Turning the corner on another week

Got the advance press release from PASS the other day, and I shuddered, my mind re-living every frightening detail from my last trip to Speedway 95 in Hermon.

Ugh-ugh-ugh. I feel like a dog that's just come in from a driving rainstorm, trying desperately to shake free of the cold dampness which clings to me. Can't be done...

* WHAT'S LIFE LIKE in a glamourous press box at a central Maine race track, you ask?

Me: "Somebody should tell that Watson kid that if he's going to use the illegal fuel, he's got to use the traction control with it. He's going to keep spinning out like that if he doesn't put the two of them together."

PR lackey: "Yeah, umm, I'm going to need you to cut that out sometime soon."

Me: "How soon?"

Tom Curley: "Hi, Travis."

PR lackey: "Now would be a good time...."

* SPEAKING OF THE American-Canadian Tour, for a minute there on Saturday, I thought I was back at New Smyrna Speedway's Speedweeks down in Florida.

The first caution flag of the New England Dodge Dealers 150 came out on lap 50, when 3rd-place John Donahue and 7th-place Jean-Paul Cyr spun at the top of the entrance to turn 3. Both were apparently caught up in the fluid another car drenched the track with.

But instead of sending them to the rear of the field for their part in bringing out said caution flag, they were both given their spots back. Cyr ended up finishing 2nd and Donahue 5th.

Hey, I'm a big believer that there is such a thing as "racing luck" and that racing luck isn't always good. Sometimes, it's just plain too bad. Giving guys spots back when their involved in on-track incidents is a judgement call you shouldn't be willing to open -- because then every guy in every starting grid at every short track anywhere is going to start wanting you to listen to his side of the story.

Heck, you might as well let guys start throwing out a couple of bad finishes so as not to hurt themselves in the championship standings. Oh, wait....

* PASS AND WISCASSET Raceway have done a nice job aligning themselves with one another for this season, but somebody apparently dropped the ball in the scheduling department.

At virtually the same time on Saturday, Wiscasset will raise the curtain on its "comeback" season, highlighted by a 50-lap Super Late Model feature. Up Interstate-95, the PASS North Series will run 150 laps at Speedway 95.

It's no secret that Wiscasset's weekly Super Late Model sect is going to have to be bolstered by some PASS teams joining the fray on occasion. But if, on opening day, they're already racing somewhere else, are we hoping somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-14 teams show up at Wiscasset?

And if we're hoping to make a go of it with only 12-14 teams, aren't we in the same boat we were when we closed down the division several years ago?

* AND FINALLY, BOY, was I ever pulling for Juan Pablo Montoya to make a last-ditch move to steal the win at Talladega Superspeedway on Sunday.

I mean, if those fans down there in the deep South threw beer cans at Jeff Gordon, imagine what they'd do if the Colombian Montoya were to win on one of old NASCAR's most sacred venues.

It wouldn't be a pretty scene, I'd bet, one that could easily set NASCAR back another 25 years.

Comments

[Andy B]

I agree, I would have set them to the rear of the field too, but as you pointed out under the ACT rules that situation is a judgement call. I agree that it would probably be better to eliminate the "judgement" part of that rule, rather than opening up a can of worms.

As far as “illegal fuel” goes, for it to be illegal, wouldn’t it have to be banned in the rule book first?

For a long time the only rule many tracks or series had regarding fuel was that it couldn’t mix with water (if it said anything at all). If the rules don’t ban additives (or certain type of additives), how is it “illegal”? Is there some sort of moral standing that takes precedence over anything published in any rule book?

[TB]

To make sure I understand your comments completely here -- you're suggesting that if you knew "Driver X" had, say, 130 octane fuel running through his crate engine, Andy, you wouldn't mind at all because it's not expressly prohibited in the rule book?

And, to make sure I understand the leap of faith we're all taking here, you're completely ignoring ACT's attempt to legitimize their fuel woes by turning (albeit, fatally) to Torco this past winter. That, Andy, was an admittance on their part -- whether you choose to see it as such or not.

ACT has had problems with fuel, and they know it. They've tried to curttail it.

[TB]

And, Andy, lighten up. This is supposed to be fun. I crack jokes about "taboo" subjects, because I have fun with my job.

I'll make jokes about controversial things from time to time, even things that I reported that may or may not have angered people.

You don't always have to stand on your tiptoes on the soap box, you know?

[Andy B]

I'm not angry at all; I just saw an opportunity to start a discussion on a subject that's been kind of dormant for a while.

Debating is fun too!!!

As far as fuel goes, if 130 octane isn’t illegal, I have no problems with teams running it. There’s no rule in place defining what is legal vs. illegal. Is 120 “ok”, but 130 isn’t? Should all teams be on pump fuel? What (if any) is the performance advantage? Where do you draw the line (and how) without a solid set of rules?

What you need to understand is that not all engines will perform better using higher octane fuel – it’s not a magic bullet. As an example, my last engine builder was dead set against me buying racing fuel for the engine he built (and he was a supplier for racing fuel!!!). His thought being that the engine would perform better on pump fuel, rather than 110 or 112 octane race fuel. While it wasn’t a spec engine, it wasn’t all that different (hp wise) from one.

Now I’m not claiming a spec engine won’t benefit from higher octane (to a certain degree), but if ACT (or any series/track) feels what the competitors are putting in their tanks is driving up the cost of racing and putting teams out of business, then they need to put rules in place to limit what competitors can use – that should be the 1st step in the process, not the 3rd or 4th step. Regardless if one fuel source is being used or not, certain rules are needed to clearly outline what can and can’t be used.

You’re claiming there’s a big fuel issue because ACT tried to go to one fuel supplier. While that may or may not be true, are there any dyno results such a claim? It seems to me Butler & McMasters would know better than anybody.

To summarize my thoughts, I don’t a team buying high octane racing fuel is a serious problem for ACT if the characteristics of the spec engine prevent it from seeing a significant performance advantage. If on the other hand, increases greater than 25 – 30 hp can be achieved, then ACT should be doing something along the lines of a octane limit and testing competitors for it (and they should keep the old fuel can’t mix with water just to prevent anyone from showing up with a fuel cell full of alcohol).

Cheers!!!

[anon]

The TORCO deal that ACT had that you eluded to as "Fatal" was not really about TORCO at all, it was the idiot that falsely professed to Mr. Curley that he could deliver a certain amount of fuel by a set date. "RTraceparts" is a real low life and had fooled a couple teams and tracks into believing he was the "next best thing, since sliced bread" With that being said, you reap what you sew and the whole RTraceparts debacle will be over soon enough. People accross the Country are being warned about RT as he will probably surface somewhere where he can take advantage of people. These subjects are known facts. I believe if Curley had received said order that indeed the track and Tour would be TORCO. I don't mean to get off on a tangent but thank god he was outted before he stole too much money from people.

[TB]

The RT Raceparts debacle has already been taken care of, actually.

Torco has told Rob Tower that he's no longer their New England distributor. It's going to be a fatal bullet to his business.

[anon]

Well, things didn't start off on the right foot for Tower as he bounced the check to TORCO for the intial bulk shipment of fuel. The funny thing is, that calls to TORCO about 3 months ago made it clear to me at least that TORCO never had a deal with RT, as they had no idea who he was. After talking to multiple people high on the food chain at TORCO and getting the response of "who, never heard of him?" I told you of this at least 2 months ago but you didn't pick up on it I guess? (can't get them all, I guess)

Anyway, I like the new digs and I will continue to post anon until I feel fit to expose who I am, until then TB, have a good one.