Have ever actually sat down and watched the three-hour race raceday broadcast? Have you ever looked at it to see what those of us who don't get to the race track get to see on television?
LB: Yes, I do watch the show and I'm very critical about how our team appears, our interviews, the way the graphics are on our cars, all of these things. I look at that and try to make our team look as good as possible. I also look at the overall production of the program and see how we come across to the public and to other racers involved in other forms of racing.
We hear a lot of talk about the acquisition of NHRA's professional divisions from HD Partners and that they are going to take us to the next level. So we are asking ourselves, what is the next level?
LB: In my mind, the next level would have to be a better television package. We are currently on ESPN2, Sunday night, tape delayed, and that has a certain value. When you're out looking for sponsors and you're talking dollar figures to them, unless there is some kind of superb marketing program that goes along with the sponsorship, the general mindset is that we (race teams) are worth a $1,500,000 yearly sponsorship because of the television package that we have. Now, if we had even the start of certain races over on the premium channels, if we had select events televised on NBC, ABC, or CBS, the dollar value of that air time would be worth more than it is on ESPN2 tape delayed. So now the mindset of corporate America would be that we are worth more money. That's the domino affect of things that take you to the next level.
After watching the NHRA broadcast from Norwalk, what is your grade for that show as a TV viewer?
LB: I thought it was about a C; just an average show. Other than the Del Worsham incident, which was fantastic entertainment, it (the show) was based on two cars smoking tires and who pedaled it to the finish line first. It wasn't some guy tricking the other guy, it wasn’t performance, and that's what drag racing in my mind is all about.
What would you like to see on the NHRA/ESPN2 broadcast that would make it better? I mean we can all criticize the TV show, but you have to have a solution if you're going to criticize.
|
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT 
|
LB: I think there should be more limitations on what is repeatedly shown; there are a lot more stories going on. There are a lot of stories that would interest viewers that aren't necessarily performance or race related. They talked about Doug Kalitta Sr., yet there wasn't any footage of it and as big of an icon as he is around the sport, I'm sure that someone at least should've had a picture of him, somebody could've told a little bit of his life story.
The other thing I noticed about the other sports is that they really promote their drivers, their team owners, even their crew chiefs. In oval racing sometimes, it can get boring just watching a stock car making lap after lap after lap. What they (NASCAR TV shows) seem to have figured out is that they make their drivers stars. We (drag racing) needs to show people, who they are in racing and away from racing. I think that is what our sport needs. We need to spend more time focusing on our stars that are out there. Obviously guys like Kenny Bernstein, John Force, those types of guys that have really made the sport. You have to continue to make the public aware that those are the icons around the sport. On the other hand you have to promote the up and coming guys like the Hot Rod Fuller's and JR Todd's and people like that.
Do you have any other issues with the tracks and track prep?
LB: Okay, talking back about the track surface. If you noticed at Norwalk, the Top Fuel cars, at about 700-800 feet down track were making violent moves up and down. What that does is to unload and then reload the rear tires. When I look at the computer data I see this big saw-tooth rpm graph. We saw a lot of engine explosions at that spot and those engine explosions were directly related to the bumps in the racetrack. I think it's imperative before an event the track owners, whether they are NHRA-owned tracks or privately owned tracks, have their surfaces “lasered” and then ground smooth.
Without the bumps you're not going to see as many engine explosions because engines run better when they're run steadily from start to finish. When they go out there on full throttle, hit a bump, unload the tires and then hit the track causing the tires grab again, that's an invitation for engine failure. There are tracks that have predominately had bumps in them, the racers complain during the event, and we go back the next year, they (the bumps) are still there.
The economics of blowing the engine due to a bad track surface is bad, but the other thing is the oil-downs adversely affect the quality of the show. It's one big giant circle of rules, tracks, schedules -- all of these things put together is what determines if the spectators see a good quality show.
When the rev limiter starts putting out holes on a pass does that have any bad effect for the motor?
LB: Number 1, I think the rev limiter is a necessary component. If my son was driving a Top Fuel car, would I want him going 350 mph? Absolutely not. Over 300 mph is pretty darn fast, so we do definitely need to have a method of controlling the speed. The tire companies are capable of building tires that accept certain speeds and if we go beyond those (speeds) we put our driver's safety in jeopardy, so the rev limiter is a necessary component. Does it do as much damage as has been said over the past couple years? I don’t think so, but I do think it's one of the best excuses a crew chief could use. Anytime we have an engine failure I tell my team owner the rev limiter caused it to blow up again.