The next NHRA rule that I can’t make sense of is in: Section 10:8 Neck Collar/ Head and Neck Restraint Device: second paragraph. It explains in what classes a head and neck restraint are mandatory but it mentions nothing about when you use a head and neck restraint you also have to wear a SFI Spec fire-proof head-sock or SFI Spec helmet skirting. I got that explanation of the rule in the ET section (5A) and Advanced ET (5B) section of the rulebook.
Here are the parts of the rule that trouble me:
1. If the rule about naturally aspirated methanol-fueled cars is enforced as it is written then I have to conclude it is NOT about safety. How can a methanol-fueled naturally aspirated rear engine dragster pose a bigger fire risk to the driver than a similar car with 116 octane race gas in the fuel tank.
2. If this rule is truly about safety then why wouldn’t both the gas and the methanol fueled cars have the same safety rules for the driver?
3. The rule for the 3.2A/15 firesuit starts at an ET of 7.49 (1/4 mile). Is the risk to the driver that much more or less if the dial-in on the car is 7.51?
4. If I run my 7.45-second methanol-fueled rear engine dragster in S/Comp and run 8.90 at 185 mph I can use my old 3.2A/5 fire-suit. Is it safer to go 185 mph at 8.90 than it is to go 187 mph at 7.45 seconds?
5. The final question on the rules pertains to the Head and Neck Restraints. Why in the world would NHRA tell us a $20 neck collar is OK and good enough all by itself when EVERY CRASH TEST proves that the many Head and Neck Restraints in the market are hundreds of times better? Then they will require you to suffer through wearing a fireproof sock over your head IF you choose the much safer Head and Neck Restraint Device. The head sock rule, which is stupid enough on its own merits, can also cost you a lot of money. If your helmet fit properly before you got the head-sock, it will probably not fit you now. Add that $600 into the mix for going fast with methanol.
The real question that comes up is whether these new rules came from some sort of a knee-jerk reaction to an insurance claim or just from under-informed rules makers. To require a methanol fueled car to have the burden of $1200 firesuits, head socks and new helmets piled on them while a gasoline powered car that could be much faster, has no rule change expenses to endure makes one think....
Could this be a rule to help gasoline carburetor builders?
Could it be just the beginning of a set of rules to make every methanol-powered racer get the heavier and much more expensive firesuits?
Could it be a rule to make gasoline selling sponsors “happier” and more likely to increase advertising purchases?
What about Ethanol or E-85 fuels? Are these going to be treated differently than methanol? They are environmentally friendly, right?
I feel these rules were made in answer to some insurance company request that more strict safety rules be enacted, I could believe that. I would, however, have a problem believing that singling out methanol fueled race cars will solve anything.
With SFI Spec 3.2A/15 firesuits costing at least $1200, and shoes and gloves adding another $200 maybe the BEST WAY to handle this rule change is to turn your timing back a few degrees or turn on the throttle stop and run 7.51 seconds at 185. As long as you go 7.50 or slower the SFI Spec 3.2A/15 firesuit rule is a moot point. AT LEAST FOR NOW.
If this rule isn’t changed by the NHRA before next month I will go over EXACTLY what a rule change like this can cost racers. If you thought buying a $90 set of seat belts every two years cost too much, wait until you see what this rule can cost. Of course, the fast guys can just slow down…. That would make Wally Parks happy about the direction of the sport, wouldn’t it?
Whaddaya Think? Click here to write a comment! Close this box
Recent Stories