Rob,
One chassis on dirt and pavement is the biggest thing needed to save combination dirt and pavement series'. Now, there are plenty more dirt midgets and sprint cars in this world then there are pavement cars so I would write the rules to benefit the dirt cars.
How do you police one chassis on dirt and pavement? You actually write a rule book and enforce it. Merely saying this cannot be policed is an excuse not a reason. The Legend Car series' were successful at this, but they went to the extreme with their rules and created a monopoly for certain parts suppliers, so I would not go that far. Plus their cars are junk and their tires are harder then any tire on the planet so the racing is terrible on dirt.
What is the engine plate to rear axle on the typical dirt sprint car or midget? I'll bet this doesn't vary more than 2" from manufacturer to manufacturer on dirt. So, allow 2" to move but thats it. Set a wheelbase limit that isn't 10" from shortest to longest and you have that problem solved. For the midgets I would recommend a low of 71" and a high of 73". This doesn't hurt anyone because all the "big" teams already have dirt cars. Yes, some guys who have strictly pavement cars will have to buy new cars, but it is a small price to pay now to survive in the future. Set the rules so the engine must be on the centerline of the chassis. In the midgets maybe, and this is a big maybe, require the engine sit straight up and down. This is easily done with a motor plate. That isn't much of an investment at all. Also, as I said in my previous post make the same offset rule on dirt and pavement so the same rear axle can be run on both surfaces. Also, one important thing would be a seat height rule so nobody is lowering the driver from dirt to pavement. Also, requiring six pin hubs on the front since they are needed on the high speed pavement tracks is necessary. No "special" car will be needed. All current dirt cars would be legal.
This is just a start. Over the years small changes will be needed to gradually perfect this. As things come up to challenge the intent of going to a one car on pavement and dirt philosophy, USAC will need to step up to the plate and make rules. This will be necessary even if it has to be made mid-season. As I have stated before USAC is the worst sanctioning body in the world when it comes to enforcing their own rules. Just look at their midget engine rules and you can see this. The Esslinger XT isn't even legal per their rule book but it is allowed to run. (ie "418, B. 3. Four cylinder in line, aluminum block and head,” Pinto” engine. Alteration of the basic design of the head or block is prohibited."). How many cam towers does the "basic design" have in it? I'll bet it isn't as many as the newest Esslinger head. Also, does the "basic design" have the headers coming out of the left side of the head?? This is not an attack on those who have purchased Esslinger engines but merely to show that USAC does a poor job of enforcing rules or changing them when it is necessary.
As far as tires go Hoosier is not the evil empire like most on here want to make them out to be. However, I do not like monopolies and allowing tire manufacturers to submit two tires that durometer at or above a certain point each year is more than reasonable. Then write the rule to state that X and Y Hoosier and X and Y American Racer for instance are legal for 2010. Monopoly is over with and people have choice again. As you have said heat cycles are the problem so on pavement make a one set rule. These get stamped when you go out for the first "sanctioned" practice session and thats what you run all night. The only exception might be the left rear so you can change stagger. As for the local guys stepping up and buying tires, in some cases don't guys do that now? I think the UMARA midget guys used to or do have to buy Hoosiers to run with USAC.
USAC is going to have to be the one to make these changes especially in the midget division. All the other midget clubs just follow whatever USAC does so they need to step up and take the reigns to save it. When it comes to sprint cars USAC is not king and we all know that. However, I am sure that when it comes to dirt cars they are not that different manufacturer to manufacturer on the engine plate to rear axle measurements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racerrob
I have been sitting on the sidelines on this one waiting to see where this would go. If I am not mistaken, the proposals to save USAC, the car owners and the entire sprint car way of life boils down to: One chassis for pavement and dirt, limit tires/wheel width to make horsepower a non-issue, have a tire company invent a super tire that never wears out and never slows down, increase purses so that racers can afford to race, race closer to home so that travel expenses can be reduced and get TV coverage to make everything better.
Now I hate to be the wet blanket here but there are always unintended consequences to these proposals and if it were really easy to implement them don’t you think they would have made the move by now?
Let’s talk one chassis for pavement and dirt; How do you police that? I saw on an earlier post that there would be a limit as to the engine set back, offset and wheelbase. What happens when a local (which we rely on heavily at the dirt tracks) wants to run USAC. Do they have to buy a special car that conforms to USAC specs? Do we all run dirt chassis on pavement? What dirt wheelbase/engine set back? Do locals that have a slightly different car get to run?
Same for the tire/wheel rule; Do you think local racers on a limited budget will step up and buy new wheels and a spec tires to run just the USAC shows? If you could get the WoO, All-Stars, MSCS and whatever other sanctions together and agree to limit the RR this would work. Without it this is a pipe dream. The reason USAC went to 410 was because it became the standard for sprint cars by the WoO and local tracks. USAC made the switch so that more cars could run with them not as the leader of a larger CID movement.
Now on to the tires. Yes they are a MAJOR expense for both large and small teams. I have begged for a one set limit for over 1 year and it has gone nowhere. We run 2 sets typically for each racing night because every time the tire undergoes a heat cycle (run on the track) it slows down a little. Not wears out, but slows down. Therefore if my car is going to have a shot at winning I have to bolt on new tires each time my competition does. If we all have only one set then there is no competitive disadvantage.
Before we hear from Don Moore, hard tires are not the answer either because they slow down just as much if not more. They also lack grip which means the cars will slide more in the corners. The reason there is not more passing on pavement is generally the grove is narrow and the drivers (well most anyway) don’t want to slide into another car while attempting to pass. Most of them have learned that open wheel to wheel contact is not good for their health or the car’s longevity especially on pavement.
I know that Hoosier contributes to the point fund for each tire sold. It is here that USAC can be of the biggest help to the participant by negotiating hard with ALL the tire manufacturers to obtain the best price and most money for the point fund. There should be full open disclosure of each bid to the competitors and the contract should be rebid each winter. I don’t care which brand wins the bid if everyone has to run the same tire.
Now I have been very outspoken in the past when a promoter makes a killing on a USAC race via the back gate. I also know that promoters don’t always pack the stands and they have expenses as well. Too many promoters fail to promote nowadays. I would like to see a return to the days of a percentage of the gate against a guaranteed minimum purse Part of the sanction fee paid to USAC would be set aside for track specific marketing. Additionally the promoters would be required to spend a certain amount advertising the USAC race in the local media. USAC could leverage a revamped marketing department to helping the promoter with advertising copy and media buys. This would make USAC, the participants AND the promoter partners in putting on a quality product and producing a profit for ALL.
As far as racing closer to home/on more weekends, I am all for that. I burn EVERY vacation day, personal day and sick day that I get at the bank to attend all the races on the USAC schedule. My wife is very upset that I have not gone on vacation with her and the kids in 4 years. Most of our past vacations centered around a race somewhere that I left for two days early or stayed after for a couple of days. But realize that when you limit the series to a local base you also limit your ability to attract national sponsors for the teams, the events and the all important television.
In conclusion, I think we all recognize there is a problem. But beware of some of the “easy” fixes proposed because they may create more problems than they solve. Most of you probably remember the push to put starters on midgets since that would make the series more fan and TV friendly. Sounded like a good idea and it had a noble purpose but it almost killed the series. We don’t need to go down that path again.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarially reflect the opinions of my team or sponsors.
Rob Hoffman
|