DOUBLE-SPEAK?

Jeff Burk: I was just curious how you can justify your diametrically opposed positions on Pro Mod and NHRA Pro Stock recent issues. In the Pro Mod program, you want to unleash the blown cars, yet in Pro Stock you want to throttle them back by restricting use of technology (metallurgy specifically). If you are going to "get up on the tires" about beryllium because of its carcinogenic characteristics, why didn't you get upset when racers started using beryllium copper valve seats ten years ago? Those things are machined in open air.

I am not arguing that you are "wrong"; just that I see inconsistency in your stand on these two issues.

By the way, I think they should do something to achieve parity between the blown and nitrous cars, not just sure what it is as I am philosophically against slowing down a heads-up class yet see the need for both types of cars to remain. I am opposed to the removal of technology from Pro Stock. Last time I looked, this was not an "econo" class. Anderson is dominant, but so what? It did not kill the class when Glidden had the world covered by a tenth, did it? And his comments in National Dragster pretty much told the story that Anderson deserves to be on top because he and his team earned their way there.

Concerns about costs have been with auto racing since the days of Barney Oldfield. It is not new, and it will never change that these machines run on money. Either get the money or do like me and become a bracket racer. And I do not remember it being more "fun" in the old days either. I remember the open trailers, sitting in the pickup watching it rain (now I sit in the RV and watch the TV with the AC going) and wondering if and when we would race. Borrowing the towels from the motel so we could dry the car. Enough memory lane.

I do enjoy DRO and keep it up.

William D. (Dee) Kruse

BURK RESPONDS

Dee, First, I think you need to go back and read any and all references in this magazine to the use of Beryllium. We didn't come down on either side of the issue of whether racers should or shouldn't be using it in engine building. We simply reported the fact that it was extremely expensive and that it was a serious carcinogen and took no editorial position one way or the other.

On the issue of the valve seats (by the way I think there are some valve springs that have been built with Beryllium as part of the alloy material used to make them), the fact is that I never knew of Beryllium's heath- hazard properties until this subject came to light recently. Had I known earlier that Beryllium was being used and that exposure to it could be a

ADVERTISEMENT

serious health risk, I would have been way up on the tires about its use. I have brought the subject up with several people and have been told that virtually every Pro Stock head has these seats. It is something that NHRA will have to address and I will remind them of that.

As for Pro Mod and Pro Stock issue I am diametrically opposed to slowing these cars down for a lot of reasons but mainly because IHRA Pro Stockers are in increasing numbers running laps in the 6.40 range at over 215 mph and at the race in Canada the final round of Pro Mod saw a 6.34 win over a 6.38. Yuck! These are cars that were capable of speeds over 232 mph and elapsed times in the six-ohs. I have no interest as a fan in seeing a '63 Corvette, '41 Willys or Viper bastardized version of Pro Stock.

One last thing, using the word parity in the any sentence relating to any kind of racing is just ridiculous. There isn't parity anywhere in any motorsport that I'm aware off from box stock go-kart classes to NASCAR's restrictor plate races. I'm of the opinion that trying to achieve the nirvana of parity is simply impossible. -- Jeff Burk