Turn 3

The Talladega dilemma

By DAVID GREEN

In the aftermath of Carl Edwards' flip that wasn't done in celebration of a victory, the debate rages over Talladega, and what -- if anything -- to do about it.

A TR.com poll suggests that approximately half of respondents think the track is just fine as it is (the percentages displayed by the results don't add up to 100...). But there's little doubt that Edwards and his colleagues are in unusually jeopardy when they race at NASCAR's two biggest tracks. And pundits are out in force, calling for something, anything, to be done.

First, let me admit that I have no clue what should be done. And let me also admit a compulsion to watch races at the two restrictor plate tracks, despite the unease that I began to develop in 1992 when, after a Talladega race, I saw a look on Davey Allison's face that reminded me of the "thousand-yard stare" common in soldiers after being involved in combat.

And, just as I am compelled to watch the races, I am compelled to agree that something needs to be done.

Cutting down the high-banked turns is one of the most prominent "solutions" offered. Permit me to offer an alternative. Veteran team owner Bud Moore suggested 12 or 15 years ago that the restrictor plates could be eliminated if NASCAR would incorporate the chicane at the end of the backstretch into the Daytona layout.

The gearing and suspension changes the relatively slow left-right-left combination would require and the loss of momentum would do the trick, Moore said. It would be kind of like Pocono, in that the driver would be on maximum RPM most of the lap but could not carry the momentum all the way around the track.

Of course, the sports cars that use the chicane also turn off the trioval into the infield road course section of the Daytona track, so a second chicane might be needed at the entry to Turn 1.

A good many fans would likely balk at the idea, because it would dramatically change the nature of racing at these two iconic racetracks. But then, so would lowering the degree of banking in the turns.

Indianapolis has survived almost a century in spite of quantum leaps in technology to make racecars go fast with a combination of engine formula changes that somewhat negate the increases in power potential and aggressive safety innovations in both racecar design and development of the SAFER Barrier.

Because of the low-banked turns, the essence of the Indy 500 remains intact, even though the cars and their speeds have changed radically over some nine decades. I'm not sure if such a thing is possible for the two big NASCAR speedways. Indy cars faced a problem similar to NASCAR's present dilemma when they attempted to race at the new Daytona track in 1959. Except for a speed-record run at Talladega by A.J. Foyt in the 1970s, they haven't been back to the big triovals.

A quick comment on another point: the catch fencing.

Yes, the Talladega fence took a licking from the 99 car and withstood it much better than its 1987 counterpart fared against Bobby Allison's Buick. But it didn't keep all the pieces of the car out of the grandstands. It's good fortune that no one was seriously hurt or killed.

It's also thanks to good fortune, not the attributes of the new Cup car, that Carl Edwards was not killed.

I think the next frontier in motor sport safety is developing a catch fence that does not shred the racecar the way present-day fences do. Geoff Bodine's Truck Series crash at Daytona and Indycar crashes by Kenny Brack (Texas), Tony Renna (Indianapolis) and Ryan Briscoe (Chicagoland) are only a few examples of terrible destruction caused when the fence snagged the vehicle, and no one who was at Charlotte in October 1996 will ever forget the horrifying death of Sportsman driver Russell Phillips when his car sailed roof-first into the Turn 4 catch fence.

It's a challenge -- developing a barrier that will restrain something as big as a racing car, but not cause it to disintegrate, and yet does not prevent spectators from being able to see through it. It may not be possible, at this stage of engineering and materiel development.

Perhaps the only solution is to move the grandstands farther back and higher up, and install a series of less-formidable catch fences to more gently arrest the out-of-control car.

The more I think about it, those chicanes seem more and more attractive and less and less expensive.

Every racer needs passion

By DAVID GREEN

It's good to have the fireworks, Dale Jr. says in reflecting on the cool-down lap during which he and Casey Mears weren't so cool.

So how do we feel about this? Is it good to have these little incidents once in awhile? Or does it set the wrong example for fans of all ages? Does it add to the spectacle or diminish it?

It's not so easy to make that call.

On the one hand, there's the subject of self-control. We have control over so little in our lives, it's a good thing to try to control what we can, including our temper and our behavior. (DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know, I'm not the best example of one who does a great job of this.)

As any counselor or good friend will advise you, any time you react in anger to something somebody else says or does, you are turning over the running of your own life to that other person, whether they were trying to provoke you, just being stupid or inattentive or whatever.

If your antagonist is attempting to play games with you, you're letting him win if you let him get your goat.

Then there's the image thing. Does your multimillion-dollar sponsor want you acting out like that?

Also, there's the danger factor. While scuffles in all sports can result in injuries to the combatants, the consequences are magnified when the "players" are wielding 3,500-pound, 750-horsepower machines.

Let's debate those points in reverse order.

Neither Earnhardt nor Mears did anything that, in a realistic sense, put the other in any particular jeopardy. And, as Junior pointed out, he didn't even add a burden for the crew members who have to repair the car; it was, he correctly noted, already torn up.

As for the sponsor's preferences, the opposite extreme of the raging maniac is the robotic, unflappable (and uninteresting) Mr. Bland. The corporate spin doctor might think the latter is preferable, but then again that might not be the case.

The behavioral psychology argument is the hardest to debate. The best I can do is to suggest that, for an athlete, so much of what you do is dictated by your competition. Retaliation is merely an extrapolation of that dynamic.

Certainly nobody wants drivers using their cars as weapons. There have certainly been instances -- the scrap between "Iron Man" Jack Ingram and Mike Pressley at New Asheville Speedway in 1986 is one -- in which the line was crossed. There have been times -- the feud between Bobby Allison and Richard Petty comes to mind -- when one of the combatants suggested the other was trying to harm him.

Personalities vary, but most racers have a good degree of passion for what they do. Sometimes, that leads to flare-ups.

In the final analysis, I come down on the side of passion. With some restraint, of course.

Best hall of them all

By DAVID GREEN

Bud Moore and Donnie Allison. Two of my all-time favorites. Going into the International Motorsports Hall of Fame, this week -- Thursday night, at Talladega.

How sweet it is.

Bud and Donnie are special entrants in this year's class of inductees. Like the IMHOF itself, they transcend the sport for which they are best known -- stock car racing.

Bud, in the same decade in which he won back-to-back Grand National championships with the late Joe Weatherly in 1962-63, took time out from NASCAR to manage Ford's entry into the highly popular Trans Am sports car series. He proved to be a champion there, too, with Parnelli Jones driving the Mustangs he fielded to the 1970 title.

Donnie, just five years after I watched him dominate south Florida late model modified racing, was not only a NASCAR winner, but also a rookie in the Indianapolis 500. He finished fourth in an A.J. Foyt-owned car. He came back the next year and validated his rookie run with a sixth-place finish.

These two guys are perfect examples of why, in my humble opinion, the Talladega hall and museum are the best in all of auto racing.

I don't dislike the others. I love the National Motorsports Press Association's own Joe Weatherly Museum at Darlington. The Auto Racing Hall of Fame in Novi, Mich., is great. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway museum is fabulous. The Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles has some great motorsports stuff, and the NHRA's shrine in suburban Pomona is wonderful, as is "Big Daddy" Don Garlits' showplace in Ocala, Fla.

But IMHOF -- established, by the way, by the stock car man himself, William H.G. France -- is the most complete auto racing shrine. It has everything. All forms of the sport are well recognized.

It's kind of ironic. More than 60 years ago, France set out to establish something new and different, revolutionary and radical, and it was not welcomed by the establishment. The American Automobile Association, which had been the only major sanctioning body for the sport since the early 20th century, denigrated everything outside the Triple A umbrella as "outlaw" racing.

Some forms of the sport deserved the label. There was competition that had few safety regulations, and there were rogue promoters who took the ticket revenue and skipped town without waiting to pay any prize money.

France addressed all those topics, at least as well if not better than the Triple A Contest Board. And in 1955, when the Association withdrew from auto racing and some lawmakers in Washington were demanding that this brutal, dangerous sport be shut down, France led the fight to save auto racing. Not just stock car racing, but all racing.

And he went on to lead his own discipline of the sport to the verge of becoming the predominant form in the U.S.

The museum he envisioned was all-encompassing. The IMHOF roster includes the stars of all forms of racing, not just France's specialty.

I'm sure the new institution now being built in Charlotte will be a fine one. It will probably set the standard for the new generation of NASCAR fans.

In another ironic twist, I suspect that for long-term race fans, the hall Big Bill himself established in Alabama will still be the best one.

If there were a hall of fame for halls of fame, the IMHOF would be auto racing's representative.

Easter tidings to all

By DAVID GREEN

Easter weekend thoughts, at random:

ITEM: To those who can't get enough NASCAR Cup Series racing, this reminder: No more off-weekends for awhile now...

ITEM: Sure, I can say this now, six days after the fact. But it's true. I really had a feeling that Jeff Gordon was going to win last weekend at Texas Motor Speedway, ending two droughts -- his string of races without a victory and his failure to win at Texas.

What a talent this driver is. What a pleasure it is to have watched his career (his adult racing career, that is) from the beginning. What a classic, mythic thing his rivalry with the great Dale Earnhardt was.

Of course, the Chase scrambles everything, so I can't predict with any confidence that Gordon will win his fifth championship this year. I can predict that he'll have a season worthy of a championship...

ITEM: The Smith family is taking quite a bit of heat these days, and reaction to the stories about their economic adventures and related issues is interesting to read.

Suits in high places are conspicuous targets these days, as they always are in troubled economic times, and rightly so. Never mind contractual details; it is morally wrong for officials of companies such as AIG to accept bonuses when the companies they directed show themselves to be such abject failures, whatever the reasons.

I have no problem with anybody making money -- in any amount -- if he or she finds a need and competently fills it; if they, in the words of the old Smith Barney commercials, "do it the old-fashioned way -- they earn it." I have a serious problem with the notion of creating wealth without any contribution to society to show for it.

I'm still idealistic enough to imagine the AIG pigs are in the minority and that most corporate executives, big and small alike, are ethical folks. Perhaps not, but that's what I believe. I know that William Clay Ford sacrificed not only his bonuses, but also his salary, several years ago to help the company his great-grandfather founded more than a century ago.

Sure, the cynical observer can truthfully say that Ford could easily afford a year, several years, the rest of his life, without any income and still enjoy a higher standard of living than perhaps 90 percent of the population. The point is not that the cynic recognizes that, but that Ford does.

Too bad the leaders who are not getting richer as their companies founder don't get more press. We need more than the inflammatory bad-apple stories.

But you have to love the name of Observer reporter Jefferson George. That's "George Jefferson," to the nostalgically dyslectic...

ITEM: Anybody following the brouhaha in Formula One, about whether or not reigning champion Lewis Hamilton and his former McLaren team manager Dave Ryan played fast and loose with the facts of what happened in the final laps of the season opener at Australia?

For those who don't know but might find it interesting, Hamilton was disqualified from his third-place finish, Ryan was fired, and there may be more consequences to come.

It's so bad, it has some European types suggesting that NASCAR is much better managed than F1...

In addition to the religious significance of this weekend to Christians and the tradition of hunting Easter eggs, I have this memory -- when I was in second grade, I think it was, we made holiday cards. Mine was much the same as the other kids' -- "Happy Easter, Mom and Dad," or something like that -- except I wanted something to put on the back of the folded card, and so I scribbled, "Next year, too!"

Nothing like planning ahead, I say. Happy Easter, Mom, and everyone.

Petty entry at Indy?

By DAVID GREEN

Curt Cavin of the Indianapolis Star reports today that seven-time NASCAR champion Richard Petty will enter a car in this year's Indianapolis 500, with John Andretti as the driver.

Andretti is a nephew of Mario Andretti, who won the Daytona 500 in 1967, the Indy 500 in 1969 and the Formula One driving championship in 1978. John has proven himself quite versatile as well, with victories in Indy cars, NASCAR Cup cars and sports cars. He also gave NHRA drag racing a whirl, and reached the final round of eliminations in Top Fuel once.

Andretti has also competed in the 500 nine times previously. He was the first of three a trio of drivers who have made same-day runs in both the 500 and Charlotte's Coca-Cola 600 stock car race. Robby Gordon and Tony Stewart are the others. And he has driven in NASCAR for Petty Enterprises.

Petty, meanwhile, always focused on one form of the sport, both as one of NASCAR's all-time great drivers and as a team owner. The only exception was a brief flirtation with drag racing in 1965, when a boycott of NASCAR by Chrysler Corp. pulled Petty's famous No. 43 Plymouth off the track for most of the season.

In Petty's driving heyday, a number of his contemporaries went to Indianapolis on Memorial Day weekend to try their hand in the open-wheel classic. Bobby Johns, Bobby and Donnie Allison, Cale Yarborough and LeeRoy Yarbrough all had much more than mere token attempts, with Donnie Allison finishing fourth and sixth in his two Indy starts.

As much as I loved watching the Allisons compete at Indy, having seen them race late model modifieds at Palm Beach Speedway just a few years earlier, I was always OK with drivers such as Petty and his great rival, David Pearson, choosing not to try Indy.

But I sure am pleased to hear that King Richard will finally be a part of the Indianapolis classic.

His participation will be token, of course, with a regular Indy Racing League crew actually fielding the entry and provided their expertise. But that's fine with me.

A press conference is scheduled Monday in Indianapolis to announce the entry.