Racin' The Way It Ought'a Be??

Bristol Motor Speedway...

Half-a-mile long...

24° to 30° of variable banking in the turns...

Two, wide, evenly matched racing grooves...

160,000 seats...

NASCAR short track racing at its most intense...

So why are the stands empty?

And why isn't the racing considered "good enough"?

Lets face it fans loved the old Bristol. For years the track boasted of an unbroken "sold out" streak.

Not any more...

Since the track was repaved and the banking was changed to its current variable configuration fans have turned off and that unbroken run of sold out ticket sales has been well and truly broken. On paper the "new" Bristol should be perfect for modern NASCAR racing. Multiple racing grooves giving the drivers loads of room to race two wide over 500 laps. However somethings not working.

The "old" Bristol was a physical track, physically hard on drivers as well as emotionally and mentally hard. The drivers also got physical with each other, what became known as the "bump'n'run".

A packed house might have booed Dale Earnhardt in the 1999 Bristol night race when he "just meant to rattle" Terry Labontes cage but don't tell me those fans didn't pay their money to see exactly that happen.

However since the track was reconfigured the contact, some might say the "edge" has been lost. In one way this was the reason for repaving the track. The old track had one racing groove and to overtake drivers had to use their front bumper to move the other car out of the way. Now with the variable banking the drivers have two complete racing grooves to work with, negating the need for the "bump'n'run". However I did say "in one way" this was the point of the variable banking.

I fully expected, after the track was reconfigured, the controversial last lap "bump'n'runs" to be replaced by two wide, thousands-of-an-inch close, finishes using the new variable banking to great effect. This was surely the other purpose of the reconfiguration, widen the racing groove. The banking does create this style of racing as the battle between Brad Keselowski and Matt Kenseth in the latest NASCAR Sprint Cup race proved.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Fans may look back at the "old" Bristol races and remember them as close, good old fashioned short track racing and look at the races on the new surface and consider the racing not good enough. Not enough cars on the lead lap, no dramatic last lap battles, however not every lap of every Bristol race was filled with "bump'n'run" drama. The other 1999 Bristol race only had 13 cars on the lead lap with 222 laps still to go. The one groove nature of the track meant that the races were wars of attrition, patience and stamina, waiting games for 400 laps and full on for the last 100 laps. Remember, 500 laps of any NASCAR race, let alone Bristol, is a long time.

This has not changed with the "new" track. If anything the variable banking has done its job and opened the track up to "real" racing. What I do not understand is why the race finishes have not been that close.

The drivers seem able to race two wide for lap after lap in the middle of the race, however the track is yet to produce the aforementioned two wide, thousands-of-an-inch close finish, using the new variable banking to great effect. To me this is why fans are not buying tickets and are complaining about the new Bristol. It is said the most important parts of a film, stage production, book or TV show are the start and end, as the viewer always remembers these more than the bit in the middle and I wonder if the same can be said of a motor race.

Fans remember with great fondness the "old" Bristol races and say they want the "old" Bristol back. What I think they really want are good "new" Bristol starts and great "new" Bristol finishes. The 300 laps in between are always going to be forgotten.

I just wish I understood why this hasn't happened yet, as I for one quite like the "new" Bristol!