[Geoff Kaiser]

Originally Posted by wbr here's an idea that would save more money than just tires. No hotlaps. Unload the cars and race them. Less wear on the motors. Less wear on the chassis and components. Less methanol. No hotels bills since time at the racetrack would be 4 hours or less. and No testing. Now my motor will last all season or 2 (or 3). I will only need to buy 3 new tires per race maximum. $50 for methanol per race. This will probably be as popular as a turd in a punch bowl, but hey- its the internet, everyone has an opinion:34;

I'm with ya Mark!

Seems like Mark, Sam. and Geoff are the only ones posting so far who have a dog in this fight and know what the Hell they are talking about. The rest remind me of Beck's new book, "Arguing With Idiots".

[Al Pierce]

Originally Posted by wbr here's an idea that would save more money than just tires. No hotlaps. Unload the cars and race them. Less wear on the motors. Less wear on the chassis and components. Less methanol. No hotels bills since time at the racetrack would be 4 hours or less. and No testing. Now my motor will last all season or 2 (or 3). I will only need to buy 3 new tires per race maximum. $50 for methanol per race. This will probably be as popular as a turd in a punch bowl, but hey- its the internet, everyone has an opinion:34;

Seems simple to me. Show up an hour late. The hour is probably on the wrong end of the night, but you can take a nap before arriving. If anyone wants to know why you missed hot laps....tell them "It was a business decision".

Ahh...the proverbial car count issue...Wish I had a nickel for the many "solutions" that everyone proclaims.
There clearly are no quick-fixes for this since things have gotten SO out of control.

Over the years of elbow grease in the garage and at the track, going BACK TO THE BASICS & simplifying things almost always worked out for the best. Really, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method! So, let's look at this from a larger, broader view. Say, from above, at 10K feet...(Wait, maybe, 20K feet...)

A couple of thoughts & questions to consider:

The days of multiple traveling series' are over.

Suggestion: It's just too expensive and people have too many other entertainment choices. Higher car counts must be built regionally first NOT nationally first. Get (3-4) tracks close in proximity working together rotating weeks. You could pool track resources; sponsorship programs; and maybe even ticket pricing for fans.

NOTE: I love learning about the racetracks of the 40's & 50's. Racers making a living by running (3-4) days a week all over the place. There seemed to be a track every (50) miles from anywhere in any direction. The old pictures w/full-fields & packed grandstands almost seem surreal. ISN'T THIS WHAT EVERYONE STRIVES TO ACHIEVE?

Far too many teams are out there to GET NOTICED vs. become great racers.

These days, so many teams spend ungodly amounts of money to become the next NASCAR development driver at age 14-16. We've all seen 'em. Maybe have even beat 'em. Some of these drivers seem very well-grounded. Others are just whiny, spoiled brats. Unfortunately, you really can't blame 'em w/the big money allure of NASCAR.

So, how does this affect low car counts, you may ask? To me, sorta relates to my 1st point above.
All of these "quasi-national" series' seem to "bow down" to them & have allowed these big-money teams some advantages that are, IMO, not good overall for the sport.

Some examples:
-- No testing. These are a joke & are rarely enforced. Big money teams can afford multiple tests.
-- No traction control. Either enforce this or get rid of it. Big money teams tend to be able to afford this.
-- Specially-tuned headers? I've watched teams switch these out after qualifying, etc. More $$$ here, too.
-- Tires, tires, tires. Everyone knows that being able to use newer tires & more of them is best. Again, more $$$.

Some of you may know or remember me (see username for clues).
These are my opinions alone & in no way singling anyone out.
I often "think out loud." I also love open-wheel racing.

Nuff said. Have a good night, y'all, & GO TIGERS!!
Jimmy B.

[Lucky161]

Originally Posted by JBX2 Ahh...the proverbial car count issue...Wish I had a nickel for the many "solutions" that everyone proclaims. There clearly are no quick-fixes for this since things have gotten SO out of control. Over the years of elbow grease in the garage and at the track, going BACK TO THE BASICS & simplifying things almost always worked out for the best. Really, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method! So, let's look at this from a larger, broader view. Say, from above, at 10K feet...(Wait, maybe, 20K feet...) A couple of thoughts & questions to consider: The days of multiple traveling series' are over. Suggestion: It's just too expensive and people have too many other entertainment choices. Higher car counts must be built regionally first NOT nationally first. Get (3-4) tracks close in proximity working together rotating weeks. You could pool track resources; sponsorship programs; and maybe even ticket pricing for fans. NOTE: I love learning about the racetracks of the 40's & 50's. Racers making a living by running (3-4) days a week all over the place. There seemed to be a track every (50) miles from anywhere in any direction. The old pictures w/full-fields & packed grandstands almost seem surreal. ISN'T THIS WHAT EVERYONE STRIVES TO ACHIEVE? Far too many teams are out there to GET NOTICED vs. become great racers. These days, so many teams spend ungodly amounts of money to become the next NASCAR development driver at age 14-16. We've all seen 'em. Maybe have even beat 'em. Some of these drivers seem very well-grounded. Others are just whiny, spoiled brats. Unfortunately, you really can't blame 'em w/the big money allure of NASCAR. So, how does this affect low car counts, you may ask? To me, sorta relates to my 1st point above. All of these "quasi-national" series' seem to "bow down" to them & have allowed these big-money teams some advantages that are, IMO, not good overall for the sport. Some examples: -- No testing. These are a joke & are rarely enforced. Big money teams can afford multiple tests. -- No traction control. Either enforce this or get rid of it. Big money teams tend to be able to afford this. -- Specially-tuned headers? I've watched teams switch these out after qualifying, etc. More $$$ here, too. -- Tires, tires, tires. Everyone knows that being able to use newer tires & more of them is best. Again, more $$$. Some of you may know or remember me (see username for clues). These are my opinions alone & in no way singling anyone out. I often "think out loud." I also love open-wheel racing. Nuff said. Have a good night, y'all, & GO TIGERS!! Jimmy B.

I too think the KISS principle works. I realize the Racesaver program is not running much in the midwest, but their ideas just make a lot of sense to me. One of my favorite rules that the SST uses is "If it doesn't say you can, then you can't."

[Need For Speed]

Originally Posted by Honest-Sam Low car counts on asphalt don't appear to be a new trend. Check out these results from Winchester from 1980(358ci motors) and 1981(410ci motors) 1980 - http://www.openwheeltimes.com/owt_results.asp?ID=91907 1980 - http://www.openwheeltimes.com/owt_results.asp?ID=91996 1981 - http://www.openwheeltimes.com/owt_results.asp?ID=90223 I wasn't racing yet in 1980(I was 12), so I don't know from personal experience what "kind" of cars these were or how many cars USAC started back then. Also not sure how wide the tires were or what the tire rules were.

One way to actually see what 'kind' of cars they were running, would be to get ahold of a Sprint Car Pictorial from those years. Another way to 'see', is by clicking this link: http://www.retrorockets.org/1/Volume31.htm

I don't know when USAC banned the roadsters, but at one time Steve Chassey, Marvin Carman, Jeff Bloom, and Sheldon Kinser were driving them...and maybe a few others.

Some of the teams/owners had pavement only cars, but I'm thinking that most were 'double duty' cars back then however. (mid to late 70's)

Then for a while, pavement racing was all but dead...seems like the early 80's/mid 80's was the start of that down turn in car counts.

[Honest-Sam]

I have mixed feelings about a no testing rule. It would save the cost of the test itself, plus, it may give the funding impaired teams an increased chance of a better finish on any given day. But compared to a season long pavement budget for a serious team, a test or two, when doubled or tripled up with some other teams, isn't THAT big of a percentage of the total budget, and even less so for those competing for a points championship. Clearly though, if it were non existent, it would obvioulsy save some money for the teams that regularly test. Would they put it back in their pockets, or just spend it on something else like exotic materials(carbon fiber or example)? Money saved isn't money saved if you don't save it. It's money re-allocated. As a competitor, I like to be able to use a test as a shakedown if there is a potential problem with a car. I'd sure hate to ride all the way to Phoenix to find out I have a bent driveline, or a damaged rear end. More of a "peace of mind" thing I guess.

Tires Part 1: If there is no choice of manufacturer to the competitors, then there is no real motivation for said manufacturer to improve the product. I guess this mentality could be applied to everything in life. Why on earth would any company develop a product that would outlast the current version without being able to charge more for it? That's what competition does, right? It drives innovation while limiting costs. A "monopoly" if you will, also strips away the ability of some teams and/or drivers to have "tire deals" which means either free tires, or discounted tires. Either way, that's money that can be saved or re-allocated by those who have deals. Also, tire deals USED to help drivers get rides. Isn't that a form of ride buying? Sorry, that's another subject....... Tire width I don't get. I need someone to explain to me how this helps costs and car counts. I rather imagine that a little less raw material would result in a less expensive product. The cost in in the labor. I can see how it would turn a really strong motor into a disadvantage, so long as traction control doesn't exist.

Tires, Part 2: I have no gripes about the QUALITY of tires that HOOSIER provides us with on the USAC circuit. Tracy just set a record last Sunday on a HARDER compound than we were running ten years ago. I wouldn't call that a problem with quality. It's kinda rare to have a screwball tire that messes you up, but it does sometimes happen. C'mon. They're hand made. It's gonna happen from time to time. And, I've kinda made friends with the folks at Hoosier Tire Midwest. I like 'em. It's not my intention to take anything away from them, or anytihing like that. They aren't chemists. They don't create rubber compunds. They're on the distribution end. My questions pertain to the manufacturing end. I wonder if it's possible to create a rubber compound that doesn't become useless after 3 or 4 heat cycles. Pavement tires are affected by the number of times they gets hot, not the number of laps. For example, if we put on a brand new set of sticker tires, go out and run two laps and come in a park for 20 minutes, that's one heat cycle(roughly). Then we do that two more times. That's 3 heat cycles, and while the tires may not be completely devoid of traction, they're pretty impaired and are no match for stickers even though they only have a total of 6 laps on them. Plenty of tread left, but they're now "bricks". Champ cars run 100 lap features on one set, and still have plenty of rubber left on them, but only 1 or 2 heat cycles. At the Little 500, it's not uncommon to run 200-300 laps on one tire. Funding impaired teams probably run many more than that, and still don't see any cords. Therefore, if a tire could be "invented" that didn't lose it's "goody" so quickly, it may be able to run more than one event, which may save some folks some money or make pavement racing more appealing to some teams. I'm not a chemist, so I don't know. But I do know that in an evironment where there's absolutely no reason to even try, it won't be invented. The DT3 was supposed to accomplish that feat on dirt, but it doesn't. And it's been my observation that the guys that win on dirt, aren't running last weeks tire. They burn through DT3's at the same rate that they did the softer compounds when they were available. These are just my observations. Your mileage may vary.

Traction Control: No experience. I know it's available, but I can't decide if anyone is really using it or not. If a sanctioning body WANTED it gone, it would be gone(feel free to apply this principle to everything).

Changing headers: Different lengths of tubing and/or different diameters really do change the powerband of a motor, and to a certain degree, the horsepower and torque numbers. But the cost of an everyday pair of headers made of mild steel costs less than any two tires on the car, dirt or pavement. So, in the big picture, probably not a huge factor to most teams. If you won a race with a specific set of headers, you probably would've won it with a slightly different set.

Spec Cars: See Tires Part 1. No competion among builders equals a lack of innovation and probably a higher price. Besides, we're all running Beasts anyway. The only difference is that right now, someone COULD try to build a car to compete with Bob if he wanted to. Spike does it in Midgets. Drinan too? If there's a spec rule, that option is gone.

Summary:
1) If the current rules of any sanctioning body AREN'T enforced, then why create new ones that won't be enforced?
2) A tire manufacturer cannot call the shots. Ever. If it means they pull their point fund money, then so be it. I doubt that Keith Kunz ,or the Hoffman's, etc. are gonna quit racing because the check at the banquet in January isn't as big. They wanna win. The sanctioning body and the tire manufacturer cannot be in bed together. Business only. "You can sell tires at our races if you want to". The backlash however could be, what if nobody wants to?
3) Limiting or eliminating exotic materials or other aids like shock warmers does help, I think.
4) It seems to me that the same guys run up front, everywhere, no matter what rules or limits you impose upon them.
5) Has it ever NOT been expensive to race? Not in my experience, but I only go back about 20 years. I can't speak to what it was like before 1990. I'd bet that campaigning a midget in 1939 was pretty expensive considering what your income was at the time. In the final analysis, a person's decision to go pavement racing or not, is ultimately a business decision. Cost vs. Cost Recovery. Is it even possible to reduce the cost enough? If every single cost saving measure ever conceived were implemented, would it be enough? Purse increase? How much of an increase would it take? Where would the increased purse money come from?

I think that racing (in general) is the playground of the wealthy, but especially so on pavement. There's really no such thing as a competitive budget racer on pavement in "my" series'(USAC Sprint and Silver Crown). If you can't afford it, you can't do it, and that's what we're left with. I sure hope I get to keep doing it, and I'm sure glad that so many fans like to come out and watch it. It really is quite a conundrum.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conundrum

[snoopy]

1.
Time
Winchester 11:00 pit gate
Fort Wayne 1:00
Plymouth 2:00
These are for night races, dirt you show up around 4:30/5:00.

2.
Would Eldora be as popular if you had to empty your trailer?

3.
Why not qualify and hot lap together. Like Kokomo. Saves 2 heat cycles on the tires and saves two hours.

4.
Support classess. Good for the promoter, but. Not much fan interaction at 1:00 A.M. after 4 support features. Especially if you then get to load your trailer.

5.
That new RR tire that has a pop rivet in it

[767]

I help out a pavement series, full size cars. Does any series check the tires after a race? We had to buy a sniffer because of teams treating or soaking tires. I am sure if no one is checking it is happening in Sprint cars too. Thus making the tire issue bigger. Say what you want but I know from experence, teams Treat from the outside or inside. Its crazy i know teams make a hard tire so soft it will only last a few laps. I know some guys that picked up close to half a second with the treated tires. I am not pointing anyone out here, just stating some of the facts from a series i help with.

[SUPERDUKE]

Its real easy race the same car on dirt and pavement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most can't afford one car let alone two cars!!!!!!!!! Think about it! The pavement racing is history unless the do this!!!!