USAC used to have a RR tire rule.

The RR you qualified on, was the one you had to run the feature with.

Case in point, the 'Fortney Sprinter'. The car was ran last at Winchester in Oct. 1979. They brought the car home, pulled the engine, and it never raced again. When the car was bought from Mr. Fortney some years back, it still had the RR on from that day, stamped by USAC with the date.

if it paid $50000 to finish 3rd how much did it pay to win???????????????????

I would think usac or hoosier would have something to say about all of this. what gives?

USAC does have a RR tire rule. They stamp the tire you qualify on and that is the tire with which you must start the feature. The problem is that many USAC teams (me included) bring two sets (RR, LR and RF) and hot lap on both. The faster set you qualify and run the feature on and the other set you run the Heat and Semi if necessary. That way you start the feature with two less heat cycles on you tires and have more speed at the beginning of the race.

If a sanctioning body were to limit you to one set per night I would be very happy since everyone would be on the same number of heat cycles. The downside is that every once in a while you get a set of brand new tires that absolutely won't work. What do you do about that?

Rob Hoffman

Rob -

Hhhhmmmm...What exactly does absolutely won't work mean?
I ask this to learn - not to be argumentative or disrespectful.
You have earned the right to your opinion w/all your experience.

Thanks,
Jimmy Baumgartner

I can't speak for Rob, but I think he's referring to those times when you have a brand new sticker tire that behaves like it's 10 years old and on it's 100th heat cycle. I've had a couple in the last few years and I know that they have too, like with Dave Steele at IRP(the night he left USAC and went back to Florida?) and again at Toledo with Aaron Pierce. Pierce's was probably the worst qualifying attempt I've ever seen, and it wasn't even his fault. Or Rob's. The car had no grip at all. It actually looked and sounded like he was on snow and ice. Should've spun out about 4 times in those two laps.

Thanks, Sam. Interesting. I wasn't there to see that but it sounds pretty horrific.
It's been brought up w/others. At the end of the day, the tire co. & sanctioning body is in it to make money.
Selling more tires means more money. AND, the respective point funds are largely dependent on that money.

So, what's the answer? Not sure there is a concrete one outside of having the balls to hold Hoosier accountable.
But, how hard do you push when tire money is such a necessary part of an organization's cash flow & point-fund?
It just seems more & more like a self-fulfilling prophecy...

Maybe it's time to think outside the box...??
Feels like it's time. What do you think?

Jimmy B.

I'll reiterate that I'm just a fan. But I don't see the tire companies being that greedy. By greedy I mean willing to forsake long term sales for the sake of selling a bunch of tires to a smaller group that's willing and perhaps eager to spend a lot of money on tires. I think Hoosier for sure is already involved in providing "track" or "series" tires for a number of series, particularly IMCA and IMCA type modifieds but also late models and sprints. I think they see the benefit of selling a few tires to a lot of people just as much as selling a lot of tires to a few people. It was years ago and in street stock when I actually owned and drove but we ran Hoosiers back then and found them to be pretty cost effective. We could actually get a season out of a tire back then and compared to the street tires we ran they had tons of grip.
And thanks to all that have contributed to this thread.

It's a tough one to solve, isn't it? I still can't find a better word to sum it up than conundrum. I'd say that since it evolved into what it is now, it will probably have to evolve away from it, assuming that it's even possible. Sounds like USAC has some changes in store for 2010, so we'll see. Money drives everything though, and that I don't think will change anytime soon.

Not trying to be an ass here, but........

YOU made the decision to use 2 sets of tires during the day.

If you would be fine with a new rule mandating 1 set of tires per day, why not do that now....as a 'business decision' ? (hey, it was popular for Clauson and Jones to do it at L-burg)

According to the info provided in this thread, a set of pavement tires is $1,500...so x 2 sets= $3,000/day for tires. With USAC's purse structure, how far back can you finish the feature, and be within $1,500 of the winners share?

"The downside is that every once in a while you get a set of brand new tires that absolutely won't work. What do you do about that?"
Well, this isn't NASCAR, it's sprint car racing. Once you push off, you get what you get. You can miss the set up at any time, on any day/night.

If that set of stickers is junk, does Hoosier give you your money back?.........

Rob, I respect you, and your operation.

But, a racer is a racer, and most times racers spend a lot of money to gain a couple of tenths a second/lap. Money that isn't justified at the payoff window. Money that they try to say someone else is forcing them to spend, to 'stay competitive'. Yet, they complain that it costs too much to race.

In the 70's, how much did you have in a race ready car, what were you spending to run a show at Winchester, and what did it pay to win.

In 2009, how much do you have in a race ready car, what are you spending to run a show at Winchester, and what does it pay to win?

How much faster is the cars of today, vs the cars of the 70's?

How many THOUSANDS of dollars did each second of speed cost you?

This doesn't even take into consideration the cost of the rigs and huge trailers of today vs the pick-up trucks/vans and open trailers of years ago....all of which is included in the total cost of 'doing business'.

I'm not saying we should still be running the same cars from the 70's, or that innovation is a bad thing. But the willingness to spend $$ to go a little faster, is something you do on your own.