BAZEMORE WAS RIGHT

I too was aghast at the conditions that the NHRA forced the racers to contend with! The only time I have seen such a total "one lane race track" was Seattle right before the pro classes promised not to go back unless the facility was corrected! Of course they could not do the same with Pomona, right?

Seems like those that have the courage to stand up and tell the truth are always punished by those in control who want the truth overlooked for whatever reasons. Whit should have been applauded and maybe back in the pits he was. I think that the rest of the pro teams should step up and help Whit pay the fine since he was the only one brave enough to tell it like it was.

John Steffen

LOSE THAT 320 FEET

As you have noticed, nothing that has been done so far slows the cars down for very long. The creativity and determination of drag racers to go faster and faster simply overcomes whatever obstacles the rules-makers place in the way of steadily higher speeds and lower elapsed times. So, if you want (or need) to slow them down and you want safety to be as good as it can be without having to race in OSHA-approved vehicles, and if you want to allow the creative genius of drag racers to be unchecked in the "unlimited" classes (which is one of those things you "wonder" about), what can be done?

Move the finish line to 1,000 feet.

I can hear it now..."You can't change drag racing from the quarter mile..." Why not? The insurance companies would be happier, and that could cut costs for everyone. The track owners, who either have to give up events or lengthen their shut-down areas, would be happier for obvious reasons. Those who are concerned about driver safety in cars that are approaching 340 m.p.h. in 1320 feet (that would be all of us especially since we have just lost a great one) would (or should) be happier knowing a real step had been taken to protect drivers. Racers could (might?) be happier with the possibility of lower costs associated with not blowing up so much equipment.

New fans wouldn't care if the finish line was at 1,000 feet, especially if they got to see 2 cars make it down the track side-by-side more often than not (which is where the suggestions in your column come into play).

I, like you, grew up watching the cars go the full 1/4 mile at Amarillo Dragway, and I remember having a decidedly negative reaction to NHRA's proposal to shorten the track to 1,000 feet back in the late '70's (or was that the '80's...) Remember? But there is a whole lot of difference in 250 m.p.h. and 340 m.p.h., so I am now much more open to such an idea. To me, it is the simplest, easiest, cheapest solution to what is now an issue of safety, economics and liability.

ADVERTISEMENT

Think about it. The cars already go 300 mph at 1,000 ft, so what do we lose in the minds of the fans? No other major form of automobile racing remotely approaches 300, so we are still the kings of speed. If you shorten the track, there is less need for limitations to be put on the racers to slow the cars down. This allows for the "unlimited" classes to remain as close to that as they are now. If a shorter track means less mechanical failures, how many more racers could afford to run full schedules? More racers typically equals a better show.

Is a shorter race track detrimental to the fans' view of the race? Not hardly. I say that after five years of working at a very successful 1/8 mile track. The fans get just as much enjoyment out of low 4-second Pro Mods going 660 feet as I did seeing Rick Ramsey pilot the California Charger AA/FD to a 6.80 track record e.t. in the 1/4 at Amarillo in 1971. (Trust me, that was a lot of enjoyment...) Some of the best racing around is done in 1/8 mile fashion, so length of race track is less relevant than quality of racing.

There will be some "purists" that will absolutely freak about this possible solution, but I think the merits warrant consideration. I have no doubt that we can progress to 3.99 in the quarter-mile at 400 mph but how many drivers will we lose along the way, and how many people will pay to come see the 6 teams that can afford to do it at the 4 tracks willing to incur the liability of hosting the event?

Food for thought...

David Rattan