Environmentalists vs. NASCAR
You have to hand it to those boys from NASCAR. For years the race sanctioning organization has been urged by the EPA to remove the lead from the fuel used in its race vehicles. To which the organizers of what has become the most vibrant race series turned a deaf ear. Now, Clean Air Watch has joined the fray, sending a stern letter to NASCAR Chairman and CEO Bill France. In the letter Clean Air Watch claims:
Nacar is Blowing it. What a great marketing opportunity! Nascar has been looking for ways to slow the race cars down, this would reduce horsepower and not effect competion whatsoever. Plus this would put a big star next to the Nascar Brand. Don’t be stupid!
The only stupidity shown here is on the part of EPA and a group of sky is falling enviroweenies.
The statement “putting millions of spectators and nearby residents at unnecessary risk of suffering serious health risks.
The only way there could be any credibility to this latest health “threat” is if they drove indoors. And some knucklehead here in Connecticut is trying to do exactly that!
This genius thinkes he can build an air supported dome AND provide adequate exhaust ventilation.
They need to find different tree to hug, this one has no “bark”.
Even the evironmentalist know that immediate effect of the lead would be negligible. Lead poisoning is long term and takes years, but new research show it is devastating and creates horrible health problems. But that said, I repeat, “It’s the marketing stupid” (please don’t take that personally). Lead Free Racing makes us the Good Guys and will have no effect on the competion, but to slow the cars down, which Nascar is trying to do anyways. Nascar is all about marketing and this is an opportunity, not about some tree hugger telling you how to run your life. Check out this article on the effect of lead poisining at Yahoo News: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=6&u=/nm/20050218/ts_nm/health_lead_dc
I have no reason to “check out” your linked article. I am well aware of the long term dangers of lead poisening. Thoses effects are the reason why acrylic paints were devised.
My point stands, the EPA and the nutjobs at Clean Air Watch haven’t a clue. They deal in scare tactics aimed at the ill informed and those lazy enough to take their crap at face value.
As for NASCAR marketing - they are doing very well without kissing the ass of Clean Air watch.
And considering the sport is devoid of steroids, drugs, rapists, wife beaters, cancelled seasons, strikes, walkouts, and drivers going into the stands ala hockey and basketball, they are already “the good guys.”
And it’s just another “Make Work” project for our country’s most deprived professional group. Lawyers! Isn’t it peculiar the minute any organization develops deep pockets the lawyers seem to swarm out of their rat holes sniffing out “Issues of concern”?
Let See, Didn’t Rick Mast have to retire because of the cummulative effects of carbon monoxide poisoning? Has anybody asked him if he was tested for lead poison?
You still have not addressed my point that lead free racing would have no effect on the competion.
Wouldn’t it make sense to have the most upstanding athletes in America be the spokespersons for children everywhere growing up without the lead effecting their health?
“You still have not addressed my point that lead free racing would have no effect on the competion”
First of all this is my space I respond to what I chose, not at some urging by an outside source. But for your sake I will.
Earnhardt Sr. and Richard Petty also suffered carbon monoxide exposure and it was addressed by NASCAR. Were they asked about exposure to lead? I don’t know and neither do you, I refuse respond to that strawman.
If NASCAR did follow what you apparently recommend, a switch to lead free fuel, it would possibly effect competition in one way. A loss of horsepower.
We already see the results in a loss of power in races held at venues that require restictor plates. The cars operate in very large packs, waiting for “the big one” to happen. Competition is so tight between the top teams that events occur like race 2 of the Duel 150’s
Harvick got into the back of Johnson for one reason, lack of throttle response due to lack of horsepower. Drivers are afraid to lift their right foot for fear of lossing to many spots in the order. Bump drafting is all the rage on the large superspeedways because of this lack of power. Power that in previous years (pre plate days) was used to make that last lap pass. Now it takes a teammate or someone else willing to utilize the bump draft (at the correct time) to progress thru the field.
Marc, lack of throttle response from a restrictor plate is due to the fact that they have anywhere from 200 to 300 less horsepower. Lead free gas for Nascar would at the most reduce horsepower by 75pts, and the engineers would bring it back to what it is now in a matter of a few years.
My answer to restrictor plate racing is tear down the damn banking. I think 2 mile plus tracks like Daytona and Talledaga with a 20 degeree graduated banking like Holmstead and no restrictor would make for incredible racing.
Testing drivers for lead is not a strawman. This is a legitmate question and I bet Nascar is doing it behind the scene.
I apologize for some of my inflamatory rhetroric. The purpose of Blogs is to invite varing viewpoints. I will tone it down and address the issues from this point foward. Thanks for the opportunity. Phil
Lets go back to my previous statement. NASCAR addressed the carbon monoxide issue. How was it done? Note all drivers now wear fully enclosed helmets, why? Because all air drivers breath in the cockpit is now filtered for noxious fumes, that would include lead. End of story, period.
So where does that leave the arguement? According to your statement (“children everywhere growing up without the lead effecting their health?” it places it squarely upon “children everywhere.”
If you believe lowering lead levels in a few select spots, 25 or so race venues, will aid all kids in the US have at it. I fail to see the connection. As a reminder - the US and individual states have addressed the lead issue very effectively thru federal and locals laws. Or perhaps you can provide a case of a public building that has used lead paint in the last few decades.
Tear down banking? Never happen for a variety of reasons, chiefly due to the cost.
A mechanical primer:
The problem is not horsepower, but throttle response.
An engine that produces 600 horsepower and is normally aspirated, ie no restrictor plate, will produce better throttle response than one that has 600hp and does use a plate. It is fact that has been well tested and proven to be true on the track.
Another solution? Lowering engine size on what are now restrictor plate venues is out of the question, again due to extra cost to teams that would have to build two versions of powerplants for two sets of rules.
The most cost effective solution would be to lower HP in all cars at all venues. Will it happen? I have no idea, but I also bet the idea is sitting on a desk at the NASCAR testing facility.
” The problem is not horsepower, but throttle response.
An engine that produces 600 horsepower and is normally aspirated, ie no restrictor plate, will produce better throttle response than one that has 600hp and does use a plate. It is fact that has been well tested and proven to be true on the track.”
We Agree!!!!!
Tearing down the banking is too expensive? But having 30 plus race teams developing seperate special engine programs, 6-8 special bodied chassis for four races per year isn’t expensive? Oh yea, plus multiply that expense over, how many years have we had restrictor plate racing?
I still say “tear down the banking”. They could start ground breaking at Daytona tommorrow and move the Firecracker 400 to Darlington for a year.
Todays race was exiting, but I rather watch a race at Richmond. Thanks, Phil
The expense I refer to would be incured by the operators of Daytona, yet you attempt to divert the discussion to expenses to race teams. Not the SAME thing.
Nice try.
Rebuilding Daytona would be cheaper than buying real estate on Statten Island. It would be an investments. More teams would be able to compete. More sponsors and on and on. More succesful fully funded race teams means more money for the racing venues.
So in an effort to “win” over me to your idea you have stooped to comparing Staten Island (apples) to Daytona (oranges).
“More sponsors and on and on. More succesful fully funded race teams means more money for the racing venues.’
They are scrambling for sponsors now to fill the field. why do you think Ward Burton is on the outside looking in? Damm sure isn’t because of lack of talent.
As a NASCAR administrator you would make a great fan, stay a fan and expend your energies on something else.