Dale Jarrett and Steve Hmiel’s Fear Mongering and Fuel Cell Follies At Talladega
"As for Sterling Marlin, he’ll need to explode into contention at
Talladega to start a point rally."
Well, there was some premature jocularity shown in last week’s missive on the
point race. His bad Kansas crash, atop his bad Richmond crash, has put Jamie
McMurry into the #40 for the rest of the season, and thus ends what may be
Marlin’s last hope for a championship.
Thus the title chase comes down to the two Hendrick horses, Mark Martin, and
Tony The Tiger. Of these Jeff Gordon and Mark Martin have two Talladega wins
apiece. Given the nature of the racing there, their chances of winning are the
same as anyone’s.
Of course that fact is one of the big stories of Talladega. The big immediate
story is the use of 13-gallon fuel cells, which will mean at least five pit stops
as opposed to the recent three. The use of 13-gallon fuel cells is touted as a
way to break up the big packs at Talladega – which gets back to all that
tiresome tripe about how the big packs are a bad thing.
Marlin’s injury and the high number of wrecked racecars at Kansas are more
worrisome than Talladega, because such situations are more common and
consistently more injurious. One need only replay Bobby Hamilton’s Richmond
Truck melee to see the senselessness of the endless dread at "The Big
Wreck" that almost never results in anything more than a stubbed ego.
Talladega crashes are not the ones we should worry about – Kansas and Richmond
crashes are the ones to worry about.
The racing at Talladega has suffered since the end of the roof spoilers, and
one fact alone stands out in comparing the racing now to then – there were fewer
crashes and far more lead changes in five races with the roof spoiler than in
three races run since.
Of course we always get maudlin whines like those of Dale Jarrett.1
"I don’t know if there’s a solution…aside from downsizing the engines
considerably and get rid of the restrictor plates….." That’s not an
answer, Dale, it is a delusion. Smaller engines will need restrictor plates all
the same as 358s – we saw that with V6s in Grand National.
Jarrett also tries a mild dodge of his role in the Daytona melee. "I
wasn’t trying to block as much as I was trying to get the push (from Jeff
Burton)," Jarrett says. This is laughable – he rammed Burton almost to the
grass; that wasn’t trying to block? Jarrett should never have moved over on
Burton; he should have side drafted him, if he could do anything.
As for the out-of-bounds rule, Jarrett tacitly admits it has not worked –
"The out-of-bounds rule seems to have created some problems as much as it’s
solved." But in tacitly acknowledging the mistake, Jarrett still seems to
agree with the principle, and this is also laughable – there is no such thing as
"out of bounds." If it’s paved on the straight-aways, it’s a
legitimate passing lane. The out-of-bounds rule deals with a non-problem and has
accomplished nothing constructive.
Then there is the delusional "analysis" by Steve Hmeil.2
Like others he believes the smaller fuel cell will split up the field, apparently
ignoring that all cars will pit together, and thus will NOT be split up. Hmiel
also talks about how teams "tried real hard last summer to put bigger
restrictor plates on the cars and reduce the down force and that may work."
It didn’t work in testing with cars running by themselves (and you can imagine
the havoc that would result in racing in traffic), but in the style typical of
people in denial, he blames it on "we didn’t go to big enough plates and
small enough down force."
Hmiel talks about getting the roof flaps to work better at 190 to 200 MPH,
but it can’t be done – they don’t even work below 190. He talks of opening
"the restrictor plate even more so there was enough power in the car that
you could pull out and pass on the straight-aways but you’d have to reduce the down force
so you’d have to lift off the gas in the corners and that will make more of a
race of it."
No it won’t, Steve, and frankly, I think you know that already but won’t
admit it. The Kansas race showed glaringly what would happen if the sport went
the route you advocate – more crashes, less passing, and a boring (and
dangerous) race. The sport went the low-down force route twice in the 1990s and
it failed BOTH times. In the Daytona test the cars got above 190 and were open
throttle, and will stay open throttle at 200, as they did in the 1980s.
And it is NOT horsepower that allows cars to pull out and pass – it is the
draft. At non-plate tracks the cars have all the throttle response in the world,
and where is the passing? The roof spoiler package, the aero push, and the
experiences of the IRL’s cars and the NASCAR Modifieds have shown that throttle
response is not the issue – it is the power of the draft that allows passing. Down force
keeps the cars stable and allows the drivers to race; take that away and you get
wrecks and boring racing. Does Steve forget the high incidence of
air-off-the-spoiler wrecks in the 1990s before the advent of modern high-down force
cars? It is the comparative rarity of such crashes with high down force that
makes the Kansas demolition derby so surprising – and a warning against reducing
down force.
"Again, I don’t know that I have the answer," Dale Jarrett says.
Well, here is the answer – go back to the roof spoiler package, go back to
22-gallon fuel cells, go back to no out-of-bounds lanes, don’t chop each other
off, and just worry about going for the lead every lap. Go back to high down force
and slow the cars down with restricted power and bigger aero-drag; slow the cars
to lower than the tracks, because that is the safest package in racing. All
those G-readings from crashes at Richmond and so forth merely show what was long
ago well-known – real safety and better racing comes from cars that are slower
than the tracks.