2010 midget rule change?

darnall · 12/14/09, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiemidgetfan

Exactly...if you want to restrict horsepower across the board make all cars run a 22m air restrictor

Being from the states and all I'm not really confident in my grasp of the metric system but i didn't think an entire midget was 22 meters long, much less an injector bore?!?!?!?

Ha Ha... I know you meant mm...just having some fun

LRP36 · 12/15/09, 10:58 PM

Why penalize an engine builder for building the better mouse trap? Hasn't innovation always been what any type of racing has been about? The Mopars and the Pink Fords were dominating a few years ago and then USAC gave the Fontanas and Slingers more cubes to catch up. Well they did more then catch up they blew them away. This "supposed" rules change boils down to the Yodas getting their a**es handed to them and now them guys aren't happy that they are getting beat so they are right in USAC's ear about what they think should be done to help them win more races!

<--This post was edited by Admin-->

12/16/09, 7:33 PM

Maybe Esslinger and Fontana should have been more "innovative" and built a better mouse trap instead of acting like Washington lobbyists to "catch up" through more cubic inches. This argument that Esslinger worked so hard to catch up is a myth. They had it handed to them on a platter by USAC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lowlife517

Why penalize an engine builder for building the better mouse trap? Hasn't innovation always been what any type of racing has been about? The Mopars and the Pink Fords were dominating a few years ago and then USAC gave the Fontanas and Slingers more cubes to catch up. Well they did more then catch up they blew them away. This "supposed" rules change boils down to the Yodas getting their a**es handed to them and now them guys aren't happy that they are getting beat so they are right in USAC's ear about what they think should be done to help them win more races!

<--This post was edited by Admin-->

12/16/09, 10:24 PM

I think the easiest solution would be to declaire a minmum weight for the cars based on the engine cubic inch and RPM they are going to be run.

Brent Pierce
Pierce Engine Development.

rz1 · 12/16/09, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket5612

Maybe Esslinger and Fontana should have been more "innovative" and built a better mouse trap instead of acting like Washington lobbyists to "catch up" through more cubic inches. This argument that Esslinger worked so hard to catch up is a myth. They had it handed to them on a platter by USAC.

Using this logic maybe Toyota,Mopar and Chevy should be more innovative and build a better mousetrap, instead of acting like Washington lobbyists to "catch up" through rpm restrictions on the other guy.

12/16/09, 11:47 PM

How far do we want to take this back? Because USAC just kept giving inches to every engine that got behind over the years and thats how we've gotten to the point that we have. Maybe they should increase the cubic inches on the Cosworth because it can't compete. Thats it!! I think its unfair the Cosworth can't be competitive today so they should increase the cubic inches on it like they did the Esslinger. Thats only fair right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rz1

Using this logic maybe Toyota,Mopar and Chevy should be more innovative and build a better mousetrap, instead of acting like Washington lobbyists to "catch up" through rpm restrictions on the other guy.

rz1 · 12/17/09, 7:40 PM

In the recent timeline. What year did Esslinger get their cubic inches and in which years were the Mopar, Toyota and Chevy created?

TJ Domark · 12/23/09, 5:29 PM

Based on the Pre-Entry Form [ Chilli Bowl ]

253 cars

Engines:
Esslinger: 73 = 28.8%
Fontana: 24 = 9.48%
Mopar: 24 = 9.48%
Gaerte: 23 = 9.09%
Toyota: 13 = 5.13%
Steve Smith Hawk: 6 = 2.37%
Brannan Engines: 4 = 1.58%
Honda: 1 = 0.39%
* this was just a quick overview and not fully detailed since some teams listed: CHEVY / FORD/ ect..ect..

Cars:
Spike: 106 = 41.89%
Stealth: 54 = 21.34%
Beast: 14 = 5.53%
TCR: 5 = 1.97%
Twister: 5 = 1.97%
DRC: 4 = 1.58%

Just some fun facts as I watch it snow in the midwest today !

12/15/09, 10:58 PM	#82 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
LRP36 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 414	Why penalize an engine builder for building the better mouse trap? Hasn't innovation always been what any type of racing has been about? The Mopars and the Pink Fords were dominating a few years ago and then USAC gave the Fontanas and Slingers more cubes to catch up. Well they did more then catch up they blew them away. This "supposed" rules change boils down to the Yodas getting their a**es handed to them and now them guys aren't happy that they are getting beat so they are right in USAC's ear about what they think should be done to help them win more races! <--This post was edited by Admin-->

12/16/09, 10:24 PM	#84 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
BrentPierce Posts: n/a	I think the easiest solution would be to declaire a minmum weight for the cars based on the engine cubic inch and RPM they are going to be run. Brent Pierce Pierce Engine Development.

12/17/09, 7:40 PM	#87 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
rz1 Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13	In the recent timeline. What year did Esslinger get their cubic inches and in which years were the Mopar, Toyota and Chevy created?

12/23/09, 5:29 PM	#88 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
TJ Domark Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 18	Based on the Pre-Entry Form [ Chilli Bowl ] 253 cars Engines: Esslinger: 73 = 28.8% Fontana: 24 = 9.48% Mopar: 24 = 9.48% Gaerte: 23 = 9.09% Toyota: 13 = 5.13% Steve Smith Hawk: 6 = 2.37% Brannan Engines: 4 = 1.58% Honda: 1 = 0.39% * this was just a quick overview and not fully detailed since some teams listed: CHEVY / FORD/ ect..ect.. Cars: Spike: 106 = 41.89% Stealth: 54 = 21.34% Beast: 14 = 5.53% TCR: 5 = 1.97% Twister: 5 = 1.97% DRC: 4 = 1.58% Just some fun facts as I watch it snow in the midwest today !