Before The Bristol Bash, Fire Someone For The Crossover Gate Disaster
It is the most popular event of the season, and arguably the worst race. The
show is dazzling and packed with spine-tingling action, and yet the racing too
often leaves just about everything to be desired.
Yes, that is what was originally Bristol International Raceway, a short track
so packed with steroids as to be almost unrecognizable. For old schoolers like
myself, one can’t find where the racing at Bristol today is any better than what
it was when the track was asphalt. If you’ve ever seen races there when it was
asphalt, you saw races where the actual racing was substantially better than
what it is today. There is passing at Bristol today, but less of it than on the
asphalt surface – certainly modern Bristol races don’t compare to events like
the 1989-91 Southeastern 500s, races where the lead changed hands far more
frequently on the racetrack than today and the cars raced side by side and could
stay that way longer than today.
Of course Bristol has always been about crashes galore, and even before Grand
National qualifying we found that this weekend won’t be any different. One can
expect half the field in both the Grand National 250 and the Volunteer 500 to
crash out or just crash. When run at night the crashes add more sparks, always a
spectacular sight.
Track position will be the key – but then it is everywhere except the
restrictor plate tracks, isn’t it? The change to using the two pit roads as one
helps the old problem of cars at a disadvantage on the backstretch, but the
continued use of single-file leader restarts needlessly packs too many cars on
the brink of getting lapped, especially with clean air as important as it is.
But to start the Bristol weekend, someone in Speedway Motorsports, the owners
of the track, had better lose his butt.
The crossover gate in Turn Two is usually bracketed with posts, securing it
when cars are on the track. But in pre-qualifying practice the posts in the gate
were not installed – for want of a less simplistic analogy, the gate was
unlocked – and when Mike Harmon blew his right front, he hit the gate, it tore
open, he smashed the now-exposed abutment of the main wall, and his car, while
twisting backwards from the impact point, was shredded, then hit by Johnny
Sauter – and Harmon himself was within a few feet of getting smashed bodily by
Sauter’s Chevrolet.
It is reminiscent of Mikey Waltrip’s melee in that same gate in 1990 – except
there the gate WAS properly secured – it was a guardrail gate at the time and
tore open when Mikey was brushed by Robert Pressley, smashed into the gate, and
tore it open enough for his Pontiac to punch the concrete abutment.
There is still whining about New Hampshire – Bob Bahre recently commented on
that1
– but even NHIS’ most virulent critics can’t find anything there or much
anywhere else to compare with the sheer stupidity of leaving a crossover gate on
the racetrack unsecured. That Harmon got only bruises is miraculous.
Someone at Speedway Motorsports had better lose his butt for this.
Harmon’s crash brings back memories of spectacular melees in years past.
There was Mikey’s 1990 melee at that same crossover gate, but a year later there
was Sterling Marlin’s fiery hit in Turn One. Also striking that gate in years
past has been Bill Elliott, who almost got on his roof there in 1995. David
Green did get on his roof in a 12-car melee on the front stretch in 1997.
Just how bad is the safety overkill hype?
Mike Mulhern wrote that Harmon’s crash brought up the issue of soft walls –
as if soft walls are in any way relevant to this particular situation. Mulhern
claims that soft walls helped Kurt Busch survive his crash there2,
until you consider that crashes like his have been common at Indy before soft
walls with the driver not getting hurt all the same. Even reading the available
data, the SAFER barrier shaved Gs by about a quarter – a reduction that will
only decrease with increasing speeds.
Timing is everything – last column out I wrote about Ricky Rudd and his
potential future; when submitted the Wood Brothers deal was not yet finalized,
so an editorial change had to be made when that deal went through.
Now, with the #21 deal finalized, the Rudd soap opera comes to an end, and a
new phase in his career begins. There is an irony here – Rudd is only the second
Virginian to drive the Stuart, VA team’s cars since Curtis Turner – Elliott
Sadler was the first.
He’s also the first driver with Winston Cup wins on his score sheet to drive
the #21 since Morgan Shepherd drove it in the 1990s. And he looks to continue a
Wood Brothers tradition of winning with the #21 – in the team’s history only one
of their drivers failed to win with their car – Mikey Waltrip.
With Rudd’s addition to the #21, Elliott Sadler takes over Rudd’s Yates team,
with M&Ms sponsorship and a new number, #38. The moves leave Texaco in a
dither – with some speculation that they wish to quit the sport altogether. It
seems unlikely the #28 will be used in 2003 – unless the rumored Doug Yates team
winds up with it.
With M&Ms’ move, Nelson Bowers sees his flagship #36 team looking for a
sponsor, and in an environment less friendly toward acquiring one than before.
Ken Schrader is free to look for a ride, but may wind up staying with the #36 by
default, since it looks unlikely a ride will open up for him. My guess right now
is Valvoline – a co-owner of the car with Johnny Benson’s #10 – will wind up
sponsoring both teams.
And there are several other teams looking for drivers, notably Hendrick
Motorsports’ #25. Despite reports on a Hendrick-aligned #60, it seems likely
that Jack Sprague will jump into the #25 – it makes more sense for him to jump
into an established ride than try out a new ride. With Joe Nemechek leaving,
where he will go has not been finalized – and unless something opens up he may
wind up back in Grand National full time.
The Winston will run at Charlotte in 2003, but may still begin rotating to
other tracks after that. The city itself has supposedly promised to promote the
event more than it has in recent years.
Keeping it at Charlotte, even for one more year, isn’t that hot an idea, for
the event there has become boring, a cascade of glitter short of substance. When
we hear talk of rotation of the event, it is always cited that Atlanta’s running
of The Winston drew only a small crowd, never mind that Winston didn’t promote
the event very well that year and also ran it on Mothers Day, traditionally a
weak drawing day for races. It is a lot different today, and rotating the event
will add some spark.
Bristol is one of thirteen tracks that get two annual Winston Cup dates, and
Jerry Bonkowski suggests it may be time to change that3.
It’s an old argument, and the case made for change is no more believable now
than in the past. How can NASCAR, the argument goes, keep missing the untapped
potential of tracks like Kentucky and Nashville and also of second dates at
Texas, Chicagoland, and Kansas? Because the vaunted increase in attendance,
concession revenue, and sponsorship potential is no greater at those tracks than
at Martinsville, Richmond, and Dover. Nashville, for one, seats fewer than
Richmond, and Kentucky’s seating isn’t all that big, either.
The bigger and newer tracks don’t bring anything the old, established tracks
don’t bring as well. "Do we really need two races at Martinsville,
Richmond, and Dover?" YES WE DO. Those tracks are good tracks with great
seating and history.
"Neither I nor most drivers, team members or owners want to see is for
the schedule to be increased beyond its current 36 races." Too damn bad,
because the only way you can get dates at Kentucky and Nashville and second
dates at Vegas, Texas, Fontana, Chicagoland, and Kansas is to do just that –
expand to schedule to 43 races; move The Winston to the weekend of a points
race; move opening dates at Vegas and Fontana to January; run events at
Homestead and second western dates (and maybe even Talladega’s autumn 500 miler)
in November-December.
"But teams will burn out if they run that many races." That’s their
problem, not NASCAR’s.
New markets don’t offer more than the ones already in place, and if those new
markets want races, then add them – but DO NOT subtract ANY dates from ANY
track. Period.