SC96 -

Not sure it helps but Spartan Speedway has always run on Fri & Sun nights forever. It always has been a racy, little 1/4 mile. They seem to have a great crowd most every night, too, with or without any open wheel shows running. It pulls crowds from Lansing & Jackson pretty well. They own the currently closed & for sale Springport Speedway, too, which is nearby.

Hope it works out.
Jimmy B.

Honestly: I don't have a good way of explaining it to you, but what F1,IRL,and NASCAR do just isn't the same as what the sprint midget guys do. You or someone brought up safety concerns regarding tire competition and how open competition could actually lead to safety concerns. Long story short; if sprints and midgets were running 500 mile events at or near 200 mph; I can see where the safety concerns may play a part, but for 25-50 lap events it just shouldn't be a concern. Although; there have been more than just a few tire failures on the dirt this year that resulted in very costly blow-outs.

In the past; when teams could work their own tire deals, the result was discounted tires to many different teams. Not just one or two, but several. If you were a driver that can get in a car a get the job done, you could swing a tire deal that you could offer to a team as incentive to have you drive for them. If you owned a team and planned to run a large amount of races; you could get a break that helped on costs.

At a given race;there may have been 15-25 teams that were on some sort of tire deal. It brought the cost of tires down and helped not just only the larger teams, but many of the medium size teams who ran on a consistant basis.

The concern is someone is getting something you are not, but honestly; that is probably happening more than you realize right now. At least to a certain degree. A durometer rule may help that situation.

Titanium and carbon fiber have both been mentioned in this thread and I know they are both on the table at the USAC meetings. Unfortunately; this is 10 years too late because of the reasons I mentioned before. Besides, what is the point of having a rule when teams will then just paint the carbon panels and lay a thin piece of cloth on them to make them look like fiberglass.

Those races of 500 miles don't have any tires that last 500 miles though. A short track tire is going to be designed to last a race unless required to last longer. Tire wars emphasis qualifying which almost always means softer tires which when pushed to the max sometimes results in tires that fail before the end of the race. But let's let that one go for now.

You say that not just one or two teams were getting tire deals but several. How many is several in relation to the entire field? Even if several is 10 teams and the field is 20 then half the field is NOT getting tire deals. What was the feeling of those teams that didn't get a tire deal? Can you think of anyone not getting a deal that thought it was ok for you to get a deal? If so, are they still racing in that division?

If as many as 25 teams got deals, that may have been the entire field. If that is the case, where is the savings for the teams? If they are all getting a deal, why wouldn't the tire company just lower the price to everyone?

What about supplying the field. Let's say Hoosier is the hot setup through qualifying and half the field is on Goodyears. Will Hoosier have enough stock on hand to supply all the other teams if they want to make a switch? If both companies have enough tires to supply the entire field, who pays for the extra tires that were produced but not purchased?

Before the advent of spec tires they had open tire rules. Spec tires were the result of fighting the abuses of the open tire rule. I don't know how old you are but M&H tires went to court to oppose spec tire rules, even though at some tracks they were the spec tire. They lost and spec tires won out because the track/series operators were able to show that without spec tires their series would suffer to the point of extinction.

I didn't remember anyone bring up the CF or titinium issue before, but that's ok. I don't think either of those things are what is keeping cars at home, but I am pretty sure tires are. Even exotic and high dollar engines aren't keeping some from racing. I know of examples of 305s running against 360s and 360s running against 410s. I think most if not all of those cases are on dirt, but I still think that's not the major factor of existing cars not racing. If the exotic materials are a problem, then vigorous enforcement could/should be in place.

I'm not saying the tires should not be speced. I am saying that any manufacturer should be able to manufacture tires to meet that spec. Then the tires can be sold on the open market. If 2-5 different companies are producing the tires, then there is alot of opportunity for you,me or anyone else to get a good price on tires.

Everyone is so worried about this being fair and that being fair, but there is nothing that is completely fair. So what if not all teams have a deal? Doesn't mean they can't get one at a later date and it doesn't insure that they will lose. If you win and if you plan on being a year long competitor, why shouldn't you get a better deal than someone else? Should a team that only races 5 races a year be able to buy tires at the same price as a team that races every race? How is that fair?

We ran MH tires for years.

The spec tire system in place today where a company pays a track or organization to run their tires under the guise of placing a portion of that money back into the point fund is just as abusive. Tire costs go up every year and unless you run top 10(Most clubs) you never sniff the tire money. You(The team/Driver) have just rewarded the top 10 in points; money out of your pocket. How fair is that?

Hhhmmm...Point fund contributions and "the have's" racing team tire deals have always puzzled me.
It shows just how far out of whack the cost structure has gotten with any open-wheel pavement series.
It also shines some light on some ethical questions & makes you wonder if it's good overall for racing.

The questions remain:

- From a cost standpoint for any racing team, why wouldn't it try to get their own tire deal of any kind?
- From an overall support standpoint, though, why would a tire company run the risk of alienating a majority of other teams?
- Does it make sense that ownership of racing organizations w/their own teams competing get a tire cost advantage?
- Besides the sanctions themselves, does anyone really have an idea how much tire money goes to a point fund? Should they?
- What does a "point fund" actually mean? Apparently, other teams don't know either when they receive a small check at yr-end.
- From a market share standpoint, why wouldn't a tire company work deals w/sanctioning bodies & tracks for exclusivity?
- From a sales standpoint, why wouldn't a tire company make series-specific tire compounds?
- And, finally, is it more like the tail wagging the dog here? I bet if you ask (10) racing teams - at least, (7) would agree.

Seems like quite a monster here. Maybe, I love this stuff too much. Call it passion or even naivety.
Maybe I can help? I have lots of all-encompassing ideas & possibilities.

Anyway...Peace out -- :-)
Jimmy Baumgartner

The problem is there aren't lots of sellers. There are only a few, usually 2. The incentive for them to cut prices is at best temporary. Sure they'll cut prices if they see a chance to drive their competition out of business, but once they accomplish that, they'll go back up on the prices and probably add enough to recoup any losses that the price war cost them. Also the good price you are suggesting assumes that there is a large profit margin in the tires as sold now.

I agree that most things cannot realistically be completely fair, but fairness is the reason to have rules of any kind. Fairness is what encourages participation. And since increasing participation is the subject of this thread, I'd say that's a worthy goal even if it's not perfect. Pricing based on volume is a marketing strategy. I don't think the number of tires any one team even without tire rules would be enough to encourage much of a discount in such a limited market. Why should a team racing just 5 times a year buy tires at the same price as someone racing 20 times a year? Again, if you are looking at increasing fields, then any barriers on teams that don't participate as much can be significant.

Then you're too old to be racing.

Now this is another subject. It sounds like it's the same subject because both involve spec tires. But what you are talking about here is the system of selling, not the spec tires. If your track or series is abusing their monopoly status, then deal with that issue. When I used to be in sales my boss would cringe every time I used the word bribe. We liked to call our bribes "allowances." They were still bribes, but they thought "allowances" sounded better. In a regulated system, you have to regulate. That may require that you insist on more transparency. And when I say you, you is probably your organization. If you don't have one or the track or series won't open their books, then you have to decide whether or not it is worth it to you to compete with them. But that is still a different issue than spec tires or tire rules. And I completely agree with you that those things you mentioned are wrong.

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

This may be completely off the wall and if so, I was drunk or something. Or it might be a good idea and if so I'll take credit for it.

What if someone (sanctioning body, racers, fans, any combo of those) determined where the parked cars are and went out and spoke to the owners of those cars and asked them what it would take to get them back on the track? And once they knew what the barriers to participation were, worked on lowering those barriers.

How many parked cars are out there? How many of them need a motor? How many have a motor but they need a new car. Perhaps their business is slow and they can't afford to race. Or maybe their business is so busy they don't have time to race? How many of those situations could be combined to get more cars back on the track and more people enjoying the sport they once loved and likely still do?

Hey Jimmy,
Are you any relation to Zsolt? Cuz that guy ROCKS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsolt_Baumgartner
David.

Hey David -

How goes, mon? No relation that I know of.
But, I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. J/K!
Kinda cool name, though, huh? Zsolt? LOL

Shoot me a pm or email sometime.
Have a good day.
JB

On the subject to spec tires, see the thread about American Racers suit. I think they make a good argument, but I thought M&H did over the same basic issues. And I am not at all sure that if they win it will be good for racing overall.

lucky161:
In the short time we've been unfortunate to have you on this board, you have set an all-time record for flogging a dead horse. You obviously just don't want to give up on this pavement sprint deal. Let this thread die -- you know not of the topic you chose to flog. Respected members of this board have explained the facts of life to you over and over and you continue to flog anyway.