1,000-FOOT DEBATE - 24 YEARS AGO
Tue, 2008-11-11 16:28
A Rash of Crashes Inspired Debate 24 Years Ago …
According to a December 1984 Super Stock & Drag Illustrated article, NHRA officials pondered the belief that 1,000-foot drag racing provided a safer alternative to the traditional quarter-mile strip. The debate came on the heels of scores of high-speed finish line crashes most notably Shirley Muldowney’s crash earlier that season when the antiquated wheel/tire design failed between the 1,000 to 1,320 foot marks.
The nitro cars of that era were on the cusp of 260-miles per hour.
The article, penned by noted drag racing journalist Bob Abdellah, confirmed that the highest ranking drag racing officials believed 1,000-foot racing would make drag racing safer. A Rash of Crashes Inspired Debate 24 Years Ago …
According to a December 1984 Super Stock & Drag Illustrated article, NHRA officials pondered the belief that 1,000-foot drag racing provided a safer alternative to the traditional quarter-mile strip. The debate came on the heels of scores of high-speed finish line crashes most notably Shirley Muldowney’s crash earlier that season when the antiquated wheel/tire design failed between the 1,000 to 1,320 foot marks.
The nitro cars of that era were on the cusp of 260-miles per hour.
The article, penned by noted drag racing journalist Bob Abdellah, confirmed that the highest ranking drag racing officials believed 1,000-foot racing would make drag racing safer.
Drag racing was under pressure to slow cars down considering NASCAR was in the early stages of implementing restrictor plate racing.
The NHRA dismissed the idea of a restrictor plate or similar plan when they became of the opinion that any idea to artificially slow the cars would quickly fall victim to the “infinite ability of racers to increase performances in spite of any restrictions.”
Even in 1984, according to the article, the NHRA was concerned their drag strips were becoming too short for the vastly increasing speeds of the nitro cars, which would top 270 two seasons later.
The NHRA set up two sets of clocks during the 1984 NHRA U.S. Nationals to measure 1,000-foot times as well as the traditional quarter-mile location. Once word got out about the experiment the decision received mixed reviews from both the pro and con crowds.
Those against the 1,000-foot were apparently in the majority as the NHRA witnessed both racer and fan dissent at the notion.
The NHRA was clearly looking for a cost-effective way to slow the cars down but few wanted to accept the idea out of tradition.
Carl Olson, then NHRA VP, Industry Relations and Safety, felt something needed to be done in 1984.
“When you begin to routinely have six or seven cars landing in the safety nets in the course of a major event you are facing a situation that must be addressed,” Olson told SS&DI. “Basically we’ve been researching mechanical malfunctions and some of the other elements that have contributed to these serious accidents. I’m not sure that these mishaps are 100% preventable. If a car has a complete breakdown of all braking systems at over 250 mph you have a dangerous situation even if you have a shutdown area that is five miles long.
“These cars are racing on tracks built 15 – 20 years ago for cars going substantially slower. We realize that with 264 mph cars this year it won’t be long until we are looking at 275 mph and up. Currently, our division directors are polling track owners for their input. We need to hear from others too. We’ve made no secret of what we wanted to look at during this race [Indy 1984]. Overall, we are doing all we can to extend our knowledge of the pros and the cons of 1,000 foot racing. We realize there is a tradition at stake in this issue but in my mind that’s far outweighed by the importance of safety to our racers and fans.”
Don Garlits, a longtime proponent for racing to 1,000 feet, was all for the move.
“I can’t help but think that 1,000 foot strips would help make things safer,” Garlits said. “It’s a cold hard fact that you’d go slower plus have a couple extra hundred feet to slow down. I think we’ll blow up the same amount of motors, though.
“I think it would take a few years to get back up to 260 mph at that distance. As it is now, it won’t be long before we’ll be doing 275 mph.
“As long as the racing is close, I don’t think the fans will care one iota about slower speeds. Still, it’s going to take some careful marketing because a lot of people are going to be caught up in nostalgia and tradition.”
Current PRO President and then Funny Car racer Kenny Bernstein was also solicited for quote to which he responded, “No comment.”
Conrad Kalitta, a runner-up at the 1984 NHRA U.S. Nationals commented on 1,000 foot racing in the same article. Who would know twenty-four years later that his son Scott’s death would provide the impetus for the switch, albeit on a “temporary” basis, to 1,000 foot?
“”It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to me,” Kalitta said. “But if it were up to me I’d rather stay at quarter-mile.”
According to a December 1984 Super Stock & Drag Illustrated article, NHRA officials pondered the belief that 1,000-foot drag racing provided a safer alternative to the traditional quarter-mile strip. The debate came on the heels of scores of high-speed finish line crashes most notably Shirley Muldowney’s crash earlier that season when the antiquated wheel/tire design failed between the 1,000 to 1,320 foot marks.
The nitro cars of that era were on the cusp of 260-miles per hour.
The article, penned by noted drag racing journalist Bob Abdellah, confirmed that the highest ranking drag racing officials believed 1,000-foot racing would make drag racing safer. A Rash of Crashes Inspired Debate 24 Years Ago …
According to a December 1984 Super Stock & Drag Illustrated article, NHRA officials pondered the belief that 1,000-foot drag racing provided a safer alternative to the traditional quarter-mile strip. The debate came on the heels of scores of high-speed finish line crashes most notably Shirley Muldowney’s crash earlier that season when the antiquated wheel/tire design failed between the 1,000 to 1,320 foot marks.
The nitro cars of that era were on the cusp of 260-miles per hour.
The article, penned by noted drag racing journalist Bob Abdellah, confirmed that the highest ranking drag racing officials believed 1,000-foot racing would make drag racing safer.
Drag racing was under pressure to slow cars down considering NASCAR was in the early stages of implementing restrictor plate racing.
The NHRA dismissed the idea of a restrictor plate or similar plan when they became of the opinion that any idea to artificially slow the cars would quickly fall victim to the “infinite ability of racers to increase performances in spite of any restrictions.”
Even in 1984, according to the article, the NHRA was concerned their drag strips were becoming too short for the vastly increasing speeds of the nitro cars, which would top 270 two seasons later.
The NHRA set up two sets of clocks during the 1984 NHRA U.S. Nationals to measure 1,000-foot times as well as the traditional quarter-mile location. Once word got out about the experiment the decision received mixed reviews from both the pro and con crowds.
Those against the 1,000-foot were apparently in the majority as the NHRA witnessed both racer and fan dissent at the notion.
The NHRA was clearly looking for a cost-effective way to slow the cars down but few wanted to accept the idea out of tradition.
Carl Olson, then NHRA VP, Industry Relations and Safety, felt something needed to be done in 1984.
“When you begin to routinely have six or seven cars landing in the safety nets in the course of a major event you are facing a situation that must be addressed,” Olson told SS&DI. “Basically we’ve been researching mechanical malfunctions and some of the other elements that have contributed to these serious accidents. I’m not sure that these mishaps are 100% preventable. If a car has a complete breakdown of all braking systems at over 250 mph you have a dangerous situation even if you have a shutdown area that is five miles long.
“These cars are racing on tracks built 15 – 20 years ago for cars going substantially slower. We realize that with 264 mph cars this year it won’t be long until we are looking at 275 mph and up. Currently, our division directors are polling track owners for their input. We need to hear from others too. We’ve made no secret of what we wanted to look at during this race [Indy 1984]. Overall, we are doing all we can to extend our knowledge of the pros and the cons of 1,000 foot racing. We realize there is a tradition at stake in this issue but in my mind that’s far outweighed by the importance of safety to our racers and fans.”
Don Garlits, a longtime proponent for racing to 1,000 feet, was all for the move.
“I can’t help but think that 1,000 foot strips would help make things safer,” Garlits said. “It’s a cold hard fact that you’d go slower plus have a couple extra hundred feet to slow down. I think we’ll blow up the same amount of motors, though.
“I think it would take a few years to get back up to 260 mph at that distance. As it is now, it won’t be long before we’ll be doing 275 mph.
“As long as the racing is close, I don’t think the fans will care one iota about slower speeds. Still, it’s going to take some careful marketing because a lot of people are going to be caught up in nostalgia and tradition.”
Current PRO President and then Funny Car racer Kenny Bernstein was also solicited for quote to which he responded, “No comment.”
Conrad Kalitta, a runner-up at the 1984 NHRA U.S. Nationals commented on 1,000 foot racing in the same article. Who would know twenty-four years later that his son Scott’s death would provide the impetus for the switch, albeit on a “temporary” basis, to 1,000 foot?
“”It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to me,” Kalitta said. “But if it were up to me I’d rather stay at quarter-mile.”
Categories:
