[MXrider13]

Originally Posted by dinger

We need Techinspector to throw his 2 cents in, he is NHRA savvy and has been around these cars for years.

The wings probably throw a lot of aerodynamics out the window, downfoce on the front to keep the back wing from making the car blow over, both have to cancel one another to some extreme. The front wing provides the downforce to keep the front from lifting, the back wing is pushing down on the back for traction, this can cause the front to lift. Wings aren't aerodynamic at all, they provide the downforce for traction. Lose the wing, lose the traction. 300 inches of frame coming to a narrow point in front is probably as good as it's going to get for aerodynamics.

It makes sense to me.
I want to also know how good Don Garlits' Swamp Rat 34 would be if he had a bigger budget

[MARTINSR]

I am no top fueler expert but just as an observer I think that everything we could ever imagine has been tried at least once with these monster machines.

I remember when there was a number of cars with this front end.


And then there was this wedge design. Again, many cars used it for what, maybe on season if that?



And taking it a bit futher.


To this.....I remember seeing either this exact car or one like it. It was the slowest car of the event, a total turd.


They have tried everything.


I think what it comes down to is the least frontal area the better, period. But everything we could ever come up with has been tried.

Often it would last just a few events or weeks testing, if it didn't give them something, it was changed back or to something else.

I remember hearing a story about Don Garlets and how he put some rubber hose from his third member to the axle housing or some goofy thing like that. It did nothing and he knew it, the next event there were a number of cars with it. It has all been tried and when a car goes faster with it, it will be copied, when it doesn't, it isn't copied. Thus they have evolved into what we see today, and it WORKS.

Brian

[malc]

Did´nt Garlits put that nose on hiding the fact he´d put the fuel tank out front of the axle ?
And those front wheel "pants" outlawed because they acted like rudders.
"Eyeball Aero" is a dangerous thing.

[against all odds]

It wasn't just the dragsters that were better in 86 but everything else---the funnies/pro stocks, sportsmans etc. etc.

Back then you could see buick regals, thunderbirds sedan type cars etc. run close to 200mph. Now every car looks the same. Then again ALL new cars on the street look the same so maybe they can't help it..............

This why i don't watch racing anymore. And i would like to say officially that NHRA SUCKS and i don't care who knows about it.


i think the problem is not so much stagnation in dragster technology, but a breakdown in society in general. Let me explain:

i don't know if you noticed but EVERYTHING SUCKS TODAY---music, cars, t.v. is a joke. Product quality i think is generally on the decline. And especially people. No-one has any creativity anymore. Look who is the president and look who was the president recently. Look who is in charge of the major corporations.

Did you also notice that no-one really wants to talk to anyone anymore? i'm guilty of this myself and i may or may not get into why this is with me in another thread. Unless you are in someone's clique already they don't want to talk or associate with you. It's bizzare.

The people like big daddy who designed dragsters in 86 and before DID NOT have the internet, very much t.v. and video games. The internet back then when they were growing up was you actually had to go outside and interact with people if you wanted information. i admit sometimes i "forget" how to interact with salespeople/counterpeople etc.

You had to use YOUR IMAGINATION back then to design things. Not just dragsters, but everything---shopping malls----this is another thing that is on the decline.

The people who are designing dragsters and other stuff today grew up on video games, the internet etc. and have no imagination and can only copy others. And i'm guilty of this as well.

i think we, as a society, are dying. i am not being pessimistic. i actually consider myself to be optimistic, but i'm just telling it like it is and laying it on the table.

[OneMoreTime]

One of the things one needs to know about in racing is the SFI Foundation which is supported by the sanctioning bodies and the racing industry..that is where one gets the plans and specs for your rail or race car as most of the major sanctioning bodies follow SFI specifications..

http://www.sfifoundation.com/

Sam

[cal1320]

They'll never reach 400. NHRA will keep shortning the track.
SUNDAY,SUNDAY SUNDAY. SEE THE QUICKEST QUARTERMILE CARS RACE.............1000'.

[prostreet6t9]

Originally Posted by cal1320

They'll never reach 400. NHRA will keep shortning the track.
SUNDAY,SUNDAY SUNDAY. SEE THE QUICKEST QUARTERMILE CARS RACE.............1000'.

If it stops another tragedy like Scott K,I think its a good call. Maybe someday all the tracks can lengthen their tracks. They still put on a great show and the ET's at 1000 are getting pretty close to what they were running at 1320 and most of the MPH is made by the 660 mark.

[prostreet6t9]

[/QUOTE]The wings probably throw a lot of aerodynamics out the window, downfoce on the front to keep the back wing from making the car blow over, both have to cancel one another to some extreme. The front wing provides the downforce to keep the front from lifting, the back wing is pushing down on the back for traction, this can cause the front to lift. Wings aren't aerodynamic at all, they provide the downforce for traction. Lose the wing, lose the traction. 300 inches of frame coming to a narrow point in front is probably as good as it's going to get for aerodynamics.

X2.. No wing,no downforce. There's been some pretty bad crashes after half track when something happened to the rear wing. No rear wing and the car goes out of control.

[Silver Shadow]

They, by the rules, are trying to slow the cars down.

No screw blowers, no four valve DOHC engines.
Drag racing is the only top form of ANY motorsport anywhere, still forced to run ancient dinosaur two valve push rod engines.

The Australian Mc Gee family came out with a new design of top fuel engine that was fast and competitive, cost effective and reliable.
It was so good the drag racing authorities in America BANNED IT.

http://www.mcgeecams.com/history.html
http://www.draglist.com/artman2/publ...m_Engine.shtml

[nefareous]

One of my favorites....

[MARTINSR]

Originally Posted by Silver Shadow

They, by the rules, are trying to slow the cars down.

No screw blowers, no four valve DOHC engines.
Drag racing is the only top form of ANY motorsport anywhere, still forced to run ancient dinosaur two valve push rod engines.

The Australian Mc Gee family came out with a new design of top fuel engine that was fast and competitive, cost effective and reliable.
It was so good the drag racing authorities in America BANNED IT.

http://www.mcgeecams.com/history.html
http://www.draglist.com/artman2/publ...m_Engine.shtml

The reason they are keeping things as they are is that the cars are going fast enough! If there were open rules for anything goes these cars would be going 400 or even 500 in the quarter. A crash would kill hundreds in the stands, it is simply not practical to go any faster.

Brian

[dinger]

Insurance for the tracks and safety are major concerns. Racing today is pretty up close, who would want to sit a hundred yards away to watch a car go 400 mph? Insurance would probably make a lot of changes. And even now, these cars are on the brink of making a full pass each time they go down he track, hooking up all that h.p. is hard enough to do, they don't need any more h.p. And, IMO, after watching nostalgia drags, running the full 1/4 mile in the mid 5's, who cares? Watching most cars make a full pass at these speeds is very exciting, the even competition makes the races.

[MARTINSR]

Originally Posted by dinger

Insurance for the tracks and safety are major concerns. Racing today is pretty up close, who would want to sit a hundred yards away to watch a car go 400 mph? Insurance would probably make a lot of changes. And even now, these cars are on the brink of making a full pass each time they go down he track, hooking up all that h.p. is hard enough to do, they don't need any more h.p. And, IMO, after watching nostalgia drags, running the full 1/4 mile in the mid 5's, who cares? Watching most cars make a full pass at these speeds is very exciting, the even competition makes the races.

And anyone who says these cars wouldn't be going 500 in the quarter should read an article I have in a 1956 Hotrod mag (I think it's a "Hotrod") where they show with science and math how it is a proven FACT that cars were going as fast as scientifically possible! It wasn't a discussion, it wasn't a claim, it was a FACT that a mass such as a car moving from a standing stop to a quarter mile simply couldn't go any faster! LOLOL, yep, if there were no rules, 500 and three seconds or faster all day long!

Brian

[bentwings]

Haha how true that was.

In the very late 50's my HS physics teacher all knowingly announced that 160 mph was "absolutely" the fastest a car could go in a quarter mile. I think it was a week or so later Cook and Bedwell went 166. He said "NFW the clocks are wrong" Shortly after this Garlets went 180...with just carbs. Then we were told that drag racing was the stupidest thing that had come along, ever. haha

The following year in college physics pretty much the same thing happened. I approached the revered professor with a story about Garlets and going close to 200. He proclaimed me to be THE MOST gullible and dumbest student he had ever had in a class. He said in order to redeem either but not both I was to do a paper on the math of drag racing extremes. IE why it was impossible to go 200 mph. I did the paper and passed but I still failed the course and was removed from the engineering program.

Good by ......see you in 15 years..#2 in the class. haha. (had gone 210 myself by then)

[against all odds]

As far as the 1000 foot non-sense:


First of all i don't like it, but for all practical purposes this is the only solution for now short of actually thinking(will explain in a sec). In order to have 1320' racing safely alot of the tracks would have to be totally revamped or even abandoned and re-located which means big time $$$ which just isn't practical in the short term and possibly even long term.


My proposal would be to keep all the mechanical rules the same, keep the track distance the same---1320 feet, BUT do not allow burnouts period or do not allow burnouts past the starting line. i like the no burnouts period the best.