Trading Paint: Texas spells boring

Lots of fans wrote in this week with their takes on the style of racing we're seeing with NASCAR's new car, as well as Michael McDowell's crash and abilities.

Others marked the 15th anniversary of Alan Kulwicki's tragic death, and what's going on with both Petty Enterprises and the Wood Brothers.

Needless to say, we had so many emails this week that it was tough to pick the best, but we did our best. So, without further ado, here they are (my answers, if warranted, are in italics):

B-O-R-I-N-G, BOR-ING ("If it's broke, fix it" April 6, 2008)

Your column, "If It's Broke, Fix It!," perfectly summed up what I've been feeling over the past few races with the CoT. Something has been missing that drew me, an African-American, to become a NASCAR fan in 2004! (I was beginning to hope one of my boys would become a NASCAR driver.) That something was the intense, nail biting, bumper-to-bumper, side-by-side and yes, dangerous racing with tight finishes the old car produced on the track! While I am all for the cars being as safe as possible I also want to see exciting racing. This year's Daytona 500, which I now look forward to as much as the Superbowl, was a bit lackluster. If the CoT has to be used I would prefer using last year's format where it was used in some races but not all. Keep it out of Daytona, Talladega and the Pepsi 500, etc, that is, the most popular races! NASCAR must put the "boogity! boogity! boogity!" back or they will begin to lose newcomers like me and my three boys. Fix what is not working but don't touch what is!

Victor Reed
Jacksonville, Fla.

Amen, Victor. Outstanding letter. Thanks for writing.

I have been a NASCAR fan for many years but Sunday's race at Texas was bad. I turned it off after 100 laps. I usually plan my weekends around NASCAR, but when half the field is lapped in the first 100 laps, that's bad racing. Something needs to be done or I will continue to loose interest. Why can't they take the CoT with all of its safety innovations, put the spoiler and front air dam back on it and get rid of the wing and the splitter? I just hope it gets better or I might become a fan of IRL.

Scott Woods
Many, La.

I couldn't agree more, Scott. And, I think you won't be the only one possibly defecting to the IRL or even F1 if NASCAR doesn't fix the problem.

It seems to me that most (not all) safety improvements made on this new "stock car" were made inside the cockpit. Could NASCAR not have simply made these same modifications to the old car and left the body style alone? These new cars just don't provide good racing on the 1.5-plus mile tracks. Sunday's race was the first one in the last few years that I actually lost interest in. It was THAT boring. As watered down as the schedule is with these cookie cutter 1.5-milers, this looks to be a season filled with many, many Sunday afternoon naps.

Jason Strickland
Charleston, W. Va.

In theory, yes, NASCAR could have kept the old style car and simply inserted all the changes it has brought about on the new car. However, it was time to change the dated look, there was pressure from car manufacturers to be able to highlight new showroom models (example: the new Chevy Impala vs. the old Chevy Monte Carlo), and it would have been difficult to add height, width and length to the old cars. A new car was simply a much better choice. But I don't think anyone saw the problems, particularly with handling, that have emerged. Now, NASCAR is in a damned if it does and damned if it doesn't situation when it comes to making changes to the new car. We'll just have to see what time brings.

Jerry, I attended the Samsung 500 Sunday. I couldn't agree more with your column! It was awful! If NASCAR doesn't do something quick, I'm canceling my season tickets to Texas Motor Speedway. I'll just buy tickets to the IRL race here in June and be done with the rest. The IRL is a lot better brand of racing at TMS, by far! It has been for years.

Bill Jackson
Dallas, Texas

Uh, Bill, don't be surprised if you get a call from TMS President Eddie Gossage in the near future, asking you to reconsider. It wasn't his or TMS's fault. I still think your track down there is one of the best on the circuit. It's NASCAR that has the problem, not TMS.

NASCAR fans are hearing a lot lately about how safe the new car is, which of course is a good thing in light of the recent accidents involving Jeff Gordon and Michael McDowell. But then we hear drivers say they can't pass and side-by-side racing is a problem because the car becomes unstable and loose. Which, to me, sounds dangerous and is one of the big reasons why NASCAR races this year are boring on most tracks over a mile or without restrictor plates. In summary it seems the cars are dangerous when you are trying to race someone but safe when you are hitting walls or barrel-rolling down the track. Your thoughts?

Loren Hosack
North Palm Beach, Fla.

Great observation, Loren. And I agree with you 100 percent. While I'll never complain about NASCAR making cars or equipment safer, this sure seems to be a case where they greatly improved one area (safety) while not really considering the other problems the design of the new car was creating (poor side-by-side racing, poor handling, etc.).

Jerry I think the drivers are right. I think NASCAR does need to do something about the new car. I think the safety of the car is awesome, but I think they need to figure a way to add more downforce to get them to handle. I think that is what is going to take to get the side-by-side racing they want. I watch every week and see cars fishtailing out of the corners. Sorry, but this is not dirt track racing. I like a good wreck now and then to stir things up, but to watch this follow the leader racing because they can't get the car to turn, well there is a problem there. I guess my question, Jerry, is what do you think they should do to improve the handling of the car? What are the drivers wanting NASCAR to do to fix this issue?

Brent Dougherty
Balaton, Minn.

The drivers and crew chiefs, frankly, are totally lost in how to improve the handling for fear they'll be violating NASCAR's rules of allowing limited adjustments and refinements to the new car. What would I do if I could improve things? First, I think the front end splitter is causing more problems than the gains it was designed to give. Second, allow teams a bit more leeway in setting up their chassis and not be so strict with height tolerances. Third, while I like the rear wing, perhaps its design needs to be looked at to see if there's a modification that would allow cars to have better control while racing side-by-side. I'm far from an engineer, but those are the ones that come to mind first. I'm open to any other suggestions, readers.

Could you possibly help me spread a clarification for all our friends in the NASCAR world? Yes, NASCAR has done a tremendous amount in regards to safety, especially when it comes to the current car. However, please tell drivers, owners, fans, and suits to quit insinuating that NASCAR developed the SAFER barrier. Yes, they did take the initiative to join in and eventually install it on all their tracks, but only after Tony George, the IRL, and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway started the study with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Midwest Roadside Safety Facility in 1998. It was not until September of 2000 that NASCAR got on board and June of 2005 before all tracks had it. In addition, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway was the first to install it with the 2002 running of the Indy 500. I love NASCAR, I love open-wheel, heck, I love lawnmower racing, but please don't allow them to take sole credit where sole credit is not due.

Kory Bickel
Columbus, Ind.

Credit has been given. And you are 100 percent correct, Kory. The SAFER barriers were designed for Indy Car racing first, but proved to be so successful that they were adapted and refined for NASCAR purposes, as well. No matter how you slice it, the main thing is it has unquestionably saved lives.

TOO MUCH, TOO YOUNG ("Ready to roll?" April 4, 2008)

I agree that Michael McDowell might be in over his head. And what NASCAR should take a look at is all the media backlash that the IRL took when driver Paul Dana was killed. Many fans, drivers and racing pundits agree that his crash could be attributed to a general lack of experience. Even open-wheel legend Bobby Unser went on-record saying that while Dana shouldn't have been in the car, it came down to his ability to bring a family-run sponsor to the team, similar to Paul Menard.

Richard A. Straten
Oak Hill, Ohio

Obviously, others with more expertise than you disagree on the subject. If McDowell had not have crashed would you have written the same opinion? One crash does not make him unqualified to run in the Sprint Cup series. And, if he places in the top 35 are you going to change your mind? You and Hart are a lot alike when you write about NASCAR. You both overreact in a "knee-jerk" type fashion to most issues. Give McDowell a chance before you trash him.

Ken Crawford
Clare, Mich.

I already was writing my column on McDowell when he crashed Friday, having interviewed him three hours earlier. Nothing changed in my mind with the wreck. Just because NASCAR tested him at several tracks doesn't mean much if it wasn't with 42 other cars around on a week-to-week basis. The only true test of a driver's ability is in race conditions. And, regardless if you disagree with me, he is still woefully lacking in true NASCAR racing experience. That's not just me saying it; the stats back me up on this one.

Jerry, McDowell showed a little bit of a young driver (age) and inexperience in racing itself with that Texas sized wreck. The AP article told the story your getting at with inexperience: "While McDowell said he didn’t know what happened, he said something 'didn’t quite feel right' on the car when he came out of the fourth turn on the first lap." That feeling he had should have told him to wave off the second lap and get slowed down. The replays looked to show the right rear tire going flat and was probably the "feeling" he got coming off of Turn 4. What are the chances a more experienced driver would have picked up on that, aborted the second lap and got slowed way down going into Turn 1?

Jason Kurtz
Virginia

A more experienced driver probably would not have gone for that second lap. Remember, no matter how fast or slow McDowell was in qualifying, he was already in the show because he had switched owner points with David Reutimann a week earlier. And I agree with you that I think the tire went down and that is what caused the crash.

Hi Jerry, I think you need more research in your article on Michael McDowell. He was a three-time winner in ARCA at very fast tracks. He also won a short track. At 23, that is more than enough experience to race with the Cup guys. Look at Rowdy Busch. Not really much more experience when he got into Cup. Or Scott Speed in F1. It's true that Texas and Atlanta are very fast, but quite simply he just lost a tight race car that happens often.

John Clark
Charlotte, N.C.

Consider the caliber of ARCA racing vs. Sprint Cup. The only real similarity between the two is they're called "stock cars." There's very little equal from that point. How many ARCA drivers have tried to make the jump to Cup, only to never be heard from after a race or two or three? Sorry, John, but just because McDowell did well in ARCA doesn't mean he's a natural for Cup racing. I stand by my original statement: he needs a lot more seat time in lower series such as the Nationwide or Craftsman Truck circuits before he should be in the No. 00 Toyota in the Cup series.

While I applaud giving young drivers a chance, I feel this was taking too big a chance for Mr. McDowell. Why, why, why can't an organization as savvy as Michael Waltrip Racing give a deserving veteran like Boris Said a chance?

Kathie Buda

Or a David Stremme, Jeff Green or Tony Raines, who are all available. But you're right, Kathie, Boris would have been a great fit, both as a driver and a sponsor and fan favorite. And he has tons more experience behind the wheel.

Hi Jerry, With the recent passing of the 15th anniversary of Alan Kulwicki's tragic death, I was reminded how great he was and how his father's skill as a genius engine builder inspired him to race. His father passed away earlier this year, sad to say. Do you know much of Gerald Kulwicki?

Richard Todd
Gilberts, Ill.

You bring up a great point, Richard. Alan was killed on April 1, 1993, just five months after winning the Cup championship, which he never really got the chance to enjoy, let alone defend when his plane crashed outside Bristol, Tenn. As for Gerald, I met him once in Michigan many years ago and he was definitely Alan's biggest fan and inspiration. I don't know much about his engine building ability, but he raised a son that any father would have been proud of.

Good for Bobby Labonte, bad for the King and Co. I'm afraid the loss of Labonte is the beginning of the end for Petty Enterprises. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just calling it like I see it. What do you think, Jerry?

Ross Jackson
Longview, Texas

If Petty Enterprises loses Labonte on top of General Mills, which has already announced it's going to Richard Childress Racing and the No. 33 Chevy next season, it will be devastating. Yet, at the same time, it may be just the thing the Petty camp needs to completely restructure from top to bottom. In a situation like that, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kyle step down as a driver and start things from scratch, for the betterment of the company. Check out the next letter for some great suggestions to possibly help fix things at Petty Enterprises.

Regarding Rodney Nelson's letter about Kyle Petty, why not sign Tony Raines and David Stremme (should Labonte actually sign with RCR) as replacements? They're relatively young, capable of keeping mediocre equipment in the top 35, and this gives them a chance to grow without all the pressure that comes with driving for Ganassi/Sabates or a single-car operation (Gibbs "working agreement" notwithstanding) . I'd put Stremme in the 43 and Raines in the 45 for three years and see what happens. They also need to start a Nationwide team for Chad McCumbee to get that guy some seat time. It can't be much worse than it is now, even though Kyle is actually my favorite driver and I'd hate to see him go. Mr. Nelson is absolutely right, running 40th every week shouldn't be the Petty way.

Dave Winfield
El Paso, Texas

Great ideas, Dave. Thanks for writing.

My husband is a huge Wood Brothers fan and is at a complete loss. It breaks our hearts to see them not qualify and then when they do, end up laps down before the race is half over. Besides picking one driver and sticking with him, what else can they do to be competitive again?

Kate Cummings
Chicago, Ill.

You are so right, Kate. It is sad to see what has happened to the once-legendary Wood Brothers organization. Honestly, I think the Woods' have done everything they can within the constraints of their budget and sponsorship. There's really not much more they can do unless they start bringing in a lot more sponsorship dollars. They also need a driver who will commit to them for at least three years so that the driver can grow with the company and vice-versa. Unfortunately, and as much as I hate to say it, young Jon Wood is not the answer for the Wood Bros. future. One reader recently suggested that maybe the Wood Bros. and Petty Enterprises should merge forces. At first, I laughed, but maybe that isn't all that bad of an idea after all (provided they can solve the manufacturer loyalty issues – the Woods to Ford and the Pettys to Dodge). Let's hope their fortunes start getting better, because it would be a shame to lose one of the last links to NASCAR's glory days if the Wood Bros. ever leave the sport.