nhra rule changes

Discussion in 'Drag Racing' started by don graham, Nov 4, 2004.

  1. don graham

    don graham MCG State Rep

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,800
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Location:
    arizona city, az.
    Vehicle:
    70 mav, 71 grabber, 73 Comet, 2004 f-250 crew cab diesel, 2001 f-250, 2004 explorer, 2007 Gold Wing trike.
    beginning on jan 1st, 2005. roll bar and sfi 16.1 driver restraint system will be mandatory on any vehicle running 11.49 or quicker and convertibles running 13.49 or quicker. also driveshaft loop is required on cars 13.99 or quicker and utilizing slicks except vehiles equipped with street tires and running 11.49 or slower.

    used to be 11.99 for a roll bar and 5 point harness. and 13.99 for a loop on all cars. now it's 13.99 only if your running slicks.

    course they do this one month after i put the roll bar nand harness in. wonder if street tires include m/t et street drag radials?

    nhra is relizing that there are a lot of new street cars that are fast, safety equipment is better, and people don't want to put roll bars and loops in there new cars. also raises eyebrows at the local dealer when you bring the car in for warranty work.

    new rules are on the nhra website.:)
     
  2. courier11sec

    courier11sec Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    117
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Vehicle:
    '72 2d to hold my trailer down with.
    hmmmm. That gives me another half second to play with until I have to put in the cage.
     
  3. Rick Book

    Rick Book Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Location:
    Thailand
    Vehicle:
    Missing my old '70 Maverick
    We got into this discussion on another board. The take (from a few) was that NHRA would lower it's safety requirements in order to get mo money at the expense of life and limb.

    I'd have to think that their insurance company (or insurance companies) wouldn't allow the change unless the statistics backed them up.

    With that understanding, I see no problem with them raising the bar. More cars = more fun (and yes, mo money for tracks).
     
  4. riporter

    riporter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,474
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charleston S.C.
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick 2 dr. modified street cruiser, 72 Comet tube chassis drag car
    Don I think if there D.O.T. approved there considered street tires.
    No cage or harness here...if I get to the point they tell me I have to have one I just won't go back.;)
     
  5. don graham

    don graham MCG State Rep

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,800
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Location:
    arizona city, az.
    Vehicle:
    70 mav, 71 grabber, 73 Comet, 2004 f-250 crew cab diesel, 2001 f-250, 2004 explorer, 2007 Gold Wing trike.
    well, that car is strictly for the track. so i don't have any problem with having a cage in it. i guess if it's needed at 11.49 i'll just have to go a little faster!!!!!:)
     
  6. PINKY

    PINKY .....John Ford.....

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky.
    Vehicle:
    1970 Ford Maverick
    For those that saw my little accident a few weeks ago. I am all for safety. Hell I wasn't doing but about 35 or 40 mph and it almost flipped over. No one can prevent accidents( IMO )......thats why they are accidents.
    I agree that the newer cars are safer and probably do not need all of the safety things that a older car will. But by lowering the # it allows older cars to fall in the same category as the newer hotrods..........I hope/pray that nothing ever happens, but IMO, they should have put year restrictions on it.
     
  7. don graham

    don graham MCG State Rep

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,800
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Location:
    arizona city, az.
    Vehicle:
    70 mav, 71 grabber, 73 Comet, 2004 f-250 crew cab diesel, 2001 f-250, 2004 explorer, 2007 Gold Wing trike.
    actually, i thought they were going to do just that when i first heard the rumors, but the web site dosen't say anything about it. for our street class they are talking about changing the times back to 13.0 and slower. seems like they are going the wrong way there.:slap:
     
  8. courier11sec

    courier11sec Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    117
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Vehicle:
    '72 2d to hold my trailer down with.
    Hey Don, where did you find that on the NHRA website? I can't seem to find it.

    Never mind. just found it.
     
  9. don graham

    don graham MCG State Rep

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,800
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Location:
    arizona city, az.
    Vehicle:
    70 mav, 71 grabber, 73 Comet, 2004 f-250 crew cab diesel, 2001 f-250, 2004 explorer, 2007 Gold Wing trike.
    it's also in last weeks national dragster:)
     
  10. hotrodbob

    hotrodbob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Central Coast, So.Cal
    Vehicle:
    Sold my 1971 Grabber
    I've seen 14 second and slower cars on their roof at the track. new car or not A blown tire, fluid leak or driver error is all it takes. I'm all for the safety parts and don't agree with the lower E.T. change. All ya gotta do is HAVE to use the safety equipment once to always want it in your car.

    I don't understand the guys that build tons of horse power and spend big bucks on chrome, paint, tires, wheels and wont spend money on making the car safe. This has been an issue since man began to drive.
     
  11. PINKY

    PINKY .....John Ford.....

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky.
    Vehicle:
    1970 Ford Maverick
    I totally agree.......I personally think they went the wrong way with the rule......you know it used to take a lot of $$ to go fast and that was usually left to the older drivers. Now, you take a Mustang (or any car for that matter) add a few bolt on parts or a blue bottle in the trunk and you got a 12, 11, 10 or even a 9 second ride. And that same ride can be had by a young teenager with little or no experience behind the wheel. Not saying that they are more likely to have a problem than a older driver.....you would just think that a little experience would help in some situations.
    Also.....do not forget about bracket racing when a 14, 15 second car could be paired up against a 9 second hauler.....perfect world they should get to the finish line at the same time, only difference being one car is doing 95 mph and the other 145 mph, what if the 9 second car loses control and runs into lane of the slower car at the finish line? Could be a major cotastrophy!
    Like you said Bob, this is a issue that has always been....just seems in my opinion they should have "tighten" the rules....not loosen them.
     
  12. hotrodbob

    hotrodbob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Central Coast, So.Cal
    Vehicle:
    Sold my 1971 Grabber
    You are right on. I ran an L/Stocker (4 cyl. Datsun) at an AHRA meet once and could run the index at 17.70. In the first round I drew a B/Stock MOPAR. My little car was past like I was standing still 20 feet before the finish line. He ran 10 sumthin at 130. The wind from his car pushed me over a few feet. He broke out and I won, but man it was strange getting past like that.



    Teens and factory hotrods have always been an Issue. More testosterone then common sense. A few weeks ago two kids (16 & 17) were killed just north of where I live during a street race. We knew of one of the boy’s parents. They didn’t think their little boy would ever do anything like that with his Mustang GT.

    Looked at the website.OUCH!!!!!!! Those ladder bar welds were sad! Hope ya got that fixed without to much trouble.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2004
  13. courier11sec

    courier11sec Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    117
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Vehicle:
    '72 2d to hold my trailer down with.
    While I'm right with you on the safety issue. I have to admit I was a bit relieved when the rule changed. Having just broken into the elevens, the extra weight of the roll cage would almost definately put me back in the twelves. I still plan to put a cage in, but it's nice to know I can go play without getting kicked off the track for not being able to pass tech.
     
  14. hotrodbob

    hotrodbob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Central Coast, So.Cal
    Vehicle:
    Sold my 1971 Grabber
    In some cases I have seen the cage or bar (as needed) allow the car to launch better, reduce 60 ft times and drive better due to the added stiffness. If the added weight of the cage/bar slows the car a tenth of two, so what. One time rubber side up is worse then being a tenth slower.
     
  15. strokermotor

    strokermotor STROKER MOTOR

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    CHICAGO,ILL
    Vehicle:
    75 MAV, 48 FORD COUPE,86 F350 CREW CAB 4X4,05 FOCUS
    i agree they should have left them the way they where not lowered them . i agree with you all ,safety first...............................
     

Share This Page