USAC Silver Crown Rumors / Split features

cabjr111 · 10/1/08, 7:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonMoore10

Uh oh. If they're going to work on cars between segments, I'm staying home. :O: IMO, the worst thing a promoter or sanctioning body can do is allow teams to work on cars during red flags or stopped portions of the racing program. Once the race starts..NO WORKING ON CARS!!! :thumbsdown:

I totally agree I hate open reds.

cabjr111 · 10/1/08, 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk Spridgeon

What development drivers are running Silver Crown cars now? There really aren't many young guys, and the ones that are certainly aren't worried about changing rules or anything.

I think the rules are great the way they are. I think the biggest reason for this change is because of the dominant performances of Brian Tyler on the miles this season. I'd heard that Sargent wanted to find a way to tighten up the races....and I understand what he's saying....but I adamantly vote against it!!

Just put a magnet under his pedal hahaha........

sprntr · 10/1/08, 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cabjr111

I totally agree I hate open reds.

I have no problem with either open reds or pit stops for Silver Crown Cars, afterall this is the dirt portion of the old Championship Trail.

I would prefer that there be no open reds in Sprint or Midget races.

10/1/08, 9:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregD

Mike, it's not a three page USAC bash, it's three pages of people giving their opinions. Open wheel fans are passionate about the sport and when we lose that passion the sport will be D.O.A.

GregD, to him unless the posters here kiss usac's :censor: in every post we make and praise the decisions they make as the gospel, they are bashing USAC. I won't be a kiss :censor: to USAC. They have brought it all upon themselves for their continual :censor: up's they keep pulling with openwheel racing. I tried to see USAC's direction they were heading but I couldn't get my head up my :censor: that far to see. I think his obsession rests on the fact his one great series is a second rate organization, at best. The only difference between USAC and a bad boxer is after the bad boxer has had this many black eyes, the fight is stopped and the boxer is retired from the sport he feels he needs to compete in. Maybe that is what USAC should do.

I do like his posts though. Gives me a huge laugh everytime I read his mindless dribble that he passes off as posts.

I'll take my leave of these boards for however long Bill wants me to be gone for making this post but I'll tell you saying the truth as it is, is well worth it.

coondog · 10/1/08, 9:00 PM

I love all the assumptions on here. This is what really happened from what a USAC official told me. Bob Sargent did say something about trying to make the races better and one of his ideas was the split race. It was not supposed to be brought up at the meeting. It was just a conversation between promotor and sanctioning body. No more, no less. It was discussed before the race at DuQuoin, so it had nothing to do Brian winning both races. And it has nothing to do with any drivers or car owners. It was a guy saying, hey, what can we do to make these races more exciting? Why cant it be left at that?

miledirt · 10/1/08, 10:40 PM

Thanks for posting this coondog - voice of reason

Sprint63122 · 10/2/08, 12:23 AM

Rule number one here is do not listen to anything Sargent has to say about the racing program.

I would like to suggest that they split up into heat races for how many cars they have there ten cars a heat let them run ten laps and line them up by points and then let them run a hundred laps.

Last thing is I listened to the Mike King interview that was posted on another thread here and someone at USAC better be developing a good line of communication there because it did not sound good for silver crowns being back at Terre Haute next year and that should be one of there best races to look forward to every year nothing like seeing Darland and Coons hanging here sideways coming off of turn four now that is great classic racing there.

openwheelKT · 10/2/08, 8:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coondog

I love all the assumptions on here. This is what really happened from what a USAC official told me. Bob Sargent did say something about trying to make the races better and one of his ideas was the split race. It was not supposed to be brought up at the meeting. It was just a conversation between promotor and sanctioning body. No more, no less. It was discussed before the race at DuQuoin, so it had nothing to do Brian winning both races. And it has nothing to do with any drivers or car owners. It was a guy saying, hey, what can we do to make these races more exciting? Why cant it be left at that?

It's amazing when somebody that actually knows the story shares. Settle down a little people.

LEADERS EDGE · 10/2/08, 9:57 AM

One of the problems all of racing has today is that some fans feel that if the race doesn't end with the cars side by side or someone flipping across the line, then it wasn't a great race.

I believe that some of that comes from forums such as this where the 5 or 6 people who didn't like it becaue it wasn't close or their favorite driver didn't win; come on and talk about what a bad race it was when it could of actually been a great race from second on back. Then the casual observer goes; "That race must've not been as good as I thought it was" or "Yeah, those races are always runaways"

It's kind of like people have forgotten how to watch a race that isn't on T.V. On T.V. you are always having the battle pointed out to you and shown. Maybe the average fan has a hard time finding the battle on their own.

Besides, as far as stinking up a race goes;Brian Tyler has nothing on Tyler Walker.

Flags anything · 10/2/08, 10:29 AM

If USAC thinks about "tinkering" with a format why not use the a format from the past. The Hulman Hundred was a decent format.

You qualified, split the field into 2 groups (odds evens) based on times, run 2 20 lap last chances/ quailfiers or whatevere you call them, take the top 12 from those, run a 60 lap A main.

Also put this "twist" in to format, 1) the tire you time trial on is what you run in the A. 2) The tope 6 or 8 in each of the 20 lappers are inverted.

Advantages are 1) the "traditionalists" still see 100 laps of racing (green flag if USAC hasn't changed the rule/ procedure that states races under 60 laps cautions DON'T COUNT). 2) Tire managenment still becomes a factor. 3) Even the slowest quaifier still has a chance to make the A. 4) Some reduction in "on board" fuel. 5) This "format" should elimanate/ drasticly reduce "open red" situations.

Yes, the bladder problem needs to be addresed FIRST with the age and how the fuel compromise the intergrety of the bladders. THAT IS A MUST.

And yes, PROMOTE, PROMOTE, PROMOTE the devil out of the series. Let the "Gold Crown" series be its own enity.

Just a thought, trying to keep a little tradition, but modernize it as easily a possible.

10/2/08, 9:57 AM	#39 Re: USAC Silver Crown Rumors / Split features
LEADERS EDGE Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 980	One of the problems all of racing has today is that some fans feel that if the race doesn't end with the cars side by side or someone flipping across the line, then it wasn't a great race. I believe that some of that comes from forums such as this where the 5 or 6 people who didn't like it becaue it wasn't close or their favorite driver didn't win; come on and talk about what a bad race it was when it could of actually been a great race from second on back. Then the casual observer goes; "That race must've not been as good as I thought it was" or "Yeah, those races are always runaways" It's kind of like people have forgotten how to watch a race that isn't on T.V. On T.V. you are always having the battle pointed out to you and shown. Maybe the average fan has a hard time finding the battle on their own. Besides, as far as stinking up a race goes;Brian Tyler has nothing on Tyler Walker. _________________________________________________ Last edited by LEADERS EDGE; 10/2/08 at 10:01 AM.

10/1/08, 9:00 PM	#35 Re: USAC Silver Crown Rumors / Split features
coondog Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 109	I love all the assumptions on here. This is what really happened from what a USAC official told me. Bob Sargent did say something about trying to make the races better and one of his ideas was the split race. It was not supposed to be brought up at the meeting. It was just a conversation between promotor and sanctioning body. No more, no less. It was discussed before the race at DuQuoin, so it had nothing to do Brian winning both races. And it has nothing to do with any drivers or car owners. It was a guy saying, hey, what can we do to make these races more exciting? Why cant it be left at that?

10/1/08, 10:40 PM	#36 Re: USAC Silver Crown Rumors / Split features
miledirt Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,828	Thanks for posting this coondog - voice of reason

10/2/08, 12:23 AM	#37 Re: USAC Silver Crown Rumors / Split features
Sprint63122 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 545	Rule number one here is do not listen to anything Sargent has to say about the racing program. I would like to suggest that they split up into heat races for how many cars they have there ten cars a heat let them run ten laps and line them up by points and then let them run a hundred laps. Last thing is I listened to the Mike King interview that was posted on another thread here and someone at USAC better be developing a good line of communication there because it did not sound good for silver crowns being back at Terre Haute next year and that should be one of there best races to look forward to every year nothing like seeing Darland and Coons hanging here sideways coming off of turn four now that is great classic racing there.

10/2/08, 10:29 AM	#40 Re: USAC Silver Crown Rumors / Split features
Flags anything Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 38	If USAC thinks about "tinkering" with a format why not use the a format from the past. The Hulman Hundred was a decent format. You qualified, split the field into 2 groups (odds evens) based on times, run 2 20 lap last chances/ quailfiers or whatevere you call them, take the top 12 from those, run a 60 lap A main. Also put this "twist" in to format, 1) the tire you time trial on is what you run in the A. 2) The tope 6 or 8 in each of the 20 lappers are inverted. Advantages are 1) the "traditionalists" still see 100 laps of racing (green flag if USAC hasn't changed the rule/ procedure that states races under 60 laps cautions DON'T COUNT). 2) Tire managenment still becomes a factor. 3) Even the slowest quaifier still has a chance to make the A. 4) Some reduction in "on board" fuel. 5) This "format" should elimanate/ drasticly reduce "open red" situations. Yes, the bladder problem needs to be addresed FIRST with the age and how the fuel compromise the intergrety of the bladders. THAT IS A MUST. And yes, PROMOTE, PROMOTE, PROMOTE the devil out of the series. Let the "Gold Crown" series be its own enity. Just a thought, trying to keep a little tradition, but modernize it as easily a possible.