I was just wondering what thoughts people here are having as regards the new 1000' format for NHRA.

 

I know this might be viewed as "blindmans editorializing",(as i've never done Jersey or had a real good look at what's on the other side of the barrier besides that crane),but personally,I don't see it as anything more than a "kneejerk" attempt to make it look as if they are doing something regarding top end safety after the tragic loss of S.K. at Jersey.

 

I mean does anyone really think that 320' less track wpuld have saved him or E.M. or anyone who has been involved in a top end incident in a Fuel car in the last few years?

 

It appears to me that the "Concrete Barrier" was the real culprit here. A flip in a sandbox would certainly have been more user friendly than an "instastop" against a concrete barrier.

They still have the same length of shutdown area as the 50's when they went 120mph.  They need to step up and make these tracks longer and safer, I have raced on over 40 different tracks over the years and haven't seen many up to the task correctly.  Have they ever heard of safer barriers like nascar? the sure would help in a case as Scotts, whats with that tracks curving wall in the shutdown area anyway? it looks to me  they have a forrest behind it, why can't they cut down a few trees to save a life?  I personally have slowed down from s/c to a s/st car as some of the s/c cars are running 200mph and I didn't want to get rearended by one as mine was much slower.   Tom S. S/ST 4662

Also, if that race had been for 1000', Scott would have tossed the laundry and shut off the fuel, by the time he reached the spot where the engine, actually let go. In that situation, the engine would have probably still expired, but with the fuel supply shut off, there wouldn't have been an engine explosion. I applaud NHRA for listening to the racers that were in favor of shortening fuel races to 1000'! 

To be honest i dont think it was the wall that killed him. But it is something to blame. That track isnt to far from me and the stoping distance is fine. I dont like that idea of hitting a wall either but even with more stoping distance i really dont think it would have made the difference he would have just gone out into the trees. Its a shame what happened to Scott and i wish it never happened but the sport is dangerous and he knew that. I dont like the 1000 foot racing idea but until the cars are a bit safer i guess its a good idea.

I watched the film of the accident, probably a dozen times. The engine exploded violently, just before the quarter mile mark, and I believe that the explosion knocked him out. Had it been a race to the 1000', he would have already dropped the chutes and shut off the fuel, so he would have been able to stop the car well before the concrete wall, or net post, which ever is the case.

I think the decision to shorten the race to a 1000' was "political", but under the circumstance, the correct one. There certainly would be "hell to pay" if they had done nothing, and a second incident occurs that could be attributed to shut down.

 

I would agree that many,if not all "National Event" tracks could improve their ability to safely stop a car.

 

Now then, I believe the reality of the game is along the same lines as aviation safety. The safety rules and measures in place at most tracks is more than adaquate to cover most everything that could go wrong. It is only when several things go wrong at the same time that aircraft and race cars crash.

 

The cars themselves are constantly evolving to better protect the driver. Better methods are being introduced at tracks when the need is known, and technology is available.

 

None the less, auto racing, drag racing and pro level racing is and always will be dangerous. We can certainly continue to make improvements to safety measures, but I just don't see it ever being without risk.

 

So, whether or not shortening the track to 1000' will be a permanent fix, I don't know. But, by itself, I don't think it would go far to improve top end safety. Crew chiefs will find ways to get 1/4 mile times and speed at the 1,000' mark.

 

Slowing the cars down has been an option for a long time, but everytime something is done to do so, racers find a way to go even faster within the new rules.

 

Racers will alway "push the envelope" of speed and safety. It is the nature of the people that race.

 

Ken Gasbarri

I just read a book yesterday called "Fuel and Guts"

In the book there was a reference to the "1000' fuse",what that meant in the 60's was if the car ran to a 1000' without tossing the wheezer or kicking out the rods,it was gonna be okay keeping your foot in it for the last 320'. LOL

Somehow I don't think that really holds true today any more than it prolly did then.

 

On a more serious note, I was surfing the web the other day and found a video of Johnny West at Jersey, back in the 80's going through an eerily similar chain of events.

The car launches heads down track,bangs the blower and "slaps" the right hand guardrail and proceeds to motor all the way to the end and smack the shit out of the guardrail where it turns left ""INTO THE CARS PATH"" just like the Kalitta deal,but without the ensuing explosion.

The difference then was only that the car wasn't going nearly as fast when it hit the end(cars weren't as fast then) and the guardrail wasn't CONCRETE but Armco,  however,-----THE GUARDRAIL------ WAS THE SAME THEN AS IT IS NOW ------------ except Armco is somewhat softer.

It still goes to the end and makes a turn to the left directly into the drivers path.

Now I'm sittin' here pondering,what would the NHRA have done then, if Johnnys car having  had a violent blower explosion had been killed at the end of his incident after hitting the Armco.

Personaly I don't really see the 1000' deal to be a solution to the problem.

Fuel pilots have been dealing with tire shake knockouts and blower bang knockouts  and swatting the guardrail knockouts with the  the cars continuing down track since the beggining of running fuel.

 

I have seen several videos over the years of drivers gettin' spanked into unconciousness and motoring right on down. Gene Snows AA/FD deal where he smacked the rail and ran til a light pole stopped him(albeit not at wfo anymore) the kid on one of the crash videos in a AA/FC where tire shake knocked him out and the blower banged and he rolled to the end with the fire getting bigger bumping the gaurdrail til it stopped with the car totally engulfed and the fire bottles blew up,the poor gal at Tulsa a few years ago whos A/FD stood up and did a pirouette at the far end and came right back down track to the starting line balls out and drove through the tow car and several more I can't recall directly at this time.

 

My point ,I guess, is that we all know when we strap race cars on that anything can happen at any time and shortening the track 320' seems  like a ""RED HERRING"" solution to the problem of the guardrail TURNING DIRECTLY INTO AN UNCONCIOUS DRIVERS PATH. 

If the idea is to shorten the track to make 'em safer then why not go all the way?Say 660'.

 

ask Don Gay Jr about it, I was there in Denver at the top end when he almost died. not a pretty sight. bouncing off anything that hard is easy to get knocked out