And what changes would you like to see made?
LB: Let's start with racetracks. In my mind, the track and track surfaces are the foundation that supports and determines the quality of the show. There are certain tracks on the tour that have sub-par services and as a result the crowd doesn't get to see good side-by-side racing. In my mind, St. Louis is a good example of that. I don't think Melanie Troxel who won the (2007) event had to race anyone all day long. I think on most of the runs she made she smoked the tires
I believe that drag racing spectators are fairly well educated (about drag racing) and they like to see good side-by-side racing with respectable times and speeds. And when they see a race where the racing surface is so poor the racers can't deliver that kind of show, I can't see how the spectators at the end of the day can really feel that they got their money’s worth out of the program.
In order for the sport to grow, we have to be constantly increasing our spectator base and how we do that is based upon, in my opinion, how good of a program we put on. Giving our fans a good race instead of a poor one is similar to the difference between a great movie and a bad one. A great movie brings a lot of people to the box office; a poor movie won’t get very many people to buy aticket. So what I'm saying is that drag racing should be trying to be a great movie that people want to see.
So you believe that one of the keys to doing this is better racetrack surfaces. What kind of tracks would you like to see?
ADVERTISEMENT
I think it has something to do with incidents that took place at the Texas Motorplex, which was an all-concrete track. Many blamed the crashes on the track saying that it has a very narrow groove and that's why these cars crashed. Well, I think the major factor was the prevailing cross-winds at that track that hit your car when you go past the end of the grandstands. They can cause a driver to lose control of the vehicle. I'm an advocate of all-concrete tracks. I think those tracks have the best possible racing surface that we can have, and the best racing.
Do you think an all-concrete track would result in fewer “smokers,” engine explosions, and fires?
LB: I can give you some examples and you can figure the answer out through deductive logic. We just recently raced at Englishtown, New Jersey. It has 400 feet of concrete and then asphalt. The track (surface) was pretty fair during Friday and Saturday qualifying, but something changed the track on Sunday. As soon as the cars came off the concrete and onto the asphalt, all (of them) spun the tires, hard. Tommy Johnson Jr.'s car made four excellent qualifying passes, but in the first round as soon as they hit the asphalt (they) spun the tires, blew the headers out, and had a pretty catastrophic engine explosion, burnt the car down pretty good -- huge delay.
There's a balance between the racing surface, the car's performance and engine life. You're more prone to have engine failures when the thing (car) is smoking or spinning the tires and the driver has to pedal the car than when you have good traction all the way down and a wide open throttle all the way down with a good steady lead on the motor. Then they usually run pretty much damage free; you'll have some part damage in there sometimes, but usually when the engine is run that way, you don't see those type of explosions.
