Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Winged Nation hosted hour long programs every day of the Knoxville Nationals with various guests. On Friday, two of the guests were Matt Wood and Tim Clauson. There were two very interesting comments made during their discussions. Tim Clauson was asked point blank why he would leave non-winged racing for winged racing. His answer (and I have to paraphrase because I didn’t think to record the answer on my phone) was that 1. They had achieved pretty much all they could in non-winged racing and 2. When they looked closely they felt that winged racing was growing in all areas: new drivers, new owners, new sponsors and new fans, while non-winged racing was “ stagnant”. He also stated that on Wed. and Thursday nights of the Nationals there were a lot of new potential owners and sponsors “just salivating to get involved in winged racing with the right opportunity”.

Matt Wood, who was one of the sponsors of Bryan Clauson’s efforts to race 200 times (Elk Grove Ford) and currently sponsors Shane Golobic, promotes the Hangtown 100 midget race and is promoting the USAC Nationals at Husets was asked how sales were going for the 3 day USAC Nationals. His response was “poorly”. He indicated that Husets is expected to sell out this weekends WoO race.

I absolutely LOVE non-winged sprint cars and have been around it since the mid 60’s, and I found their comments disappointing, but also, unfortunately accurate. I recognize the Nationals are a unique event and not completely representative of the status of the sport, but there was no denying the average age of the spectator attendees at Knoxville was considerably younger than I typically see at a non-wing event. Spectator and participant attendance were both up this year at Knoxville, with 98 cars participating over the first two qualifying nights and 71 cars signing in for “Hard Knox” Friday nights last chance session. Spectator seating Saturday night was a sellout.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

I don't understand it either. non-wing is a better product in my opinion. But it need more exposure and that should be happening with FLO. Just need to get the right people involed to promote it. I bought tickets asap for the race at Huset and hopes it a money maker. It's important because it's not in Indiana. Needs to prove they can succeed out of there normal area. JMO

Our tickets for Husets are purchased.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

1978 was the critical year. USAC was in the process of updating itself from the old days of the AAA method of operating in which it attempted to control all important racing in the same manner it had existed for many decades, worrying only about sanctioning races, leaving all promotion up to individuals of widely varying competence, each of whom only worried about his own local track(s).

Then, the disaster of the 1978 plane crash killed some of the people who were the most forward looking of the USAC management, forcing those who remained to spend all their time recovering from that, leaving no time for planning any changes in their operation.

Meanwhile, Ted Johnson, a real salesman, came up with a new idea, managed to sell it to a group of some of the most independent people ever born, the racers called "outlaws", then traveled the country and sold the package to some more very independent folks, the smaller tracks who couldn't get a USAC race. Considering how good Ted Johnson was, it might have been a success in any event, but with USAC in no shape to defend itself, it ran off with the market.

Then, when a series of bad accidents, leading up the the twin fatals at Knoxville led the WoO to mandate wings, they also jumped on the opportunity to label their cars & drivers the "newer", "faster", "better" racers. USAC tried to follow, but the fans in USAC's limited area didn't like them (showing their superior judgement, in my not very humble opinion), so they took the wings off, leaving us with the current situation, where they have been just another class of racers in a local area.

There are some positive signs these days. In spite of the fact that one would think that Pennsylvania would have all the sprint cars it needs, USAC has really expanded there. They seem to be moving into the area just west of Indiana also. Unfortunately, the West Coast seems to be going downhill, but I think that's all racing, not just non-wings.

As a result of all these things, I'm not surprised at Tim Clauson's statements, but times do change, so I'm optimistic that USAC's recent trend can continue, and we'll see better days ahead.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by Dirtfan:
Our tickets for Husets are purchased.

We are going to Husets but buying general admission only.


Bruce and Pat Eckel :6:

I like non-wing much better but whatever I like always gets discontinued or goes out of business so that’s not good. I’ve been to enough winged races and honestly don’t understand the draw of it other than speed.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

I think if the Outlaws and All Stars are the only way you measure it that is true. In other ways I think wing racing is not growing. Look at car counts in Ohio and PA. They are not terrible, but they are not growing. I saw where Circle City had 10 410 wing cars the other night. Last year I went to an Outlaw race at Plymouth. Both me and my buddy thought that crowd was much older than what we normally see. I think the graying race fan is in all kinds of sprint racing.

When I saw the title of this thread, I kind
of rolled my eyes and thought here we go again. Glad I was wrong! Lots of accurate and insightful points made!

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by Dick Monahan:
1978 was the critical year. USAC was in the process of updating itself from the old days of the AAA method of operating in which it attempted to control all important racing in the same manner it had existed for many decades, worrying only about sanctioning races, leaving all promotion up to individuals of widely varying competence, each of whom only worried about his own local track(s).

I've always wondered what might have happened with USAC had those officials not mucked up the Marlboro series title sponsorship.

https://www.vintagesprintcars.com/20...that-got-away/

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

The economics of non wing racing has never made any sense to me. Some truly outstanding talent in terms of drivers and teams have come thru Non Wing Sprint car racing, Clauson included.

If I were a young driver or car owner without insane personal wealth, I am afraid I would have to look at Wing racing.

USAC has some GREAT talent right now! Swanson, Bacon, Seavey, Grant, Windom, Thomas Jr. They hold up six thousand dollar checks and smile while sitting on a 100k dollar race car! You don't have to go to an Ivy League School to question the math!

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

The comparison between wing and non-wing is pointless at this point. That ship has sailed and winged racing won. The thing to work on now is getting non-winged racing bigger than it is and getting these racers who risk life and limb more money. Hearing Wood say "I hope somebody shows up" at the Winged Nation thing made me kind of sad. While there's no way I can make it out to Husets in Sept, I'm tempted to buy a ticket regardless. In some small way, we can all do our part.

1600 is not necessarily wrong. I’m glad someone brought this up again. I’ve almost given up on trying to beat the wingless drum. However the winner is not always the best. Take the NASCAR revolution in its prime. It was never the best racing but it was well sold and nowadays some folks will believe anything. I recently got in a wing vs non wing debate on Twitter with a very prominent racing personality. There’s no way I could win. No one bites the hand that feeds, but one of his points was that wingless doesn’t have to deal with dirty air. A problem easily solved!

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Wing is way better. Winged drivers make the same moves Non-wing drivers make, except theyre a second or 2 faster a lap. also, there's more young talent in Winged racing right now than there is in non-wing. We've seen non-wing guys attempt to use a wing and theyre just not competitive. (with the exception of Tyler Courtney, who is having a great year) Now there are some tracks where non-wing sprints are better than wing. Gas City is an example of this. But when a non-wing sprints on a track bigger than a 3/10" its just so boring to me. Not much passing happens and it seems like theyre moving in slow motion. Whereas Winged racing can be exciting on all track sizes since they are faster and there's actually a sense of danger.

Im not trying to bash on non wing because ive seen some great races, but its just not as good as winged.

The car count at Circle City was a real shame for $3100 to Win & $400 to start! Kevin & Jonathan have worked hard to promote & give Race Teams & Fans a place to Race & watch Racing!!

Currently all advantages exist in the wing world. Most onlookers or marginal race fans only know wings. Both classes excel at different tracks. The cars seemingly appear the same except for the billboard, they are driven very differently. Wings are faster and drivers have to react quicker, as opposed to sprint cars have to be driven. Most anyone could run Terre Haute flat out with a Wing, take it off and see how fast they really are.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

I also think if Larson wouldn't have been almost seriously injured in that wreck at Eldora, which made him give up non-winged sprints and I think put off Rico as well, then non-winged sprints would probably have similar momentum as midgets do now. Still not as popular as winged sprints, but more mainstream attention etc...

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Name me the exclusively Winged drivers excelling at any other type of motorsports?

I'll wait.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Once a guy takes the wing off you guys claim him, so it's a no win situation for the wing crowd. Kyle, came from wing cars, got in a NW car, kicked ass; Rico, came from winged cars, got in a NW, kicked ass; Christopher Bell, came from wing cars, took wing off, kicked ass. Stevie Smith, took wing off for the first time and ran 2nd to Jac (wing racer) in the biggest Non wing race ever. Just because you're not paying attention to what happens in winged racing, doesn't mean that a guys career started when he got into a midget in Indiana for the first time.

Originally Posted by Rhody:
Once a guy takes the wing off you guys claim him, so it's a no win situation for the wing crowd. Kyle, came from wing cars, got in a NW car, kicked ass; Rico, came from winged cars, got in a NW, kicked ass; Christopher Bell, came from wing cars, took wing off, kicked ass. Stevie Smith, took wing off for the first time and ran 2nd to Jac (wing racer) in the biggest Non wing race ever. Just because you're not paying attention to what happens in winged racing, doesn't mean that a guys career started when he got into a midget in Indiana for the first time.

Anecdotal examples does not make a trend.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by Hubie48:
The economics of non wing racing has never made any sense to me. Some truly outstanding talent in terms of drivers and teams have come thru Non Wing Sprint car racing, Clauson included.

If I were a young driver or car owner without insane personal wealth, I am afraid I would have to look at Wing racing.

USAC has some GREAT talent right now! Swanson, Bacon, Seavey, Grant, Windom, Thomas Jr. They hold up six thousand dollar checks and smile while sitting on a 100k dollar race car! You don't have to go to an Ivy League School to question the math!

Not directed at you, just more or less building on your topic Hubie48..

So then why do these guys continue to show up to races that pay less than $5-6K to win? We commonly see Grant, Leary, Bacon, Ktj, Seavy, Ballou, etc. showing up to local races which pay $1,500 to win. Maybe one thought.. USAC doesn't keep them busy enough.

As a USAC guy showing up to a local race, they probably have: $150 in pit passes, $100 in truck fuel, approximately 3 new tires they throw away at the end of the day($750), and maybe another $50 in racecar fuel. So they have to win to make money (~$400). Anything less and it is a loss. And this doesn't even account for cost of a motor rebuild at ~$300 per race.

Now a local competitor (depending on the track) will have the same expenses, except will try to salvage tires a little more. For them, 4th-5th place probably gets them to break even.

I don't think most people realize the cost of the sport and how much more money wing racing gets just to show up. Wing racing has set a precedent for how much money they will race for. Why should local Indiana tracks raise their pay when top level talent continues to come for the measly $1400-$1500 to win and $200 to start?

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

A point I made in an earlier post, Haubstadt just ran a $5000 to win show for non wing and 22 cars signed in. What, then, is the incentive to pay higher purses? It’s head scratching.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by spankytoo:
.....

So then why do these guys continue to show up to races that pay less than $5-6K to win? We commonly see Grant, Leary, Bacon, Ktj, Seavy, Ballou, etc. showing up to local races which pay $1,500 to win. Maybe one thought.. USAC doesn't keep them busy enough.

As a USAC guy showing up to a local race, they probably have: $150 in pit passes, $100 in truck fuel, approximately 3 new tires they throw away at the end of the day($750), and maybe another $50 in racecar fuel. So they have to win to make money (~$400). Anything less and it is a loss. And this doesn't even account for cost of a motor rebuild at ~$300 per race.

...

I don't think most people realize the cost of the sport and how much more money wing racing gets just to show up. Wing racing has set a precedent for how much money they will race for. Why should local Indiana tracks raise their pay when top level talent continues to come for the measly $1400-$1500 to win and $200 to start?

This point has been brought up many times. Many of the non-wing drivers are there own worst enemy. Very, very rarely do you ever see a WOO regular at a local show. However, you see that all of the time with the non-wing shows. I understand the argument that winning $1500 helps pays the bills when staying at home does not, but it is a not a play that wins in the long run.

I also remember threads on this forum about people complaining about paying to watch a USAC show because it was mostly the same drivers racing their last weekend for half the cost. Once again, a WOO ticket is an expensive ticket, but people will routinely pay for it.

Probably the best example of drivers understanding their worth is the dirt Late Model scene. Somehow there are two national touring series that seem to pay well and race for large amounts. You may see a driver crossing series, but you will never see them at a local race.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by captrat:
Anecdotal examples does not make a trend.

Buddy Kofoid, Damion Gardner, Robert Ballou, Tanner Carrick...

Well despite a good start to this thread, it has predictably deteriorated to the point that is firmly in 'beating the dead horse' territory. Bottom line for me: I like wingless best. I have no interest in engaging in any "this kind is better, these drivers are more talented, blah blah blah". I attended my first race in 1967 and since then I've witnessed just about every kind of motorized competition imaginable. You like what you like and I'll continue to enjoy USAC, BOSS, MSCS and weekly racing at tracks that feature wingless sprintcars.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by SoIllSprinter:
A point I made in an earlier post, Haubstadt just ran a $5000 to win show for non wing and 22 cars signed in. What, then, is the incentive to pay higher purses? It’s head scratching.

The high win amount attracts the USAC guys if they're not busy, but the pay out below 5th is the same. Tri-State is a 3 hour drive for most Non-wing guys so if an extra 6 to 8 USAC drivers show up that means that the local guy may only finish 12 to 20, if they make the show. 10th to 20th needs to pay better. You need to take care of the field fillers.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

I don't think most people realize the cost of the sport and how much more money wing racing gets just to show up. Wing racing has set a precedent for how much money they will race for. Why should local Indiana tracks raise their pay when top level talent continues to come for the measly $1400-$1500 to win and $200 to start?

I am of the opinion that the Non Wing guys would race for ham sandwiches! Put me in the "Non-Wing" category. Other than reading the race results, I never watched it until I got Flo TV. I have found myself watching the All Stars but truth be told the main reason is watching Tyler Courtney. Guy is a talent, plain and simple. Being around the sport for years has lead me to believe there is some unknown caste system built into USAC. There is a large crowd of super talented people behind the scenes. The engine building, fabrication and overall grasp of racing science is second to none.

At the end of the day I am just a fan. I truly love the sport.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by WingedFan2019:
Wing is way better. Winged drivers make the same moves Non-wing drivers make, except theyre a second or 2 faster a lap. also, there's more young talent in Winged racing right now than there is in non-wing. We've seen non-wing guys attempt to use a wing and theyre just not competitive. (with the exception of Tyler Courtney, who is having a great year)
Im not trying to bash on non wing because ive seen some great races, but its just not as good as winged.

I beg to differ on that point. I was watching one of the nights of Ohio Speedweek and noticed that 5
of the top 5 and 6 of the top 10 that night had run regular with USAC at one point in their careers. Add Bayston and Schuerenberg and that makes a third of the field. Not competitive???? Now on the other hand imagine what a USAC field would look like if those guys still drove with them. Food for thought.

6/16/2021 at Waynesfield Raceway Park
410 Sprints - Winged

FloRacing A Feature (35 Laps): 1. 57-Kyle Larson[2]; 2. 24-Rico Abreu[3]; 3. 7BC-Tyler Courtney[4]; 4. 19-Parker Price Miller[8]; 5. 10-Zeb Wise[5]; 6. 26-Cory Eliason[9]; 7. 13-Justin Peck[14]; 8. 49X-Cale Thomas[1]; 9. 5-Paul McMahan[12]; 10. 4-Cap Henry[13]; 11. 97-Craig Mintz[10]; 12. 22C-Cole Duncan[17]; 13. 22H-Jac Haudenschild[11]; 14. 28-Tim Shaffer[24]; 15. 11-Spencer Bayston[18]; 16. 18-Cole Macedo[15]; 17. 48-Danny Dietrich[23]; 18. 17B-Bill Balog[6]; 19. 91-Kyle Reinhardt[16]; 20. 16-DJ Foos[20]; 21. 101-Lachlan McHugh[22]; 22. 3C-Cale Conley[21]; 23. 1-Nate Dussel[19]; 24. 55-Hunter Schuerenberg[25]; 25. 15H-Sam Hafertepe Jr[7]

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

I do think the Outlaws are better than ever right now. Saw my first Outlaw race in 1978. It was run without wings. Even with a horrible format that always starts the fast guys upfront, their features are usually good, but they have to get in lapped traffic. That is where the wing guys really shine. The All Stars are stronger than have been since Guy Webb nearly destroyed them. Beyond that I don't see any real growth in wings. Part of that is it's so divided between 410, 360, and 305.
I feel non wing is in a growth spurt in PA. Between Kutztown and the USAC east coast sprints, there is a pipeline to develop new talent. Enjoy what you want, but the winners in both are the only ones really making money

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Not to move away from the initial thread but does USAC's juggling a triple crown schedule running 3 distinct open wheel series from February to November have any impact on national audience awareness vs the single series in wings barnstorming the country...WoO, ASCoC, ASCS? Old days USAC was dirt & pavement, run a midget, then a sprint car, then Silver Crown as a ladder with national implications when you got to the top of your game. Is the be all, for all, the problem? Not having a premier, top level to reach the problem (was indy car long time ago)? I enjoy and follow all USAC since 1967 but today it appears to be a feeder system for other series, hence the purse money and lack of blockbuster marquee events. Just a lot of 6K to 10K shows sprinkled in each series. I can accept that if that is what it has to be.

My opinion is simple and short, the only ones that can afford to race are the ones that win most of the races, have really good sponsors, or just won the lottery, the rest are kidding themselves, in non wing at least, there was a time long ago, a good driver and owner could make a decent living racing, look at all the famous names who are still around and how they are living, they did something right.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

For those speaking about purse differences, here is Fremont's current weekly show payout: https://www.fremontohspeedway.com/purse

The only somewhat current weekly Indiana purse is this one: https://www.gascityi69speedway.com/w...se-Payouts.pdf

I know it will never happen, but even for a win and $1500.00 to stuff in your blue jeans isn't really enough for your expenses, man can't live on bread alone, you have to be going on ego and the thrill of it, and hope the bills don't catch up with you. I did it all myself, my saving grace was I bought a nuff machines I could make all the expensive stuff myself and other people, that kept the. bills paid.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

The only thing better about wings is that you can see the car numbers better! (& bigger billboard for ads?)

Wonder what the current percentage is that goes to the driver now days? Just curious.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by Will Shunk:
Not to move away from the initial thread but does USAC's juggling a triple crown schedule running 3 distinct open wheel series from February to November have any impact on national audience awareness vs the single series in wings barnstorming the country...WoO, ASCoC, ASCS? Old days USAC was dirt & pavement, run a midget, then a sprint car, then Silver Crown as a ladder with national implications when you got to the top of your game. Is the be all, for all, the problem? ....

I have also wondered the same thing, but if a change was made would the traditionalist accept it. It is obvious that the sprint cars are the top class in USAC. The midgets have moved firmly into position two with Silver Crown in the rear.

Would you only drop the Silver Crown and give more dates to the Sprints and Midgets? Would you drop both the Silver Crown and Midgets and concentrate solely on spring cars?

Remember that if you do not protect the midgets that POWRi could become the national midget series and take the dates and cars.

Finally, for all of you silver crown fans upset that they are at the bottom of the list all you have to do is look at the competitive series going against silver crown...... If USAC drops silver crown, the series goes off into the sunset.

Originally Posted by Crankin:
For those speaking about purse differences, here is Fremont's current weekly show payout: https://www.fremontohspeedway.com/purse

The only somewhat current weekly Indiana purse is this one: https://www.gascityi69speedway.com/w...se-Payouts.pdf

Here is the Lawrenceburg Speedway purse structure. The only change to what is posted is that all sprint cars that do not start the feature receive $100.

https://www.lawrenceburgspeedway.com...urse-structure

Bob, still 40% in most cases. Some get 50% if it's a big Money Payout & they finish in the Top 3.

Here's Circle City's Regular Winged Payout. That's why I said, 10 Cars a couple weeks ago, was very disappointing.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by SoIllSprinter:
A point I made in an earlier post, Haubstadt just ran a $5000 to win show for non wing and 22 cars signed in. What, then, is the incentive to pay higher purses? It’s head scratching.

Haubstadt's a different ball game with a different series. There are other reasons rather than money that people do not want to go race down there at the moment.

Re: Wing vs. Non-Wing
 

Originally Posted by otgracing17:
Haubstadt's a different ball game with a different series. There are other reasons rather than money that people do not want to go race down there at the moment.

Just curious, care to elaborate?