Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'System One Pit Buzz' started by Will Hanna, Oct 20, 2003.
I think it will slow us down more than we wanted to be slowed down. LOL, sorry, couldn't resist.
why is it safe to be 2175 lbs in top fuel at 330 mph and its not safe to be that weight in a/fuel at 280? does the blower and clutch management make it more stable at speed?
That is the point, how many places can you bolt an extra 100lbs. Will, how many tfuel cars run divisional type race tracks? I seem to remember that one of the complaints was we were going to fast for such short shut downs already without the extra weight to stop. I don't think it needs to be another topic to disagree on lets just race and see what happens.MG
Hate to repeat myself from before but "weight Sucks" no matter which class of car!
more weight = more cost and less safety...period!
Weren't there some other options on the board that did not involve adding extra weight? If safety is such a concern, and added weight is thought of as a being unsafe, especially at these divisional tracks, then maybe one of the other options would have been better.
Think about it. Many say that the a/fuel cars do not do as well at the divisional tracks, mostly due to track conditions, and now the car weighs more and is still making the same amount of power. Does that sound good? Just think if the cars made a bit less power and still weighed 2025. Would they run better on the divisional tracks then?
i was just stating in general, not any specific tracks. we're already, both blown and unblown going too fast for many divisional tracks, esp with double armco.
to a certain degree i could relate. if i spent $1500 on a carbon fiber puke tank, etc and now you have to bolt weight on, kind of negates that purchase, but thats in hindsight too.
ps, mike, buy one of my new chrome diamond plate belly pans made out of 1/4" steel plate. sure to add an easy 40-50 lbs and can give your car that crome, rugged look.
Dean, I run a 438 not a 432.
"justafan" I hope my lead flys of my car and bashes you in the head. That is if you ever get your butt out from behind your key board and go to a real race.
As far as being a cry baby.....I ran several races this year in 95-103 degree heat and got my ass kicked by blown cars and never said a word about parity. If I have to bolt on 100lbs and go to those same races where the blown cars have a clear advantage ....I just won't go. Problem solved. No crying going on here.....I'm a realist. Its my car, my cash, and my time. I think you will see a whole lot of A/Fuel teams opt out of the over 85+ degree races this year at the divisional level. What do you think Mike G.?
What happens if it is only 84 degrees? Do you go?
I won't rule out mid to uper 80's depending on the track and wether it is a night race or not...cloud cover etc..will all play into our scheduling. I would say that if the weather is a typical year in 2004 then Medford Or. is out, Woodburn Or. in mid July is out, the new track in Montana in Aug. is out, sacramento is out....We will run our car early take the summer off unless we would see some unseasonally cool weather that may work to our benifit. No crying here, just being a realist.
Will it slow the A/F cars down ?
NOT THE SMARTER or the MONEY TEAMS
Is It a safety issue ? (the point made about the weight of the top fuel cars verus the safety factor - good point)
As far as the Div. meets - Depends on the DIV.
In Div. II -NO - All of the points meets
tracks are as long as Gainsville and Atlanta.
Did the rule change really address the parity issue ?
No - but NHRA doesn't seem to be concerned,
remember we are "sportsman" racers - to them
just another non-money producing class.
ALCOHOL CARS MUST GO WITH THE CARDS WE ARE DEALT - the options are slim to none. I've still got a race car and a place to play with it.
LIFE IS GOOD !!!!
How did Greg L. run this year at Woodburn? What was the temperature?
Well I seen Bradshaw go a 5.19 in Houston this year and it was gonna be pushing 85 to 90 degrees with not that great of air but not bad either and he even pedaled it. Seems to me like they will run in the heat.
Mitch, how the A-fuel cars ran in the Heat obviously didn't factor in NHRA's decision for the good of the class. I can't believe you of all racers is making such a fuss about this! You mean to tell me you didn't see this coming?? How many 5-teens or .20 runs would the A-Fuel cars have to make before you'd thought the playing field was unlevel?? If racing agains't the blown cars is such a burden why not step up to TF?
Speaking of TF, The reason for the change to the AF class was not entirely to provide parity in the TAD class. The NHRA's idea was to further distance the top A-fuelers from the lower qualified Top Fuelers.
There was never any thought of letting the blown cars run faster to promote parity. NHRA doesn't want their big show shown up by Sportsman racers.
If this weight break change doesn't do enough to slow the AF class down, which it probably won't, next year there will be another restriction put in place to slow the class down further.
And when that happens, you'll see some of these guys Go Balistic!!!!!!!!
Tjenna, Can you say lane choice? Plus they run well and had a good day , giving them lane choice. Same as we did in the early race at woodburn. Infact it was warmer in June. We barley qualifed #8 by .001 then it cooled of to 85-88 on Sunday and we won. Heat effects crap tracks much worse than a Houston for example.
well mitch, if you look back a little bit, you'll notice the two a/fuelers that have (and will) wear no. 1's on the wing, have run quite well and won events in 85+ heat. art gallant ran very strong en route to winning several events in the heat over the past couple years. one that comes to mind is winning brainerd last year, an altitude factored track. also he's run well at hot spots like hotlanta, bristol and others.
randy meyer has run very well in the heat as well. one of the more impressive runs was a 5.51 at scribner in 01, yes in the heat on about as shitty a track as you can get. i think you ran pretty good at a race last year that was hot and altitude?
as far as not going to races mitch, i can relate. we only attended 2 national events this year because we didn't feel we would be competitive.
as far as a/fuelers being able to run in tricky conditions, i'm not so much directing this post at you, but rather the argument that a/fuelers cant run on divisional tracks above 85 degrees. it can and has been done, and will be done again. i think a large part of it is that since it is a minority situation for many a/fuel cars to run those conditions, there isn't much data available or collected from those conditions. i think with more runs in those conditions, you would see the performance dramatically improve overall. but who wants to run those conditions? why do you think we have a saying on jason's team 'the shittier the track the better..'
Will, Your post is well taken and in most part is correct. You see here is where the problem comes in....and I will give you an example based on recent races for my car.
1) I ran at two hot shitty race tracks in a row a couple months ago. Firstly Sacramento div 7 event Aug 15-16. I told my guys before even going that I thought we would have a real tough time qualifying in round 1&2 as they were to be ran in the heat of the day. It was forecast to be over 100 degrees, but there was a late sesion at 9:00pm. I was confident that we could qualify in the fast half in that sesion as long as the track cooled off and we had mid 80's. To run in 90 and above types of conditions I have to put so many band-aids all over this thing you would not believe it....I'm not just talking about a jet or chip change here. I'm talking major plumbing , by passes, multi extra timer systems, way different clutch set up, timing,idle circut, etc......We qualified 4th in that cooler session. Then reset everything for 1st round in the 100 heat on Saturday afternoon.I knew we could only win if we got a break, red light, tire shake, etc, by the other guy. Got my ass kicked by joey Severence by .2 with its tongue hanging out. That is a shitty way to go race.
Then on to Medford...night race...same deal. fast half late round. 90's first round, Get my ass kicked first round in the heat by a couple tenths.
Then off to Chicago...best track and conditions ever seen on the planet. Here we have band -aids all over this thing. Limited data for these conditions and we run a couple of low 40's when we should have been in the 20's or 30's to say the least. We have ran 30's early in the spring several times..with out all the changes that is. But...my mistake (and I admit it) as I left the band-aids on and tried to work around them as to not undue all of the work that went into a hot weather tune-up. Unfortunitly this approach is what bit me in the cold.
So to make a long story short and as to not get the key board wizards telling me I'm crying....because I'm really not. Here is how I see it for next year taking the rule change into consideration.
1)Take the Bartone approach and race early spring or late fall at Nationals and stay with a tune-up that works in the ideal conditions for an a/fuel car.
2) Race only at divisionals that compliment or benifit from this tune-up
3)Don't waste time, effort and money on events that you have to hope that your opponent falters at to win. While at the same time changing your entire car around for these few shitty events.
Although a few cars (mine included ) have made some desent runs at near 90 it is rare and is not consistant and agian requires "major" changes to deal with.
So on to the new rule change....add 95lbs to my car now and go deal with the heat. I'm just not going to go play that game. Do I have a problem with tuning my car to run with the extra 95lbs in cooler conditions where we may have an advantage over the blown guys...absolutly not. But in defence of my opinion, I believe that parity does not currently exist for us in these conditions just like it has its issues with the blown guys in certain conditions. Although a few of the blown guys didn't help thier cause at Chi town by running 20's.
My only bitch there is the saftey issue involved with that large of a balast is unsafe in my opinion.
As a last comment, the sacramento event probably cost Darien/Lucas the championship as they suffered the same fate as I did. Jerry was sitting on the step of my trailer and said thats it ....there goes the Championship!
It sure is funny how A/F guys are complaining about a car that weighs 2250 when the TA/FC have a minimum of 2250 and quit a few of them weigh in around 2300 to 2325 and seem to stop quit well. Have you ever looked under some of the seats of a TA/FC. BIGGG Weight Bars....
Like I stated before Mitch biggest waaaaaa on the internet. Just go race man. Its funny how you are now argueing parity when its hot. LMFAO
The answer is
Greg Lawrence, Salem, Ore., 5.372, 255.82