1000' or slowing down

Discussion in 'Pit Buzz' started by Will Hanna, Apr 16, 2009.

  1. Will Hanna

    Will Hanna We put the 'inside' in Top Alcohol
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,706
    Likes Received:
    132
    I posted this in the A/Fuel in Vegas thread, but it's a growing topic that deserves it's own thread:

    "I've been in support of 1000' racing more as a safety measure than an instrument to install parity. In economics they teach a few assumptions that can get you in trouble, one is 'ceterus perebus'....assuming all things stay the same. Assuming all things would stay the same, yes, 1000' instantly evens things up based off last year's numbers.

    We had a small experiment with this in Noble last year. I can't speak definitively on the tuneup side of an AFD, but I will say that from tuning blown dragsters and funny cars, if the racing distance is changed to 1000', the motors can be leaned, shorter tires can be used, and gear ratios, both in the trans and rear end can be changed to make the cars quicker to 1000' that you can't necessarily do in the 1320.

    I am familiar enough with the AFD combo to know that there would certainly be things that could be done to that combo to make it quicker to 1000'. Would that open the door to 3.08 or 3.20 gears? 34.5 tires? Leaner combos with shorter 'wicks'?

    An argument could be made, maybe by some of the racers like Duane or Mike Johnson who have raced both combos, that compensations to 1000' would roughly be equal, thus maintaining parity. I don't know. Not that I'm totally against this change, I just want some facts to be presented.

    From a cost perspective, as mentioned above, there will be changes that will be necessary to remain competitive. Not to mention the intangible expense of a new learning curve.

    Does the TAFC class become collateral damage from such a change to install parity in the TAD class? As it has been put, should they 'bear the cost' of parity as well? I don't think it would be realistic to change TAD without changing the distance for TAFC.

    I think the real answer in all of this lies in the TF and FC class. If NHRA truly intends to return to 1/4 mile racing with slower fuel cars, well, get ready for some significant rule changes in all the alcohol classes.

    In the HD Partners proposed buyout, one of the stipulations was that there was to be a 40 mph difference between the average of the fastest 20 Top Fuel speeds and the average of the fastest 20 TAD speeds. The magic number floated around is 300 mph in the quarter, so that would make the average number 260. That would mean 265 would have to be an absolute 'wow' run for both A/Fuelers and B/AD's.

    On an unrelated side note, that would put TAD mph's in line with TAFC.

    In that light, it's safe to assume Top Fuelers are not going to return to 1320 with the current rules. While there may not be a hard limit of 40 mph, it's a pretty safe assumption if there is a return to 1320, NHRA isn't going to allow 280 mph cars.

    IF NHRA does not go back to the 1/4 mile road, then I would suspect 1000' would be a better option for the alcohol cars than continual rules changes aimed to slow them down. I still contend 94% was more about slowing the class down than maintaining parity between blown and A/F. It's all about the mph on the scoreboard, regardless of distance.

    Unrelated to the fuel cars is the safety aspect; 280 mph is too fast for some of the divisional tracks we race at. Going to 1000' slows the cars down and lengthens the shutdown 320' at all tracks.

    It stands to reason 1000' racing would at least be marginally less expensive. If it allowed the A/FD's to go back to 96%, some would argue significantly.

    If the 1000' ends up being permanent for the fuel cars, it stands to reason that should be extended to the alcohol cars for both safety and monetary reasons.

    While there will be upfront costs associated with a possible change, I think it would be cheaper to adapt your combination to 1000' rather than make wholesale changes to run a 265 mph class.

    Given all things, there's pro's and con's to all options. TAFC has the strongest argument to leave things alone. They don't have a parity issue and they haven't really posed a speed threat to the fuel cars, even at 1000'. In a way, they went through this change a few years back when the OD was restricted.

    Again, I think the key to the future lies with with the fuel cars. "

    Then after writing that earlier, I read this at DRO: http://dragracingonline.com/analysis/xi_4-nhra-1.html

    If this spec engine is coming, count on the alky classes to be slowed down or 1000'
     
    #1
  2. elusiveiceman

    elusiveiceman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my opinion I dont think 1000' racing is the answer. First of all, it doesnt solve any of the problems of explosions or engine damage. If anything, it only pushes the crew chiefs/tuners to lean on the tuneup harder because of a loss of 320 feet. As many can already see during recent races this has become true. Top Fuel cars are back to severe engine damage in just under a year after the rule change.

    I think the only way the NHRA is going to completely contain the monster that is a Nitro engine, is to put a limit on compression ratio and overdrive. In my opinion, those are the only two items that you CANNOT get around if severely limited.

    I think going to a smaller clutch, one fuel pump, one mag type set-up would be costly and inefficient, and i especially dislike the smaller fuel pump idea because the fuel pump is a major integral piece in the cooling efficiency of a Nitro motor.

    I would like to see compression ratio limit and overdrive limit with a higher nitro percentage. That is just my opinion though.
     
    #2
  3. eli

    eli Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,657
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thats a good idea, but i like the Don Garlets solution, one block during eliminations. It will open up the game to a lot more racers.
     
    #3
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2009
  4. Nathan Sitko - 625 TAD/TAFC

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    1
    I like that idea, or at least something along those lines. 1 or 2 engine blocks during eliminations maximum would force the teams to lean to the side of caution.

    In my opinion 1000' never was and is not even close to a permanent answer, and it drives me nuts it keeps getting brought up. If for some reason they switched to 1000' for TAD/TAFC I would sure be looking to do a whole lot of match racing, our 1/4 mile purpose built car wouldn't be good for much else...:mad:
     
    #4
  5. Will Hanna

    Will Hanna We put the 'inside' in Top Alcohol
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,706
    Likes Received:
    132
    slowing down

    Before you read into this deal that I'm "back pushing 1000'" look at the big picture.

    If NHRA is going to build a spec motor to slow the fuelers down, you can bet your ass the alky classes are going to get whacked too. There's no way in hell they are going to let TAD be 10-15 mph slower than TF. Same could be said for TAFC.

    All I'm saying is there could be some significant changes coming if the fuel cars are going back quartermile with spec motors. In that light, 1000' racing with the same combo's doesn't look that bad does it?

    Which would you rather run? 1000' at 92 od in TAFC or 1/4 with say, 80 od? That's going to mean new pistons, rods, maybe cranks, maybe clutches, trans ratios, rear ratios, etc.

    In light of that, maybe the injected nitro motor needs to be the new 'spec' motor.
     
    #5
  6. Les Mellows

    Les Mellows New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    1000'

    I think the TAD / AFC classes should both be a 1000'. I think safety is something we need to be proactive on, and cost and technology is running at a faster rate than most can handle. I think it is worth a look or discussion by NHRA to maybe test this for a term , possibly at divisionals or all events.
    I think it would help the Exhibition Classes , ProMod (2750 lbs @246 mph = handful) , Jet Cars , Wheel Standers ETC. would all benefit from the change . The Fans want to see a winner and a great side by side race not an ironman contest of length and strength . My Opinion .
     
    #6
  7. F/C Girl

    F/C Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, it worked out to be a real successful "Fiasco" in Noble, Oklahoma. Just ask anyone who was there. I'm sure it's just how Mr. Parks envisioned 1/4 mile racing from the beginning.

    Reminds me of what Mr. Eisner did to Disney upon Walt's Death, hmmm I wonder if there are any similarities here.
     
    #7
  8. Les Mellows

    Les Mellows New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0

    Yeah what she said !!! so there !! :confused:

    And for the other 140 million people in North America that didn't make it to Noble that weekend, and didn't happen to be friends or relatives to the 600 people that were there for the "Fiasco" in Noble. And also for those who didn't catch it on CNN ........ we wonder whats the rest of the story ???

    As for Mr Eisner , you are absolutely right ! Walt at times gave Minnie , Mickey, and Pluto different clothing styles , for Mr Eisner to leave them in the same garb for this long is shameful !!! I say SELL , SELL, SELL those stocks folks ! he definately does not have the same vision as Walt did . :D

    Whew ! on to the next crisis . Thanks for the HELP F/C Girl
     
    #8
  9. Will Hanna

    Will Hanna We put the 'inside' in Top Alcohol
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,706
    Likes Received:
    132
    Fiasco

    Nancy:

    Since you were there and you were there in Dallas, how would have David Brounkowski's incident worked out for him in Noble at 1320? Not to mention they still run cars down the track while the train is running. I don't even really like thinking about the outcome very long regardless of the train.

    We've debated, at length the 1000' deal, people either love it or hate it. That's not the point.

    The point of this post is given the choice, would you rather stay racing 1/4 mile and have to completely change your combination or would you rather be able to make RELATIVELY minor changes in comparison to the above to run 1000'.

    I'm just pulling numbers, but I bet they wouldn't be far off...how does 90% for the A/Fuelers, 92 OD for the BAD's, 80 OD for TAFC sound? I don't think it's worth a damn personally, for anyone.

    If things do just stay the same, that's great. I think the racers need to pull their head out of the sand and see the storm that might be coming. We need to start pooling ideas, get some feedback from NHRA on what their intentions are before we wake up one morning to see some massive rule change on NHRA.com.

    I'm emailing NHRA today to see if I can get some guidance as to what's going on.
     
    #9
  10. JustinatAce

    JustinatAce Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    9
    Racers will be racers.

    Now, before I get any crap for responding to this thread because "I don't have any dog in the fight." I was at Noble helping tune and do labor on a TAFC during the 1000' "Fiasco", and I'll be at Great Bend next weekend doing the same. I know we went through a thread just after the race about safety ideas as well, but here's the deal as I see it. I'm not for or against anything.

    1000' for the Fuel cars was supposed to keep them from popping motors as often and to help keep the speeds down so they had time to slow down. Shorting it 320 feet at 220mph buys you a little less than an extra second to hang the laundry and get slowed down to hit the turn, thats at 220, not 300. In a sport that is measured in thousandths of a second, thats a somewhat decent margin of extra time. 1000 ft racing saves about 20mph and gives an extra .7-.8 seconds of time off the motor. 1000' seems like the most logical and affordable choice until tracks can get shutdown areas extended.

    As for the popping of motors, well, how many Fuel motors in both classes have you seen go boom so far this season?

    The point of the matter is that no matter what the NHRA does, the slowdown will only be temporary until we have this same conversation again. Racers and manufacturers are incredibly resourceful when it comes to working within a given set of rules and pushing the envelope. It's the sanctioning body's job to give you a set of rules, and it's our job to go the fastest within said rules. Obviously there are also inherent risks in driving or just being close to these machines, and most people have been around the sport long enough when they get to this level what risks have a better chance of killing them, and one would hope most manufacturers are in the same boat.

    The last thing I want to see is people getting hurt, but it's the nature of the beast when it comes to racing unfortunately.
     
    #10
  11. SICTOR

    SICTOR hola amigos!

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    No!

    Supporting 1000 is like supporting terrorism
     
    #11
  12. matt bynum

    matt bynum New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    i know im going to get some heat for this but, fuel cars are still blowing up even running to 1000' so whats to say that an accident like scotts arent going to happen again. if the car blows up and the driver gets knocked out or the chutes get tangled and the brakes fail there is no way someone will get a car stopped in time even with an extra 320'. i think we should start looking at improving sand traps because i feel those would save more people than running to 1000'
     
    #12
  13. F/C Girl

    F/C Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why don't you let David answer this question at what happened in ENNIS. As for Noble, that was CREW Error. Maybe some more homework is needed for your education of your "educated opinion" and MAYBE just MAYBE you should try OWNING A Car before you make assumptions for what is reality and what is written.
     
    #13
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2009
  14. Pat McGill

    Pat McGill Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, someone is pissed off about something. I don't think anyone in the TAD/TAFC community should be discounting Will's opinion - I think he has earned everyone's respect.
     
    #14
  15. elusiveiceman

    elusiveiceman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    word. id rather watch rosie odonell walk the victoria secret runway than watch 1000' racing.
     
    #15
  16. Randy G.

    Randy G. Top Alcohol

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    36
    I guess I just fell out of bed and hit my head or something. Just who is talking about slowing down the classes?

    "I think the racers need to pull their head out of the sand and see the storm that might be coming." What storm?

    The biggest single cost increase to TA/FC racers in the last 15 years was when NHRA agreed (based on bad advice) to reduce the blower overdrive from 125% to 92% to save us money. Now it's coated and recoated blowers and 10,900 RPM. 80%? Laughable.

    Shutting it off .8 seconds earlier isn't going to save anyone anything. What would save everyone would be $1.00 a gallon diesel, $10 hotel rooms and $25 flights.

    Right now at 1,000' TF and FC is won on the starting line all things being equal. Most TA/FC's and TAD's are pretty close in ET. If you take away the back half or the track you might as well make the 60' mark the finish line, because there won't be enough track left at 1,000' to run down anyone who left on you even if you are Frank Manzo. It would be as boring as Pro Stock.

    I can gaurantee you this, if it went to 1,000 foot racing there will be one less white Monte Carlo in the pits. Not that anyone cars, but I signed up for 1/4 mile racing and not one foot less.

    RG.
     
    #16
  17. Nathan Sitko - 625 TAD/TAFC

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    1


    Well said!
     
    #17
  18. pennance

    pennance Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2009
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is my first post here but i have read for years here. I felt compelled to respond. I am partners with a VERY low buck A/FD dragster racer on the west coast. I feel F/C Girl and Nathan are spot on.

    94% for Duane is no problem when you have pleanty of funds to go. But for us it is just another mile high hurdle to get over. As if we dont have enough hurdles to get over.

    I have a novel idea......How bout NHRA just leaves us the hell alone! We dont have a blower. We dont blow stuff up any more like we used to and Im tellin ya 94% was a BAD IDEA. Not because of the hit A/FD took that alcohol didnt. But because NHRA is pushing our motors to a place where the shoulda never pushed us to be competetive with the alcohol guys and come summer it will only get harder.

    I have a second novel idea....How bout people like Reichert put their MPH in their back pocket and sit on it. Years back when NOONE would touch A/FD but a hand full of guys, Bushey was the guy who took it to another level. He had the MPH in his back pocket for years and never showed his hand cause he knew what NHRA would do with it. I know this because i have his racepack with all his runs on it and saw what he did to kill MPH. As soon as Henklemen bought the car he let the genie out of the bottle and low and behold NHRA had to step on our penises. Reichert does it again and man does our penis hurt now. If some of us would stop trying to show us how big their penis is NHRA wouldnt feel compelled to step on it. These cars could run 4.99 without 280 MPH.
    I dont believe 1000 ft. solves anything for us but another level of B.S. to have to deal with.

    Nuff said!
     
    #18
  19. larrymiersch

    larrymiersch Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    3
    Straight to the point

    Hi, Nancy! Glad to see you back!;)
     
    #19
  20. Will Hanna

    Will Hanna We put the 'inside' in Top Alcohol
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,706
    Likes Received:
    132
    clear some things up

    I'd like to clear some things up.

    Nancy, I was referring to David's incident in Dallas where he ran off the end of the track when his parachutes got tangled in the wheelie bar. The sand trap was in piss poor shape, but at least they had a net. Had he been running Noble at 1320, with no net, and the steep embankment to the railroad tracks, it could have been a lot worse, especially if the train was running. I wasn't aware of any incident last year, I was busy working on a car.

    Also, 'owning' a car doesn't guarantee you know anything.

    In regards to the rest of the discussion, NHRA has been talking about slowing the fuel cars down since the Kalitta accident. If you bothered to read the link, it looks like they are leaning to one mag, 8-71, 4 or 5 disc clutch cars. It's anyone's guess how much that would slow them down, but it's I think it's safe to say significantly.

    IF anyone thinks that if the fuel cars get slowed down that NHRA is going to just let the alcohol cars be, well, I think you're dead wrong.

    Let me restate this again. I'm on the record advocating 1000' for safety reasons. This isn't the issue I'm trying to get across here.

    I think there's a possibility of big changes coming. I hope I'm wrong. I think we, as racers, should be aware of the potential. Instead I'm catching heat from everyone like I'm the one trying to push the change.
     
    #20

Share This Page