Soooo Close...

Nearly...

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!

Not Just a Stretch of... Concrete

A couple of weeks ago I expressed concern over the upcoming changes at Phoenix. I hoped that changing the layout and bringing in progressive banking doesn’t rob NASCAR racing of one its most “characterful" tracks.

Bristol is “the” short track... Or it was. I loved the old Bristol. Everything about the track was fast, dramatic, action packed! It was a place where you needed the patience of a saint, and the front bumper strength of a Greek god. Never has the term “moving up the field” meant so much as overtaking involved “moving” your opposition “up” out of the way... something about “ratteling” and “cage” comes to mind... can’t think why...

Anyway, the track changed a couple of years ago with a the laying of a new “progressive banking” surface. The idea was to introduce two racing grooves to Bristol for the first time. You could run on the bottom, the shorter way around but slower in the turns due to the shallower banking, or run up high, the longer way round but faster due to the steeper banking.

It works too! Bristol does have two grooves now. The drivers can run side-by-side at Bristol however much of the Bristol myth is built around the last lap contact, the boos, the cheers, the “ratteling” of the “cage”.

This last lap drama has been missing since the new banking was put in, which is odd as you would hope that two good racing grooves would mean lots of close two wide finishes, but so far it has not hapened. However the track does produce good racing, better even than the old one-groove surface.

Did NASCAR loose one of its most iconic tracks with the resurfacing or did it gain another?

I like the new Bristol. I want to love it I really do... maybe in time.