I doubt you would be smart enough to understand.Not meant to be an insult, but just basing it on your posts and interview skills. I still remember you and your partners credintial scam.

Do I know you? I would hope you do if you blow me alot of ****.

Hey I am called many things, but I would like to think that I am fair in my assessments and objective when looking at the big picture. In all the posts that were made by me and others no one had bothered state if they had looked at the race by race stats. Instead of working today (for an hour or so) I thought what the heck, let's see what the stats actually say about the current state of USAC National Midget Racing. It surprised me as well, facts often do.

Even with that, I still think if USAC would issue a multi year plan, it would help the sport.

None of it really effects what we are trying to do. But I can tell you that Justin Grant almost sold on me buying a couple of Esslinger ST last Saturday night. Who knows maybe we will have 4 cars next year, 2 EcoTecs and 2 Esslingers.

I really didnt want to post on this thread because I am aware of the midget racing being in need of some changes and I am just a fan and cant do much to help that. But I dont understand how ryoung99 can keep compairing USAC midgets to WoO. Two completely diffrent animals. I mean does WoO run pavement races?? I cant see how u can compare sprints to midgets anyways. The sprint numbers are nearly the same and I bet minus the pavement races the average sprint count would prolly top WoO's. No offense im just saying you cant compare apples to oranges.

Hamby,

Being a fan you do help and your thoughts are just as important as any car owner or driver. You pay for the show we try to put on. Without your support there is no midget racing.

As for comparing to WoO, all I was trying to do was set a benchmark. WoO is considered a dominant touring series, while they do not race pavement I am not sure that when you are trying to assess the health of a sport that the surface matters (at least not to me). The point is more about the racers supporting the show.

The USAC National circuit is considered to be the pinnacle of midget racing, and WoO is the pinnacle of winged sprint car racing, thus I feel that it is an appropriate benchmark when comparing car counts. If the average USAC National Midget show (on dirt) receives 6/7th of the average WoO show then I would conclude that midget racing on the National level is doing ok (at least on dirt). One of the reasons this statistic matters is it is what promoters look for when booking a show and deciding what they will pay. The more cars, the bigger the purse. For a sanctioning body it is negotiating power which in turns means a better payday for the racers. I mean no one has ever cancelled a show due to too many cars being expected to show.

Statistics are meaningless without a benchmark, if there is a better benchmark I would be happy to do some additional research and post the results. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for being a fan,

Rick

Yes sir it does, exactly what I was hoping youd say! Thanks!

There are many factors in the state of midget auto racing. Personally, I think better cooperation between the sanctions would be a great place to start. Where were the Badger and POWRi cars at Knoxville? How many USAC cars went to Tri-State for the POWRi race?

Where will those teams with five or six $40,000 motors sitting around race if more promoters lose money on midget racing -- whether it be USAC, POWRi, Badger, or whatever sanction you are hiring to provide entertainment to your customers?

Here's another thought. Maybe we go back to the concept USAC had in the 1970s. Midgets, with a couple of exceptions (one being the Hut 100), run on quarter miles, sprints on half miles and Silver Crown cars on miles. Champ cars ran on paved miles or bigger.

The need for more horsepower in midgets came when they started running Phoenix, Belleville and then the TV races at IRP, Salem and Winchester in the late 1980s. They went from a short bullring car, to a bigger track car. Maybe that's one important reason the Chili Bowl draws 250 cars or so. It's a short race track and chances are you won't blow your engine. (The most important factor is that the Chili Bowl has been built into the "must do" midget race in the world; and there's nothing else for racers to do in the middle of January.)

As for Salem, maybe it's time for those involved to realize that there's not that many more miles left on a track last resurfaced in 1977. I was last there two years ago and remember seeing a hole on the front stretch the size of my fist with dirt showing through. I also recall practice being halted back in 2002 while a hole in the groove entering turn three was patched and deemed safe enough to continue. Brad Sweet was competing in the Knoxville Nationals this year because a possiblity existed the Salem race would be cancelled. Maybe that possibility prompted some teams to travel to Grundy County Speedway instead of Salem. Or, maybe Grundy just paid more money.

There are plans for a five-eighths mile track on a reconstructed Salem Speedway, contingent, at least in part, on government involvement and funding. With today's state of the economy and property tax problems in Indiana and budget problems of the United States as a whole, I wouldn't be holding my breath on that gaining approval. It might be more likely to win an audition for the Blue Man Group before that happens.

I love Salem. I saw my first race there. Watched guys like Carter and Bettenhausen and Bigelow. Stock car guys like Darrell Waltrip and Bob Sennecker and Bobby Allison. A field of 20 cars piloted by top drivers dancing and darting across that asphalt surface for 40 laps is breathtaking.

I was saddened when it closed in the early 1980s and thrilled when it was reborn in 1987.

But, I fear the next race I see there will be on the original dirt surface that Tommy Hinnershitz won on that June day in 1948 when it opened for its first race -- unless something is done soon.

Jim Morrison