[Honest-Sam]

Originally Posted by SUPERDUKE how long have you been racing? Do you own a car? The usac car would be the same car that you would run dirt & pavement !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One car the same car!!!!!!!!!!! What part don't you understand!14:: It would save money to run the same car!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! instead of having two different cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:

A) 19 years
B) No. Are car owners the only ones that get to have opinions? If so, how many cars do you own?
C) I understand that part.
D) So, nobody can own more than one?
E) The part I don't understand is how it would increase fan support of the pavement series while not damaging the dirt series at the same time.
F) THAT part I agree with.
G) Guys that run weekend shows most of the time, and USAC some of the time, WOULD have to have multiple cars to be competitive. A USAC legal car, and an open series car. By that, I mean that I think no way would a combo car compete with a current day production dirt sprint car.

Cheers

[Racerrob]

I have been sitting on the sidelines on this one waiting to see where this would go. If I am not mistaken, the proposals to save USAC, the car owners and the entire sprint car way of life boils down to: One chassis for pavement and dirt, limit tires/wheel width to make horsepower a non-issue, have a tire company invent a super tire that never wears out and never slows down, increase purses so that racers can afford to race, race closer to home so that travel expenses can be reduced and get TV coverage to make everything better.

Now I hate to be the wet blanket here but there are always unintended consequences to these proposals and if it were really easy to implement them don’t you think they would have made the move by now?

Let’s talk one chassis for pavement and dirt; How do you police that? I saw on an earlier post that there would be a limit as to the engine set back, offset and wheelbase. What happens when a local (which we rely on heavily at the dirt tracks) wants to run USAC. Do they have to buy a special car that conforms to USAC specs? Do we all run dirt chassis on pavement? What dirt wheelbase/engine set back? Do locals that have a slightly different car get to run?

Same for the tire/wheel rule; Do you think local racers on a limited budget will step up and buy new wheels and a spec tires to run just the USAC shows? If you could get the WoO, All-Stars, MSCS and whatever other sanctions together and agree to limit the RR this would work. Without it this is a pipe dream. The reason USAC went to 410 was because it became the standard for sprint cars by the WoO and local tracks. USAC made the switch so that more cars could run with them not as the leader of a larger CID movement.

Now on to the tires. Yes they are a MAJOR expense for both large and small teams. I have begged for a one set limit for over 1 year and it has gone nowhere. We run 2 sets typically for each racing night because every time the tire undergoes a heat cycle (run on the track) it slows down a little. Not wears out, but slows down. Therefore if my car is going to have a shot at winning I have to bolt on new tires each time my competition does. If we all have only one set then there is no competitive disadvantage.

Before we hear from Don Moore, hard tires are not the answer either because they slow down just as much if not more. They also lack grip which means the cars will slide more in the corners. The reason there is not more passing on pavement is generally the grove is narrow and the drivers (well most anyway) don’t want to slide into another car while attempting to pass. Most of them have learned that open wheel to wheel contact is not good for their health or the car’s longevity especially on pavement.

I know that Hoosier contributes to the point fund for each tire sold. It is here that USAC can be of the biggest help to the participant by negotiating hard with ALL the tire manufacturers to obtain the best price and most money for the point fund. There should be full open disclosure of each bid to the competitors and the contract should be rebid each winter. I don’t care which brand wins the bid if everyone has to run the same tire.

Now I have been very outspoken in the past when a promoter makes a killing on a USAC race via the back gate. I also know that promoters don’t always pack the stands and they have expenses as well. Too many promoters fail to promote nowadays. I would like to see a return to the days of a percentage of the gate against a guaranteed minimum purse Part of the sanction fee paid to USAC would be set aside for track specific marketing. Additionally the promoters would be required to spend a certain amount advertising the USAC race in the local media. USAC could leverage a revamped marketing department to helping the promoter with advertising copy and media buys. This would make USAC, the participants AND the promoter partners in putting on a quality product and producing a profit for ALL.

As far as racing closer to home/on more weekends, I am all for that. I burn EVERY vacation day, personal day and sick day that I get at the bank to attend all the races on the USAC schedule. My wife is very upset that I have not gone on vacation with her and the kids in 4 years. Most of our past vacations centered around a race somewhere that I left for two days early or stayed after for a couple of days. But realize that when you limit the series to a local base you also limit your ability to attract national sponsors for the teams, the events and the all important television.

In conclusion, I think we all recognize there is a problem. But beware of some of the “easy” fixes proposed because they may create more problems than they solve. Most of you probably remember the push to put starters on midgets since that would make the series more fan and TV friendly. Sounded like a good idea and it had a noble purpose but it almost killed the series. We don’t need to go down that path again.

The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarially reflect the opinions of my team or sponsors.

Rob Hoffman

[SUPERDUKE]

Originally Posted by honest-sam a) 19 years b) no. Are car owners the only ones that get to have opinions? If so, how many cars do you own? C) i understand that part. D) so, nobody can own more than one? E) the part i don't understand is how it would increase fan support of the pavement series while not damaging the dirt series at the same time. F) that part i agree with. G) guys that run weekend shows most of the time, and usac some of the time, would have to have multiple cars to be competitive. A usac legal car, and an open series car. By that, i mean that i think no way would a combo car compete with a current day production dirt sprint car. Cheers

(d) you could but its not a need! (e) you would have plenty of cars to race pavement! (g) ???????? Not sure!

[fish]

I think the key is to go back to racing on board tracks.

[SUPERDUKE]

Originally Posted by fish i think the key is to go back to racing on board tracks.

give me some of what ever your drinking or smoking!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fish]

I told them when they first went away from board tracks it was a big mistake, but nobody listened and look where we are today.
But after thinking about it, probably wouldn't work nowdays. Teams would just go to 3 cars, one for dirt, another for pavement, and a third for board tracks.

[SUPERDUKE]

Originally Posted by fish i told them when they first went away from board tracks it was a big mistake, but nobody listened. But after thinking about it, probably wouldn't work nowdays. Teams would just go to 3 cars, one for dirt, another for pavement, and a third for board tracks.

i think you should build a board track and see!

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

Originally Posted by racerrob i have been sitting on the sidelines on this one waiting to see where this would go. If i am not mistaken, the proposals to save usac, the car owners and the entire sprint car way of life boils down to: One chassis for pavement and dirt, limit tires/wheel width to make horsepower a non-issue, have a tire company invent a super tire that never wears out and never slows down, increase purses so that racers can afford to race, race closer to home so that travel expenses can be reduced and get tv coverage to make everything better. Now i hate to be the wet blanket here but there are always unintended consequences to these proposals and if it were really easy to implement them don’t you think they would have made the move by now? Let’s talk one chassis for pavement and dirt; how do you police that? I saw on an earlier post that there would be a limit as to the engine set back, offset and wheelbase. What happens when a local (which we rely on heavily at the dirt tracks) wants to run usac. Do they have to buy a special car that conforms to usac specs? Do we all run dirt chassis on pavement? What dirt wheelbase/engine set back? Do locals that have a slightly different car get to run? Same for the tire/wheel rule; do you think local racers on a limited budget will step up and buy new wheels and a spec tires to run just the usac shows? If you could get the woo, all-stars, mscs and whatever other sanctions together and agree to limit the rr this would work. Without it this is a pipe dream. The reason usac went to 410 was because it became the standard for sprint cars by the woo and local tracks. Usac made the switch so that more cars could run with them not as the leader of a larger cid movement. Now on to the tires. Yes they are a major expense for both large and small teams. I have begged for a one set limit for over 1 year and it has gone nowhere. We run 2 sets typically for each racing night because every time the tire undergoes a heat cycle (run on the track) it slows down a little. Not wears out, but slows down. Therefore if my car is going to have a shot at winning i have to bolt on new tires each time my competition does. If we all have only one set then there is no competitive disadvantage. Before we hear from don moore, hard tires are not the answer either because they slow down just as much if not more. They also lack grip which means the cars will slide more in the corners. The reason there is not more passing on pavement is generally the grove is narrow and the drivers (well most anyway) don’t want to slide into another car while attempting to pass. Most of them have learned that open wheel to wheel contact is not good for their health or the car’s longevity especially on pavement. I know that hoosier contributes to the point fund for each tire sold. It is here that usac can be of the biggest help to the participant by negotiating hard with all the tire manufacturers to obtain the best price and most money for the point fund. There should be full open disclosure of each bid to the competitors and the contract should be rebid each winter. I don’t care which brand wins the bid if everyone has to run the same tire. Now i have been very outspoken in the past when a promoter makes a killing on a usac race via the back gate. I also know that promoters don’t always pack the stands and they have expenses as well. Too many promoters fail to promote nowadays. I would like to see a return to the days of a percentage of the gate against a guaranteed minimum purse part of the sanction fee paid to usac would be set aside for track specific marketing. Additionally the promoters would be required to spend a certain amount advertising the usac race in the local media. Usac could leverage a revamped marketing department to helping the promoter with advertising copy and media buys. This would make usac, the participants and the promoter partners in putting on a quality product and producing a profit for all. As far as racing closer to home/on more weekends, i am all for that. I burn every vacation day, personal day and sick day that i get at the bank to attend all the races on the usac schedule. My wife is very upset that i have not gone on vacation with her and the kids in 4 years. Most of our past vacations centered around a race somewhere that i left for two days early or stayed after for a couple of days. But realize that when you limit the series to a local base you also limit your ability to attract national sponsors for the teams, the events and the all important television. In conclusion, i think we all recognize there is a problem. But beware of some of the “easy” fixes proposed because they may create more problems than they solve. Most of you probably remember the push to put starters on midgets since that would make the series more fan and tv friendly. Sounded like a good idea and it had a noble purpose but it almost killed the series. We don’t need to go down that path again. The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarially reflect the opinions of my team or sponsors. Rob hoffman

i know you can build tire to repete! They don't have too!!!!!!!!!!! I sold larry dickson a rt. Rear that he won 3 races on a weekend! Grand rapids on fri toledo sat. And new breman sun. Afternoon! That tire was a firestone back then cost $75

[fish]

Originally Posted by SUPERDUKE i think you should build a board track and see! [COLOR="Black"]

Where do you think a good spot for a board track would be?

[Bill Gardner]

easy solution... just eliminate the entire pavement series.:2:

[SUPERDUKE]

Originally Posted by fish where do you think a good spot for a board track would be?

west 16st in indy 35oo block! Bring your hammer! And please stop hitting yourself in the head!

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by bill gardner easy solution... Just eliminate the entire pavement series.:2:

they are!!!!!!!!!!!! Then nascar irl will be racing on dirt!