Alcohol dragster?

[Greg Hill]

Alan, it's because they are putting the money in their own pocket.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Greg Hill

Alan, it's because they are putting the money in their own pocket.

Rhetorical question, Greg.

[Floyd Staggs]

Alan, I agree with all of that but the cars are getting faster and faster all the time. I remember when I ran stock back in the early 60's I had a fast stocker in the low 12's, high 11's. Top fuel was barely 200. Now you have comp cars over 200 and stockers in the 9's. It's all relative, I know.
Some tracks don't have the real estate to expand their shutdown area. I like 1320 racing. But terminal velocity has gotten to the point it's almost out of control.
The contest is an accelaration contest, the one that accelerates the fastest to a given point is the winner. Does it matter what that given point is?
JMHO

[Alan Roehrich]

Floyd, yes, it does matter. For a number of reasons. Especially the point about who is tasked with bearing the burden. Shorten the distance to 1000'? Now we all have to go change our gearing, among other things. That's just NHRA placing the burden on us, again, to prevent them from having to actually address the problem.

Stock and Super Stock aren't really likely to gain much from 320' more shut down. The shutdown area is a concern for us only when we have no brakes at all, situations like Woodro and Gainesville, or Pete at Orlando. It won't make much difference. We don't gain that much speed in that 320'.

But to keep NHRA from spending money and addressing the problem, we'd be tasked with spending our money, and changing our cars.

Where does it stop? When do we stop spending money so they don't have to and they can make more? All of our costs have gone up, the purse has remained the same, and the contingency payout has dropped 50%.

Switching to 1000' will cost us all more, again. And it was supposed to be a temporary fix to begin with. It doesn't seem to be so temporary, does it? They got their temporary fix, but they are not working on a permanent fix. Because it would cost them money.

No, it's time for NHRA to step up and pay their share. They need to address the problem on their end. And they need to make a habit of it.

[Floyd Staggs]

You're right, I didn't think of the cost to the other racers to change their program. I was just thinking about the overall picture and the length of the race and the reduction of speed.
I guess there is no cover all answer.

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Floyd, yes, it does matter. For a number of reasons. Especially the point about who is tasked with bearing the burden. Shorten the distance to 1000'? Now we all have to go change our gearing, among other things. That's just NHRA placing the burden on us, again, to prevent them from having to actually address the problem.

Stock and Super Stock aren't really likely to gain much from 320' more shut down. The shutdown area is a concern for us only when we have no brakes at all, situations like Woodro and Gainesville, or Pete at Orlando. It won't make much difference. We don't gain that much speed in that 320'.

But to keep NHRA from spending money and addressing the problem, we'd be tasked with spending our money, and changing our cars.

Where does it stop? When do we stop spending money so they don't have to and they can make more? All of our costs have gone up, the purse has remained the same, and the contingency payout has dropped 50%.

Switching to 1000' will cost us all more, again. And it was supposed to be a temporary fix to begin with. It doesn't seem to be so temporary, does it? They got their temporary fix, but they are not working on a permanent fix. Because it would cost them money.

No, it's time for NHRA to step up and pay their share. They need to address the problem on their end. And they need to make a habit of it.

[Eric Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Greg Hill

Alan, it's because they are putting the money in their own pocket.

I just watched the video for the first time and am stunned at how tight the net was....He should have walked away. Such a tragedy. To rapid of a deceleration will always result in heartbreak.

Perhaps something that the stunt drivers use would work.

A soft net followed by row upon row upon row of free used up slicks, with perhaps another net and if all else fails a water barrier. Car will be trashed, but who cares, a soft landing is better than no landing at all.

You could also try and engineer cockpit deceleration in addition. Remote activated airbags, or sensor based like in street cars. There must be a Physics and mechanical engineering guru out there!