing objects entering the cockpit...things like that will happen whether the cars are running to 300ft or the full 1320, all we can do is learn from each one and try and prevent similar things happening in the future (as the NHRA have). I know prevention is better than the cure but unfortunately the nature of the beast is that usually lessons cannot be learned until after the event. For what it's worth, my two penneth is that greater emphasis should be placed on the shutdown areas, not just the length but the conditions in general. At the end of the day, if you are knocked out or otherwise incapacitated, whether you're travelling at 300mph or 330mph through the finish line, hitting a concrete wall will have dire consequences.
As an aside though, it'll be a whole new ball game seing Top Fuellers lighiting up the scoreboards wil 3.70's @ 300+ !
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 3rd July 21:11
I don't think a "deadman" device would be practical. What amount of time would have to be set into the device before it kicked in? The whole process of the run is taking less than 5 seconds know and the G force on the body would have some effect.
Surely the answer is to make sure that there is an adequate run-off area without any obstructions. Dropping it to 1000ft will not make any tangible difference as speeds and stresses will be tuned to make the most of the new distance.
Surely the answer is to make sure that there is an adequate run-off area without any obstructions. Dropping it to 1000ft will not make any tangible difference as speeds and stresses will be tuned to make the most of the new distance.
i agree, a track shouldnt get a full licence unless it has a shutdown area plus/inc sandtrap of an agreed length, dunno what would be right but i bet someone somewhere does, an engine shutdown device still wouldnt hurt, cut the power, cut momentum....even if the drivers out cold
Scott Kalitta's explosion was at 1000ft but what if it had been at 500ft? would we see that as a benchmark for strip lengths?
Scott Kalitta's explosion was at 1000ft but what if it had been at 500ft? would we see that as a benchmark for strip lengths?
Edited by veryoldfart on Friday 4th July 09:59
I imagined that would be the case anyway considering the chicane concerns of previous years.
With regards to a deadman device, surely it would be pretty simple to rig something up to the body like a lanyard for example. If the body detatches from the car then it kills the mags and triggers the fire bottles? If there was an advancement in parachute design to ensure they blossom more reliably then I reckon it would sort a lot of issues.
With regards to a deadman device, surely it would be pretty simple to rig something up to the body like a lanyard for example. If the body detatches from the car then it kills the mags and triggers the fire bottles? If there was an advancement in parachute design to ensure they blossom more reliably then I reckon it would sort a lot of issues.
Seems like a reasonable interim step to me, albeit possibly something of a kneejerk reaction. I personally think that the races should be run over the full quarter mile at tracks where there is sufficient runoff (where "sufficient" is to be agreed by racers and sanctioning bodies). Is running to 1000' sensible at Mantorp and Englishtown? Absolutely. Is it even still too far? At some tracks, maybe so, and running to the eighth would be more appropriate. Does it make sense at a track like Gainesville, where the runoff area is huge? Not really. Hopefully the long term solution will involve quarter mile racing at tracks where it's safe to do so, and shorter distances (whether it be 1000' or 660') at tracks where it's not safe.
Eurodragster.com said:
Mantorp just announced 1000-foot Top Fuel at the Veidec Festival. More on Eurodragster.com.
I presume we will not be getting Terminal Speeds at the 1000' (unless someone is cutting a hole in the guard wall for the additional beam...)Edited for accuracy - Thanks Tog
Edited by NitroWars on Friday 4th July 13:26
NitroWars said:
I presume we will not be getting Terminal Speeds at the 1000' (unless someone is cutting a hole in the guard wall for the additional beam...)
Mantorp didn't have a 990 foot ET beam anyway, because that part of the strip is part of the circuit. But if they're cutting one hole then they may as well cut two. Early days yet but I have been given to understand that there will be 990 foot speeds. Certainly the TSI timing system is set up to do 990 foot speeds given the beams to do it.BTW if I had made a spelling mistake like "whole" you'd have been all over me
Flying Toilet said:
Eurodragster.com said:
BTW if I had made a spelling mistake like "whole" you'd have been all over me
Blimey Jim, getting slack in your old age!Oh yeah! And my age! <Cheeky blighter>
Edited by NitroWars on Friday 4th July 13:48
If they want to stop engine explosions how about getting rid of the poxy rpm activited timing retarders, get rid of the additional weight they put on the funny cars making the (albeit slightly) easier to stop, less strain on the motor and less inertia if the worst should happen and hit something.
320ft less track at 440ft per second I can't see making much of a difference if something goes wrong
320ft less track at 440ft per second I can't see making much of a difference if something goes wrong
I'm only a casual observer of drag racing, but thought I'd contribute my thoughts.
Can the cars be made structurally safer in any way? To provide a more effective survival cell. To my untrained eye it doesn't look to me like the funny car driver is particularly well separated from the engine, the bodies look very flimsy. Even if that is at the cost performance. I'm thinking a package of measures that could be introduced over time. A bit like the FIA do with F1
Could the engine be gradually moved away from the driver to allow for the installation of a better protective/shield structure between him or her and motor? What about keeping the flimsy body around the engine to allow an explosion to escape, but make the body around the driver much stronger, maybe structurally integral to the car?
Can the cars be made structurally safer in any way? To provide a more effective survival cell. To my untrained eye it doesn't look to me like the funny car driver is particularly well separated from the engine, the bodies look very flimsy. Even if that is at the cost performance. I'm thinking a package of measures that could be introduced over time. A bit like the FIA do with F1
Could the engine be gradually moved away from the driver to allow for the installation of a better protective/shield structure between him or her and motor? What about keeping the flimsy body around the engine to allow an explosion to escape, but make the body around the driver much stronger, maybe structurally integral to the car?
given the old quotes that a TF car has dome 90% of its acceleration by the 1/8th mile and also hit 300mph out of a TS of 340mph, unless the strip has a shutdown area/run off/sand pit of the size of our patio (one would hope not) what difference will a reduction to 1000ft make to a "loose-cannon" car?, whats needed is a simple mathematical calculation.
i.e.
strip race length = shutdown available+sandpit
(well, not exactly but as simple a formula)
doubtless someone with a slide rule (jeeezuz, how old am i) and a sine/cosine/tangent table book and a knowledge of strain/stress (did i saty on at school?)
in other words........what safe? (in a 8000hp/350mph world)
i.e.
strip race length = shutdown available+sandpit
(well, not exactly but as simple a formula)
doubtless someone with a slide rule (jeeezuz, how old am i) and a sine/cosine/tangent table book and a knowledge of strain/stress (did i saty on at school?)
in other words........what safe? (in a 8000hp/350mph world)
Gassing Station | Drag Racing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff