SEVERAL POINTS
1. Interesting concept on not having quite as much bite in track surfaces. I can tell you (since I consult for NHRA and was on the track) that Gainesville was pull-your-shoes-off sticky at the 1,000 feet mark. Despite this, the first pro session was a smoke-filled disaster. Hardly anybody made a decent run. I happened to speak with a very prominent crew chief who faulted the concrete grinding, the composition of the asphalt and the track preparation. I heard (and forgot) exactly how much VHT the track-prep crew used before the event and it astounded me.
2. Do you recall the fiasco we had in Englishtown a few years back when the centers of the tires were being pulled out because there were mine-shaft conditions? Do you know that one evening the crew scrubbed
off the VHT from 1,000 feet on because there were complaints that there was "too much traction"? I likened that to having too much money--there is no such thing. Note that all the Goodyears from that event went away afterward in a locked trailer and there was a new compound released shortly thereafter.
3. Inside rumor has it that the NHRA insurer and Goodyear don't want to see 240 mph come up on a scoreboard for safety reasons.
4. One Top Fuel driver at Gainesville told me that he was getting one run per set of slicks due to rubber chunking out of the tires. He opined that Goodyear didn't care because they would therefore be able to sell you more tires.
5. Have you ever spoken with Ray Alley about track prep? He's the one who gets beat up by the Pros on how the track is prepared. And it isn't just fuel teams, either. Ever note that the track gets sprayed with VHT before every Pro Stock session regardless of what conditions are?
6. Do you recall Columbus about 3 years ago when two Pro Stockers flipped two pairs apart? The track was a little "slimy" (actual word used by us on the track and by a very prominent Comp driver) and the crews were up in arms. Maybe a track with less grip isn't the complete answer.
Anyway, I'm not even sure I have a point to all this except to say that you might be on to something in your article and I commend you for putting your thought process in print.
Cordially,
Frank P. Reynolds, M.D.
SOLUTION: 1,000 FEET (AGAIN)
Jeff, might have something there on the track prep, but (I know this will get the feathers up) how about 1,000-ft races. Even the most powerful rigs in the universe (Fuel cars) don't really pull after the 1,000-ft mark. That is also where it seems most of the explosions occur. I know I am not wedded to the quarter mile.
The other thing is the racers would gain another 300 feet of runout that might really help on the shorter tracks. It would also help on the speed issue.
Doug Strong
NOSTALGIA IS THE FUTURE
I like your approach about cutting down on track prep. It should be combined with a different approach to cutting down the horsepower and blow-ups of the nitro classes. I'm no Ray Alley, but I would rather see TF/TC engines go to 30% overdrive, smaller or single fuel pumps, 98% nitro, less cubic inches, and no rev limiters. Hmmmm, sounds like nostalgia racing for me!
Tom Drew
Petaluma, CA
PUTTING THE DRIVER BACK IN THE EQUATION
Just wanted to say I am one that tends to agree with you on the clean up deal. I too am tired of sitting in the stands for what seems like hours while they do cleanup. Like you say, they are not going to set any new records, so why the impeccable clean up? Just make it safe.
It may make it more exciting for the fans as we watch cars on and off the throttle trying to make it down the track. You won't see any off the track and then back on the track racing like when I first started going to the races way back when, but I'm sure the fans will see the drivers actually driving the cars more than they do now,
Mike Galewski
Kansas
