Originally Posted by racinstacie:
I try not say much because people on this board are like pirahnnas sometimes but I have to speak up on this topic. I heard the reasoning for considering and gathering feedback on this topic is because of the speeds and 75 gallons of fuel strapped to the back of our drivers. Last year at Springfield on the back stretch left a firey crash with a lucky driver escaping without injury (Hess maybe?? Don't remember who's car burned to a crisp) Oh, who saw the amount of fuel pouring out of Cottle's car at Richmond when he split a fuel cell?
It seems when something is being 'considered' everyone starts griping about how it is effecting them - what about the wives and families of these racers? I'm sure then USAC or what ever the sanctioning body considers changes they think - let's change things to make our fans unhappy. Seriously, it's about the best interest of our drivers! Maybe it hasn't been looked at or not thought about for years so the boat wouldn't be rocked but what are we going to do, wait until a driver loses their life then think about it?
Heck, sometimes I pray for a yellow so it tightens the field up! Heck I had a bad attitude about mandatory red flags at the Anderson 400 and it actually made the race! So people try not to be so dang selfish, be a bit flexible and enjoy what we have and what we are going to have!
Racinstacie, I applaud you for speaking up. Before reading your post, I had drawn the conclusion that USAC was once again messing with the Silver Crown Division. Changing a 100 lap race to two 50 lap segments for safety reasons is alot different than changing the race format just because you can.
Johnny Heydenreich was also burned while driving Sharon Banks Silver Crown car during a PRA race in Florida.
If USAC'S reason for changing the race format is safety, they have my support. If they want to change the format for any other reason, I say leave the format at 100 laps.
Patti