Krawiec Runs 199.26 MPH to Set New NHRA Speed Record; Hines Qualifies Third

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (March 13, 2011) – Harley-Davidson® Screamin’ Eagle®/Vance & Hines rider Eddie Krawiec opened the 2011 NHRA Full Throttle Series Pro Stock Motorcycle drag racing season with a victory at the 42nd annual Tire Kingdom NHRA Gatornationals at Gainesville Raceway. Krawiec, who also won at Gainesville in 2010, posted the quickest elapsed time of Sunday eliminations in round three with a 6.825-second pass at 198.85 mph on a Harley-Davidson® V-Rod®, and won the final when Geico Suzuki rider Karen Stoffer fouled at the start.

“This track had some killer conditions, it was meant to go fast,” said Krawiec. “My V-Rod was very consistent all weekend and I just came to the line feeling very comfortable every round. I felt zero pressure today.”

Krawiec was the second-fastest qualifier for the event with a 6.788-second ET in the first round on Friday, and also set a new national class record for top speed at 199.26 mph. Krawiec was bettered only by Lucas Oil Buell rider Hector Arana, who opened qualifying with a 6.777 run that reset the Pro Stock Motorcycle national ET record of 6.811 seconds set by Krawiec at Pomona in November, 2010. Harley-Davidson® Screamin’ Eagle®/Vance & Hines rider Andrew Hines used a 6.826-second pass in the second round on Friday to qualify third.

In Sunday eliminations, Hines won his opening round match with Suzuki rider Steve Johnson, but lost in round two to Nitrofish Suzuki rider LE Tonglet, who used a 0.020 reaction time and 6.825 ET to beat the 0.029/6.852 effort of Hines.

“After three days of testing last week, and then the performance of these Harley-Davidson Screamin’ Eagle bikes at Gainesville, I can say we’ve had a successful off-season,” said Hines. “I had a great bike today, and had the bad luck to run into the defending champion on his best run of the weekend. That race between me and Tonglet may go have been one of the quickest combined times in history.”

Krawiec opened with a win over Suzuki rider Katie Sullivan in round one, and got a pass in round two when SAF/Motorcycle Specialties rider Gerald Savoie fouled at the start. In the semi-final round, Krawiec used that blistering 6.825-second pass to defeat Tonglet, the defending series champion, who ran 6.861.  Krawiec then advanced to his 20th career final round and secured his eighth career event win when Stoffer left the line just 0.002 seconds early.

“The third-round match with Tonglet was just great racing,” said Krawiec. “There will be no gimmee rounds this season. The level of competition is up a little, and there are a lot of racers out here that can run 6.8s. If we stay consistent and make good passes every round we’ll get our wins this year.”

Krawiec opens the season leading the Pro Stock Motorcycle division in points with 124. Arana, who lost to Stoffer in round three, is second with 104 points. Stoffer is third with 100 points, followed by Tonglet with 74 points and Hines with 62.

The Pro Stock Motorcycles will next race April 29 – May 1 at the O’Reilly Auto Parts NHRA Spring Nationals at Royal Purple Raceway in Baytown, Texas.



  1. Thanks for your post. I would also love to comment that the first thing you will need to complete is check if you really need credit restoration. To do that you will have to get your hands on a copy of your credit rating. That should really not be difficult, because the government makes it necessary that you are allowed to obtain one free of charge copy of your own credit report on a yearly basis. You just have to request the right persons. You can either find out from the website for your Federal Trade Commission as well as contact one of the major credit agencies directly.

  2. The reason behind this is that businesses do not want to left any opportunity
    to get the the i – Phone consumer base and hence, reach out whit their message with
    regard to the sale. It’s also great while holding the baby or doing dishes.
    I’ve found three of them available now in the market.

  3. It’s a mind altering concept for most, but always a liberating one – visit awayfind to see what I’m talking about.
    Mosst battery cases nowadays offer a dock connector on the cat iphone case itself so
    you don’t have to remove the case when charging. For speedster glam typoes
    in rainy climates sucfh as hat of Hillsboro, Porache sells a toasty, extra-long women’s cardigan with a discrete metal taag featuring the familiar logo.

  4. Whoa! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It’s on a entirely different subject but it has pretty much the same layout
    and design. Superb choice of colors!

    Feel free to visit my site :: best road bikes under 500 (Scot)

  5. It is appropriate time to make some plans for the
    future and it is time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I
    could I want to suggest you few interesting things or advice.
    Maybe you can write next articles referring to
    this article. I want to read even more things about it!

  6. Greetings from Colorado! I’m bored to death at work so I decided
    to check out your blog on my iphone during lunch break.
    I enjoy the knowledge you provide here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home.
    I’m shocked at how quick your blog loaded on my
    mobile .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, great blog!

  7. Learn how to write evaluation literature.

    Подробнее читайте здесь – официальный сайт
    What is overview of literature?
    Writing the introduction
    Writing one’s body
    Writing the actual final outcome
    What is an assessment of literature?
    The format of an assessment literature can vary from discipline to discipline and from assignment to

    A review can be a self-contained unit — a conclusion in itself — or even a preface to and rationale for starting
    primary research. A review is usually a required component of grant and research proposals and
    sometimes a chapter in theses and dissertations.

    Generally, the purpose of any review is usually to analyze critically a segment of the published body
    of data through summary, classification, and comparison of prior scientific tests,
    reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.

    Writing the introduction
    In the introduction, you ought to:

    Define or identify the topic, issue, or part of concern, thus providing
    the right context for reviewing the literature.
    Point out overall trends as to what has been published regarding the subject; or
    conflicts on paper, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or maybe a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.

    Establish the writer’s reason (viewpoint) for reviewing the
    literature; explain the standards to be used in analyzing and
    comparing literature and also the organization from the
    review (sequence); and, at the appropriate interval,
    state why certain literature is or perhaps is not included (scope).


    Writing your body
    In your body, you must:

    Group clinical tests and other sorts of literature (reviews, theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) in line with common denominators like qualitative versus quantitative approaches, conclusions of authors, specific
    purpose or objective, chronology, etc.
    Summarize individual studies or articles with just as much or only a small amount detail as each merits based on its comparative importance within the literature, remembering that
    space (length) denotes significance.
    Provide the various readers with strong “umbrella” sentences at
    beginnings of paragraphs, “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points within the
    review to help with understanding comparisons and analyses.

    Writing the actual final outcome
    In concluding, it is best to:

    Summarize major contributions of significant studies and
    articles on the body of info under review, maintaining the attention established inside introduction.
    Evaluate the present “state in the art” with the body of information reviewed, indicating
    major methodological flaws or gaps in research,
    inconsistencies the theory is that and findings, and
    areas or issues pertinent to future study.
    Conclude by offering some advice about the relationship
    relating to the central topic from the literature review plus a larger division of study for example a discipline, a scientific
    endeavor, or possibly a profession.

    For more info see our handouts on Writing a Critical
    Review of the Nonfiction Book or Article or Reading a Book to Review It.

    To find out more on literature reviews, have a look
    at our workshop on Writing Literature Reviews of Published Research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>