FEEDBACK ARTICLE – GUEST EDITORIAL WITH DON LONG - "IT’S TIME TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THIS CHASSIS MESS"

Amazing!!!  A voice of common sense and reason and experience among all the clatter and banging of "we know all there is to know and you WILL do it our way". 

The current state of affairs of chassis building and the officials involved can best be stated: WE have are mind made up, do not confuse me with the facts........

I know I am just a dumb racer but could somebody explain to me why egos appear to be more important that doing it right regardless of where the idea or ideas come from???  Need I remind them we are dealing with human life which is a lot more important than the egos? - Jim Burke  
 

FEEDBACK ARTICLE – GUEST EDITORIAL WITH DON LONG - "IT’S TIME TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THIS CHASSIS MESS"

Amazing!!!  A voice of common sense and reason and experience among all the clatter and banging of "we know all there is to know and you WILL do it our way". 

The current state of affairs of chassis building and the officials involved can best be stated: WE have are mind made up, do not confuse me with the facts........

I know I am just a dumb racer but could somebody explain to me why egos appear to be more important that doing it right regardless of where the idea or ideas come from???  Need I remind them we are dealing with human life which is a lot more important than the egos? - Jim Burke


Once again I will say, Guy's like Don Long and Bill Miller involved in Chassis design are a blessing.

NHRA and company need to listen to (all) the opinions of fabrication - builder veterans.

Not just the ones THEY WANT TO listen to. - Richard Pauza


It's over 40 years ago now since Don Long built Ed Pink's "Old Master", seems to me that the Old Master of chassis construction has spoken. Long hits the nail on the head; the ambiguity of the spec is striking. - Larry Kargol


Don Long during the 60's and 70' was the premier chassis builder.  I have been involved with his and other chassis manufacturers since the 60's through Cerny's Paint as we painted ever manufacturers chassis.  His was the premier chassis, not to downgrade Woody Gilmore, RCS, SPE or Kent Fuller who also built great chassis.  Just ask Don Prudhomme and others about Don's cars.  If the new specs are not understandable to Don then I don't think anyone can understand them.  NHRA needs to get their act together both in Top Fuel and Funny Car immediately before someone else gets killed which is normally the reason a rule changes. NHRA has rarely been proactive in the safety area, they normally wait for someone to get killed. Let’s get proactive and put together new specs with the people who know what is happening instead of some NHRA officials that think they are smarter than people who really know what they are doing.  If it wasn't for people like Don Long, Woody Gilmore, Bill Simpson and others like them the sport would not be as safe as it is today.  Lets use them to make it even safer by using the professionals instead of some NHRA dummies who don't know what they are talking about.

ENOUGH SAID! - Terry Almy



Right on Don. He and Bill Miller have taken the time to determine what is safe for these chassis. I applaud their efforts towards safety. As a friend of a driver, I send my thanks for your efforts. - Tony Owens


Don Long is a very intelligent, well written, smart man with great common sense. NHRA/SFI desperately needs him to write the chassis specs for Top Fuel and Funny car. Bill Miller, Chuck Haase', Dr. Davis, and Don Long have spent quite a bit of time, effort,and money testing the current designs and have very closely simulated the correct forces on both a Top Fuel And Funny car chassis. For a sanctioning body to be heading to their second race of the season with no clear cut and well defined chassis specs is a big cause for concern. Here's hoping NHRA will make the right decisions, and we will have a fast, fun and safe 2008. - Raymond Rupert


Having known Don Long for more than 30 years, and seen the innovation and thought that has gone into his chassis and other products, his record speaks for itself.  The notion that his chassis was deemed unsafe and not allowed to run is totally ludicrous.  How many more of these chassis failures do we need to experience before the voice of reason is heard?  Builders like Long, Hadman and Meyer need to be listened to like the valued, experienced craftsmen they are. - Henry Charest



It is unbelievable that after all the discussions, all of disagreements, all of the expert input from opposing sides, that the SFI Top Fuel Chassis specification ends up being beyond interpretation.  How can the Top Fuel participants feel? SFI, SEMA and NHRA are all concerned with the liability factor and all seem incapable of arriving at a decision that will keep everyone from being terribly confused and skeptical. It is a sad statement on the state of Top Fuel. - David Gutierrez


This man has been there, done that. I agree with him whole heartedly. I also am an old SFI certified chassis builder, and have watched this mess unfold, and no one seems to know what to do.

I had even suggested a metalax machine to normalize chassis and parts a year or two ago, and got laughed at. I still think if this service was offered to the racers by someone with a full metalax machine and fixtures in a large trailer that followed the circuit, there would be better running cars, and fewer failures. Plus these cars have to be designed correctly to begin with. - Richard Burbick


In light of the recent and increasing chassis failures, I believe the spec required re-evaluation and revising.  The ambiguity is consistent with society today. With text messaging and word processors, spell checkers etc, it's easy to see that even those that write and proof read are prone to mistakes.

It's also crazy to think that by allowing portions of the vehicle to breakaway, makes it safer.  I think this is monetarily driven. No different than allowing John Force to compete prior to completing his full recovery (think that would have happened if it was you or I ?), the hastily prepared spec was not subject to full scrutiny.  Rather than build a safer vehicle, at the cost of increased weight and less than stellar performance in the spectators eyes, the spec was hastily prepared to accommodate the performance needs of the chassis instead of the safety of the chassis.

As a chassis builder, we are responsible for building safe vehicles, considering safety over function.

As a chassis inspector, we are charged with the process of scrutinizing each vehicle and holding each to a specific consistent standard.  However, in the spirit of protecting everyone’s interests, you must allow new designs to be tested.  This was not a race; the chassis was certainly built to a high or higher standard. Unless we test, improvements will never occur.  We can place our trust in finite analysis testing using computer generated models, but always remember, in the world of technology, people make the difference.

This was testing only and should therefore have been allowed. - Mike
 

DISCLAIMER - The views presented in these feedback letters are the opinions of the individual author, and do not necessarily represent those of Torco's CompetitionPlus.com, its staff and advertisers.