ARE WE EXCITED YET?

Yazaa, Yazaa! You are right on with your article on IHRA going outlaw. Drag racing grew up on the outlaw image and so did stock car racing. That is what attracted me to both in the days of my youth and that is still what I want to see at the track. I have been a racer and fan since 1950 and I still get a thrill from flatout, balls to wall racing with all of the high tech, aero downforce. Limited power, spit and polish crap. Let's face it, if you take away the danger of wide open racing, it can sure get boring in a hurry.

Charlie Gilmore

P.S. I currently drive a 2000 lb 1,500 HP drag car that rides on a 91- inch wheelbase so I know a little about excitement.

QUESTIONING SPEC MOTORS

I will try to keep this short and make my point. I really cannot find any true reason for a "spec" engine program like NHRA is referring to. The nitro cars basically already run a "spec" engine design. All must be of hemi design, 14-71 "standard" supercharger, and 500 cid max. They must run a "spec" fuel, max 6 disk clutch, max 50% supercharger overdrive, "spec" gear ratio, "spec" tire, "spec" mags, and timing system. Now even a rev limiter.

The fuel classes already have more restrictions on them than just about any other racing class. Example: try building an exact "spec" Pro Stock engine and think of what that class would be like. The nitro cars really already have as many or more restrictions than NASCAR. Can the fuel cars run four different engine designs? A NASCAR engine makes around 800 hp and a fuel motor makes around 8000. Which one do you think costs more? Is a NASCAR engine more durable, really? Are the fuel cars more dangerous than 10-20 years ago? Is the technology less advanced for the speeds today then in years past? Is the sport growing safer or more unsafe by the accidents and injuries? How many accidents have been at 330+? Is a crash really that much worse at 330 than 320? And if 330 really is that much worse, the best answer for everyone would be to just shorten the track.

ADVERTISEMENT

I am totally against it, but I would much rather watch a full pull to say 1000 feet than to see one nose over and coast the last 300 feet. If cost is really a factor, I have yet to ever see a racing organization put on more restrictions and not cost the teams more money. If you have a thousand dollars you will spend it all whether it gets you 5 hp or 50 hp. And every hp will cost everyone the same.

If they want "safer" and "closer" racing open up the rules. Let them run traction control. You can get it on a $15,000 KIA, but it's too expensive to run it on a million dollar race car? It won't make a bad tune up run faster than a good tune up? So what's wrong with running it?

And the most important questions. Is slowing down what the owners, drivers, sponsors, and fans want? NHRA has given everyone a great place for racing, but without the drivers, owners, sponsors, and fans, NHRA as we know it would not exist. These decisions should be made by the people who: A: truly have the knowledge about these cars and not a guy "behind a desk," B: the drivers who take the risks to put on this "show," C: the sponsors who pay to put on this "show". Because D: the fans will make the final judgment on the decisions put forth. Which means: If the fans leave, then the sponsors leave, the drivers don't have a car to drive, and the crew chiefs don't have a car to tune, and the owners don't have the money to run a car.

So I hope NHRA keeps this in mind because "we" are watching, and as always, reserve the right to leave if "we" decide to do so. I truly love drag racing and I would hate to see a bad decision ruin 50+ years of building and growing of the NHRA pro classes is one swipe of a pen.

Just another concerned "fan."

Ron Buck Jr.