Printable View
NASCAR addressed it with the SAFER barrier and many other items, but the NHRA seems to put most of it on car construction, and not track construction.
At the track I used to run in Scribner, NE, there was a reasonable amount of room, but the farmer who owned the land next door didn't like the racing. So, he parked a big combine just on the other side of the property line. Nice guy.
Sad news...I feel sick. I am stunned. Darryl Russell, Eric Medlen, Doug Herbert's kids, and now Scott Kalitta. We have chat going on about this at my site of www.dragchat.com if you are interested.
I work with Doug Kalitta's brother in law and have been in their pits...they are very nice people.
They had an interview today with Jim Head, thought he offered up a reasonable solution.... If tracks like Englishtown, built when fuelers were still at or below 200MPH don't have an long enough shut down area, then shorten the race to 1,000 ft or even to an eighth mile....
I'm with Mike on the catch fence idea, too. Back in my Air Force days I watched an F-4 land hot and go into the barrier, it worked great... A bit late for Scott, but if improved safety can somehow be a result of his death.....
Wow, I just heard about Scott and what horrible loss.
I just saw him run in the Summit Nats. at The Strip in Vegas last April.
Its just hard to believe he's gone.
RIP:
Scott Kalitta
1962-2008
Larry M.
There was a net there today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
Dave, I hadn't thought about this in those terms, but you're right. Many of these tracks were laid when speeds were 200 mph. Pomona is another case in point. NHRA has limited the size of the rear tires, the ring and pinion ratio and cut back on the percentage of nitromethane, but the ingenuity of the racers overcomes these limitations. Shortening the race to something less than 1,320 feet seems to be the best and most economical solution. "Thousand foot drags" has a pretty nice ring to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
There are several fuel pilots who have been forced to give up the sport because the tremendous negative "G" force from the chutes at the big end have detached the retinas in their eyes. That's why you usually don't see both chutes deployed at exactly the same time.
ive met scott over in seattle he was a great guy. all i can think of right now is instead of being sad, is to get that dang oll racecar fired up tomorrow. i dont really know why we do the things we do. we race and the risk is always there no matter a 13 second car or a 4 second car. kind of like what tolliver said. its there, but you cant dwell on it or else you will never find the cahones to get back in there and go for it. and at least scott got to go doing what he liked that however does not dampen the sadness felt today. i really feel for connie right now. i cant imagine how bad it is to watch your kid go. may scott rest, not in peace, but with the candles lit and a smile on his face........scooter
i believe joe amato retired because of the retnia deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
I ran two seasons on an 1/8 mile strip.... It's so much easier on the equipment, about all that big top end charge in the last 1/8 does is kill engines and add speed..... I can't say I'd like to see all of NHRA go to 1/8 mile, but the 1,000 foot deal that Jim Head mentioned IMO would be the answer....a heck of a lot cheaper then all the short shutdown tracks having to buy more real estate and extend their tracks..... Even my old 7.90 rear engine digger got really hairy on the big end at some of the short shut down tracks. Ran it on the 1/8 and it was just as much fun, but a whole lot easier on parts.
Maybe 1,000 ft. drags in the fuel classes would do away with some of the big fires and blower explosions, too... Might not only be a safety factor (though they're still running 250 plus at the 1,000 ft timers), but help control the cost a little bit, too..... In my racing, anytime I banged an engine it was from 1,000 ft and out.....
I have to disagree on shortening the tracks. This sport is based on a 1/4 mile. The whole essence of this sport is to go as fast as you can so you can beat the other guy. Why not just shorten the track to 300' or 60', then you are guaranteed no or very little crashes, very little risk to injury, cheaper and so on....but guess what?...the stands will be empty.
These drivers make the conscience decision to get into the cockpit knowing the risks....who are we to tell them they need to slow down or shorten the track? Jim Head made the comment about how it is "scarier than hell to go 330mph" If he is truely scared, he needs to retire OR there are plenty of other divisions in the NHRA that he can switch to that run considerably slower cars. I watch these cars because they go 4.42 seconds and 338mph and register a 2.0 on the richter scale. I am not in the stands watching the slower cars of bracket racing (although I'm quite sure it is very fun from the drivers seat). If they slow these cars down or shorten the tracks, they will lose this fan.
They need to learn from this crash and find a new and better way to stop these cars. Perhaps different parachutes, parachutes that can be remotely contolled by a crew person in the event that an explosion occurs and the driver is too busy handling the car and cannot deploy them, different braking system, different stopping medium...the sand just proves to flips cars over and not stop them very well, no concrete poles or barriers at the end of tracks, longer shutdown areas, and so on. There are so many ways to improve this, yet we automatically say slow them down. I don't get it. I doubt Kalitta would want to shorten the track or slow them down. Just my 2 cents.
All well and good and you are certainly entitled to your opinion...
However I would have to differ with some of your observations.
On Kalitta's car, the chute did deploy. It just burnt off right away...A simple cable arrangement from the burst panel to the chute handle would resolve the issue of getting the chute out instantaneously when the car bangs the blower.... A lot of the fuel cars are already running the Kevlar brakes, probably not a lot of ugrades beyond that....
The majority of the tracks (such as Englishtown) with the short shutdown areas are stuck in the real estate and or local ordance rut---there is no more property available to them to lengthen the shutdown area....
A lot of the original drag racing was on 1/2 or 1 mile courses, the 1/4 mile just became the standard in order to make record keeping standardized and to allow cars to be competive from track to track without a lot of changes to the car.... IMO saying that drag racing has always been on a 1/4 mile and the course length for fuel cars should never be shortened to 1,000 ft is no more a valid point then saying dragster originally were all front engined, so rear engined cars should never be allowed... Times change, performance levels change, and the rules have to be adjusted accordingly.... What happens in the last 320 feet that would possibly be more important then driver safety?????
Even the best funded teams would love to see the expenses lowered, shortening the course to 1,000' would lower some of expense incurred by all the big end blow ups, knocking the blower off the engine (this does most often occur beyond the 1,000 ft. mark)
So for the tracks that can't afford or are unable to attain the property necessary to lengthen the shutdown area, would you suggest that NHRA just not run there, or is it just ok to occasionally have some one run off the end in another horrendous crash???? When fuel cars were running 200 mph times, the shutdown area at Englishtown (and others) wasn't a problem, but at over 300 mph it is....
Having been a driver and or an owner in several forms of motorsports for the last 40+ years, anything that can be done to lower the cost and increase the safety while still maintaining the competitiveness of the sport would certainly get my vote!!!!
BTW, while at a National event and you go to the concession stand when the other cars are running, you are missing some of the most competitive racing anywhere on the planet!!!!! Granted it's not as fast and does require a keen eye for the details of a pass, but the factored and breakout classes are equally as hard to be competive at the National level then any fuel class....
As for Jim Head being scared.... He's an Icon of the Top Fuel ranks.... He is very analytical when studying the reasons for crashes, and his reccomendations over the years have done much to improve the safety of both the tracks and the cars.... I've never ran top fuel, my fastest ride was in top alchohol but I will tell you this.....anyone who says he is NOT scared and most respectful of the inherent danger when they strap on one of these cars is either a fool or a liar......
It does look sooooooooo easy from the stands.......................
i agree dave nothing like a pair of 4 speed super stockers duking it out !!!
Don't you just know it. Front ends comin' up square with the world.....YEAH BABY....:DQuote:
Originally Posted by gassersrule_196
and they sure can drive. lot more going on, on the inside of a stick car then an auto during a race like that.
I don't disagree with your points at all. My point is that the NHRA has enough trouble attracting fans as it is. Start slowing these cars down and making the races even shorter with lose more fans. As for wanting to see someone go off the track because I'm against shortening the track is a crazy thought, I NEVER want to see these guys get hurt. Also, you must have missed where I said that bracket racing is probably pretty darn fun from a drivers point of view, but from sitting in the stands...I (just me) find it incredibly boring. It's hard to get excited for a 10 second run when I just watched some guy go 4.5 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
As for the cost, you can't control that. The market determines cost. These guys want to win so they'll spend more to go faster. Not to mention safety.
Me personally, I am totally against shortening the tracks. I am a huge fan of Jim Head as I have been watching this sport for over 20 years. Jim may just push for that solution.
However, the first thing everyone wants to do is slow these cars down or shorten the tracks. Instead, they all need to put their brains together and think of engineered safety solutions. They can still run these cars 1320' and stop them safely if they invent new ways to stop them. I promise you they haven't thought of everything yet. There will always be NEW ideas. Kinda like going to the moon, they said it could never be done and they found a way to do it. But to say there isn't much they can do because the chutes burned off or they have the kevlar brakes so that's the best, is just limiting yourself. Invent a chute that DOESNT burn or invent new braking systems OR a new stopping medium at the tracks that can't be lengthened.
I know they can find a better and safer way to stop these cars. they'll figure it out just like they found ways to get these cars to go faster and faster.
737Pilot. No. Everyone doesn't want to slow these cars down or shorten the tracks. We want to save the driver's lives. NHRA had best do what Nascar did after losing several of their own. Look at the Allison family. They must do whatever is necessary even if it involves shortening the tracks and at whatever cost. Again, look at Nascar. Now, I have to go get my lip sewn up where I bit through it.