|
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
as of 5pm usac has not posted 2010 rules or changes
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
If we want to take an alternative perspective:
Why dont we get midgets back on smaller race tracks where they belong and HP isnt the ultimate factor! If we use Grundy County Speedway, IL (1/3 mile ) for example, UMARA home track... I can tell you that a -12 head, 155 esslinger, mopar, any older gen motor is still extremely competitive and have won alot of races there. All you need is a good handeling car and a driver. I think NASCAR has proven this theory true by racing at places like Bristol where it's proven you can go faster by detuning a bigger motor. :16 Big Motors are only good on Big race tracks which often times = a boring race for the fans. Just another perspective |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Does anyone know how many races each manufacturers engines are generally going between freshenings?
And is it dirt or pavement? Someone posted 4 races, if thats true WOW, not good, midget racing is dead! |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Originally Posted by rz1: |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
And through all the high tech advancements in engines, chassis, shocks, and tires..........
They still run for $2,500 to win! That should have been enough for the really smart people to realize 'something'......:16...... |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I think Domark had the answer when he said to book more races on small tracks. That's why this is USAC's problem and not POWRi's.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Can someone tells us what engines the top 10 USAC Sprintcars were running this year?
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
CLAXTON power for sprint cars---SPEED SERVICE power for midgets
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Originally Posted by Racerrob: I think your analysis is flawed from the perspective that it does not take into account the number of people running one engine v. another. If the majority of the racers are running Esslingers, even if the engines were 100% equal, it would make sense the Esslingers would have more points/wins. The only way that stat is meaningful is if the field(s) have an equal number of cars with each engine type which we know was not the case. Rick |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Usac99.. Hey thanks for the plug but I dont build motors!. That would be Speed Engines / Tim Sosbe not Speed Service. I do sell him hardware and such time to time but thats it.. Thanks
Chuy |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Originally Posted by TJ Domark: |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Originally Posted by : I THINK....the 151 esslinger is still legal as well as any other pushrod motor....but during the meeting to discuss the rhino, the overhead cam motors may have been banned altogether. there are a couple newer "high end" motors that run with the club but since the club doesnt have a home track and runs with other classes, the probability of running on a slicked up track is pretty good, most nights. that seems to take the advantage away from the higher horsepower motors and evens things up quite a bit. steve buckwalter is the current guy to beat with ARDC and not only is his stuff pretty basic, he will share setups and advice with anyone. he gets his wins because he is a professional race driver that is able to run 2-3 nights a week and is real sharp behind the wheel. you could put anyone in that car and they probably wouldnt get the same results but he could jump in any other car and probably win. point is....he isnt winning because he has superior stuff or more expensive stuff....he just drives his ass off. IMO....ARDC doesnt have to bow down to manufactures or big sponsors so they make the rules to suit their members. the theory has worked for the past few years and tracks that wouldnt even consider booking the midgets are now wanting shows again. the fans come out, the club puts on a good show, the members dont have to yank their motors out every 4-5 shows to get redone or buy new "flavor of the week" motors anytime someone comes out with something "new and improved" and the club continues to grow.........where else is that happening? |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Steve Buckwalter does indeed drive his ass off. If the midget racers in the rest of the country had to win a 25-lapper from 18th, they'd probably load up.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I havent heard a clear answer yet just engine discussions.How bout we let USAC keep the sprint cars and let ARDC have the midgets?USAC isnt going to do anything for midget racing when they have the sprint cars.Unfortunately that sucks.I love the midgets and remember as a kid them running every where.You could go to a midget race any weekend and sometimes during the week.I would love for those days to be back.I dont know what the PowerI engine rules are for midgets but us micros running with them has been a pretty good deal.It also seems that everyone is pretty happy with ARDC's rules.Is it just plain the management that has changed USAC from to days of old or what?When I was younger was in the early 80's through the early 90's.Who was running USAC then?Im sure people on here will know and probably know exactly who all of them was.What did they do differently back then?I guess it doesnt really matter though if you cant get USAC to listen to you in the first place.Please!Save the midgets.:22:
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I have been following along with this thread to see what direction it goes. It is interesting to see the different view points on what the solution or problem is. As Baue said, this trend has been around for years. Engines have come and gone over the years. The biggest difference between now and then though, is that midget racing is no longer a hobby. That time ended when corporate america became involved. Lets face it, the primary sponsor of usac for quite a few years now has either been mopar or toyota. If all of the money and resources available to the factory supported teams are not enough to make them competitive with esslingers, then what is? If these manufactures feel they cannot evenly compete, why would or should they? If these manufacturers leave, who will fill their shoes? If they take their sponsorship dollars, will anyone step up to fill the void they have left?
Maybe Baue is right, maybe the pushrod engine platform is obsolete. If so, then usac should open the rules up. ALLOW chevy, mopar, and toyota design an over head cam engine. I know for a FACT that chevy wanted to build an over head cam engine. Usac told them NO, it had to be a push rod engine. Now they are gone from midget racing, and yes I know the economy didn't help. Is this good for midget racing? Is this what we really want? The factory supported teams pulling out because it doesn't make sense for them to be here any longer. Kinda says something about the state of the sport, and its not saying "man thats a tough sport". Maybe over head cam is the way to go for midget racing. Almost all 4cylinders on the road today are over head cam anyway. Who knows maybe even honda might be interested in building midget motors. Then maybe some of these young street car tuners will get involved and bring a in whole new generation of fans and participants. I think maybe the most cost effective method would be to give the other manufacturers some more cubic inches. This would be no different than what usac did for esslinger and fontana back when they were struggling. Since most usac teams not utilizing esslinger power are factory supported, there would be far fewer engines to reconfigure. I was told that it would cost between 6-10k to make the esslinger competitive at the rpm level that is being discused. I am certain a lot of the smaller teams cannot afford to make the necessary modifications. If the cubic inches are increased, then the engine manufacturers who support these factory teams would most likely absorb the cost. But then, what do you do with the smaller teams? There are a lot of smaller teams still using gaerte-12, ed pinks and some other older engines with a little success. Do we tell them they have to upgrade or go race with the irs series or the umara sportsman division (not knocking them, great clubs, just not everyones cup of tea). I have one thing that may be somewhat of a solution, at least for pavement. TIRES, especially the right rear. In the regional series we use a 10" wide 7.6 tire, in the national series we use a 12" wide 7.3. The regional tire requires a much more aggresive set up to make the tire hook up. It never hooks up as good as the national tire, no matter what set up you use. There is simply less traction available. The racing at grundy county is usually as good as it gets on the short tracks, because no body can use extra horsepower or torque if they have it (regional tire mandatory). You will see all sorts of car and engine combinations up front at grundy, not all beasts, not all big new high hp motors. Most all of the regional races can be won without having big hp or torque, even at illiana motor speedway (close to a 5/8). I think the tire just eliminates the need for the big horsepower motor. A few years ago the national series was on a 7.6, most all of the big teams with big horsepower whined and said the racing wasn't good, you could not pass, you could never hook up the cars. They were right, if you had the motor tuned on kill, or didn't finesse the big hp engines, you could not pass, and you could not hook up the cars. Hmmm...Cars not locked down, not able to use big horsepower, no need to turn excessively high rpms, no need to have the greatest engine available...sounds like a good thing to me! Usac listened to the mega teams, now we have gumball soft and wide right rears. I can only think of a few occasions where we actually had to tighten up the car while using this tire. Usually the battle is to loosen the car up in the middle of the corner. The easiest way to fix this condition is make more horsepower or torque, usually this means changing the gear to crank higher rpms (now keep in mind, the esslinger is already turning 1000 rpms more than a push rod engine, so it is already making more power in the center of the turn, and you cant sacrafice corner speed by loosening the car up). Changing the gear fixes the problem, UNTIL you get to the end of the straight away and start hearing funny noises at peak rpm. Then few laps later you hear valve springs start to break, which is then usually followed up with a nice hole in the oil pan, sometimes accompanied by a small oil fire. Then a long caution period to clean up oil. Then another caution for the guy who is now in the fence with a flat right front because he hit a piece of connecting rod not found during the track clean up. This whole scenario could have been avoided if usac just had mandated a harder tire! Ok, ok, maybe I exaggerated a little to get my point across! Whatever the best solution is, it needs to make sense for the future of midget racing. Not only to keep current owners and manufacturers happy, but to be able to attract new owners and manufacturers as well. The solution needs to make sense to the largest factory supported teams all the way down to the smallest one car teams. Our sport is filled with very intelligent people, but the problem is that most of their personal agendas rarely include saving the sport of midget racing. These agendas however, do include things like, what can I get do to get an advantage, what secret adjustable part can I make a huge profit with, who can advance my kid to nascar the fastest, and the list goes on and on and on. We all have agendas and we will always try to be the best, smartest, strongest, fastest, thats just human nature. We all race to win, otherwise we would sit around and knit all weekend! I just feel that a little more time, effort and thought needs to be put into helping the sport as a whole. I am not telling you to quit trying to figure out how to lap the field, or quit trying to get to nascar, or quit trying to make millions of dollars, just maybe take some time think about how we can help the sport survive and thrive. Kevin Besecker |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I think maybe the most cost effective method would be to give the other manufacturers some more cubic inches. This would be no different than what usac did for esslinger and fontana back when they were struggling. Since most usac teams not utilizing esslinger power are factory supported, there would be far fewer engines to reconfigure. I was told that it would cost between 6-10k to make the esslinger competitive at the rpm level that is being discused. I am certain a lot of the smaller teams cannot afford to make the necessary modifications. If the cubic inches are increased, then the engine manufacturers who support these factory teams would most likely absorb the cost. [/U][/I][/I][/I]
This is the most educated answer to the whole issue. This would be the way to make it the most cost effective answer to make Toyota and Mopar equal (even though I am not so sure they are at any disadvantage). I was told by a high ranking official at USAC that they wanted to allow the push rods to be more competative with the Esslingers. As Kevin stated they can absorb the costs a hell of a lot easier than the guys that made this sport what it is.... Toyota for example is all factory supported motor programs, thus no added costs to the team....I agree with Kevin and hope USAC will take a look at this before they make a huge mistake and run every Esslinger owner over to Powri, ARDC or BCRA. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
There were only 7 cars that ran the full midget deal last year?? How many next year i think 2 of them are done? So I think this is a bigger issue than the motors! They need to go back to the combo cars first and get the car counts back and start gettin some money to the racers.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Awesome guys.Those was 2 great answers and I must say you both have 10 times more knowledge than I do.So I ask you all this.Are the Esslinger's 155 or 161.Why do you think they DONT get rid of the push valve engine and go to all overhead cams?Besides that though I think the tire rule would be a start.Harder,narrower tires.RR and LR both.We started halfting to run a spec RR tire at Peru this year in the micros and not only did it save quite a bit of money it made just as good racing.Of course thats dirt not pavement.I think the first thing is to get a track involved like Anderson has been in the regional and kenyon series that will either run these rules or at least let these be tested.You should have a rule from the middle of the LR to RR to keep teams from spacing the RR out to far.Im sure there is now but make the spacing shorter.Teams will get it down but they will half to start on a playing field that is level other than motors.I dont know much about the motors so others can fill that part in but there has to be a start somewhere.Is it April yet?
---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ---------- By the way.I completely agree with the combo cars.No dirt cars and Pavement cars.You run the same car at IRP that you do Gas City or Kokomo.We dont need special cars for dirt and pavement.Everybody gets the same car (other than manufacturer) and everyone has to change it and figure it out. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
The Esslingers are at 161 by the USAC rulebook. The push rod motors other than the Fontana are 166
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
One more thing with the combo car. I think they will put on a better show on the pavement! JMO I also think they are more fun to drive on the pavement. remember the thunder shows from the late 80's? I think that racing was great maybe even better than the new stuff!
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to change over engines should be the very, very last resort.
Once again I will say this for the record: As far as I know, there has been no testing on dirt or pavement tracks regarding the effect of tire and wheel size, compound, offset etc. etc. etc. IMO, this should be the starting point and work from there. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Originally Posted by DonMoore10: Maybe Mr. Miller could ask USAC Properties for some help. ."USAC Properties Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of USAC, conducts land speed record trials and automotive testing for many leading manufacturers in the United States. USAC is a member organization for the Automobile Competition Committee of the United States (ACCUS-FIA), which provides a direct link with the International motor sports governing body, and FIA." |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
While I know your intentions are good, Don, changing the tires and especially the offset(on dirt anyway) will do little to nothing for the budget racer except cause more crashes which will in turn cost more money. The same drivers and mechanics that win now would win if you changed the tires because they know how to make their cars work. Therefore, change something that matters where there is a lot of disparity between the haves and the have nots. If you want to have a chassis set-up seminar for people like yourself then do that to close the knowledge gap but don't change the tires. Changing the tires will not change how fast they go down the straightaway!! The other gap that matters most is engines and how fast they are developing more HP. The haves are producing engines that are closing in on 400HP. The have nots are stuck with engines that make, in some cases, 30-50HP less!! The have nots cannot afford to have multiple engines and refresh them every couple races and they cannot afford to buy newly developed engines every other year.
BTW changing the rev limit on the engines would not cost a thing. I don't see how USAC could make the Esslinger run the same rev limit as a push rod motor. I have not seen one post where someone has said that. I'm sure they would have a rev limit for the push rod and one for the Esslinger. And I would hope they would put a top Esslinger, Toyota, Mopar and even a Gaerte on the dyno to determine the proper rev limit instead of just picking a number out of the air. This would help alleviate the need for rebuilds every couple races due to the lower stress level on the parts and increase reliability. Originally Posted by DonMoore10: |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I'd hate to hire a medical doctor based on the premise that many of you are advocating on here. The answers to this ongoing problem would be in the data collected from controled tests, not a group of people sitting around in a room exchanging opinions, many with biased and vested interests in some of the products being discussed.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I'm sorry but if you think anyone is making that much money off of USAC midget racing you should be seeing a doctor and one for your head. The real money in openwheel short track racing is in Sprint Cars. Way more of them than there are Midgets.
We all have biased and vested interests in the sport. The fans, drivers, car owners, car renters, vendors, tracks and sanctions all have vested interests in this deal. Some more than others though. As a fan I have the least because when midget racing dies I can go watch Sprint cars at my local track and I'm happy. Most drivers can go race something else. Car owners will be stuck with thousands of dollars of worthless race cars and parts if midget racing dies and therefore have the most to lose. The people renting their cars have some to lose but they don't invest their own money so they don't have as much as car owners do. Vendors would lose all the time and money invested in R&D but would be able to take their knowledge and equipment and either liquidate or switch to another form of racing (most if not all are already diversified in this respect because they have to in order to make money). Tracks will just run another class of race car as they do already on other nights. Sanctions will go by the way side or try to diversify by bringing on other classes of cars as USAC has with their Off-Road trucks. So if I was going to listen to anyone right now about midget racing it would be the people with the most invested and the most to lose. And yes Don, I would test and come up with some type of LONG TERM plan to contain costs on the engines and preferably something easy to change such as rev limits and intake sizes. Originally Posted by DonMoore10: |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
It would make way to much sense for USAC to acquire four different motors at random and put them on the dyno to actually see what numbers they are producing. If Esslinger is so dominate, then take the C.I. away. Everyone spent so much to make them bigger, why is it any different to make them smaller?
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
The real reason for testing is to find out what car-tire combo will make anything producing over X amount of horsepower a waste.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Please see my earlier post. There is no "car-tire combo" that will make producing more power a waste. At last look the cars still go straight down the front and back stretch where they spend most of their time using the engines power. How much will narrowing up the right rear wheel or hardening the rear tires do to level the engines up on straights?? How often are the drivers driving the more powerful engines going to lift down the straightaways and the drivers with less powerful engines not lift because that is what would need to happen to level them up?? This should be common sense people you don't even need a "test" to figure this out.
Besides that this has already been tested in years past and it did nothing to level the field. The same people won that were already winning and the haves still put on new tires every chance they got because heat cycles are the issue not tire wear. On pavement you never see a team wear out a tire but they still replace them all the time. MHess - cutting cubic inches on the Esslinger is exactly what they should do. Never cutting cubic inches on an engine but always increasing has been the problem with engine rules in midget racing since I can remember. Thats how midget engines got to be so big. Originally Posted by DonRacer: |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
cutting the CI's on the Esslingers is the first way to Kill Midget Racing. Especially when it is 75% of the field!!!!!!!!!
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
I'm still waiting on someone to actually produce some testing data of ANY KIND regarding the performance of midgets on both/either dirt or pavement...engines... tires... wheel size... offset.... whatever. A lot of hot air being blown around on here about how this is and how that is.... but nothing to hang a hat on. Personally I'm not interested in what SOMEBODY THINKS... that's an unscientific opinion based on what??? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND TEL US WHERE THE TESTING TOOK PLACE, DATE ETC AND THE RESULTS. Otherwise coming on here and saying this and saying that is just a bunch of cabbage with no basis.
If you have a medical problem, a doctor is going to start from the ground up and explore all areas that may affect your health. Nothing different in determining what is effective in racing (midget ). Midget racing will get NOWHERE if the nay sayers step in everytime with a bunch of boloney. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
The idea of a combo car is almost impossible to enforce. How do you tell a car owner that he can't take an old dirt car, shove everything to the left and out-run a traditional dirt car? If USAC would run Bloomington more than Newton, this debate would be small.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
i would like to see the cu. inches cut by 15% on all motors. that way you are not singling out 1 motor. secondly safety, lets slow the cars down. with less hp. you could go to a narrower and a little harder right rear. you may save a little tire money as well.
|
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
To me it seems that the 3 most cost effective ways to even things up
are weight,restricting induction and tires. Weight is pretty easy as 5 lbs. = 5 lbs. In Ca ,Spec Sprints must weigh 1700 lbs, so many teams use steel for floor pans,side panels,motor plates, ect. Not only cost effective but likely safer as well. Induction is a little tougher. As Mr. Moore stated, testing would have to be done and there is the rub. There would be a lot at stake for the motor builders and some (or all) might be inclined to slip in a detuned unit for said test. I ain't sayin' ....... I'm just sayn':2:. So, if a particular Engine Builder was a major series sponsor.......uhh. Which brings us to the biggest political Football in Motorsports, Tires. Believe it or not the MG-7.8 came about because of BCRA. I was on the Board in 2002 and we found out that WMRA was running the MG-8.0 as their Spec R/R. It was hard and had good repatability with most teams getting 2-3 programs on it. As I recall, the 8.0 was no longer being produced so at the 2002 Promoters Workshop in Reno, BCRA, USAC and Hoosier got together and came up with the 7.8. From our perspective, the tire did it's job with the difference in lap times between the top cars and the lower dollar teams shrinking. Having said that, just because there is a number stamped on a Tire, that is no guarantee that all Tires are equal. I will leave it at that except my opinion is that the only numbers that matter come from a durometer and the number of "winds" (nylon/rayon) .inside the tire. |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Originally Posted by rocket5612: A non-wing sprint car using a DT3 tire is just as quick as one using the old softer, wider RC1? With respect, Don |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Don,
I would put my money on the HP. Quite some time ago we were running at Terre Haute with Dave Darland. This show featured both non-wing 410s and winged 360s. We were already locked into the feature but we missed our hot lap session with the non-wing 410s. They shoved us off with the wing cars to get heat in our motor but waived the green for the winged hot lap session while we were still on the track. Much to my surprise in 4 green flag laps were were not passed by a single car. I really thought they would pass us like we were tied to a post but Dave would drive away from them on the straights and they would catch us in the corners. Horsepower rules! Respectfully, Rob Hoffman |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Originally Posted by Racerrob: The image of that brings up repressed perverse thoughts in my mind like; Who would win a 1/4th mile dirt track event between the USAC non-wing sprint cars and the USAC midgets? Put your money on the Horsepower or the Handling? lol, Don |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
More power equals more speed no matter what wheel and tire combo you put on the cars. That is what it boils down to.
Lets do this you buy a dirt sprint car with a 360ci engine in it and I'll buy one with a 410ci engine. You can run the softist widest baddest tire you can find and I will run a narrow DT3. We will set the cars up identical and put two drivers we feel are of equal ability in them. Then we will go to any half mile and run a match race to see who wins. Then we will bet $100,000 cash and the winner takes all. Sound like a good enough test for you?? Originally Posted by DonRacer: |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
Originally Posted by : |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
USAC, like NASCAR, would not have to buy them. Just borrow them from some of the top teams after a night of racing when there is a break in the schedule. Pay the teams for the use of the engines if you want, whater it takes. This isn't the greatest idea but it is better than not doing anything. It does, however, take away the problem of not getting a true representation of what they are running consistantly.(They should have taken them the night of Turkey Night then they would have had a nice break to get them all on the same dyno and back to the teams well before the next race).
This is not about penalizing people. This is about reducing costs, increasing reliability and leveling competition between the haves and the have nots. The budget teams cannot afford to buy a "new and improved" version of their engine every time they make a new cyl head. Heck even some of the super teams are obviously struggling to afford it. Look at how many are gone or are reducing their schedules. And they weren't even spending their own money!!! Originally Posted by Kevracer58: |
Re: 2010 midget rule change?
USAC is not NASCAR and I really don't thing you are going to get anyones best motor. I have heard the name Ilmor as the one doing this independent test. That I think is a conflict of intrest as they themselves build a motor that competes with the other motors. It is going to be very hard to get a true reading unless you can take 4 cars right off of the track load them in the USAC trailer and take them to a Chassis dyno
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 7:19 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2005-2025 IndianaOpenWheel.com