Racing to 1320'

[Bob]

NHRA announces that all classes will race to 1320' except TF and FC. TF and FC will continue to run to 1000' during which time NHRA test various engine combinations to reduce power in it's top two classes.

In other words, rather that make the un-safe tracks safer, they are going to just slow the cars down. I guess NHRA doesn't think the other classes require a safe track to run on. I am sure the there are some Sportsman racers out there that would disagree.

[bill dedman]

At the risk of over-simplification, I think the whole idea of shortening the distance to 1,000 feet had to do with inadequate shutdown length for cars that need a long way to stop. A Fuel car running 330 mph is traveling 484 feet per second at the finish line (actually, 30 feet before the finish line), and that velocity eats up shutdown area in a hurry, particularly, if a chute malfunctions, the driver makes an error, or brake failure of any kind is experienced. There's little room for error of ANY kind, if that car is going to get stopped, safely. The slower cars might not experience the same sort of jeopardy on these strips that were too short to be deemed "safe at any speed" by NHRA, so it appears that their rationale is to limit the cars that might have problems stopping, and leave the rest alone.

In other words, it seems to be their position that the "unsafe" strips that created this 1.000-foot scenario are only "unsafe" for the Fuel cars, and not slower ones. At least, that's how it seems to me.

But, it's NHRA; who knows what they really think... or, IF they think???

I'll guarantee you their insurance carrier does!

[Bob]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

At the risk of over-simplification, I think the whole idea of shortening the distance to 1,000 feet had to do with inadequate shutdown length for cars that need a long way to stop. A Fuel car running 330 mph is traveling 484 feet per second at the finish line (actually, 30 feet before the finish line), and that velocity eats up shutdown area in a hurry, particularly, if a chute malfunctions, the driver makes an error, or brake failure of any kind is experienced. There's little room for error of ANY kind, if that car is going to get stopped, safely. The slower cars might not experience the same sort of jeopardy on these strips that were too short to be deemed "safe at any speed" by NHRA, so it appears that their rationale is to limit the cars that might have problems stopping, and leave the rest alone.

In other words, it seems to be their position that the "unsafe" strips that created this 1.000-foot scenario are only "unsafe" for the Fuel cars, and not slower ones. At least, that's how it seems to me.

But, it's NHRA; who knows what they really think... or, IF they think???

I'll guarantee you their insurance carrier does!

Bill, I understand your point. But I think even slow cars need a safe track to race on. There are many "slower" cars that need adequate shut down as well. You never know when something will go wrong and the tracks should be designed to minimise the potential danger to a driver. How many Super Comp racers got hurt or killed last year? Or how about Woodro's accident? The list goes on and on of "slower" cars that have been destroyed and drivers injured.

[bill dedman]

Good point, Bob. I understand your concerns. I am sure the ones REALLY apprehensive about this issue are the insurance people.

This may not be over, yet... we'll see.