TheSamba.com :: View topic

Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:01 pm

mynameismud wrote: come on...Giant Marshmellows..how awesome would that be..

OK...that would be cool. :wink:

Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:21 pm

In that class the cutoff is about 4.85 seconds in the 1/4 mile. At that speed and time your eyes are gone. You got stop racing or your blind.

Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:40 pm

Ghoti wrote: It seems by your avatar that you have been down a drag strip. Then you know that a drag strip is .25 miles (1/4 mile) or 1320 feet. If you will look back at my post, I said there could be cables at .3 miles or 1760 feet; well beyond the finish line. If they coast further than that, fine...make it further.

So the cables would not be on the track. If there is a wall at 2000 feet, it seems logical to have another safety device at 1900 feet that could save a life. It would add not even add 20 pounds to the car. Of course, there is no reason for most cars to have such a device.

Y'know, the Navy has the solution, when the tailhook doesn't work:

Might need a little revamping to stop things without wings, but the basic idea is viable. All it takes is $$$

Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:26 am

The "1000 ft option" would not be safe at E town either. Its only 300 feet less than they run now. Ever consider how fast they cover 300 feet at 300+ MPH? It would have made 0 difference in Scotty's outcome.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:43 am

300mph is 440 feet per second. Things happen pretty quick at those speeds.

I think after this incident there are only two options.

1, slow the cars down. This only ever works for a short time until technology pushes the speeds back up.

2, don't run 300mph cars at this type of facility. I think this will be the result choosen by NHRA and also probably by the track.

This track has no option to extend the run off area. They just don't have the real estate to do it. So they need to limit the level of competitor they bring in for their shows.

This has always been an issue at this track. Its just surprizing it took this long for something to happen to put the problem in the spot light. If you talk to guys who run low times, they really don't like running there, but the history of the place keeps them coming back.

While drag strip safety has increased over the years, its easy to see that the cars have exceeded the reasonable limits of some of the facilities.

How much faster can they go? This question has been asked since the first two cars pulled away from the line. But we are now at a point where the physical limits of the human body are being exceeded.

Yes the cars can go faster, but the toll on the drivers leaving the line is reaching the point that the body can't take it.

It will be interesting to see the results and how things are handled after this one.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:39 am

Ghoti wrote: It seems by your avatar that you have been down a drag strip.

And I can tell you haven't been, so trust me that I have the experience to say it's not a viable option.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:48 am

Eric is right. at that speed you would loose control if you missed the hook.
Besides that an arresting cable is a very expensive and complicated piece of hardware. Probably would cost millions of dollars to install.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:53 am

Ghoti wrote: If you will look back at my post, I said there could be cables at .3 miles or 1760 feet; well beyond the finish line. If they coast further than that, fine...make it further.

For some perspective for you, our local track that I run at has a shutdown area that is 2,670 feet. The 9 second cars use most of that slowing down (granted they aren't 'hard' on the brakes like a panic stop of course). Think about how fast these cars are still going at only 440 feet past the finish line. The cars are still hauling ass.

The sand traps are right after the last turnout area as it is. You aren't going to go having cables draped across anywhere that cars are normally going to be driving. That's a basic fact.

But, the logistics are, what do you replace the sand trap with? All this high tech cable stuff is great, but then realize that these tracks are only seeing the top fuel guys a couple times a year as it is. Look at the logistics of it and you'll see it is not a viable option.

What it comes down to is these drivers KNOW the risks, and they damned well knew the risks of running at this particular track. They choose to run it anyway. Every now and then, things are going to happen. It's not an everyday occurance, that's why it's such a big deal.

I wish people would stop trying to build a Nerf world. Know the risks going into a situation, and if something happens, you accept those consequences. That's what top fuel drivers do. Aircraft pilots do, scuba divers do, rock climbers do, etc, etc. You want to be safe, stay at home on the couch with the power and gas turned off to your house.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:58 am

Eaallred wrote:
But, the logistics are, what do you replace the sand trap with? All this high tech cable stuff is great, but then realize that these tracks are only seeing the top fuel guys a couple times a year as it is. Look at the logistics of it and you'll see it is not a viable option.
.

Marshmellows, Jello....or

Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:06 am

1000' won't make any difference and won't save any lives. The crews will just change ring & pinion gears and be running 297 MPH. The extra 320' will be covered in less then 3/4 of 1 second at those speeds. The only solution is to quit racing fuel cars at any track less then 4000'

Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:19 am

Eaallred wrote:
I wish people would stop trying to build a Nerf world. Know the risks going into a situation, and if something happens, you accept those consequences.

Best comment yet.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:34 am

What about remote driving? The driver could sit in the remote cockpit at the side of the track and still stage, race, and recover. If there is a problem the car might be a loss but the driver unplugs and is ok. Why didn't anyone think of this before? O yeah, because racing is fun and risk brings excitement.

NERF WORLD!

Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:05 am

My brother used to have a drag strip Xmas tree in his living room.
With 2 pushbuttons attached. You could do launches from the couch, and it would time you. Can't get much safer than that.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:19 am

russell wrote: turboblue wrote: The interview with Jim Head was very enlightening.
These tracks were built in the '50s-'60s for cars barely making 200mph.
Today's fuel cars are traveling in excess off 330 mph.
Even thought today's 'chutes and brakes are much, much better, that window of safe deployment is much smaller.

Run the classes to 1000' and call it good.
The fans would still get a good show and the cars would have that extra margin to slow down.

sure that sounds all safe and fun, but when it comes to newer tracks that are meant for the speeds, i have to say i disagree.

tracks like englishtown, like was said were built when cars were barely going over 200, now that we're well into the 300's, this can cause a problem. now i can't see nhra leaving englishtown due to its history with the NHRA, but i think they need to do the 1000 foot there. if they do the 1000 foot at the shorter shutdown tracks, this would be perfect. but tracks such as Sears point (i'll never call it infineon) and indianapolis with the big shutdown areas, they should run the full quarter, which is what the people want to see. i know that infineon basically has a whole 'nother quartermile til the end of the sanpit, possibly more, after the finish line to slow down at, and i know many other tracks have since been updated for these speeds, but the tracks that haven't definitly should consider doing the 1000 foot races at

Did you see the interview with Jim Head?
He says and most others that follow this sport will agree the most engine damage and problems occur the last 300'.
Hell most fuel cars that are hooked up with all the candles klit hit the rev limiter before the finish.
That certainly causes problems at times.

I'd rather see a safe race with less oil downs than have a chance of this happening again.

You ever been to Indy?
It's no longer than most others and there is a tree line and a rail crossing just beyond the end.

Running 1000' at some tracks and 1320' at others doesn't make a lot of sense.
Take away the markers and you can't tell the difference between 1000' and 1320'.

vwracerdave wrote: 1000' won't make any difference and won't save any lives. The crews will just change ring & pinion gears and be running 297 MPH. The extra 320' will be covered in less then 3/4 of 1 second at those speeds. The only solution is to quit racing fuel cars at any track less then 4000'

Changing r&p won't do anything but blow the cars up before the finish.
They have rev limiters now that are usually hit before the finish now.
Lower the gear ratios and you might as well run 1/8 mile.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:47 pm

Jimmy111 wrote: Eric is right. at that speed you would loose control if you missed the hook.
Besides that an arresting cable is a very expensive and complicated piece of hardware. Probably would cost millions of dollars to install.

Arresting cables on aircraft carriers are expensive because they have to cycle quickly. Arresting barriers on land-based runways are simple. They are simply attached to a length of very large chain on both sides of the runway. If the cable is caught, the chain is accelerated a link at a time, and as the cable is pulled along the rate of acceleration is limited by the way that the chain is laid out next to the runway.

On a dragstrip this could be even simpler, since the barrier doesn't have to be retracted during normal operation. The barrier could simply be installed on permanent poles. The only modification would be to redesign the barrier to catch and hold a car.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:51 pm

GeorgeL wrote: Jimmy111 wrote: Eric is right. at that speed you would loose control if you missed the hook.
Besides that an arresting cable is a very expensive and complicated piece of hardware. Probably would cost millions of dollars to install.

Arresting cables on aircraft carriers are expensive because they have to cycle quickly.

:? I was stationed on a carrier and also attained the Aviation Warfare Specialist certification, which means I had to be able to explain how a lot of aviation related system operated. Please elaborate.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:54 pm

Icy wrote: GeorgeL wrote: Jimmy111 wrote: Eric is right. at that speed you would loose control if you missed the hook.
Besides that an arresting cable is a very expensive and complicated piece of hardware. Probably would cost millions of dollars to install.

Arresting cables on aircraft carriers are expensive because they have to cycle quickly.

:? I was stationed on a carrier and also attained the Aviation Warfare Specialist certification, which means I had to be able to explain how a lot of aviation related system operated. Please elaborate.

After one aircraft is trapped, the cable has to retract and be ready to receive the next aircraft as soon as the first aircraft is clear.

In a racetrack barrier system this isn't needed, unless the intent to use the system as the normal method of braking. Now, _that_ would be scary!

Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:57 pm

Oh, before the question is asked, the other end of the chain used on land-based arresting barriers isn't attached to anything. The plane is decelerated by accelerating the very heavy chain, link by link.

Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:09 pm

Russ Wolfe wrote: My brother used to have a drag strip Xmas tree in his living room.
With 2 pushbuttons attached. You could do launches from the couch, and it would time you. Can't get much safer than that.

There's still the dangers of arteriosclerosis and cirrhosis of the liver...

Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:14 pm

damitboy wrote: The "1000 ft option" would not be safe at E town either. Its only 300 feet less than they run now. Ever consider how fast they cover 300 feet at 300+ MPH? It would have made 0 difference in Scotty's outcome.

Yeah but it blew up in the lights.
If he had lifted at 1000', it may.......and I stress may.......have stayed intact.

There is a lot of difference in the MPH at 1000' vs 1320'.