CHANGES, CONTEXT, AND NAMES

By now you’ll have read that the
post-Talladega 500 test of a larger roofline greenhouse and wider front fenders
for the cars went unproductively. The idea was that a larger greenhouse would
add enough drag to allow removal of the roof spoiler. But the speeds turned – in
the 187 range – showed that the roof spoiler still works for adding drag to the
cars.

Actually, one should not be surprised that
this test did not achieve what was hoped of it. One should remember last October
at Talladega when it turned out that teams could not get away with using a
larger restrictor plate, so in the middle of Saturday teams were issued a plate
almost the size of the one they’d used in the previous two plate races.

One should also remember that Gary Nelson
was hired by NASCAR in large part to find an overall alternative to the
restrictor plates, and has found none to exist after some nine years of looking.

Finally, one should remember that the kind
of drag provided by a larger greenhouse and wider nose is the kind that the body
massaging teams are constantly giving their cars can overcome – this is why the
draft at Daytona and Talladega has been so inconsistent from 1985 onward and why
it all but disappeared from other tracks after 1983. In contrast, the roof
spoiler’s drag is far more difficult to overcome – impossible to overcome,
perhaps. With the roof spoilers, the draft has become consistently powerful
again.

Having said all this, though, one should
see a future for larger roofline greenhouses – just not as a substitute for roof
spoilers. A larger greenhouse allows more room for drivers inside the cockpit
and also better facilitates use of larger, more crash-resistant seating and
head-and-neck safety systems.

For the 2002 season we may see larger
greenhouses despite the unproductive Talladega test. Some other changes may
and/or should come about as well:

The noses of the cars should be
lengthened by about a foot to allow a zone for better impact absorption – AKA
a crush zone – in a crash.

The roof spoiler and wicker on the
rear spoiler should be tested more and tried in competition at more
racetracks. Pre-2001 tests at Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Texas brought
inconclusive results and some rather vague negative comments from drivers.
Given what the roof spoilers have done in improving competition on the plate
tracks, it is worth seeing what they can do in competition elsewhere.

"Special" racecars should be
banned. Teams build special racecars for specific tracks. At times a
particular car will find use at different tracks – notably Steve Park’s
three stellar outings at Rockingham, Darlington, and Bristol with the same
car – but it doesn’t stop the practice of having ten or more different cars,
each suited to a different track.

The practice should be stopped – require teams to use their Daytona car,
with an available backup, at all 2.5 milers, two-milers, and 1.5 milers;
require them to use their Rockingham car with backup for all short tracks,
one-milers, at Darlington, and for the road courses.

Qualifying engines and setups should
be banned. NASCAR was supposedly to ban qualifying engines for 2001, but
they’re still here. They need to be banned, as well as qualifying setups –
require teams to qualify with a full tank of gas, no tape on the grille, and
cannot change engines after qualifying. Only in Daytona Speedweeks should
teams be allowed the use of a second engine – there they should use one
engine for pole qualifying, the Shootout, practice, and the 125s, with the
option to use a second engine for subsequent practice and the 500.

The rule banning passing below the
yellow line should be rescinded. It contributes nothing to safety and
instead only emasculates competition by shutting off a lane they can use –
and in fact need, given how drivers hog the bottom grooves every lap now –
to pass. Such a rule was recommended by some drivers at Talladega last
October but was vetoed by NASCAR; in the subsequent Winston 500 passing
below the yellow line posed no problem for anyone at any time, and at
Daytona passing below the yellow line did not cause any problem.

Bobby Hamilton’s win has been called
something of a surprise, especially at restrictor-plate tracks. But Hamilton’s
uninspiring reputation on the plate tracks was never particularly justified. Few
remember that his breakthrough race in terms of display of ability was the 1991
Winston 500; nor do they remember his respectable finishes at Daytona and
Talladega in the spring of 1994 with SABCO, especially Daytona with the team
struggling to find a sponsor. Nor did the rail birds who pronounced Hamilton
weak on the plate tracks remember some gutsy efforts with Petty Enterprises –
most notably Talladega in April 1996 – and with Morgan-McClure, notably the last
two October 500s at Talladega.

The truth is that Hamilton was a plate win
looking to happen. The same is true of the majority of other competitors, who
either have not won on the plate tracks or haven’t won in some time.

It shows the folly of reading stats
unsupported by any real world context.

Dave Despain noted in April 1996, "We
(in the media) read (driver) press releases with a grain of salt, and I had a
whole shaker full of salt" after reading a Rusty Wallace PR saying Rusty
was looking forward to Talladega. This is sage advice when reading driver quotes
– I regularly get bashed by people who say, "The drivers say this, and I’m
going with the drivers." The drivers are as human as we all are, and
they’re as prone to ignoring context as any.

Context was MIA at Talladega before the
race, and it is similarly absent in the CART community with the coming Texas
600k. There is considerable trepidation about how CART cars will do at Texas
Motor Speedway, trepidation that appears to ignore past IRL events there. Not
that there isn’t justification for trepidation – after all, these cars really
should not be running over 200 MPH, at Texas or anywhere else. But given how IRL
has managed at Texas, CART should not have much problem there.

And will someone stand up and say NO to
racetrack naming rights?

California Speedway may have a corporate
name soon, on top of the corporate name used for Charlotte Motor Speedway. What
no one seems to ask is, why? Why do these tracks NEED corporate names? It isn’t
a matter of sponsor necessity – Pocono, for one, has not had sponsors for its
two Winston Cup races since 1996 yet has no problem with that at all.

We should not refer to racetracks by
anything other than their geographical locales – California should remain
California, Charlotte should be called Charlotte, and so forth.