StillenMustang07

Just wont be the same Fix the situation at the track dont change the sport. Even the drivers believe the runoff area isnt long enough at that track.

I sent an e-mail to NHRA on this exact issue. Personally, I think that rather that cut the length of the track to 1000 feet, why not require some sort of radio transmit of a chute deployment system at the end of the track. If a driver for some reason wasn’t able to deploy the chutes on his car, an RF signal would automatically deploy the chutes. Maybe make the system such that if the car is traveling at below some predetermined speed (say less than 150MPH) the chutes wouldn’t automatically deploy. This would prevent the chutes from popping on cars that didn’t complete a run and weren’t traveling fast enough to make it to the end of the track anyway.

Cutting the distance isnt a good solution.

Page

****
By DALE JEWETT - The NHRA has cut the race distance for its Top Fuel and Funny Car classes to 1,000 feet--320 feet short of a quarter-mile--as a safety measure in the wake of the death of racer Scott Kalitta nearly two weeks ago.

The shorter race distance takes effect with the Mopar Mile Hile Nationals in Denver, Colorado, on July 11-13.

Shortening the race distance will give the Funny Car and Top Fuel dragsters more runoff room after the finish line.

Kalitta died on June 21 in Englishtown, New Jersey, when his Funny Car engine exploded during a qualifying run. Kalitta's car ran off the end of the track, through a sand pit and crashed into a wall. The car's parachutes did not deploy. Kalitta, 46, was taken to a nearby hospital and declared dead.

After Kalitta's crash, several drivers complained that the runoff area at the Englishtown track was not long enough.

The NHRA said the change was made in collaboration with the race teams.

"With the change, fans will still be able to enjoy the sights, sounds and thrill of NHRA nitro racing with speeds around 300 mph and quick elapsed times to 1,000 feet," the NHRA said in a statement.

The NHRA said it is looking at the following issues as it investigates Kalitta's crash:

-- How to reduce engine failures.

-- Parachute mounting techniques and materials.

-- Increasing braking efficiency when downforce is lost due to a car body being lost.

-- New ways to stop runaway vehicles at the end of the track.

-- Considering the need to reduce speeds for more safety.

Drag racing legend Kenny Bernstein, president of the Professional Racers Owners Organization, said the group supports the change.

"It is not lost on any of us that this constitutes a change in our history of running a quarter-mile, but it's the most immediate adjustment we can make in the interest of safety which is foremost on everyone's mind," Bernstein said in a statement. "This may be a temporary change and we recognize it is not the total answer."

theedge67

Monster Trucks have remote engine shutoffs, why can't fuel cars have remote parachute controls? For that matter, remote brake controls? A nearby safety team member could have the emergency button ready, and if triggered it activates the brakes and parachutes. Pretty simple.

Glenn

why not lenghten the shut down area. I guess cost and room would be a factor. Why not just do the 1000 foot at tracks with the short shut down area. 1000 foot just not right imo

StillenMustang07

From some of the discussion I have heard on this subject, I guess some of the top fuel teams have been talking about this for a while. Seems like most of the damage caused to engines (explosions, etc) happens after the 1000 foot mark. I guess as things get faster and faster, something has to give. There has to be SOME point at where there is no way to make it safe for the driver (or the spectators for that matter).

Moosetang

They needed an immediate solution, and shortening the races can be done immediately. Its only a temporary solution to buy time for the series to decide what to do going forward. Eventually, they'll return to 1/4 mile runs, but only after they've implemented more extensive and time consuming changes.

codeman94

That becuase they are getting every possible MPH out of that engine....it will still happen with a shorter track, just sooner becuase they will continue to run the same rpm with different gears...

SAFER barrier anyone?...a really really think one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He18A...eature=related

kenb0218

Why 1000 ft ?

Why not just make every track 1/8 mile ?

Gives you plenty of room for run out.

2k7gtcs

Very horrible situation, but its like shortening the Kentucky Derby to a 1/2 mile because that philly maybe wouldn't have broken her ankles then. Or shortening the Indy 500 to 250 because your twice as likely to have a fatal wreck in 500 miles than at 250 miles. A 1/4 mile is a 1/4 mile. I could understand if it was temporary, but by no means permanent. There are tons of good ideas on this page of the thread alone.

StangMahn

^+1, I think it's stupid to shorten it to 1000, it's been 1/4 mile forever, thats the way it should be, now you're going to have to add another record book section. it's pretty stupid, if the runoffs arent long enough, lengthen them, or dont visit that racetrack until they've been lengthened. the remote chutes would be good. it's just the NHRA making to quick of a decision

StillenMustang07

Not so sure a remote chute would work well. Consider that at 300 MPH, the car is travling at about 440' per second. Would have to be something quicker. I wouldnt want to depend on some guy with a trigger in his hand as I am screaming down the track out of control at over 400 feet per second

StangMahn

well, you could do like a distance thing, where the car knows how far it is down the track

StillenMustang07

Agreed - I think an RF type transmitter and some sort of sensing device in/on the track to keep track of the car. I am sure these are ALL things that the NHRA are considering.

habu

I've been stubbornly opposed 1000' ft racing when it first came up when 300 was becoming a big deal. NHRA changed the rear end ratio from 3.20 to 2.90 and it was a big deal. I even canceled my ND subscription over it.


But this is a different story now. Most of the short tracks, Englishtown, Pomona, were built back when 230 was fast and they are just not meant to hold the 330+ we see now. Can anyone honestly tell at a 1/4 mile away the difference between 300 and 330 ??. These drivers and teams are putting their lives on the line for our entertainment and most of them agree with the change. I'm not going to argue with the people that do this for a living. They are almost all onboard and that should speak volumes.

I don't think the remote parachute could work, Scott's body helped prevent the 'chute from coming out, along with the fire. We don't know if the brakes where operational. There are several things that we don't know and until we know and have a solution racing to 1000' is something. It gives them a little more time to get things slowed down to save another life. Losing 3 drivers in less than 4 years is not acceptable.

Having said all of that this blog does it better than I could

http://blogs.nhra.com/nhrablogs.asp?blog=csk

theedge67

Does anyone actually think that 320 extra feet of shutdown area would have helped Scott? Extra shutdown area will only help if you are actually slowing down, which he was not.

Now it may help prevent some engines from blowing up at the end of the track, sure. But more shutdown area would not have helped in this situation. A BETTER shutdown area, with safety features to help stop a runaway car could have helped.

What about those huge nets used to stop runaway planes on an aircraft carrier? If it can stop a huge jet, it can stop a lightweight car.

GRAYPNY

Hey Page, do you think you could make your replies alittle smaller. Man I'm 61 years old and can hardly even see them let alone read them.

BTW the track needs to be a 1/4 mile, 1320 feet, 15,840 inches, not 1000 feet. Lengthen the shut down area. It's not they are going to run into someone's house!

Black331

Exactly, this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, they just ruined NHRA racing, now the numbers don't mean anything, they will still be going over 300mph, the NHRA just needs to stop racing on unsafe tracks.

I can just hear it now, every idiot will be talking about all the new records set...

2k7gtcs

If 300 mph is 440' per second, they just bought less than a second, provided brakes and chute don't work. There is a better way to do this. I don't see that they have solved much of anything in the short run. Stop racing if its such a problem, but that is not an option. These drivers, crews, and track employees and vendors need to eat. Its not a good situation, but honestly this is the last answer I would have expected.

StangMahn

the engineers are so advanced, that they will quickly be running 300+ in 1000' anyway. the power the engine produces is highly limited by what the tires can take. I dont see where the extra 320' is going to make that much of a difference. The problem with Kalitta is that, not only did his brakes not work correctly, and the parachutes not open, but instead of slowing down when getting to the sand trap, he was launched into the air. The track length isnt going to make much difference, it's whats at the end of the track

habu

Here for those of you saying that "it'll ruin drag racing"...

This is a post from the famed chassis builder Al Hanna.
from nitromater.com

Now, I would absolutely rather have 1320 feet, 1/4 mile drag racing. It IS what drag racing is. However, if we need to have 1000 feet racing until a solution is reached, then it is what we need.

Evil_Capri

Moving to the Motorsports section . . .