[bentwings]

Ok
Most TF,FC,PS TFmc would bristle at your response. I'l try and be more reasonable and explain since I've been around since the early days of drag racing.

1.Eliminate... nitro this was done at one time and nearly caused th demise of the top dragster classes. FC had not been invented yet.

Blowers have had limits for a long time.

turbos have limits

nitrous is limited to classes.

2. Pro classes. Back about in the early 70's all the pros banned together for a TF, FC, and PS only race at Tulsa, Ok. It was probably the hardest fought race ever in racing history. There were over 100 of each for qualifying. It was a spectacular event for a packed house. Those that were there will never forget it.

3. Pro cars and PMC cost a fortune to build an operate just as NASCAR cars do. It requires a big sponsor or very deep pockets to field these cars. The winnings help support the teams and give life blood to the cars and the sport.
A Nostalgia FC for example can cost $150k just for a race ready car, no spare parts, add another $75k for a truck and trailer. Travel expenses, motel, food and entry fees can run you up to $4 or more a mile. Then just clutch, tires and fuel can drive the cost per run to several grand. At some point it is no longer a hobby and you must make ends meet or you will be out of business.

4. When racing was a hobby yes there were 32 car shows weekly at some tracks. The stars shook out and they became the "demand" thus they began getting paid to race....The birth of pro drag racing, and the end of free shows. Sorry that's the way it went. NASCAR did this far earlier than dragracing.

5. The "Pro Fan". We used to joke about this but it is fact. There is a certain segment of people who just attend events be they baseball, football or auto racing or others. Don't think they are idiots and know nothing about the sports. Drag racing allows and encourages pit passes and fans in the pits. It can be more exciting than watching the races. Who is who is well known to the fans. There are loads of people who are former racers who now can only dream of being in the seat or twisting the wrenches. They attend every race they can.

Can you tell how fast the cars are going?? Well if your buddy is racing a 17 sec Honda against a 17 sec VW I doubt you could put a number on it. I also doubt that you would pay $50 to watch a a 32 car 17 sec VW field and a 32 car 17 sec Honda field race each other for a $5 trophy. Even I who claims to never be bored would have to come up with something other than "ho hum can we go now??".
As for the fast cars well if you have been in the stands at the finish line when 2 300 mph cars go by I 'm sure even a neophyte could tell the difference when a pair of 220 mph cars go by.

Take the excitement away and the fans will leave exponentially.

[willys36@aol.com]

Regardless, I'd bet your next two paychecks that if they put a carburetor only rule in, within 5 or 6 years the top guys would be going 350mph on carbs!

[bentwings]

Well Garlits went 180 with 8 Stromberg 97 and a motor we would think of a as mild streetrod motor. haha Just think of a slipper clutch and modern tires. 6.50 and 195.

[cobalt327]

One of the few good things to come from the infamous fuel ban of the late 50's-early 60's was the Top Gas dragsters, especially the twin engined diggers. Names like "Freight Train" are talked about to this day. Ivo's twin Buick was about to debut when the ban was lifted.





The concept of slower (or at least keeping them at a certain point), safer racing has been at the root of many of the decisions made by the NHRA. When the time ever comes that they want to revamp the rules in a big way, it'll be some combination of many of the things discussed here- there's no one "perfect solution".

I favor removing downforce from TF and FC because then the engine output will need to come down in order for it to hook. Once it's found that HP isn't necessarily the solution to running good numbers, the rest of the complexity of the engine will also be moderated- no need for all that fuel pumped through dozens of nozzles, and w/o all the fuel you don't need all the mag output, the blower OD need not be so high (for that matter, older style blowers could be used instead of the butt-ugly blowers now in use as someone mentioned earlier), etc. right down the line. Make an oil-down a points-losing affair, and that'll do it, IMHO.

The crowds are gonna want to see a SHOW. If it's not blinding speeds w/teleportation-like ET's, then give 'em smoke! As a kid, watching a pair of dragsters smoke the hides all the way through a 1/4 mile was as exciting as it got. Combine that w/the occasional wheel stand and that was enough. And I believe it can still be enough.

[pecosbill]

Originally Posted by MXrider13

I have been googling around and I haven't found much on Dragster Desgin just C02 Dragster design.
I have been watching old NHRA races on Youtube, mainly the 1986 season (I chose that one because Garlits broke the 270 MPH barrier) and I noticed back then many of the Top Fuel Dragsters looked more unique and original.
Don Garlits ran the streamlined design, a few more guys ran different sizes, different lengths, Gary Ormbsby even ran these design that looked like an Indy Car!
Now is the reason the design started changing in the 90s because they found that the current design works the best, so everyone uses it or is it NHRA rules that require all dragsters to look the same?
I really love Don Garlits Swamp Rat 30 and 31. As well as 32 and 34 have a bit of streamline influence.

The rear engine cars are a lot faster of course, but we tried unsuccessfully for years till Gartlits built the first really long rear engine rail. The problem with the rear engine cars was that you couldn't tell when you were getting out of shape till it was to late. There were even some rear engine side winders, they were really interesting. I suggest you try to make a trip to Garlits museum and see all the different types of dragsters there. I did and it was like a trip down memory lane.

I think that the reason they all look alike is that they are restricted to certain chassis and the basic design is the same for all of them.

Stream lining has never worked because the resistance on a bare chassis is nearly as good as a stream liner and the extra weight actually slows you down.

I believe that they have recently shortened the quarter to 1000 feet.

[zdizeez]

Are racing rules holding back advances like rules have turned football into practically a 'no-touch' sport?

[bentwings]

I think many of the recent rules are safety related, many of these have been knee jerk reactions and not well thought out. Ex the auto shutoff which cuts the mag,fuel and pops the chute. The carbon brakes seem to work pretty well on the fuel cars but are very expensive and maybe not necessary on the Nostalgia cars.

I don't know about the 1000 ft track for TF and FC but it did slow the cars for a while. I think there is just as much carnage now as there ever was just not as many crashes. I don't have real info but that's the way it seems. I think th safety net and barriers could use a lot of work. guard rails are another thing that need work. Just look at the NASCAR stuff that was installed years ago.

The sealed motor has been talked about for quite a while I think the tracks don't really want it as it will take away from the pit excitement. Nothing like seeing 15 guys thrash a car from broken to race ready in 45 minutes. Rather than seal the motors why not force a mandatory teardown to the bare bolck between rounds with no replacement parts allowed. This is just for crowd appeal. Mandatory 1/2 track burn out and maybe self powered back to the pits after the run. After all they got rid of the push start and added self starting also added reverser so the fat guys don't have to push the cars back. Maybe bring this back, no reverser, and limit to 4 guys pushing all must be over 250#. haha Or 6 females 4 pushing and 2 pulling a rope limit to 1 sq yard of clothing. haha Maybe forcing the starter to remain on the car. NASCAR has self starting..always has been. It surely would add 100 pounds to the cars. Limit to 48 volts so 4 small high power 12 v batts. Adding much more weight will only work to the car's advantage. More Weight, more traction=faster.

[Dave57210]

I don't have any viable suggested answers. I DO know that racing was a LOT more fun to watch in the late 60's and early 70's. A T/F car ran in the 6's or low 7's, F/C were a bit slower, but could be recognized as the car they 'were supposed to be. (That's the attraction of the Nostalgia Funnies)

How to slow down the T/F and F/C cars? My simplistic - but likely unworkable suggestion: Smaller tires, and eliminate slipper clutches along with the air timers that control clutch engagement and fuel flow, and, and and,.....(lets get some more evidence of driver skill in here)

Lets face it - ( a bit of sarcastic humor here) It was Austin Coil who won those championships. He set it up to make X amount of HP at "this" time, while the clutch was slipping "that amount" and etc. Then he had to point Force the right way down the track. All Force had to do was keep from hitting something and get on it when the green came on.

Yes I know - Force can out-pedal anyone and is the supreme driver, (as well as the best showman and spokesman we have seen) but lets put a bit more on HIM and a bit less on his crew chief once they are staged up

[boatbob2]

Hi,an airplane wing is NOT tear drop shaped,it is curved on the top of the wing,and pretty flat on the bottom. the difference in the shape,is where the wing gets its lift.

[bentwings]

Aerodynamics is not quite that simple. There are symetrical airfoils as well as ones that are nearly razor sharp. It's not the easiest thing to create a wing that is efficient at 150 mph and at 300+ without variable camber. ie flaps and slats. Not permitted however.

There is almost an endless variety of already tested airfoils to select from.

Here is some reading. Note down a ways how an inverted airfoil can still produce positive lift.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html