Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

I don't get to see any pavement sprints at all around here anymore. Nor do I get to see any USAC races either. I have seen winged sprints on pavement when I lived in Lubbock and they had a paved track. I've also made a trip to Winchester to see sprints, supers and midgets which was an awesome weekend. So it hurts me to see these small car counts for pavement sprints. I know, it's the economy. Well that is the reason/excuse for practically all low car count series I've ever heard of. Well I don't know much about fixing the economy, but I know what I'd do about the low car counts.

If I was say the promoter of Winchester, I'd tell USAC, bring me AT LEAST 24 cars. If you can't bring 24 cars, then just stay home. Then I'd run a race with Racesaver rules. Instead of 15 cars with 600+ hp, I'd rather have 40 cars with 400+ hp. 400 hp on 1500lbs race cars would put on a great show. Would the fans be able to tell the difference? Sure they would. They wouldn't be quite as fast and there would be a HELL OF A LOT MORE OF THEM!

The issue of low cars counts on pavement has a lot to do not being a weekly division at any speedways. There aren't five tracks running pavement sprinters weekly, winged or not, 410, 360, 305, 262, 183 or whatever else is out there.

When WoO runs in areas with a strong weekly contingent, the local cars may not all flood the pits, but the top dogs usually show up.

USAC and MSCS draw good car counts because they too sanction at traditional weekly sprint car racing tracks. Some of these tracks produce USAC/MSCS quality shows weekly, without sanctioning.
Pavement cars, with or without wings, are a small fraction of the sprint car world. Here in Indiana/Michigan, we estimated less than 50 wing cars built and ready to race at the start of 2009. Splitting that pie between HOSS and Michigan's AVSS series, and subtracting 20% for 'stay homers', that left AT THE MOST 40 cars to run in 2 series on head to head scheduled events.

When non conflicting races were held this year, HOSS brought 26 cars to Fort Wayne and that many again to Angola. They had 23 at Anderson the same night USAC was at Salem.

Speaking of Anderson, how can there be 40+ cars for the Little 500 this year, and then almost no USAC cars in the race? They weren't all wing guys taking it off...

HOSS had 21 at Winchester last night. At least 4 cars stayed for today's USAC show. There were zero USAC regular cars winging up for last night.
Posted via Mobile Device

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Cost of converting from wind to non wing minimum, adding wing to nonwing not cheap for one race ??

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Maybe I have the chicken before the egg. Yes, I realize what you are saying about filling in with locals for the traveling shows. So perhaps someone needs to start a Racesaver type series for weekly or bi weekly shows to build the class up. Of course highly restricted 305s would not be competitive with 410s or even 360s, but running against each other I think they would put on a great show. And this doesn't really address the small fields of 410s, it just gives the promoter and therefore the fans another option.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

Some, myself included, think that in itself might be part of the problem. Cars so specialized that they can't reasonably convert from wing to non wing or dirt to pavement isn't such a great improvement to me. In our area the only series running non wing races is the Sprint Series of Texas and they run 3/4 of their races with wings. One driver in that series told me switching from one to the other for him was a matter of taking the wing off or putting it back on. Their races don't seem to suffer to me. I think they put on good shows both ways.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Low car counts on pavement......One word: Tires.

Also....I may be wrong but I believe that the USAC tire compounds are different from the Hoss or Avss series.

Pavement sprints have always been a specialized deal in terms there have never been that many regional pavement series.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

its real simple, when usac had all the rich teams they started developing asphault and dirt cars. Usac never stopped this. This made it even harder for the local guys to compete with dirt cars. So they quit. As far as car count at winchester, for some reason they have always been low. I have attended 10-12 sprint races there in the 12 years. normally only see 18-22 cars. The most cars i have ever personally seen there was 33, and it got rained out that day. Specialized cars have killed the sport. The only way pavement racing survives is it has to be afordable to convert a car from dirt to asphault, and the car has to be competitive.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Tires: Tires: Twice because 1 per corner will not be enough.

USAC also has permits and neck restraints

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

I agree. And I think Leaders Edge is on to something with the tires.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Sam, did you notice that there was one driver who was in all 3 of those races you shared here, plus he raced both Saturday night and Sunday afternoon at Winchester. :6:

Hint: He won on Saturday night.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

I don't remember the year my brother and I went to Winchester, but it was back when Thursday Night Thunder was on ESPN. He was there that weekend too. I can't remember who won, but I don't think it was him.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

I didn't notice. What a great observation!! I spoke with him briefly at Kalamazoo earlier this year. Sometimes I forget how long he's been racing. I have to admire his tenacity.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

There has a been a few different pavement 305 winged spring series in Ohio. THe current series, the Buckeye Super Sprints, runs primarily Sandusky. I have made any of their races this year but I have check the results. The seem to be running less than 20 cars. There are a number of 305 dirt teams in Northern Ohio but few run the pavement. I suspect that special cars and tires costs are to blame but I don't know.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

ok if tires are the issue WHAT IS THE ANSWER??????

Re: Low Car Counts In Pavement Sprints
 

I think it's a combination of things, which have been mentioned here. There's obviously an issue, so hopefully someone can turn it around and at least get car counts heading the other direction. Times are tough and it won't happen overnight, but it can get there.

767, how's "the workplace" treatin' you these days? On a side note, I just wanted to say "congrats", if what I heard is true. :2:

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Here is the best solution I can think of to help car counts both winged and not on pavement sprints. Taken from the midwest supermodified association rule book...

13) TIRE PROCEDURE
a) For the purpose of this section, qualifying is defined as time trials, a consi if used, and heat races.
b) At qualifying, each car shall have the tires marked or labeled by MSA officials in a manner or fashion they deem appropriate (stencil, stamping, painting, branding, etc.) Each event’s mark or label may be different in appearance and shall remain on the tire at all times. Only MSA markings will be allowed. Tires stenciled by other sanctioning bodies will not be counted as stenciled tires.
c) MSA only stencils the RF, RR, and LR tires. The new tire rules below apply only to the RF, RR, and LR tires. The LF tire is always a ―freebie‖.
d) At the first two MSA race events of the year, three new tires (one per corner, ie: RF, RR, and LR) will be stenciled.
e) Each race thereafter, only two (2) NEW tires will be stenciled when you qualify. The other tire must be previously stenciled. Due to special circumstances, MSA officials may make an exception to this rule and designate other races during the year where three new tires will be allowed.
f) Any competitor who does not have a previously stenciled tire available for the race must notify the MSA Technical Inspector before hot laps start. A used tire that is subsequently run through both hot lap sessions will be stenciled as the previously stenciled tire for that race event. The hot laps must be run at speed (no ―Sunday‖ driving) and will be monitored by the appropriate MSA Official.
g) Anyone new after the first two races can start only two (2) NEW tires. The other tire must be used and stenciled as described in section 10-f above. If no suitable used tire is available, a new right rear tire only may be run through both hot lap sessions and stenciled as described in section 10-f above. This rule does not apply if the race is designated to allow three new tires as stated in section 10-e above
h) You must start the feature on the tires you qualify except for LF. i) If a tire is changed for any reason, it shall be replaced only with a tire that has been previously stenciled, marked, or labeled (for the first event only, a used but unlabeled tire may be used) and the car must start at the rear of the heat race or feature - whichever comes next. If a new, unmarked, or unlabeled tire is used, the car shall lose one (1) lap and start on the tail of the field.
MSA Rules 2009.docx Page: 14 of 15
Revised May 3, 2009
j) Once a car has qualified, no tire may be changed unless it is determined to be damaged or unsafe to race on by an MSA Official. The replacement of the tire must comply with section 13-i above. k) After one lap of the feature has completed, a car may change a tire for any reason. The replacement of the tire must comply with section 13-i above.
l) When a car attempts to qualify, it may have up to two (2) new tires stenciled, marked, or labeled by track officials. If a car does not use two (2) new tires, the unused portion or waived cannot be transferred or deferred to the next event.
m) Any car found with an unmarked or unlabeled tire, illegal compound, transferred or reproduced markings, or labels or markings or labels not placed on tires by MSA officials shall be disqualified and the owner and driver shall lose all points earned for that event and the owner shall NOT receive any prize money for that event.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

That sure seems like a lot of rules to me. But if it works, I'd have no problem with it.

I would think that approaching the tire company, either the seller or the mfg and request a tire that is good for Xnumber of races or Xnumber of laps or Xnumber of something. While this would go against their desire to sell as many tires as they can, if it was sell a few tires vs. sell no tires I think they would agree. I think the IMCA tire rules work out pretty well for Hoosier in the long run. I am thinking IMCA tire rules in general not sprint car specific. We used to run IMCA sprints in this area and they were good, but for some reason they aren't running them around here anymore. And as I said to begin with, we don't have any paved tracks in this area to compare with good or bad.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Its a very simple rule. Its just spelled out thouroly in the rule book so there is no way to circumvent the rule.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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'd like to see narrower tires all four corners. 2" off of the fronts, 2 or 3" off the LR and 4 or 5" off the RR.
...at the risk of returning to the era of skinny tires and fat drivers, at least they had a car count!
Posted via Mobile Device

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

I'm with ya Mark!

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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".

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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". :6:

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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."

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

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.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Its real easy race the same car on dirt and pavement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:14::15: Most can't afford one car let alone two cars!!!!!!!!! Think about it! The pavement racing is history unless the do this!!!!

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Getting rid of testing is not as easy as it sounds. The pavement tracks want testing as part of their revenue stream. If you ban testing then the track may not want your race.

Tire companies sell tires. They are going to work any advantage they have to sell those tires at maximum profit.

This is where it has gotten so murkey as the sanctiong bodies and the tracks and tire manufactures have gotten too cozy.

USAC should have kept their main focus on what was best for their series and their teams and the tracks should focus on butts in the seats and ad sales and the tire companies should of been left to compete amongst themselves.

Duke: There are already many, many pavement cars sitting in garages. Guys won't run them because of the $1,500-$2,500 tire bill per show. Not including the percieved disadvantage because you didn't spend a total of another $3,000-$5,000 to test for that one race. It's a shame that a great pavement racer like Clauson doesn't do the pavement because it costs too much for the tires and testing. I don't blame them for that "business decision" either.

The same car dirt and pavement doesn't fly unless all of those pavement cars were already racing and counts were still off. Besides; it isn't only the pavement cars that have become specialized. The dirt cars are just as specialized.

As far as the banks go: Huge car counts have never been the norm, but I would like to see 24-30.

What sucks is the wing guys couldn't even start and park because their tire is different than the non wing tire compound wise. They had to at least get some used tires from someone to do that.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Snoopy --

1) Good point on showing up so early. In these hard times, it's difficult to get so much time off from work. A later time might help.

2) VERY interesting! Hhhmmm...

3) Group qualifying has been used during hot laps. Most people I talk to seem to like it.

4) IMO - The only way to reduce excessive support classes is to promote your own series more or better. But, in the end, it's the track's choice & they need to make money, too, right?

Have a good day everyone,
Jimmy B.

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

THIS statement is really the crux of it all - isn't it? And, it's NOT just USAC who have let their focus stray.
The question then becomes --

---> Why does the complete burden of "butts in the seats and ad sales" fall to the tracks ESPECIALLY w/so many choices of racing series(es?) out there?

---> Shouldn't a strong focus be on creating and maintaining a fan base and sponsorship using the tracks as "conduits" to do this as partners?

Maybe I'm missing something...
Just some food for thought on a hump-day!
Jimmy B.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

I think the BIG problem is a lack of scheduled races (USAC). It is hard to justify sinking that much money into a car to that races MAYBE 7 times a year (if it doesn't rain). You can ban testing, enforce a tire rule, limit anything exotic, adjustable, or expensive, but until they actually have more than a handful of races, the car counts will not go up.
The little 500 is a totally different animal. Great purse, pit stops, 33 cars. This race is an "event" not just a race(kind of like the chili bowl for midgets). It is easy to justify racing this one race a year for owners who already have a car. Anderson is one of the few tracks that the "wing" guys can be competitive. This is not a slam on the wing drivers or teams, but most have cars built for winged racing.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Kevin has a great point as well, but then it is almost a case of chicken and the egg. Can't get races because of car counts and can't get cars because of lack of races.

I agree they all involved should be marketing partners to an extent.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

the car doesn't know it has a wing on ,only the driver's do;)

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Hey Kev, how goes?

You're right about the lack of races. I've heard many times from car owners staying home because there really aren't as many places to run anymore - let alone the expenses involved.

You may be on to something with the event vs. races concept. If you really think about it, "events" are more successful long-term. You mentioned Little 500 & the Chili Bowl as examples. Others could be:

Four Crown
Night Before the 500 (IRP)
Turkey Night
Indiana Sprint Week
AVSS/IMCA Friday show at Toledo (NASCAR weekend at Mich)
Ft Wayne Indoor

There certainly are many others. So, what's next? HHmmm...
It would be fun to be involved with these types of events. :6:

Say Hi to Lauren. Miss you guys.
Later,
Jimmy B.

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Kev,
We have a lot invested for 7-10 races per year, but we love the 500. You got that right. 15 races on pavement, 15 races on dirt. or 20 / 20 would make it more viable for all owners. Have a dirt champion, a pavement champion and an overall champion.

Traction control- I don't know of anyone using in the pavement sprints. (We sure could have used it at winchester.):15:


Speaking about events; a good friend of ours wanted to see a true national sprint car championship.

His idea was to have the Triple Crown of Sprint Cars.
Race#1 would be the Florida 400 in December. (like the one they had at DeSoto for 2 years)
Race#2 would be Southern California in February (Irwindale?) 400 Lapper
Race#3 would be The Little 500.
These races being held in all 3 sprint car strongholds of the country would eventually have a large enough following to have qualifying races leading up to each main event. Being in Florida and SoCal. in the winter would be nice and there is plenty of time between races for the teams to travel and work on their equipment.
I hope to see this happen somehow before my days are done on earth. Lottery tickets maybe?

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Maybe it's because our trip to Winchester was probably a once in a lifetime deal, we considered it an event. It was sprints, supers and midgets all in the same weekend and since we rarely get to see pavement anything race, we thought it was awesome. I don't remember the car count, but I think it was in the mid 20s for all 3 classes.

Those tire bill numbers are scary. I don't see how anyone could justify those kind of tire bills on a regular basis. I don't know the answer and I guess I am too far away not just in miles. But it seems to me that you approach the tire companies and ask for a tire that is reasonable in cost and more importantly will last. Surely they can make a tire that will last. They might not like selling a lot of people a few tires as much as a few people a lot of tires, but I'll bet they would like that better than selling no tires to nobody. To quote Racesavers again:
Tired of being run out of racing by the ultra wealthy? Fight Back!

RaceSaver® rules prevent money from buying a significant advantage.

The RaceSaver® concept allows working men and women the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

Here is the proven RaceSaver® plan:

Stable and Enforceable Rules, Consistent Rules Application, Fair Purse Distribution

Did you know that the average sprint car purse pays the winner 10 to 20 times the amount earned by the 24th place car? Races run under RaceSaver® plan pay the 24th starter at least 1/2 of the winner's purse. A typical RaceSaver® purse would pay the winner between $250 to $500 and the 24th starter $125 to $250. No, that isn't a lot of money but that is exactly the plan. Big money brings big problems. You can be competitive for under $150 per night. Now you can race, pay the mortgage, and send the kids to school

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

This is probably derailing this thread, well not probably it is, but I am just curious if the RaceSaver plan has a limit on the top side of the purse? In other words, the statement above says the 24th starter gets half the winner's purse but is there any limit on the top payout?

Re: Low car counts in pavement sprints
 

Just so you'll know. I am new to the site. I am not new to internet racing sites. I have a well earned reputation as someone that likes to cut costs wherever needed. And of course where it's needed is in my opinion. Not everyone agrees with me. In fact it irritates the hell out of some people. What constitutes where it's needed in my opinion is anywhere the car counts are notoriously and chronically low. That includes indycar racing, F1 and most road racing series. Although I would love for indycar racing to have good car counts, I can live without the others for the most part. But those are supposedly top level professional series. But short tracks which are my favorite have low car counts in some areas. I am a lifelong fan and am pretty hard core. I've attended races where there were only 3 supers/sprints and other races that had 4 cars for 2 classes. I am pickier than that now though. I am fortunate in that within reasonable driving distances I can see lots of sprint, modified and stock car races on dirt. And for the most part they all have good car counts, some with great car counts.
Now Indiana is not within reasonable driving distance for me, so even if pavement sprint car racing in Indiana was revived, I probably wouldn't see any of it. But I might catch some of it on TV. And if it revived in Indiana, it might catch on in other places.