Chuck Steak wrote:
I doubt it.
The tuners will just "screw 'em down tighter".
This is really no fix at all, just a PR move.
Ponder the fact that 320 feet at 300 mph is a liitle more than
half a second.
I can't see where it will have any beneficial impact at all.

"YooperBoyka" <cjdont (AT) likeno (DOT) spam> wrote

John Force's incremental times:
60ft- 0.928 sec.
330ft- 2.412 sec.
660ft- 3.468 (AT) 240 (DOT) 59mph
1000ft- 4.341 sec.
1320ft- 5.101 (AT) 290 (DOT) 51mph
---------------------------------------------------
Cruz Pedregon's incremental times:
60ft- 0.934 sec.
330ft- 2.412 sec.
660ft- 3.437sec. (AT) 250 (DOT) 41mph
1000ft- 4.279 sec.
1320ft- 5.026sec. (AT) 291 (DOT) 95mph
-------------------------------------------
Notice there's approx. 45mph or so difference between half track (660ft) and finish line speeds?
1000 ft mark is about halfway between those two marks, so top speeds will not suffer all that much
if they shut down at 1000ft. They'll still run within 20mph of what they run at 1320ft.
Spectators won't be able to tell the speed difference with the naked eye.
This proves that the majority of a race is done before the 1000ft mark. There's little to be gained
after that.... Except more blown up motors.
BUT.... they will have 320 more feet of stopping distance!!
that's a good thing.
Gary Scelzi said in an interview on "Wind Tunnel" that fellow car owner and racer, Jim Head told him
that running to 1000ft. will save him about $150,000 in broken engine parts this season.
That's another good thing.
A lot of those guys don't have high buck sponsors to pay those bills.

-----
"....This is not a stick and ball sport....You just don't go 'play' racing......"
(Brad Daugherty - ESPN)