Admitedly, I didn't read every one of the 247 posts that preceded this one, so if I repeat something that's already been said please accept my apologies.
Let me start by stating simply, I am not a fan of four-wide racing. That said, I'm also not willing to throw Bruton, NHRA or anyone else under the bus for trying something new. Heck, trying new things is what the sport was founded on, isn't it? Didn't that Garlits fella catch A LOT of grief for that rear engine design? I could be mistaken, but I think that turned out alright.
Now, why I'm not a fan.
1. How many casual fans, or first time attendees have you brought to the track and had to explain sportsman raciing to them? Super Comp, Super Gas, etc. are difficult enough to explain. Then there's Comp Eliminator. When trying to explain those categories, it was difficult enough, but you could always say - but wait till the pros get out here, then it's first to the stripe is the winner. Period. So we've taken an already complex sport and made it a little more difficult for the newbie to comprehend. Some old timers are still struggling with the blue lights.
2. Sponsor coverage. Yes, one could argue that a potential sponsor has more of a chance of coming in second place, twice, and still getting air time by running three rounds - heck, that same sponsor's car could even win the race. In NASCAR, and darn near every other roundy round racing for that matter, it's well known and documented that the best car isn't always the one that wins. That's true in Drag Racing too, but this makes it even more possible. But I watched the qualifying show and the race itself and the camera angle is such that you can hardly make out the primary sponsor, much less the associates. And with multi-associate deals becoming more and more common, this problem is exacerbated, isn't it? Granted, I've never sold or negotiated a sponsor package so I may be way off. But if exposure is one of the selling points, I'd think the sponsor would want to be seen.
2. The Robert Hight deal. Sure, could've happened two-wide. It has. It will again. Not the point. No matter what anyone says, and I happen to have a ton of respect for Virgil Hartman, if a driver in the first two rounds of racing doesn't know what the two drivers in the other two lanes are doing, they're going to stay in it to the stripe. As it turned out, Arend and Hight were third and fourth, but at the time Hight had no way of knowing that. If you increase the number of cars, this is a risk you take. With all the discussions about safety the last few years, this is an added risk. Period.
Suggestion: First round produces one winner per round. Second round has one winner per round, but the two quickest cars, overall, that were eliminated get to run in the final. They may both be from one "quad" or maybe from separate quads. This reduces the potential of another Hight incident because it's likely after smoking the tires you'e NOT going to be one of the quickest non-winners. I know it doesn't ELIMINATE the potential because there are pedal-fests, but it does reduce the possibility.
In closing, if four-wide is something that's going to be tried again, I'm for it being non-points generating. If it is going to be points generating, then I'd like to visit an idea that has been discussed here by having tracks that can handle 1,320, race 1,320. Some race to 1,000 and some, if necessary, race to 660'. That opens up quite a few venues that we presently don't reach, and likely expands our sport more than simply going four-wide.
Flame away.
