10/8/03

What's on your mind? Add your opinion to the mix. Send your email for publication to response@dragracingonline.com. Unsigned letters will not be published.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO INNOVATION?

Right on!!! You've articulated what I feel is a problem that NHRA has, and refuses to address. I've been complaining for some time that innovation in drag racing has taken a back seat to NHRA's desire for parity.

I've been following drag racing since 1965, before it became the Winston drag series. I've seen a lot of innovation. I remember when Don Garlits got his foot partly sawed off, and then came back with the first workable rear engine dragster. I watched the A/FX class turn into funny cars. I watched the creation of Pro-Stocks. (Now, they are nothing more than door slamming, carbureted funny cars to me.) (Tight racing yes, but somewhat boring at times.) I've watched classes like gas dragsters and fuel altereds disappear. Back in the mid eighties, when the fuel dragsters were beginning to look a lot like each other, Don Garlits, bless his ornery soul, brought out the small front tires, the canopies, and eventually, he came up with his soon to depart monostrut. They banned the small tires. No more canopies. Most of the differences with dragsters and funny cars are subtle and, to the average observer, invisible.

I think your idea is a good one. I am a longtime member of the NHRA. I plan on writing them a letter to tell them to read your column. (Actually, they probably have, but you won't be able to get any of them to admit it!)

David N. Gawboy

NO TIME FOR INNOVATION

I just got back from Joliet and after seeing Kalitta's 4.428 @ 333.00, Scelzi's 329.18, Densham's 4.723 and many other incredible performances, I disagree that there are not tuners out there trying and succeeding, to make the cars go faster and quicker within the rules. There have always been rules to go by and for whatever reason they are set up the racers have always found a way to go faster within them. I think that as with most areas of

ADVERTISEMENT

competition, the closer you get to the top of a pinnacle the longer it takes to get a very small progress. Take the a Top Fuel quarter mile run, the car gets to 275+ MPH in the first half and only gains and additional 50 MPH in the second half. The amount of HP it takes to go just a little bit faster is huge.

Limiting the fuel cars may end up with a Pro Stock type of field where everyone is trying to qualify within a .050 ET spread. Where is the time to innovate? It's either a near perfect run or you're out. A Pro can't risk trying new things when the competition is that tight. I think if you looked at the rate of change in the performance in any class over the last 40 - 50 years you would see a steady decline in the rate of improvement. The better something gets the harder it becomes to improve it.

That said, I don't understand why, with all the millions spent on race facilities, they don't have great racing surfaces. I am in construction and know that concrete is not that expensive. Why don't they pave with concrete? Or at least have smooth asphalt surfaces? Asphalt is cheap. It's only 1/4 of a mile! (plus the shutdown). It's like a basketball team playing on a linoleum floor because they don't want to spend the money on wood and then want to limit the players because they are falling on the floor.

This is the most important part of the racing equation that is directly controllable. I remember watching the cars bounce over the bump at Joliet in June, at last September's race and before that. Yes, I see they are finally doing something about it, but why did it take so long? And what about the other tracks? Even without the weather factor there are many of the tracks I wouldn't waste my money to travel to, to see racing because the track is not good. This weekend shows the cars have the power and can go faster, they just need the tracks to do it on.

Well, there's my 2 cents worth. I don't always agree with you, but I do enjoy your insight into racing. You have an insider's viewpoint that I appreciate.

Paul Stier