A current good run is in the low 3.7XX second range.
Even though Finals Eliminations are tomorrow, Tony wrapped up the TF Championship today.
Even though Finals Eliminations are tomorrow, Tony wrapped up the TF Championship today.
What does 10,000hp cost ?
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 02SE
A current good run is in the low 3.7XX second range.
Even though Finals Eliminations are tomorrow, Tony wrapped up the TF Championship today.
I went to my first race at Pomona ~10 years ago on their dime with my college. Sat through a speech from the Army and Tony talked to us along with his crew chief. It was really cool, and I have made it a point to go whenever I can since.
A current good run is in the low 3.7XX second range.
Even though Finals Eliminations are tomorrow, Tony wrapped up the TF Championship today.
I went to my first race at Pomona ~10 years ago on their dime with my college. Sat through a speech from the Army and Tony talked to us along with his crew chief. It was really cool, and I have made it a point to go whenever I can since.
1000 ft. drags are an abomination.
Downsize the engines, limit nitro load, limit blower size.
It's kind of silly sitting 5 minutes between each run to watch one car make a 3.something second pass, and the other car either blows the engine or goes up in smoke. NHRA should take steps to increase the ET's so the fans get their money's worth.
Downsize the engines, limit nitro load, limit blower size.
It's kind of silly sitting 5 minutes between each run to watch one car make a 3.something second pass, and the other car either blows the engine or goes up in smoke. NHRA should take steps to increase the ET's so the fans get their money's worth.
I think I've said this before on here, but I'd like to see the real issue fixed. Ie: lack of run-off at some of the tracks. The reason we are currently running 1000 ft, is because of the untimely demise of Scott, at E-town.
I would like to see the venues with short run-off improved, or removed from the tour. That isn't likely to happen because it would mean lost revenue.
There are a slew of regulations intended to slow the cars down already. We just keep experimenting to find ways to make them go quicker. Why?, because we all want to beat each other on race day.
I would like to see racing return to 1320 ft on tracks that can accommodate such runs. An end to a bunch of the existing regulations that have the affect of making tuning more difficult. Then we might see some really impressive passes.
Intentionally slowing the cars down, is counter-intuitive to what TF should be, IMO.
There are plenty of slower car classes, if watching a car mosey on down the track means getting your money's worth.
Occasionally I'll wander over to the track while the Sportsman classes are running, where there will be a handful of spectators in the stands. I notice that the stands fill up when the Fuel cars are going to run.
This is not a knock on the Sportsman classes, as they are enjoying themselves, too. It's just an observation of what the majority of spectators seem to want to see.
I would like to see the venues with short run-off improved, or removed from the tour. That isn't likely to happen because it would mean lost revenue.
There are a slew of regulations intended to slow the cars down already. We just keep experimenting to find ways to make them go quicker. Why?, because we all want to beat each other on race day.
I would like to see racing return to 1320 ft on tracks that can accommodate such runs. An end to a bunch of the existing regulations that have the affect of making tuning more difficult. Then we might see some really impressive passes.
Intentionally slowing the cars down, is counter-intuitive to what TF should be, IMO.
There are plenty of slower car classes, if watching a car mosey on down the track means getting your money's worth.
Occasionally I'll wander over to the track while the Sportsman classes are running, where there will be a handful of spectators in the stands. I notice that the stands fill up when the Fuel cars are going to run.
This is not a knock on the Sportsman classes, as they are enjoying themselves, too. It's just an observation of what the majority of spectators seem to want to see.
I would rather see the run-off situation fixed and have the cars run the full length. Eventually if they want it done they will have to be like NASCAR and the FIA and just not schedule tracks that do not meet safety regulations. Unfortunately Pomona would be on the chopping block so that will never happen.
NHRA can do all they want to slow the cars down, and the teams will do all they can to beat the car from the hauler next to theirs.
NHRA can do all they want to slow the cars down, and the teams will do all they can to beat the car from the hauler next to theirs.
I agree 100% on running the full 1/4 mile at tracks that have the room for the shutdown area. Regulating the cars to reduce power so they can run full passes at every track would be counter productive. Top Fuel is supposed to be the absolute crazy HP, quick beyond belief and now that we know what the cars can do currently, nobody would be happy going backwards in terms of performance just to run the full 1/4 mile.
I thought reducing the power would result in more engines blowing up.
Didn't they try less nitro a few years ago and found it didn't work
because the engines needed to accelerator hard, especially from
mid-track to traps when things get serious?
The speed up on the board is the trap speed, not the top speed of the vehicle.
If you calculate that speed in meters per second, adding 100 more meters
to the length of the race is not going to change the speed very much.
At 1000 feet, the cylinders are dropping and the RPM is max'd.
The only people who want another 320 feet added to the race
are the ones not paying the bills.
Didn't they try less nitro a few years ago and found it didn't work
because the engines needed to accelerator hard, especially from
mid-track to traps when things get serious?
The speed up on the board is the trap speed, not the top speed of the vehicle.
If you calculate that speed in meters per second, adding 100 more meters
to the length of the race is not going to change the speed very much.
At 1000 feet, the cylinders are dropping and the RPM is max'd.
The only people who want another 320 feet added to the race
are the ones not paying the bills.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
I thought reducing the power would result in more engines blowing up.
Didn't they try less nitro a few years ago and found it didn't work
The only people who want another 320 feet added to the race
are the ones not paying the bills.
A few years back when we had to run 85% everywhere but Denver, there was more mechanical carnage. The reason was because you had to run the engine in a higher state of tune, if you wanted to be competitive with all the other teams that were trying to find an edge over the competition. This was particularly hard on the underfunded teams, that didn't have the budget to run their engines that hard. I know of several teams that severely curtailed their participation in TF, as a result of the expense of that era. Of course the ever-changing regulations also had/have that effect on the underfunded teams.
As for not wanting to run the full 1320, there are a few fellow racers who I am convinced are afraid of their cars, and should seriously consider another line of work. No names, as that would open a potential can of worms. But rest assured there are still some real racers that want to return to running the full 1320 ft, despite the added expense.
I thought reducing the power would result in more engines blowing up.
Didn't they try less nitro a few years ago and found it didn't work
The only people who want another 320 feet added to the race
are the ones not paying the bills.
A few years back when we had to run 85% everywhere but Denver, there was more mechanical carnage. The reason was because you had to run the engine in a higher state of tune, if you wanted to be competitive with all the other teams that were trying to find an edge over the competition. This was particularly hard on the underfunded teams, that didn't have the budget to run their engines that hard. I know of several teams that severely curtailed their participation in TF, as a result of the expense of that era. Of course the ever-changing regulations also had/have that effect on the underfunded teams.
As for not wanting to run the full 1320, there are a few fellow racers who I am convinced are afraid of their cars, and should seriously consider another line of work. No names, as that would open a potential can of worms. But rest assured there are still some real racers that want to return to running the full 1320 ft, despite the added expense.
True enough, but could the less "well funded" teams afford the cost of an additional 600 RPM?
Can any team afford the additional cost?
The TF vehicles are already exiting the traps at 330-340 MPH.
Add another .5 second and you will see 360-380 MPH.
One solution would be to add $40.00 to the price of admission, which would cover the
additional cost of 1320'.
Half of that would go towards increased insurance, the other half to the teams.
The race would be delayed for additional clean-up which degrades the entertainment value.
Do the "racers/drivers want the 1320', the fix-it crew, the sponsors, the team owners, or the fans?
From which vantage point could a person tell the difference between 332 MPH and 350 MPH?
Can any team afford the additional cost?
The TF vehicles are already exiting the traps at 330-340 MPH.
Add another .5 second and you will see 360-380 MPH.
One solution would be to add $40.00 to the price of admission, which would cover the
additional cost of 1320'.
Half of that would go towards increased insurance, the other half to the teams.
The race would be delayed for additional clean-up which degrades the entertainment value.
Do the "racers/drivers want the 1320', the fix-it crew, the sponsors, the team owners, or the fans?
From which vantage point could a person tell the difference between 332 MPH and 350 MPH?
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: used_0il
True enough, but could the less "well funded" teams afford the cost of an additional 600 RPM? It has never been a cheap sport. Additionally, the mandatory 3.20 axle ratio is one of those regulations I and many of my colleagues would like to see disappear.
Can any team afford the additional cost? Yes.
The TF vehicles are already exiting the traps at 330-340 MPH. In the 1000 ft era, 334.15 mph is the best trap speed I can recall off the top of my head.
Add another .5 second and you will see 360-380 MPH. Again, current regulations limit their acceleration. There are several regulations I'd like to see disappear. If that happened, I think a full 1320 pass could be run at close to 4.00 in the near future.
One solution would be to add $40.00 to the price of admission, which would cover the
additional cost of 1320'.
Half of that would go towards increased insurance, the other half to the teams.
The race would be delayed for additional clean-up which degrades the entertainment value. As I said, there are current regulations which make the cars more difficult to tune. Eliminate those regulations, and I think they would become less finicky.
Do the "racers/drivers want the 1320', the fix-it crew, the sponsors, the team owners, or the fans? Already answered in my previous post.
From which vantage point could a person tell the difference between 332 MPH and 350 MPH? Standing on the line, or at the top end of the track, you can tell whether a given run is good, average, or bad. I've never sat in the stands during a Fuel Car pass, or watched them on TV, so I can't say whether the spectators can tell the difference between an average and good run.
Anyway, this season is over. Time for a break over the Holidays, before testing resumes in January.
True enough, but could the less "well funded" teams afford the cost of an additional 600 RPM? It has never been a cheap sport. Additionally, the mandatory 3.20 axle ratio is one of those regulations I and many of my colleagues would like to see disappear.
Can any team afford the additional cost? Yes.
The TF vehicles are already exiting the traps at 330-340 MPH. In the 1000 ft era, 334.15 mph is the best trap speed I can recall off the top of my head.
Add another .5 second and you will see 360-380 MPH. Again, current regulations limit their acceleration. There are several regulations I'd like to see disappear. If that happened, I think a full 1320 pass could be run at close to 4.00 in the near future.
One solution would be to add $40.00 to the price of admission, which would cover the
additional cost of 1320'.
Half of that would go towards increased insurance, the other half to the teams.
The race would be delayed for additional clean-up which degrades the entertainment value. As I said, there are current regulations which make the cars more difficult to tune. Eliminate those regulations, and I think they would become less finicky.
Do the "racers/drivers want the 1320', the fix-it crew, the sponsors, the team owners, or the fans? Already answered in my previous post.
From which vantage point could a person tell the difference between 332 MPH and 350 MPH? Standing on the line, or at the top end of the track, you can tell whether a given run is good, average, or bad. I've never sat in the stands during a Fuel Car pass, or watched them on TV, so I can't say whether the spectators can tell the difference between an average and good run.
Anyway, this season is over. Time for a break over the Holidays, before testing resumes in January.
334 mph is the average speed through the trap.
That would suggest a 340+ MPH exit speed.
That is 500 feet per second.
Accelerating for another 320 feet is going to add about .35 seconds to 3.65.
Would you want a friend or relative going 380?
There is nothing more annoying than an armchair quarterback.
That would suggest a 340+ MPH exit speed.
That is 500 feet per second.
Accelerating for another 320 feet is going to add about .35 seconds to 3.65.
Would you want a friend or relative going 380?
There is nothing more annoying than an armchair quarterback.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
334 mph is the average speed through the trap.
That would suggest a 340+ MPH exit speed.
That is 500 feet per second.
Accelerating for another 320 feet is going to add about .35 seconds to 3.65.
Would you want a friend or relative going 380?
There is nothing more annoying than an armchair quarterback.
Are you trying to be annoying?
At any rate, I don't have the time or inclination to debate this. This will be my last reply on this topic.
I know exactly what the cars are currently capable of, because it is absolutely critical to the job at hand. As I said when you PM'd me, I will not give out exact figures, as those are hard-won. Any article you read, including the one which is the basis for this thread, will be intentionally vague, or even outright misleading, for the same reason.
Fuel car racing is not for the faint of heart. It does take a certain mindset. It absolutely is dangerous. If someone isn't willing to accept that risk, then they have no business being around them. Spectators that were just on the property while an NHRA race is going on, have been seriously hurt and even killed. Hence the disclaimer on every ticket.
I also work on LSR (Land Speed Racing) vehicles as a hobby. Some of the people I know in that form of racing have gone well over 400 mph. I've met and talked to the current LSR World Record Holder, Andy Green. He and everybody else knows the risks.
In the morning, a friend and I are riding Sportbikes up the PCH from the LA area to Oregon. Another dangerous pastime.
Don't worry about those of us that choose to live life on our own terms. If we die while enjoying those pursuits, we did so while enjoying life to the fullest.
334 mph is the average speed through the trap.
That would suggest a 340+ MPH exit speed.
That is 500 feet per second.
Accelerating for another 320 feet is going to add about .35 seconds to 3.65.
Would you want a friend or relative going 380?
There is nothing more annoying than an armchair quarterback.
Are you trying to be annoying?
At any rate, I don't have the time or inclination to debate this. This will be my last reply on this topic.
I know exactly what the cars are currently capable of, because it is absolutely critical to the job at hand. As I said when you PM'd me, I will not give out exact figures, as those are hard-won. Any article you read, including the one which is the basis for this thread, will be intentionally vague, or even outright misleading, for the same reason.
Fuel car racing is not for the faint of heart. It does take a certain mindset. It absolutely is dangerous. If someone isn't willing to accept that risk, then they have no business being around them. Spectators that were just on the property while an NHRA race is going on, have been seriously hurt and even killed. Hence the disclaimer on every ticket.
I also work on LSR (Land Speed Racing) vehicles as a hobby. Some of the people I know in that form of racing have gone well over 400 mph. I've met and talked to the current LSR World Record Holder, Andy Green. He and everybody else knows the risks.
In the morning, a friend and I are riding Sportbikes up the PCH from the LA area to Oregon. Another dangerous pastime.
Don't worry about those of us that choose to live life on our own terms. If we die while enjoying those pursuits, we did so while enjoying life to the fullest.
02SE, thank you for your input on all the Top Fuel. I do enjoy watching whenever I can. I'm going to try to go to the first Pomona race next year, the access you get for the price of admission compared to NASCAR and IndyCar is incredible.
Spark plug gap is .016-.020"
Courious what john force budget is since he does everything in house.
Here is the specs for a base line top fuel cam:
Int 300/.475
Exh 296/.475
LSA 114
1.7 RR .807
.050 timing:
Int 36/84
EXH 82/32
Nothing is going to stray more than a few degrees from any one of those events.
Int 300/.475
Exh 296/.475
LSA 114
1.7 RR .807
.050 timing:
Int 36/84
EXH 82/32
Nothing is going to stray more than a few degrees from any one of those events.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
The only people who want another 320 feet added to the race are the ones not paying the bills.
In that it is ultimately the spectators that pay the bills, if they want to see 1320-foot drag races, the NHRA should do whatever they can to put on 1320-foot drag races.
The only people who want another 320 feet added to the race are the ones not paying the bills.
In that it is ultimately the spectators that pay the bills, if they want to see 1320-foot drag races, the NHRA should do whatever they can to put on 1320-foot drag races.
No fair using low hanging fruit for bait.
While we're on the topic of rules, why not
get rid of the 360 CID, 9:1 compression and
restrictor plates rules out of NASCAR?
Low lift, claimer and vacuum rules out
of oval track too.
Who ever shows up to the race with the
most money, wins.
The best part is, the spectators will get to
see more of what they came for.
You know, get their money's worth,
higher speeds and more crashes.
Back to TFFC and TFD.
The exit speed from the traps is 500 FPS
or about 340 MPH.
The limiting factor is the engine RPM.
The magnetos, valve springs and fuel system
are all maxed at 1000FT.
The 2.90 gear could be changed to 2.56
for a price.
Can the rear tires handle 380 MPH?
What is the wheel bearing speed on
the front axle?
What about the down force of the wings,
all speed squared?
Who is going to drive those cars?
Will the track owners go for the
increased speed?
Will attendance improve with rule changes?
While we're on the topic of rules, why not
get rid of the 360 CID, 9:1 compression and
restrictor plates rules out of NASCAR?
Low lift, claimer and vacuum rules out
of oval track too.
Who ever shows up to the race with the
most money, wins.
The best part is, the spectators will get to
see more of what they came for.
You know, get their money's worth,
higher speeds and more crashes.
Back to TFFC and TFD.
The exit speed from the traps is 500 FPS
or about 340 MPH.
The limiting factor is the engine RPM.
The magnetos, valve springs and fuel system
are all maxed at 1000FT.
The 2.90 gear could be changed to 2.56
for a price.
Can the rear tires handle 380 MPH?
What is the wheel bearing speed on
the front axle?
What about the down force of the wings,
all speed squared?
Who is going to drive those cars?
Will the track owners go for the
increased speed?
Will attendance improve with rule changes?
It would be nice to see 1/4 mile racing again, but I have to admit the 1/8 mile race I saw was pretty good. I had never heard of PDRA before a couple months ago when they came to Petersburg, VA. All the cars there were door slammers and looked like nitro coupes/pro mod or something similar. My wife and I saw the race for 20 bucks per car at the gate for parking. The race itself was free. From a fan's viewpoint, I don't want to see anyone get hurt. For the average guy watching the race, there is little difference between 1000' and the 1/4 mile. Basically what I'm saying is that racing is racing. It's all good. Again, my opinion is keep it safe.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
The 2.90 gear could be changed to 2.56
for a price.
Can the rear tires handle 380 MPH?
What is the wheel bearing speed on
the front axle?
What about the down force of the wings,
all speed squared?
Who is going to drive those cars?
Will the track owners go for the
increased speed?
Will attendance improve with rule changes?
I wasn't advocating going back to 1320 ft with the current engines. My main beef was that the races are over too quick. So I suggested going back to 1320 ft, and decreasing the engine power (smaller displacement, smaller blower, less nitro) to keep top speeds from going out of sight. I'd rather see close finishes between two cars that run all the way down the track and only go 300 MPH than one car going 340 MPH all alone. I think the only rule that effectively limited engine failures was the Oildown Rule: if your engine dumps oil on the track, you are penalized points in the season championship.
Other rules I could think of to improve the show:
1. No rebuilds between rounds. Only setting valve lash and changing spark plugs allowed.
2. Only two engines allowed per event.
3. If you change an engine during eliminations, it's an automatic time penalty at the start of the next round.
These rules would make the crew chiefs very conservative in their tunes, and vehicle performance would be limited. Limiting the number of engines and not allowing rebuilds would help the small-budget teams compete with the big-budget teams.
The 2.90 gear could be changed to 2.56
for a price.
Can the rear tires handle 380 MPH?
What is the wheel bearing speed on
the front axle?
What about the down force of the wings,
all speed squared?
Who is going to drive those cars?
Will the track owners go for the
increased speed?
Will attendance improve with rule changes?
I wasn't advocating going back to 1320 ft with the current engines. My main beef was that the races are over too quick. So I suggested going back to 1320 ft, and decreasing the engine power (smaller displacement, smaller blower, less nitro) to keep top speeds from going out of sight. I'd rather see close finishes between two cars that run all the way down the track and only go 300 MPH than one car going 340 MPH all alone. I think the only rule that effectively limited engine failures was the Oildown Rule: if your engine dumps oil on the track, you are penalized points in the season championship.
Other rules I could think of to improve the show:
1. No rebuilds between rounds. Only setting valve lash and changing spark plugs allowed.
2. Only two engines allowed per event.
3. If you change an engine during eliminations, it's an automatic time penalty at the start of the next round.
These rules would make the crew chiefs very conservative in their tunes, and vehicle performance would be limited. Limiting the number of engines and not allowing rebuilds would help the small-budget teams compete with the big-budget teams.
- Status
