..... the DISTANCE of things to come.....
07-02-2008, 07:33 PM
#1
Race Director
Thread Starter
..... the DISTANCE of things to come.....
http://www.competitionplus.com/index...=7002&Itemid=6
If the Fuel-cars are going to it, it's probably a good-bet that we'll be going to it in the future, as-well.
I'm often critical (and rightly-so) of Glendora, but at-least this-time, they are being PROactive instead-of REactive, and I applaud their efforts:
I hereby grant His Dimness and One-for-the-Road a 24-hour stay-of-execution (but it's still daylight here, and they are capable of screwing-up yet today)
If the Fuel-cars are going to it, it's probably a good-bet that we'll be going to it in the future, as-well.
I'm often critical (and rightly-so) of Glendora, but at-least this-time, they are being PROactive instead-of REactive, and I applaud their efforts:
I hereby grant His Dimness and One-for-the-Road a 24-hour stay-of-execution (but it's still daylight here, and they are capable of screwing-up yet today)
07-02-2008, 08:21 PM
#2
Race Director
I agree...when drag racing started it could have been any distance...the fact that it is 1320 is just a number....I have come to really enjoy 1/8 mile racing so 1000' is no big deal to me...I have no doubt in my mind that within a very short time this shorter distance will be acepted wholeheartedly by all racers...
Look at it this way....it's more exciting, safer, less catastrophic failures, uses less fuel and the event takes less time to run...yes, it is a bit harder to race the shorter distances but once you get proficient you are a much better racer...one thing is for sure, you better be able to hit that tree real good because .050 lights don't get it at 660 or 1000"....
Look at it this way....it's more exciting, safer, less catastrophic failures, uses less fuel and the event takes less time to run...yes, it is a bit harder to race the shorter distances but once you get proficient you are a much better racer...one thing is for sure, you better be able to hit that tree real good because .050 lights don't get it at 660 or 1000"....
07-02-2008, 09:38 PM
#3
Team Owner
Does this mean EVERYONE is happy for now???? 
07-02-2008, 10:08 PM
#4
Race Director
Thread Starter
from the Official NHRA Press release:
“The board members of the Professional Racers Owners Organization (PRO) wholeheartedly and unanimously support this decision,” said its president Kenny Bernstein.
..... YES..... it sounds-like the drivers, who pilot these cars on tracks built when speeds were 220, not 320 MPH, are happy.
“The board members of the Professional Racers Owners Organization (PRO) wholeheartedly and unanimously support this decision,” said its president Kenny Bernstein.
..... YES..... it sounds-like the drivers, who pilot these cars on tracks built when speeds were 220, not 320 MPH, are happy.
Last edited by Glensgages; 07-03-2008 at 06:08 AM.
07-03-2008, 12:14 AM
#5
Team Owner
Personally, I'd rather see them just detune the cars/limit their power than shorten the 1/4 mile to only 1000'. 
When Indy cars got too fast they didn't simply shorten the straightaways at the Brickyard LOL.
When Indy cars got too fast they didn't simply shorten the straightaways at the Brickyard LOL.
07-03-2008, 09:29 AM
#6
Team Owner
I think the 1000' idea is a wonderful temporary solution, while sharper minds (Jim Head, et al) come up with a better shutdown and arresting system. These things take time to come up with and implement, and things can't continue the way they are in the meantime at the risk of losing another driver. I applaud PRO for standing up to NHRA (for the first time on record, maybe Dr's can find a spine in KB), and NHRA for listening. I don't think 1000' racing is THE solution, but its best short term solution we have
07-03-2008, 12:55 PM
#7
Team Owner
I think the 1000' idea is a wonderful temporary solution, while sharper minds (Jim Head, et al) come up with a better shutdown and arresting system. These things take time to come up with and implement, and things can't continue the way they are in the meantime at the risk of losing another driver. I applaud PRO for standing up to NHRA (for the first time on record, maybe Dr's can find a spine in KB), and NHRA for listening. I don't think 1000' racing is THE solution, but its best short term solution we have
07-05-2008, 03:52 PM
#9
Race Director
Thread Starter
Jon Asher Speaks
noted drag-racing writer Jon Asher, who isn't afraid to ruffle-feathers and rarely minces-words, recently posted this at the mater:
It is far easier to say you’re going to stop using a certain track for a national event than it is to find a suitable replacement.
National Trail Raceway was too short 15 years ago – and Norwalk is not just an adequate replacement, it’s far better in every way imaginable. With that said, Norwalk is still a bit shorter than the ideal, and there’s absolutely no room for expansion. The airport’s in the way.
Starting at the top:
Pomona is up against public roads and can’t be lengthened because of it.
Gainesville might be able to purchase additional room for shutoff at the far end, but I’m not certain of that.
Englishtown, well, we know about the trees and neighbors, so there’s no room there.
Bandimere Speedway can’t physically expand either. Neither can Las Vegas – unless you can get someone to move Interstate 15.
And there are others, of course.
It’s been said before, but it’s definitely true that most of the tracks we race on were built long before there were 330 mph speeds, so we have to deal with the race plants that are already in existence.
..... I do not believe shortening the race distance to 1,000 feet will negatively impact either the TV audience or the sponsors. There is absolutely no reason to think that the sponsors would even care, much less even know about it.
Secondly, asking tuners to race at 1,000 feet this week and 1,320 feet the next is just asking for more parts breakage as they try to adjust back and forth.
Besides, if the 1,000 foot thing remains in effect for long the tuners will quickly build combinations specifically for that, and they won’t want to swap back and forth.
~Jon Asher~
National Trail Raceway was too short 15 years ago – and Norwalk is not just an adequate replacement, it’s far better in every way imaginable. With that said, Norwalk is still a bit shorter than the ideal, and there’s absolutely no room for expansion. The airport’s in the way.
Starting at the top:
Pomona is up against public roads and can’t be lengthened because of it.
Gainesville might be able to purchase additional room for shutoff at the far end, but I’m not certain of that.
Englishtown, well, we know about the trees and neighbors, so there’s no room there.
Bandimere Speedway can’t physically expand either. Neither can Las Vegas – unless you can get someone to move Interstate 15.
And there are others, of course.
It’s been said before, but it’s definitely true that most of the tracks we race on were built long before there were 330 mph speeds, so we have to deal with the race plants that are already in existence.
..... I do not believe shortening the race distance to 1,000 feet will negatively impact either the TV audience or the sponsors. There is absolutely no reason to think that the sponsors would even care, much less even know about it.
Secondly, asking tuners to race at 1,000 feet this week and 1,320 feet the next is just asking for more parts breakage as they try to adjust back and forth.
Besides, if the 1,000 foot thing remains in effect for long the tuners will quickly build combinations specifically for that, and they won’t want to swap back and forth.
~Jon Asher~