|
|
2010 midget rule change?
Just a concerned fan...
USAC is considering mandating a rev limiter on the national midget division for 2010, under 9000 RPMs? While I agree some sort of engine cost control would be in order... How do you police it? Why do you penalize the many Esslinger motors that dont hit their powerband until 9000+? Its easy to limit the MSD box with a chip, but Electromotive? Old-style Magneto? Perhaps the national series would be better suited as a "toyota" spec series requiring everyone to purchase new $40k motors. Thats good cost control. Just another rule that the rich guys can spend money to find a way to go faster, and the little guy cant compete. I hope this wasnt true. Maybe someone in Orlando can give us an update. At one time, this was the best racing in the country. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Is it the perfect solution? No
Will it help? Somewhat, at least it's a step in the right direction We don't need another spec racing series. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Wonder who came up with this bright idea?
It looks like to me Toyota behind this since their motors hit the the power about 8800-9000 rpm. Don't forget about how USAC needs to operate-$$$$$$$ Maybe go to a 8" wide RR |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Mistake in my opinion. Forcing the racers to redesign/retune engines is going to hurt the car count and they need all the cars they can get with sponsors pulling out and teams leaving the series. If they want to help the series, they need to do something to reduce costs not increase them.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Quote:
:15: |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Has Don M. changed has board name.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What is all boils down to is USAC is listening to a manufacture, and not the members that make these races happen. Maybe now is time to start another series and finally sink USAC |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
so lets keep it how it is and it will be a spec esslinger series the last time i looked esslinger has never sponsored usac.This will help midget racing the guys that dont have to crank there motors more to keep up with esslingers it will level out the engine deal and it will save people money
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Is it just me or has Toyota hurt every series they have run in?
I wasn't a big fan of VW midgets when they first came around, but I am thinking they would be the way to go anymore. They might not be competitive anymore with all those special engines, but if they only had to run against other VW midgets, I think the racing would be better. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
This will raise a stink but here goes.... NOW enters Traction Control !!!
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Quote:
And why is it that Toyota (a push rod motor) thinks they have to turn so many RPMs to compete with Esslinger (an overhead cam motor) to be competative????? The valve train is not the only way to make power. There are other ways. It took 15 years and a lot of blood sweat and tears for Esslinger to start winning races. Why is it Toyota doesn't take its lumps and build a motor that is competative. Oh thats right they have a checkbook....... |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Heromaker-
You are right about everything except for one part. USAC is no longer going to have Toyota vehicles. I think they're going to have Ford vehicles next year, I think I heard? So, in that case, it makes this even more of a head-scratcher. Unfortunately, this was the idea that [I]quite a few[I] competitors I talked to came up with. I guess USAC listened to these people...? Not good. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
You people can speculate and dream all you want. This issue has been discussed so many times it's rediculous. All the midget officials in the world can sit around in rooms and meetings and talk about solutions till the cows come home... but....
Until some good old fashioned testing happens, everbody is totally wasting their time on this subject. Does anybody on this planet know of ONE test that has been done anywhere that is aimed at finding a solution to this problem??? I think the answer is NO. If there has been some testing going on, would somebody please come forward and tell us where it happened and the results? Thanks!! Don Moore |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I think even the Mopar guys can't compete with the high reving Esslingers, so they want them to be limited also.
Isn't it funny that most of the engine sponsored teams are quitting? How pathetic that with all their engineering, Toyota, Chevrolet and Mopar can't compete with the Esslingers! David kills Goliath again!!! rz |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Don what testing are you talking about? motors,tires
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Well, I think testing should involve issues that will limit any major expense of a rule change. It makes sense to start with tires, wheel width, compound and possibly even offset. A weight rule could even be considered. Obviously, the owners with Esslinger engines don't want to be penalized for buying an engine that has been made legal originally by USAC. At this point there needs to be some kind of embellishment, IMO, for all the engines/cars that have been rendered uncompetitive. By an embellishment I mean some "gimmies" for the non Esllinger owners similar to what has been done regarding the rules for the midget Rumble Series.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
It's not even the New Year and silly season in the midget world has already begun! :)
I have to agree w/ HEROMAKER: Esslinger in the most cost effective motor on the market - Heck! if you look in the classified section you can pick up a fairly new XT with limited runs for about $18 ~ $20k. I have yet to see a published price on a Toyota motor? And I think the Mopar's ( Esp. the HEMI ) are in the mid to upper $30's. On top of the fact that from what I have seen and heard; the Hemi doesnt make more then about 2 race before the bottom falls out. :) Sooooo... It leaves me to question; Why penalize the most cost effective motor in the industry? Btw: Whens the last time anyone in the last 3 ~ 5 years seen an esslinger blow up? ... Outside of tracks like IOWA, PIR, ect. In which case I think almost everyone's motor blew up ... HAHAH... Hummm In closing: I've been involved in racing since the day I could walk and Ive won championships w. just about every motor mfg in the industry: VW, Brayton Fords, Mopar, Esslinger.... And I can say from experience that from a maintaince stand point Esslinger is # 1 by a large margin. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
DON Thank you you are the first person with any :21: to give a real answer to what to do about improving racing ie usac. dont know that you are right but but on the right track you have made an effort :8:
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Sorry - One last statement...
In regards to the people that keep pushing for a "HARDER TIRE" as an answer to solve the problem. I would urge you all to error on the side of caution. Take a look at CRASH CAR ( aka: NASCAR ) when they attempted to use 'harder tires' ... They bounced cars off the wall left and right due to a lack of grip and a side wall that would not give! As expensive as midget racing already is - I dont think any of us want to wad up a car due to a hard tire. I do agree, It would be nice to see something done to control the cost but what the answer to that question is? It's beyond me... Possible Starter Areas: Outlaw Carbon Fiber - it has no value in racing except to cost $$$$ Outlaw GAS Shocks - Get back to grandpa's steel body, 50/50 ratio shocks... No rebound control allowed Outlaw Ti-bolts - again it has no value in racing except to cost $$$$ Maybe make: Combo cars standard - Not a bad idea, one car for both pavement and dirt! what a concept! :) Anyone else care to add on to the list? |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
1 Brad Kuhn Fontana
2 Brad Sweet Mopar 3 Darren Hagen Esslinger 4 Jerry Coons Jr. Toyota 5 Bobby East Esslnger 6 Cole Whitt Toyota 7 Tracy Hines Chevy I believe these are the 7 teams that ran the full USAC deal this year |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Quote:
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
IMCA has this in several divisions out here. Basically it works, but it will definitely change the sound of racing when the rev limiter kicks in.
ROOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR. Sputter sputter sputter. RROOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRR. Sputter sputter sputter. that's all in one lap. How about this idea for cost control -- a claim rule? If you sell your $40,000 midget motor for $1,000, you might not invest as much in the next one. Jim Morrison |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Ill add to the thought of before.Its been said on here so many times it crazy but put a limit on the size of injectors you can run.Yes limt the compound on tires but they dont really need to be rock hard.A certain size and compound and you run em all night.The tire you qualify on is your tire for the rest of the night.But this is all just shooting breeze because USAC isnt listening and never has for years.Let USAC do what they are doing and take the sprint cars on dirt and someone else needs to step up for keeping the midgets alive under another banner.I sure dont have the money and no one else on here probably does either so we are just wasting time typing.I think Don Moore ought to start a midget group because he is and has been an owner on a very limited budget and he knows how it is for the little guy.I personally love the midgets but something has to be done just like everyone has been talking about on here for 2 or 3 years.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
IRS restricts injectors (although too much for my engine to run)and runs hard 8" wide RR tires...works for them...averaged 18+ cars at many shows this year...
...think my Gaerte be ok at 9000 RPM... |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I have no dog in this fight since the only midget in the garage is a '48 Kurtis/Offy!!
However, I would like to draw attention to the 2009 results of the National Midget Driver of the Year Engine points system. It was scored as follows: Engine and Chassis Manufacturer Point System All races scored - Double Points Awarded Big 8 Midget Events Feature Finish: 1. 5 pts; 2. 3 pts; 3. 1 pt. Events with less than 15 cars will not award mfg. points POINTS 1 Ford-Esslinger 565 2 Mopar 170 3 Fontana 133 4 Toyota 119 5 Chevrolet 83 It would seem to me that when one engine dominates by 3.3 times over the nearest competitor a change might be in order to allow the teams that do not have the resources to purchase an Esslinger to continue to compete. I believe someone also stated that the Esslinger only became dominant after "15 years and a lot of blood sweat and tears" but if I remember correctly Esslinger lobbied for and was granted an increase in cubic inches. Perhaps the increase was a little too much given their current dominance of the sport. I applaud USAC for trying something. Limiting the revs impacts the Esslingers more than the other engines currently in use and provides a quick, low cost fix to the problem. If you really want to cut down on ongoing engine costs a compression rule would be the way to go and Jim Morrison’s idea for an engine claim would provide a long term solution. And now back to your regularly scheduled argument. Rob Hoffman |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I agree with Don; true testing should have been done to see the merits.
The reason I believe the Esslinger was the dominant motor in the driver of the year standings is because it is the most common motor. It has been around for a few years and there are many older ones as there are newer ones. Much like how the Chevy would dominate a similar points standing with the sprinters. Esslinger came out with their motor at some point during the mid 90's. It was a very dominant motor and USAC scaled it back to 155ci. At 155ci with the existing technology that was available it struggled to compete with the Gearte and Fontana. They were then allowed extra inches to compete and in the meantime they found new technology that also allowed them to make more hp. Today it is the dominant motor because of it's HP,cost and reliability. They are also the only company to my knowledge to offer 3 different packages to fit different price points of affodability. From used to best of the best new; you can find an Esslinger from $10,000 to $29,000 and if they have been taken care of; they will all run well. Motors don't always run better or last longer with lower compression and I find it hard to believe that many would agree with a claimer rule. I personally find them rediculous and pointless as that always causes more problems than it's worth. One of the problems I feel midget racing faces is that for some reason people feel that it needs to fit into a certain place and that midgets should only be this and not that and that they should not approach the costs of running a sprintcar. Like midgets are a rung on a ladder versus being their own stand alone type of racing. People feel they are a beginner class, but that isn't true. Maybe at one time, but midgets are a far cry from beginner racing today. In reality; one of the big problems midget racing faces today is that the competition is extremely tough and from a driving and car standpoint, beginners struggle even at their local tracks. I personally feel that this isn't the right move and that there wasn't enough testing(ANY) to see if this is a legitimate move. This will negatively affect their car counts as they will not be able to pick up any of the locals in various areas. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
It would seem to me that when one engine dominates by 3.3 times over the nearest competitor a change might be in order to allow the teams that do not have the resources to purchase an Esslinger to continue to compete.
Rob Hoffman[/QUOTE While I agree when 1 manufacturer dominates, sometimes you have to adjust to make it "fair". Isn't the Esslinger the least expensive of all the motors that you list? Don't they all have the same rules to build off of? Weren't the Mopar and Chevy clean sheet designs? When are Beast pavement chassis going to be penalized for dominating? When someone builds a better mousetrap, don't you either copy it or go somewhere else? My .02 rz |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I think you're missing the Toyota connection. It's not the trucks but the rumors have
Toyota sponsoring the Midget Division of USAC in 2010....... Get it?????????? |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Quote:
Didn't USAC have another division that they adjusted for a NASCAR sponsorship/partnership once? How did that work out for them? |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
DING DING DING ! DIRT PUSHER Wins! :6: Hit the nail right on the head... Stuggling USAC needs Toyota's $$$
I'm still trying to find out how much a Toyota motor cost? Does anyone know? |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
go to: http://www.edpink.com/news/index.htm there are some prices on two different versions of the toyota motor. Posted over a year ago, but can't imagine they've changed much - but who knows.
Not so sure a limit on rpm is a bad idea - though maybe 9k might be a little high for your average saturday night pushrod motor. how we were able to think that giving both fontana and esslinger more ci wouldn't be an issue at a later date is beyond me. what now - give the other motors a few more ci to catch up? as stated in another message, you may have an issue policing some ignition systems - but i think most the motors turning those kind of rpm are not of the magneto type. regardless of how hard/narrow the tire - thru out time the more powerful motors make it to the front. your just more aggressive with chassis tuning. $$ wise - an sd38 or equal would not be a bad idea to keep tire bills down. a similar compound would be good for lr also. if motors are the primary $$ problem, which they are, than the motors need to be addressed. A little late for '10, and i'm sure there will be quite a bit of crying but ... if we really want to curb costs and extend life of motors, big steps should be taken - ? maybe no titanium rods, valves - no ti anywhere in motor? sure would limit initial cost, and make sure the rpms remain where they should. valve spring pressure? can't run to much cam or rpm with softer spring pressure ... the list can go on for sure - bottom line is - no matter what choice/decision is made somebody is gonna feel they're on the short end of the stick. but something needs to be done for the overall health of the sport. if not, more and more will bipass the midgets, and go straight to sprints. more economic, better purses, etc. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I thought it would be interesting to see how the wins were distributed this year.
Total races won: esslinger 15 toyota 4 mopar 4 fontana 2 chevy 1 dirt races won: esslinger 8 toyota 4 mopar 2 fontana 1 chevy 1 pavement races won: esslinger 7 toyota 0 mopar 2 fontana 1 chevy 0 motor/team/driver breakdown: toyota: wilke pak 4 wins with jerry coons jr 2 / josh wise 2 keith kunz 0 with cole whitt fontana: rw/benic 1 win with brad kuhn chuck gurney jr 1 win mopar: kahne 3 wins with brad sweet c&a 1 win with caleb armstrong chevy: stewart 1 win with tracy hines esslinger: fike 2 wins with darren hagen santos 3 wins bobby santos debeaumont 2 wins with bryan clauson bci 5 wins with bryan clauson east 2 wins with bobby east kunz 1 win with kevin swindell Here is my 2 cents, well maybe more. We have raced or tested esslinger, mopar w9, rp w9, hemi, ilmor rp w9, and an ed pink ford. With out question the esslinger takes off faster due to the gearing, 60 to 80 points lower. The hemi has more top end, however you have to crank it at least 9200 to be competitive with the esslinger. It runs good for a few laps at this rpm and then as Tj Domark stated, "the bottom falls out". The rp w9 is a nice little motor but again to be competitive you have turn a lot of rpm, again not good on a push rod engines valve train. (If you don't believe me ask k.kahnes team how many rpms they had to turn to win, then ask them how many motors they blew up!) The ed pink ford is a really driveable motor and qualifies well. However, it does not make enough power to pull out of line and pass anyone. One undeniable fact is that to compete with the esslingers the push rod motors are forced to turn unrealistic rpms at most of the usac races. Push rod motors will not live at these rpms. Not an opinion, a FACT based on our teams testing and racing this year. Esslinger owners will argue that Toyota or Mopar have set track records and few other insignificant points. If you really look at the numbers there is no argument to be made. Esslinger has thoroughly dominated. If you look at the races won by the other manufacturers, almost all of them had special factors, rubber down, right against the fence, teams home track, super dead slick. Again not an opinion, a FACT, look at the results and you will see what I am talking about. I don't know if this rpm limit is the best solution. However I do know that if usac does nothing to level the playing field, it will be an esslinger only series. I know our team as well as others will be switching to esslinger engines if the rules remain the same. It could be possible next year to see wilke and rw/benic as the only teams not using esslinger engines on the usac circuit. Is that really good for the sport??? Kevin Besecker |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I've read some excellent posts on here, especially the one by Kevin Besecker. Good job guys!!! Now... Is USAC listening to all of this? I mention USAC because... don't look for Brown/Siner/Powri/Badger to do a thing until USAC comes up with some solutions. History will repeat itself.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Throw the name Illmor in the mix. Coming soon.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Quote:
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
The question is this then.......If next year Toyota or Fontana wins more races than the Esslinger; do they then get limited on what they can do?
The V8-60,Offy,Sesco,VW,Cosworth,Pontiac, and Gearte all dominated the sport until they were replaced by something else. That is just how it is. Why is it different now that it is the Esslinger?(A motor that has been around for more than a decade and is really the only company that has tried to find a way to fit into a budget for different levels of racers.) |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
hey Scott,
in all due respect, I think that part of the answer is in your question. It's obvious that the continual rising of the bar in the motor department has now become a detriment to the sport. Limits need to be put in place to keep the sport alive, and to keep midget racing a realistic alternative in the racing world. Unfortunately there is a group that continually feels we need to take the sport to the "next level". my question is: why? Open wheel Saturday night racing, specifically in this conversation midget racing - is what it is. On the local/regional level, the 155 was more than enough to compete and win against the pink fords and others. Now in defense of esslinger, though not really needed, they have offered an alternative with their st motor. As joe has with the rhino motor. ARDC from what I understand has put rules in place that essentially make guys feel that a decent -12 or pushrod ford is more than capable of winning. I also thought I read somewhere that the toyotas, 161, and rhinos are not an option. personally I feel if this info is correct, they are heading in the right direction. I feel it is now different because for the most part the lifespan of the motor is less, most send the motors back to be freshened, and purses are pretty much the same or less in some cases. we are alienating the backbone of our car counts. midget owners are no longer so much the group of folks that tinkered/designed and built or modified their own equipment and/or motors. I remember talking to Rusty Kunz a few years back about a motor i was buying that he was familiar with. I was picking his brain a bit. one of the things he mentioned that bothered me was that they were happy when they got 4 races out of a motor before pulling it out to be gone over. 4 races ... 4 races?! good god - I've yet find someone to explain why half a motor is the same cost as a full up 410. and then have only a small portion of the life span! anyway, not to argue, but you know the famous meaning/explanation of insanity - repeating the same process over and over, and expecting different results. if we want to change the direction midget racing is presently headed, we need to change the process/way in which it is ran and governed. Robert Marfia, Jr. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Scott, I think one of the differences is that the Esslinger and Fontana were singled out a few years ago and USAC legislation ( a second party so to speak) GAVE THEM more cubic inches. I know of at least one engine builder who wanted the same perk and WAS DENIED by USAC.
So, the advantage of those two engines was helped along considerably by the United States Auto Club and adopted by all the other midget orgs in the country with the exception of ARDC, one of the few free thinking midget groups in the country. I have heard more than a few "historic facts" from the engine builder that I'm referring to, and how a high profile midget org has put the KABAMS on many of their projects. So there is more to the historic facts of R and D regarding inovative engine designs than most people know about. This is not all about a few west coast engine companies suddenly coming up with dominate engines. There has been some major help along the way and that is one of the main issues here. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
So......Fortune 100 car companies couldn't build or design a motor to compete with Esslinger in either price or performance and now Esslinger which offers competitive Engine packages in different price levels is now penalized?
I know that Ford is involved with Esslinger today, but I don't see it being that big of help. The bottom line is the best product won.....the rest is sour grapes and ********. We just saw a rule put in place to protect what is essentially dead technology and outdated engine platforms. I don't want anyone to think I am pissed or whatever because it doesn't affect my pocket book, it just perplexes me the way we approach problems today. We want others to be pulled back instead of finding a better way. Why doesn't Chevy,Toyota and Mopar build a motor along the lines of the Esslinger? As far as cost goes....I don't know what to tell you. If someone out there can build a motor that can beat these at a lower price, then they should. It is a heck of an undertaking to build a motor like these and even someone like Sesco charges around $25,000 for a new motor because that is what it costs. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Maybe I'm missing something but where can I read about this rule change? Is there a press release out?
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 2:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2005-2024 IndianaOpenWheel.com