We can have fast and efficient, too

By DAVID GREEN

Critics of Brian France have no shortage of material with which to work, but many of them may take aim at France's recent comments suggesting that auto racing ought to work to become more environmentally friendly. My only criticism is that it took so long for NASCAR to take such a stance.

Before anybody gets the wrong idea, I'm no friend of radical environmentalists. I think the chief cause of any "global warming" that may or may not be occurring is the hot air coming from former Vice President Al Gore.

I believe mathematics is an exact science, but much science is pure guesswork. Want examples? How about the reports, based on predictions of climatologists, that we were on the verge of another ice age? That was about 40 years ago, folks. Did I miss it? Or did the climatologists miss their guess? How about the way a substance (eggs, salt, etc.) is (a) good for you, (b) bad for you, (c) good for you, depending on the latest scientific research?

Hope I don't get a barrage of flak from my colleagues who teach science with that paragraph, but the fact is the principle achievement of much scientific research is to debunk what scientists previously believed. That goes all the way back to the debate over whether the world is flat or round.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the Indy Racing League and Formula One are deep into programs that promote progress in transportation. As a long-term fan of auto racing, that reminds me of the days when racing helped improve passenger cars. Most people know that Ray Harroun, winner of the first Indianapolis 500, gave us the rear-view mirror.

The IRL is in its second season of using pure fuel-grade ethanol instead of gasoline or even a gas-ethanol blend. I don't know about y'all, but if I'm going to be paying $5 a gallon for fuel, I'd rather the money go to American farmers instead of Islamic terrorists or the countries that underwrite their efforts to kill all us "infidels."

F1's initiative, promoted by the scandal-racked FIA president Max Mosley, is to develop technology to recover the energy generated by a racing car. The engine burns fuel to produce horsepower, but the brakes generate great volumes of heat. That's energy production, folks. To grossly oversimplify it, the idea is to somehow capture and utilize that energy, rather than just looking at it as something that causes the brakes to wear out too quickly.

Some of the most virulent critics of F1's plans think the idea of auto racing being environmentally responsible is laughable, that the whole point of racing is excess -- maximum speed, maximum power, maximum consumption. There are two problems with that notion.

One is that racing is not the worst offender in the carbon footprint department. In the energy crises of the 1970s, the late Bill France led the effort to explain to the public and Congress that racing's fuel consumption is comparable to the usage of jet fuel to transport professional sports teams from city to city to compete against each other. Racing is just more visibly a consumer, because the sport features fuel-burning automobiles.

The second is that we are a good two decades beyond the point in evolution of the sport where it can be about maximum speed. The NHRA recently made a landmark change, reducing the distance of races in its top two divisions from a quarter-mile to 1,000 feet. That's because the nitro-burning Top Fuel and Funny Car machines have achieved speeds that are dangerously fast on many of the NHRA's tracks.

And for those who need reminding, NASCAR's present restrictor-plate rule is in its 21st season.

As long as the sport features entertaining competition for victories, I'm going to be a fan of it. If it can continue to contribute to society in ways other than providing entertainment for gearheads, I say bravo.