My name is Don Long.  For

more than five decades I’ve designed and built Top Fuel dragsters, cars that

have won more races than I can count, along with numerous championships and

builder’s awards that I’m very proud of. 

But, the thing I’m most proud of is my chassis safety record, which is

perfect.

I’ve been actively involved with SFI since it first came into

existence.  I was the senior member of

the former (disbanded June 7, 2006) SFI Chassis Committee.  There’s been enough written about the SFI in

recent months for it to be unnecessary for me to explain what it is and what

it’s supposed to do.

For those of you having difficulty understanding – and even

coherently reading – the recent SFI Top Fuel Chassis Spec, please be assured

that it’s not you.  This spec has become

almost completely incomprehensible on both the scientific and interpretive

levels due to a number of factors.

My name is Don Long.  For

more than five decades I’ve designed and built Top Fuel dragsters, cars that

have won more races than I can count, along with numerous championships and

builder’s awards that I’m very proud of. 

But, the thing I’m most proud of is my chassis safety record, which is

perfect.

I’ve been actively involved with SFI since it first came into

existence.  I was the senior member of

the former (disbanded June 7, 2006) SFI Chassis Committee.  There’s been enough written about the SFI in

recent months for it to be unnecessary for me to explain what it is and what

it’s supposed to do.

For those of you having difficulty understanding – and even

coherently reading – the recent SFI Top Fuel Chassis Spec, please be assured

that it’s not you.  This spec has become

almost completely incomprehensible on both the scientific and interpretive

levels due to a number of factors.

Sidestepping the scientific side of things for now, failure to

correctly interpret the spec is what brought about “BME Axed at Phoenix ”

Likely to be overlooked in the spec, coming after all of the

colorful drawings and listed under “XIII: 

Reading The Standard” is found the following: “…and the tubing diameters

and wall thickness dimensions are equal to or greater than required for each of

the components.”  Bill Miller had two

components (one lower left side, one lower right side) replaced on his car with

a tubing size “greater” than required.

a d v e r t i s e m e n t

Click to visit our sponsor’s website 

It’s my express belief – a belief shared by others who were

involved in the SFI T/F Chassis Spec update, that Miller’s car was completely

legal when it was inspected at Firebird Raceway.  The sad truth is that Miller – and the NHRA

tech officials who inspected the car – are nothing more than the “victims” of a

poorly written spec that was rushed into use without sufficient study and

forethought. 

In small print beside one of the chassis renderings that represent

the area of controversy can be found the words, “…if joining similar OD

(Outside Diameter) tubes, an interior sleeve machined to match the ID (Inside

Diameter) of the tubes shall be used…”  

Miller did not “join” anything on his car in the area of controversy.  The words “if joining” in this context can

only mean that “not joining” is an option. 

Not joining the new back half of the car in this area was done for

reasons that I’ll explain in a moment.

Interestingly, in the same small print referred to above are found

the words, “Dissimilar OD attachment shown in drawing.”  This, then, is an admission that the

rendering is not exactly representative of all permissible attachments.

It’s critically important to note that interior sleeves are not

interior reinforcement tubes.

In the SFI Top Fuel Spec 2.3N (revised November 19, 2007, edited

on December 18,2007, and per committee members, Brad Hadman and Ty Baumgartner,

still in need of more editing) I counted numerous instances that can lead one

to find the differences:

A) All interior reinforcement tubes have a specified or calculated

wall thickness.  They are, by the use of

the word “reinforcement,” structural in nature.

a d v e r t i s e m e n t

Click to visit our sponsor’s website

B) All interior sleeves have no minimum wall thickness

requirement.  They are only for alignment

purposes and to facilitate manufacturing. 

Even if one were to ignore the words “if joining” and require the

presence of an interior sleeve, the wall thickness could legitimately be, well,

almost nothing.

It’s my express belief – a belief shared by others who were

involved in the SFI T/F Chassis Spec update, that Miller’s car was completely

legal when it was inspected at Firebird Raceway.  The sad truth is that Miller – and the NHRA

tech officials who inspected the car – are nothing more than the “victims” of a

poorly written spec that was rushed into use without sufficient study and

forethought.

The reason the back half of Miller’s car was not “joined” in the

area of controversy is that he and others involved in chassis manufacturing,

including myself, have taken a position regarding frangible “break-away” zones

in race car chassis.  We’ve discussed –

at length – the potential affects on the driver and favor the “not-to-break”

scenario.

With that in mind, I would like to add a most important point –

that some cars have separated into clearly defined “pieces” on impact is a

result of design.  Not so.  These separations are more the result of

happenstance provoked by efforts regarding performance (i.e. flexibility) and

space limitations (i.e. under the cylinder heads).  This “designed to break” is a post rational

concept — a dangerous one.   Just

consider, for a moment, the danger represented by a cartwheeling engine that

has come out of a Top Fuel Dragster at speed. 

The potential negative ramifications of such a scenario are

immense. 

I am not suggesting that the latest SFI Top Fuel Chassis Spec

needs to be completely re-written. 

Rather, I am strongly urging the members of the SFI Chassis Committee,

along with representatives of PRO and NHRA, if necessary, to re-visit this

latest spec and re-write those portions that are so esoteric as to be

interpretatively, scientifically, and litigiously, incomprehensible by those of

us charged with building legal and safe cars to those specs.