I have really enjoyed reading all these threads on the subject and would like to give some more food for thought. I agree fully with tires being the number one issue with pavement sprints, less than 10 years ago they were only $160 for a right rear and they did seem to last longer. Unfortunately as Geoff stated, If a promoter/series owner/or track owner is also the tire dealer and getting paid to use Hoosier only for their series and also profits from each tire sold than why would you want a tire rule or limit how many your customer can buy? If you look at the business side of it why would you want to limit your potential profit? As far as the tire manf. goes if you have the market bought....I mean cornered than why would you want to make a longer lasting tire cheaper? You cant get mad at the series owner or manf as it is a business and they are in it to make money. As far as the racers view you are killing the little guy, winged pavement racing locally does seem to be more cost effective on the surface as it shows it pays more than a dirt show but if everyone at minimum puts a RR on and 10-20th pays $290 subtract your $210 for tire, $30 for 1 pit pass, $60 for fuel in the race car, and start adding all your food and travel on top. I know the instant comment is if you cant afford to play,,, dont. But as far as the Hoss and surely the other local groups are made of hard working guys who do this as a hobby and have done so most of their life's and still want to. I really have to agree with the one post I read about opening the tires back up to choice, any time you have competition you will be force to provide a better product at a better price. Wasn't it Eric Gordon who won the little 500 on a set of American racers without changing a single tire? As far as Usac I am sure that tires are #1 issue but I also feel there are several more that factor in, definitely the TV exposure...growing up there was nothing like watching my hero's on ESPN Thursday night thunder. As Jeff Bloom was quoted in the news article open the chassis rules up a bit more. I know everyone has heard stories of people that have had there cars picked apart for what I would call non safety issues but since the car was different they weren't really accepted. It seems the quote "you gotta have a beast" is more and more common....Are they really that more superior at winning or are they just 95% of the field? I used to love going to the little 500 and seeing all the different chassis makes and builds, the sky was the limit with ideas guys would try on each car. I am all for safety but I think if they could some how loosen the chassis rules up they may get more guys trying to compete and beat the others with wit and not money. I will say that for the local winged groups, any given race there are 7-8 different frame manufactures,4-5 different shock brands, and several teams that like to try new designs consistantly. All capable of winning...with a decent amount of passing through out the entire field. If you put 16 cars on a track, same chassis, mostly the same motors,and same tire funds, wont it become a follow the leader race?

Once again this is just food for thought, not meant to rub anyone the wrong way just get you thinking.

Craig Fordyce

Craig I appreciate your comments as well as all the others in this thread. However, I am going to have to take exception to something you said here. "any time you have competition you will be force to provide a better product at a better price." That is a generally accepted premise. However it simply isn't a factual statement. You don't have to study economics very deeply to find out that there are more than two classes of competition. It's not just competition and monopoly. There are also oligopolies. That's a term hardly every used, but it often applies. An oligopoly is a situation where there are many buyers and few sellers. Compare that to competition where there are many buyers and many sellers or monopoly where there are many buyers and one seller. The oligopoly tends to act more like a monopoly than a true competition. Sellers in an oligopoly rarely compete on price. There is another possibility as well and that is the regulated monopoly. There you have many buyers and only one seller, but the seller is required to operate within certain parameters in order to have that monopoply granted. That's often the case in utilities. In a racing series it could be the sanctioning body, the track or the racing association that grants that monopoly. However, as you stated, often the track or sanctioning body does not have the series best interest as it's foremost priority.
If opening up tire rules or any other rules would lead to more cars and more races, I'd be all for it. I just don't think it would. Look at what happened more than once in nascar, indycar and formula one when they had tire wars. The tires didn't get better. They got temporarily faster but the cost was reliability. Those series particularly nascar and Formula one had lots of money available and the tire wars still resulted in a spec tire when it was all said and done.

Does limiting the numbers of tires hurt the manufacturer? Not if it adjusts the price. Then the 'tire deal' becomes a bigger deal. At the same time, opening competition splits the pie, with the biggest piece GENERALLY going to the best builder.

Q: Does any open supplier, two (or three) tire rule with mandated durometer values make sense?

I've read the MSA tire rule liturgy. It covers almost every angle I could throw at it. Does it work in real life?
Posted via Mobile Device

You can't compare NASCAR and F1 to what we do. One reason is the length of the events. It isn't apples to apples.

An open tire rule works because it allows teams to make their own tire deals. Often based on merit; tire deals help teams save money. A direct savings as oppossed to possibly making it back in the points fund.

I know USAC is currently having meetings regarding cost and they are looking at items such as Carbon bodies, but I know of Carbon companies offering bodies at prices comparable to fiberglass/aluminum. Carbon costs are starting to come down and as they are integrated more into the street car world, they will get cheaper. I think that is a moot point. Besides, the teams with money will just paint them and lay a piece of cloth on the bottom and say it's fiberglass; like they used to.

Titanium is very expensive, but as a fastener it doesn't gain much more than a race bolt; so there is already a cheaper alternative so if the teams take ti. over the hollow bolt, that is just their choice and it doesn't gain much.
Ti. driveshafts are lighter and very expensive, but outlawing them would mean that a plug would have to be placed in the torque tube and someone would actually have to check it.

The expensive bolt on/not commonly replaced items should only be looked at after a large recurring expense like tires are addressed.

The reason's you give for an open tire rule is exactly why I'm against them. The fast guys (usually the one's that are more financially solvent) pay less for (or get free) tires then those of us running from fifth on back. It just spreads the difference between the have's and the have not's. I've seen both senarios, and believe me for the greater good, a spec tire is the way to go. Believe me, in this case compition is not good.

Tom Paterson

I ran my sprint car with MSA during the 2004 season, before they stopped allowing sprints. The tire rule does work for the most part. The biggest problem with it is there is extra work on the part of the officials to stencil tires and check to make sure everyone has the correct tires on the car.

It used to be an issue when someone would show up in the middle of the year with no stenciled tires. That's why there are provisions to be able to run a tire in hot laps to get it stenciled as "used".

Also, you could get around the rule by faking stencils, because you are required to carry over one previously used tire to each race (the LF is never stenciled). I don't know that it has happened, but racers being racers, it would not surprise me.

MSA does not care what tires you run in hot laps. The only time they check is qualifying, heats, and the feature. New tires are stenciled as you are in line to go out for qualifying.

Tom;

I can understand what you are saying, but I know alot of drivers and teams that got help from the companies and they weren't always superstar teams. Of course some where, but not all.

I am not saying you are wrong, but why can't you compare what other series do? How does length of the events figure into this scenario?

Teams making their own tire deals? Often based on merit? OK, when they are not based on merit what are they based on? How many teams will get deals? Is this fair to other teams? How will this encourage more people to bring their cars to race? Wouldn't a few teams getting tire deals and the rest not mean that the race results were predetermined based on who got a tire deal instead of on the track?

As to the titinium and CF parts I don't think either of those have been suggested as having an impact on the size of the fields.

http://spartanspeedway.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2826

Some may have heard that Spartan is considering scheduling around ten (plus or minus) shows in 2010 for wingless sprints. There have been many people ask about the details and we haven't been able to answer their questions yet. At this point it is only a possibility. We have been contacted by a number of drivers that are, or at least have shown interest.

We are going to get together in some what of an informal setting and try to guage the interest from a drivers/owners perspective and then go from there. Please attend only if you have interest in running with this series.

The get together will take place on Sunday November 15th at 12:00, at Spartan. If the weather is bad we will switch the location to the warehouse at 959 Eden Rd. Mason, MI, 48854. I realize that is that is the beginning of deer season but it is the earliest date that will work.

I know i would put my pavement sprinter back together and park my Silvercrown stuff in a heart beat just dont schedual against other nonwing pavement shows that would let us run about 15 shows and that would be great.