Story continues below this advertisement
What do you have to say?
Write an email to email@example.com
Letters which do not include a full name will not be considered for publication.
* Your letter may (or may not) be published in our "We've Got Mail" section.
NOTE: We had to disable our automatic letter-to-the-editor program because of a tremendous amount of spam. We still want to keep the dialogue going, so send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Hi Jeff, I just read your column wondering why dragsters seem to be more attractive to racers than funny cars. I have no knowledge of costs, but I would bet a small amount that the cost of funny car bodies might be a factor.
However, if I had the money to go racing I would go with a dragster because of the safety factor. Every race we see huge fires in funny cars and people never stop talking about how Garlits made racing safer by putting the engine behind the driver, so it doesn't make sense to race a car that still put the engine right there in the driver's face. Just my 2 cents.
Mr. Burk, ya NAILED it on the latest Blast! BUT ESPN has NOT cared about the NHRA for oh, maybe five years or more, just gets worse year by year. This was just some of the FINAL straws to go up in Nitro Flames. I commented to ESPN about the 'switch' and HOW they rate us more like sixth class citizens and tiddlywinks gets more than the NHRA races. Just sayin’....
Jeff, I have an idea to make the pro classes more interesting/exciting.
Every car must do a 200-foot burnout past the starting line. Any competitor that does not do the burnout is disqualified. There would not be any competitive disadvantage because everyone has to do a burnout.
Fans love burnouts. You have shown the Green Anglia doing his burnout. Thousands saw it at Indy and the crowd went wild! Years ago Force did half track burnouts. Skuza did ‘em too. We fans loved them and knew Force would put on a show for us. I think that would put some of the “show” back in drag racing.
Hanna City, Illinois