Running Laps, Running Mouths
So testing has begun. Week One of testing
has proceeded and one can already hear the clicking of politics. Of the top
fifteen speeds in both of the first two days of Daytona’s first test, Chevrolets
controlled all but about four. The strongest Ford was usually Geoff Bodine in a
second James Finch Taurus, while Dale Jarrett, expected to be among the fastest
cars, didn’t post the same speeds as the Chevrolets.
The "sandbagging" rhetoric has
also kicked in, but that isn’t really relevant as the politicking will kick in
regardless. The Chevrolets are running with a quarter inch less spoiler than the
other makes, a concession that will certainly cause uproar, especially given
that the Chevys got a similar concession when the roof spoiler was run.
Dale Junior, for his part, has claimed
that the Fords are sandbagging, and Marc
Reno seems to confirm such; he noted that his team isn’t playing by
"rules" set down by Ford, but is instead looking for speed.
Regardless, the one coming out of the box
fast was Jimmie Johnson in Rick Hendrick’s #48 Chevrolet (wonder what James
Hylton thinks of the use of his number). The big surprise was the noticeable
improvement in Terry Labonte’s Chevrolet, which posted consistently strong
speeds throughout the test. The other surprise was the impressive effort of
Geoff Bodine in a James Finch Ford.
But of course – remember these messages on
TV from the Emergency Broadcast System? – this is only a test. Buckshot Jones
tested with year-old equipment – how many others did likewise?
In no need of testing is the running of
the mouth. Of this certain people routinely display ample capability.
Jeff Gordon shows some mouth-running when
he pines that Daytona speeds are too slow. "I think we’d all like to go
faster. Maybe they could make a plate change." Or maybe you can shut up and
race for a change, Jeffrey – you don’t need to go faster; 184 and change in the
draft is fast enough.
Gordon next explains the rationale behind
not running the roof spoiler this time around: "the draft this time will be
more methodical, more of a driver’s race where you’ve got to work on a guy and
be smart. It won’t be just pull out and pass when you catch the guy. There will
be a lot more tactics that go into it."
Was Gordon watching a tape of the 1988
Daytona 500? He sounds a lot like Darrell Waltrip, explaining how it was now a
driver’s game with the restrictor plate: "Now I can do more than I could
before. Now, instead of a car just blasting by me with a burst of speed and a
lot of horsepower, he’s got to think his way around, he’s got to DRIVE his way
around me." When the draft worked it was fine, but as the draft was raked
out of the cars the reality was that they could not close up or pass, a reality
that hit the teams in Daytona’s draft practice and which will become a big issue
as Speedweeks gets going.
Darrell Waltrip’s greatest talent is
running his mouth – it’s why he is so easy to dislike at times. He runs it again
in kissing
up to Jeff Gordon’s refusal to run IROC. "A driver like Gordon has
everything to lose and nothing to gain by running IROC," Darrell claims.
"You risk a lot every time you run IROC. If you get a bad car….people say
it’s because you’re a bad driver. If you get a good car and run well, what have
you accomplished?"
As it is, there is something to this.
While IROC cars are as identical as one can make them, there are differences
that affect how drivers perform. It has been asked on occasion if it would not
be better to allow some participant-driver input into the setups; there might be
some viability to such.
Overall, though, the argument against
running IROC doesn’t wash. Darrell pines about "the risk that you could get
hurt – remember when Eddie Cheever wrecked Earnhardt in last year’s IROC race at
Daytona?" Yeah, I remember, and he didn’t wreck Earnhardt – Earnhardt tried
to crowd him and Eddie hit back, hardly the stuff of condemnation or even
intelligent controversy.
"As a driver nowadays, you need to
minimize your risks." Really? Then what are you doing driving racecars?
When you get the attitude of "hey, think of the risks," then you’re
done as a race driver. It has been a reality of racing from Day One.
Darrell also claims he and Earnhardt would
ask each other after IROC races, "Why are we doing this?" When IROC
came calling to Darrell in 1997, well, given the principle of the thing, to run
IROC would have imposed such grave risk and cost that it would be indefensible
to even contemplate participation……
EEEEEHHHHHHHH! Wrong answer. Darrell ran
IROC and also a number of Craftsman Truck races and, past his prime, acquitted
himself pretty well. So Waltrip’s argument is as disingenuous as he has always
been in running his mouth.
Also running his mouth recently has been
Matt McLaughlin. First he goes bananas on "a certain would-be sportswriter
who weekly takes to task by name other writers who don’t buy into his
‘self-evident truths’" because said writer wrote that Pocono was
"halfway between Pittsburgh and New York City." This of course is not
literally true and was not supposed to be construed as such, yet McLaughlin
takes extreme umbrage anyway.
Now by this standard I should note the
gauche foolishness in his
statement about the 1999 Daytona 500. "That was the race where Dale
Jarrett….staged a race that started the whole ‘racing is boring’ controversy
that year." McLaughlin’s critical faculties need work, for the 1999 Daytona
500 was not won by Jarrett as he implies, and was not boring, though there
wasn’t enough competition in that one, either. It was the 2000 Daytona 500 that
was an insult to the intelligence of the entire sport.
"But in the end a boring but
non-lethal race like (2000) beats last year’s tragedy narrowly averted and
tragedy finally realized 2001 Daytona 500." It does not. The tragedy of
that race doesn’t change that the 2001 Daytona 500 was by far the most
competitive race of 2001 – 49 lead changes beats anything in NASCAR except two
races over the last twelve years; 49 lead changes is supposed to be racing’s
norm, not its exception.
It is the hoary and bogus dichotomy about
how more ferocious combat for the win "increases" the risk of tragedy.
It is not just nonsensical, it is an insult. The seven tragedies of the last
five years involved one- or two-car crashes that had nothing to do with any
ferocity of racing – the last-lap crash at Daytona was not even related to the
racing; it happened because a driver was stupid enough to not race for the win
but instead hog the groove for his son and a nitwit perennial loser who was a
close pal. Nor was tragedy narrowly avoided in the so-called "big
wreck" in the 2001 500 – the cars remain excellent in safety and there was
little reason not to expect everyone to walk away from it.
Gone in 2002 are the roof spoiler and the
70-degree rear spoiler. Such a package was "flawed" because "the
larger restrictor plate that was supposed to be part of the package was
dumped……as NASCAR was alarmed by the speeds. A wise man might think that
going 205 MPH and not hitting anything is safer than going 190 MPH and finding
oneself in the midst of a 20-car wreck….." A wise man would actually
consider that at 205 they’re still going to hit something, but much harder and
with greater potential violence in general and to fencing and concrete walls in
particular. And those "pig-piles of wrecks" tear up more sheet metal
but ultimately are no more lethal than single-car crashes or strung-out
multi-car crashes – and if anything tend to be far LESS lethal than said
"small" wrecks. What, for instance, was a worse crash – Tony Stewart
and 16 others at Daytona in 2001, or Andy Farr punching the wall in Four back
over a foot on his roof in 1994?
One labors greatly to find many examples
of serious injury in a so-called "big wreck." And one finds ample
cases of drivers dying or getting seriously injured in single-car crashes or in
wrecks where the cars are spread out but where that fact adds no cushion of
safety – remember Friday Hassler? Tiny Lund? Johnny Ray? Bobby Allison? Micky
Hudspeth?
"Why go back to the ’99 rules?
Because it’s cheaper than fixing the tracks by lowering the banking to allow
unrestricted racing." Except that Atlanta can’t afford unrestricted racing
anymore, nor can most of these other places. And given that Homestead, Atlanta,
New Hampshire, Texas, and Charlotte always see numerous crashes and all saw
driver fatalities from 1997 onward, the lower banking argument loses its punch.
As it is, NASCAR had no reason to go back to the 1999 rules. The 2001 rules were
far better, allowing the cars to pass and killing the aero-push that has
destroyed racing everywhere else.
A few more retorts, Matt –
– New Hampshire IS a good racetrack – it
is an outsized short track, like Martinsville. The racecars there and elsewhere
(compare the IRL at Texas with NASCAR) are why the racing isn’t competitive.
– Dale Earnhardt (who?) was indeed
overrated – when you consider that his fourth title came because of a point
penalty, his fifth because no one would race for the title, his sixth because he
sent Rusty Wallace to the hospital at Talladega, and his seventh came because of
Ernie Irvan’s Michigan crash, then his seven titles look less. Then consider
that he won the most races in a season only twice – in contrast, counting
seasonal win ties, Richard Petty did that seven times, Darrell Waltrip and Jeff
Gordon did it six times each, Cale Yarborough, David Pearson, and Rusty Wallace
four times each, and Bill Elliott three times; Ned Jarrett, Bobby Allison, and
Davey Allison each did it twice.
– The schedule can handle 40 races –
"This year’s main talking point, as selected by our reigning champion, is
burnout." Given Gordon’s millions per season, his talk is disingenuous. As
for crew burnout, that is not NASCAR’s problem; it is the teams’ problem. Crew
life has ALWAYS been very hard, and a shorter schedule won’t make it any easier.
And Matt, if you want penance, go to
ballparks in October.