tdiddy

I would have never thought the NHRA would do this. http://www.nhra.com/content/news/30355.htm

kersh4w

iTrader: (3)

is 300 feet really going to make that much difference in safety?

rotarygod

A quarter of a mile is already a really short race. They are using Scott Kalitta's death as an excuse. Basically they are trying to slow the cars down. Is a wreck at 300 mph really that much better than one at 330 mph? A big problem I see isn't the length of the race but rather the length of the stopping area. A half mile goes by really quickly at 300+ mph. Then to make matters worse, in the case of Scott Kalitta, the end of the short sandtrap ends in an earthen wall. There needs to be a huge field out there as far as I'm concerned. Many people have been seriously injured from hitting objects, walls, vehicles, etc out past the sand trap. Imagine going to Bonneville to see the top speed cars running and then seeing them have to stop in very limited range before hitting a mountain. Won't happen. They have miles and miles of nothing and could coast out of speed if they had to. I'm not saying you need a 2 mile stopping area at a drag strip but more length would help, a longer sand trap area would help, and not having walls behind them would also help. Design for the worst but hope for the best.

tdiddy

^ I agree. I think they really need to look at what qualifies as an "NHRA Sanctioned Track". Maybe the 1/4 mile needs to be a 1/2 mile track with all the other saftey provisions still in place.

The rumor is that this change will shave off ~30mph.

However, if the cars dont have to run as far, wont the teams change the gears in the rear end to a lower ratio, etc, to run the car at its max for a shorter distance? and if/when they do that, won't the cars be going even faster than they are now?