WHERE IS ED HINTON’S SENSE OF CONTEXT?
PLUS PRE-TALLADEGA MISCELLENEA
The monster from Alabama is back this
weekend. More thoughts as we approach:
The overkill aspect of the safety debate
gets another example in Ed Hinton’s hysterical piece, "Where Is NASCAR’s
Conscience?" Being in the Orlando Sentinel, it is natural that it erupts in
a flurry of baseless anger.
"Sunday’s Talladega 500 looms as
perhaps the most unnecessarily dangerous event in the history of auto
racing," is a line that says it all about overkill. Obviously Hinton has
ignored that not one of the seventeen big-league racing crashes from 1994 onward
involving driver and non-participant fatalities involved a "big one"
at Daytona or Talladega; all but a few involved single cars.
"It was under such conditions that
Dale Earnhardt died…..after an 18-car pileup 24 laps earlier, with Tony
Stewart barely escaping." BARELY escaping? Stewart’s tumble was actually
less severe than some he took in sprint cars and certainly pales compared to
savage airborne crashes involving Jimmy Horton, Micky Hudspeth, and Steve
Grissom at Atlanta and Geoff Bodine in the Trucks at Daytona. The most Stewart
got out of his Daytona crash was a mild concussion.
"72 hours before his death, Earnhardt
had observed that ‘the cars seem….more out of control.’" They’d run the
Shootout, the 125s, multiple practices, and only a minor two-car spin had
occurred to that point. In the 500 they ran 175 laps with only two minor
single-car incidents and raced three abreast all day without any problem with
stability.
The Stewart crash started because Robby
Gordon drilled Stewart and Ward Burton. This is the reality behind almost every
"big one" – the cars race forever without problem and then a bonehead
steps in and causes a problem. It was the case in Earnhardt’s 1996 Talladega
tumble, behind Ricky Craven’s Talladega tumble, and so forth. If anything, it
has steadily become harder to force a crash anymore.
"When the third place car lands on
top of the 24th place car, you know you’ve got a problem." Compared to
those other fatal wrecks, it amounts to a non-problem.
Hinton quotes Jeff Burton, "The fact
that Earnhardt got into that wreck was based on…the fact that we had
restrictor plates and wickers (on the roof and the spoiler) and all that.
There’s no denying that." Actually there is, Jeff – Earnhardt backed off
and so hogged the groove in the last lap that he basically reverse-bumped
Sterling Marlin.
"And surely, that’s what caused the
18-car wreck." No, Jeff, Robby Gordon caused the 18-car wreck.
"The last time NASCAR drivers arrived
at Talladega frightened was 1969…and they wound up refusing to race." It
didn’t matter – the race was run, the drivers who boycotted were (rightly) booed
by fans in subsequent events, and the boycott didn’t prove anything. They were
wrong then, they were wrong to single out New Hampshire last September, and
they’re wrong now.
"Ever since, artificial methods have
been sought and instituted by NASCAR to slow down the cars and keep Talladega
and its sister, Daytona, from becoming multimillion-dollar white elephants."
Hinton conveniently forgets that restrictor plates were first implemented in
1970 – at Michigan. They were used not only at Daytona and Talladega, but
Rockingham, Atlanta, Bristol, and so forth.
That plates and aero anchors are presently
not used elsewhere is still a mystery – last November Atlanta recommended the
use of aero anchors for the season finale, and NASCAR curiously turned them
down. Tests have been done with aero anchors at other tracks, and negative
driver reactions have been quite vague as to what specific reason exists against
their use.
"Slower is not better if you drive on
the edge of entanglement with other cars." That is the nature of
competition.
Hinton insults the reader by asking how
"enthusiastic NASCAR fans would be about (this kind of racing) if they’d
seen the blood pouring out of Earnhardt…..after ‘the show’ was over."
That is bears repeating is nauseating, but again, Earnhardt’s death had NOTHING
to do with any rules package.
"To artificially induce danger now,
just to make racing closer, to increase ticket sales and TV ratings – at a time
when so many scientific reductions of danger are known and available – is
inexcusable." No, Hinton, it is overkill on your and others’ part. Safety
is not improved by emasculating competition, and competition means heavy combat
for the race win. The competition we have now at Daytona and Talladega is as
close to the ultimate apex of racing as ever been reached. There is nothing at
all artificial about 49 lead changes among 21 drivers. There is no greater
ACTUAL danger at Talladega than there was at the three short tracks that have
seen fatalities this year or at New Hampshire and Texas last year – if anything,
the opposite is closer to the truth.
By now it is well known that at least some
teams will bring altered chassis to Talladega and presumably Fontana. The
chassis alterations involve "softer" front clips designed to better
absorb impacts.
There has been some speculation that these
changes "might not be included in the rulebook," writes Monte Dutton.
"There is talk that some teams are in effect daring NASCAR to declare a car
illegal that has been changed to make it safer." Ed Hinton writes,
"But should NASCAR disqualify the illegal chassis – their front ends
intentionally built of more crushable components than regulations mandate – then
God only knows."
But as I think about such talk, I offhand
cannot remember an instance where controversy in the inspection station ever
erupted over a chassis. Controversies almost always involve quarter panels, roof
height, engine compression and CID, carburetors, spoilers, left side weight, and
so forth – basically nothing more than sheet metal and engines.
As far as the chassis, the only instance I
can recall involving that was Jeff Burton’s disqualification at Richmond in 1994
when it was found that his team had drilled holes in some roll bars to lighten
the car.
The only controversy I can foresee is if
someone, in altering the chassis to make it safer, tries to sneak in a
performance-enhancing change like greater chassis offset, and such would
certainly be legitimate grounds for controversy. And while I certainly recommend
changes to the front clips for better impact absorption, there can be such a
thing as too soft.
The Talladega boycott talk of a month back
appears to have been nothing but loose talk. I suspect this "teams daring
NASCAR to DQ a safer chassis" talk is more such loose talk, or maybe even a
little macho posturing – I doubt any more controversy than normal erupts in the
inspection line.
Seatbelts roared back into the headlines
when NASCAR sent an advisory to teams that Mike Harmon’s belt suffered a tear in
his hard Turn Two crash at Nashville. Harmon suffered a broken shoulder.
Simpson’s response has been almost more
angry than when the belt breakage involving Earnhardt was first revealed. The
most striking aspect of this whole controversy is the difference between the two
sides’ reactions. NASCAR has taken more fire than the Iraqi Army in Desert
Storm, and has done little more than grovel; in contrast, even a whiff of
unfavorable commentary on Simpson seat belts – and even this has usually been
coached in reassurances of Simpson’s efforts and the reliability of his products
– has sent Simpson into making accusations of what amount to criminal framing
against him.
When NASCAR first revealed a breakage in
Earnhardt’s belt, the most that was said was Steve Bohannon’s statement that if
the belt hadn’t broken, Earnhardt would have survived. It was hardly an
unreasonable statement at the time, and even with Dr. Barry Myers’ report, it
isn’t terribly unreasonable to still think that belt breakage MIGHT have had
SOMETHING to do with Earnhardt’s death. Not once has anyone – NASCAR, the press,
anyone with any serious knowledge of the sport – made any kind of accusation
against Simpson and his company.
"NASCAR’s trying to leave Simpson
holding the bag," is the conspiracy mantra being preached in several
quarters. No they aren’t. Those involved in the sport need to stop blaming
anyone – be it Mike Helton, Bill Simpson, whoever – or anything – restrictor
plates, roof spoilers, chassis, whatever – and work together to improve safety.
Having said all this, we need to remember
that racing, whether it is at Talladega, New Hampshire, or any short track,
carries the risk of not coming back from a crash regardless of how thoroughly
safety efforts are made. A sad reminder comes here – Mark Wilson, the grandson
of Bob Trostle, a famed sprint car builder from Des Moines, was killed when his
sprinter shot hard right and punched the wall at Knoxville on the third lap of warm-ups.
Wilson had been racing for eleven years, had been the youngest winner in an IMCA
Super Nationals title, and had four wins at Knoxville and many wins at Iowa
State Fairgrounds.
It was Knoxville’s first fatality since
Danny Young’s death in a World of Outlaws event in 1995. Many Iowa area fans
will and should miss Mark Wilson.
Amid the controversy over Talladega, a sad
anniversary looms. In mid-May New Hampshire will run the Grand National Series –
one year after Adam Petty’s death during Grand National practice.
Return Of The Hitchhiker.
This is a good title for Morgan Shepherd’s
return to Winston Cup, with Stan Hover’s #80 Ford team. Shepherd has signed for
sixteen races this season.
Hard to believe, but Clay Morgan
Shepherd’s first Winston Cup start came in 1970. He raced sporadically in
Winston Cup over the 1970s, usually with Makar Enterprises – if I recall
correctly, it appears this was the launching point for crew chief Jimmy Makar –
and a #84 Mercury. Shepherd even gave the team a top ten at Dover in 1977.
"They used to call me The
Hitchhiker," he said on TNN in 1995. It is a fitting moniker given the high
number of teams for which Morgan has driven. His first win came with Cliff
Stewart at Martinsville in 1981, then he gave Jack Beebe his last win when he
won Atlanta in 1986. Bud Moore was brought to Atlanta’s victory lane in 1990,
and the Wood Brothers’ last win before Elliott Sadler came with Shepherd at
Atlanta in 1993. One that got away was at Atlanta in November 1998 – having
jumped into the lame duck Stavola Brothers’ #8 Chevrolet, Morgan looked like a
possible winner and certain top-five finisher until getting drilled by Jeff
Gordon near the end.
Recently Shepherd has driven a few races
in the Craftsman Truck Series and has led at Daytona in the Trucks – I suspect
he’s lobbied for a Truck date for Atlanta.
Also returning are the Featherlite
Modifieds at Thompson, CT. Originally scheduled for the first of April, bad
weather forced a postponement to the Talladega weekend – an ironic repeat of
last October.
Mike Stefanik is back on the Tour, driving
the #21 long driven by Mike Ewanitzko – I must confess to surprise at this
pairing, as I had thought Mighty Mike would wind up as a teammate alongside Ted
Christopher’s #25 Dodge. Stefanik drove as a Terrible Ted teammate at Thompson
last October and came up second.
Stefanik, Teddy, and company will mix it
up to great effect at Thompson, then at Stafford a week later. But the one I’m
really looking forward to is New Hampshire, the Tour’s best track, and one can
hardly wait to see Mighty Mike take on Terrible Ted and company once the Tour
arrives at Loudon this summer.
Casey Atwood tested at Michigan during the
week leading to Easter, and despite several bouts of bad weather he managed a
reported speed of 196 MPH with a 45-MPH crosswind; his top-end speeds were in
the 202 MPH bracket.
Such doesn’t bode well for those who don’t
like power and aero restrictions on the cars, as 200 MPH has quasi-officially
been banished to the NASCAR scrap heap.
It also brings to mind a largely-forgotten
tumble by Elliott Sadler entering Turn One at Michigan, a tumble less likely at
substantially slower speeds than are presently turned.