Racers being racers, you don't think that you guys would eventually have gotten to using bigger fuel pumps and more compression anyway, even with the 90% fuel mixture?
LB: Well, you know, there are still parameters that work well and give you good engine life too; yeah. Today with 85%, we can put too much compression in it and we can put too big a fuel pump on it and it will drop cylinders because of too much volume. You can blow it too fast and push the head gaskets out of it whatever the combination is. We're always going to try and push it to the next level and get it to the point where it has constant failures. The best program is to have an engine that makes plenty of power, that has no failures. I believe with a 90% engine and a better program, you could have that.
So you believe the 90% would be more economical and have less engine damage?
LB: Absolutely. No doubt in my mind that I could make enough power to run 4.40's at 330 with a 90% engine and have less engine damage than with the 85%.
Okay, let’s assume that the NHRA does go back to 90% nitro. How will that affect your two-car team and other teams financially? Will you save money?
LB: We estimate that our (expenses this year resulting from connecting rod and crankshaft failures) with the 85% engines will be about $250,000 to $300,000 per year more than what we spent when we were on 90%. Now you take that on a two-car team and we're talking about $500-600,000 more expense for the team owner to go out and run the same elapsed times and speeds that we ran on 90% nitro. That rule needs to be re-evaluated. If you can't raise the purse, figure out how to lower the operating expense.
ADVERTISEMENT
Do you think the return to 90% nitro would make a better show for the fans and TV?
LB: Getting back to the quality of show, the more oil downs we have, the more explosions and delays we have -- that diminishes from the quality of the show. The domino effect of that is delays on programs for the television viewers to watch.
One of the biggest complaints we get from DRO readers is that they are tired of pedal fests. I happen to like them myself, but the readers say they don't want to see guys pedaling, or one guy smoking his tires and the other guy going down the racetrack. In your opinion, will the 90% eliminate some of that?
LB: Well, I'm not sure about that. I think that's more the racing surfaces and the track preparation.
Do you know if the teams, as a group or individually, talked to NHRA about going back t0 90%?? If so, what was NHRA’s response to it?
LB: They (PRO) took a poll and I believe about 60% of the teams said yes, they would like to go back to 90% and about 40% said let's leave it as it is. There seems to be a mindset that we are going to take what we learned on 85% and apply it to 90% and we're going to see much more horsepower, much quicker lap times, and we're going to see more engine damage. That's probably the mindset that's out there. I disagree with that. I think you can go as quick and as fast as the tire and the racetrack will allow you to go and I don't care if you have 100% nitromethane in it (as an example) at St. Louis when it was 130 degrees, you’re not going to run a 4.40 and 330 mph on that track, on that day, with that tire.
As far as improving the quality of the show, we talked about better track surface, we talked about some controls on the engine program. Are there any other things that come to your mind to make the show better?
LB: One of the recent things that has come up, and there's been a lot of talk about it, and that's the track preparation. I’ve felt that it has been very hard to predict what type of racetrack you're going up against, even though you've been racing on the track multiple times or even predict the track from one day to the next or one session to the next.
I recently had a great conversation with Dan Olson [NHRA Director of Top Fuel & funny Car Racing]. I worked with him at Schumacher Racing and he's a very determined individual and when he puts his mind to doing something he can usually accomplish it. He believes there is a huge (chemical mixture) difference between batches of traction compound. At a recent race at Chicago they (NHRA) sprayed the track on Saturday and if you recall Saturday was a real disaster. None of the Top Fuel dragsters qualified for the show on Saturday. They didn't run Friday so they didn't make it Saturday and one Funny Car got into the show on Saturday. So, out of the 32 fuel cars, only one car was able to qualify on Saturday.
There was a question about the track preparation. According to Dan Olson, they (NHRA) were suspicious that the traction compound they sprayed down on Saturday wasn't any good, so they asked the track if the track had any of their own traction compound and they did so NHRA switched to the track’s compound on Sunday, and Sunday was a totally different race track. We stayed and tested on Monday and the track’s crew, not NHRA, prepped the track and we ran excellent. Dan Olson has identified that there are problems with one batch of traction compound versus another. Hopefully, they have identified the problem, are going to fix it, and you'll see more consistency with the track preparation in the future.
End Part 1
In part 2 of Lee Beard’s interview he talks at length about marketing, the cost of running a team, and what other changes he would like to see instituted to improve the NHRA “show.” Coming in the August issue of DRO on Aug. 8.