Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

[Historian_One]

There's a lot that's been done with carbon fiber masts for big racing sailboats which could also be applied to a Top Fuel chassis.

Putting a driver in an enclosed capsule which could separate from the chassis the same way Top Fuel drag boats do now would also help. And they're almost as fast as a Top Fuel car.

The Garlits monostrut system would take a lot of stress out of the chassis.

[RR]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

I thought that TF dragasters had bigger tubing around the driver than everywhere else in the car. The intent is to allow the car to break up so that the drivers compartment is kept in one piece (like you were suggesting). Kenny Bernsteins wreck at Pomona back in the early 90's (I think) demonstrated how this works.

As for the monostrut- I assume you are talking about the wing monostrut- the breakage I have seen is in the middle of the car, not at the rear. Regardless of the path that the downforce takes into the frame (either monostrut or conventional tubes), the force on the chassis at the center is still the same. So you either have to increase strength or reduce the forces on the frame.

To strengthen them up- and if they haven't already done this- ban slip joints in the chassis, thicken the tubes up, and/or reduce the wing size front and back. I haven't followed TF very well the past 10 years, so my comments may be outdated....

[Historian_One]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

I thought that TF dragasters had bigger tubing around the driver than everywhere else in the car. The intent is to allow the car to break up so that the drivers compartment is kept in one piece (like you were suggesting). Kenny Bernsteins wreck at Pomona back in the early 90's (I think) demonstrated how this works.

As for the monostrut- I assume you are talking about the wing monostrut- the breakage I have seen is in the middle of the car, not at the rear. Regardless of the path that the downforce takes into the frame (either monostrut or conventional tubes), the force on the chassis at the center is still the same. So you either have to increase strength or reduce the forces on the frame.

To strengthen them up- and if they haven't already done this- ban slip joints in the chassis, thicken the tubes up, and/or reduce the wing size front and back. I haven't followed TF very well the past 10 years, so my comments may be outdated....

The Garlis monostrut bolted to the top of the pumpkin. No downforce passed through the chassis.

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

I'm not a structural engineer, but I don't see how separating the cockpit for a vehicle in an enclosed environment (walls around the track) will be helpful. The idea for survivability is in energy absorbtion before the impact energy reaches the driver. If the cockpit ejects and hit's a wall (dominate force direction is likely horizontal, same in a drag boat), there is very little mass to absorb the impact (imagine pinballing between two walls :o). Out in the water, the boat comes apart, the dominate force direction is still horizontal, but there is very little to hit in the horizontal direction, so energy can be bled off along the water surface, plus the majority of the moving energy can be ditched with the majority of the mass. Also for boats there is the added benefit of ditching an engine that could anchor you to the bottom. Distance and collapsing material are your best friends during a horizontal impact in racing (falling from the sky is a different story :P). Notice at no point I say the water is softer than the concrete.

I could see an ejectable pod being useful in a place like Bonneville or out on a dry lake bed, where the likely hood of hitting something solid horizontally is a lot less.

If that makes sense, that's my two cents.

[Historian_One]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

I'm not a structural engineer, but I don't see how separating the cockpit for a vehicle in an enclosed environment (walls around the track) will be helpful. The idea for survivability is in energy absorbtion before the impact energy reaches the driver. If the cockpit ejects and hit's a wall (dominate force direction is likely horizontal, same in a drag boat), there is very little mass to absorb the impact (imagine pinballing between two walls :o). Out in the water, the boat comes apart, the dominate force direction is still horizontal, but there is very little to hit in the horizontal direction, so energy can be bled off along the water surface, plus the majority of the moving energy can be ditched with the majority of the mass. Also for boats there is the added benefit of ditching an engine that could anchor you to the bottom. Distance and collapsing material are your best friends during a horizontal impact in racing (falling from the sky is a different story :P). Notice at no point I say the water is softer than the concrete.

I could see an ejectable pod being useful in a place like Bonneville or out on a dry lake bed, where the likely hood of hitting something solid horizontally is a lot less.

If that makes sense, that's my two cents.

Water is harder than concrete at 200+ mph.

I didn't say ejectable. I said separable.

And we've all seen plenty of instances where an Indy car broke up into just the cockpit tub.

Getting a Top Fuel cockpit away from the chassis gets it away from the 750 pound engine.

[chevy3100]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

With the Monostrut bolted to the pumpkin you still have force in the chassis. The rear is bolted/welded to the frame of the dragster and the so the issue with flexing in the middle of the chassis will still happen (with the huge downforce from both the front & rear wings)

Lower the downforce on the front of the car and you help lower the stress on the chassis (at least from the flex in the middle), or alternatively lower the downforce on the rear wing and you will have to slow down.

I'd love to see the cars slow down so that we can see 1/4 mile Top Fuel again (better yet - fix the tracks so that they don't need to slow down - get adequate shutdown areas & SAFER walls plus I'm sure many other upgrades that someone smarter than me knows about)

[SpiderGearsMan]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

so build one ....with a propeller ....ratliff

[Silver68RT]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

With the Monostrut bolted to the pumpkin you still have force in the chassis. The rear is bolted/welded to the frame of the dragster and the so the issue with flexing in the middle of the chassis will still happen (with the huge downforce from both the front & rear wings)

Lower the downforce on the front of the car and you help lower the stress on the chassis (at least from the flex in the middle), or alternatively lower the downforce on the rear wing and you will have to slow down.

I'd love to see the cars slow down so that we can see 1/4 mile Top Fuel again (better yet - fix the tracks so that they don't need to slow down - get adequate shutdown areas & SAFER walls plus I'm sure many other upgrades that someone smarter than me knows about)

To me, the main advantage of Garlits' mono strut is extra distance from the tires makes it less likely that a tire failure will take out the wing, which usually tends to result in a pretty catastrophic accident. It looked like a stronger design, and I'd think it would be safer.

I don't know how you'd make the chassis stronger in the middle without making it stiffer, which would reduce the flex designed into it to get it down the track. Maybe more frequent inspections for cracks are required to prevent the accidents where the chassis breaks in half. Maybe put some strain gauges on it and track the number of runs on the chassis.

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

Water is harder than concrete at 200+ mph.

I didn't say ejectable. I said separable.

And we've all seen plenty of instances where an Indy car broke up into just the cockpit tub.

Getting a Top Fuel cockpit away from the chassis gets it away from the 750 pound engine.

I made point to not imply water was a soft landing. The indy car example is perfect in the sense that every part that broke away took energy with it, mostly likely by design, so that once the cockpit tub was reached as much energy as possible was removed prior to being on it's own.

Ejectable, separateable. Bad choice of words on my part, but I figure they mean the same result. A better thought then would be to find a way to get the engine out (with out it becoming a hazard to the other racer or the audience). Again you run into a space issue with confined racing, lower the risk to the driver's life at the expense of now risking the other racer's and audience. Better to keep it together than intentionally send shrapnel everywhere. Sharapenal is about unavoidable, but no sense in designing some in.

[Bobbie Kincade]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

I'm glad this topic got brought up, it can be a round-table topic with the goal of presenting ideas that could work, to make the dragsters safer.

The racing community is monkey see monkey do for the most part, and there needs to be some new ideas presented, and presented for the common good of NHRA drag racing. The cars need to slow down! Does this mean that I don't like 340 mph dragsters? No, it means that NHRA has to do whatever it takes to get the racing back to 1/4 mile in length. Slow the cars down to about 290 or so, and that will suffice for short tracks like Pomona.

3-second 1000' squirts just don't do it for me, there's not enough going on. I have enjoyed decades of "slower" dragsters over the years, it's about the competition not the numbers on the board.

Chassis design, wing size, driver compartment, all need to be looked at. Possible way also is to retain the same engine blocks they use but put sleeves in the cylinders and get the cid down to 400 or so. (396)

Keep the nitro percentages at 90 percent, but limit the size of the blower and the amount of fuel (pump).

Make a chassis that will take a beating, protect the driver.

We don't need any fuel cars flying into the grandstands! And if they slow down T/F, all they have to do is change the body rules around in F/C and seriously limit the down force, I suggest a little rear wing like the COT Nascars.

Those things would slow down T/F and F/C and allow them to return to 1320 racing. It's bogus now.

[SpiderGearsMan]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

CHASSIS has to absorb impact . so your rigid idea is all wet

[KeithTurk]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

Oh hell yeah.... oh and put a Prop on the back of it and call it SASSY..... as in... " Lassie Gets Sassie "

K

[Bobbie Kincade]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

I was in the middle of a fried egg sandwich and some malt liquor, checking some banking info and flipping the TV channel as I typed that, sorry, I should have said "and a driver's compartment that can take a beating." I'm all for break-a-way chassis design.

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

CHASSIS has to absorb impact . so your rigid idea is all wet

Way to sum up my two posts Spidey :P

[SpiderGearsMan]

Re: Improving strength and safety of Top Fuel dragsters

but you forgot the propeller


or propellant
seems the NHRA health and safety dept[aka john force racing ] should be involved