2010 midget rule change?

Heromaker · 12/9/09, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Clauson

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

Thanks Tim.

Lucky161 · 12/9/09, 11:49 PM

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

micro94 · 12/10/09, 1:32 AM

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.

jdull99 · 12/10/09, 5:00 AM

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...

Racerrob · 12/10/09, 10:05 AM

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

LEADERS EDGE · 12/10/09, 11:12 AM

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.

rz1 · 12/10/09, 11:24 AM

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

Dirt Pusher · 12/10/09, 11:35 AM

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??????????

rz1 · 12/10/09, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirt Pusher

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??????????

OOOOOoooooooh
Didn't USAC have another division that they adjusted for a NASCAR sponsorship/partnership once? How did that work out for them?

TJ Domark · 12/10/09, 12:36 PM

DING DING DING ! DIRT PUSHER Wins!

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?

12/10/09, 5:00 AM	#24 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
jdull99 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 5,751	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...

12/10/09, 10:05 AM	#25 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Racerrob Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 237	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

12/10/09, 11:12 AM	#26 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
LEADERS EDGE Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 980	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.

12/10/09, 11:24 AM	#27 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
rz1 Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13	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

12/10/09, 11:35 AM	#28 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Dirt Pusher Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 33	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??????????

12/10/09, 12:36 PM	#30 Re: 2010 midget rule change?
TJ Domark Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 18	DING DING DING ! DIRT PUSHER Wins! 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?