[short track scott]

Originally Posted by SUPERDUKE they don't want to race with out a wing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And they would not keep up with the top 6 in usac!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe not. But the way things are going, they'll be in the top 10 when they sign in.

Go ahead. Stand on the sideline and throw crap at the players. HOSS averaged 21.4 cars on a 15 race schedule. USAC averaged 15 on 7? If that?

To borrow a term that you may not understand, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".
Posted via Mobile Device

[snoopy]

I guess Duke started great.

Without going USAC when do you learn non-wing pavement. Non-wing dirt everywhere in Indiana.

A lot of the HOSS guys would unbolt the wing if the track or series asked them to. Most promoters want the sunshades.

Many low buck guys do not like Eldora, Terre Haute, Hartford or any big engine eater track any more that they like Salem, Winchester, Berlin or Mansfield. It is all about $$$$.

JB2X, you know the problem WWOMS had with tires. Guys would not buy one set for a group and another for another group.

Unification of rules seems to have saved dirt taxis.

[Seadog]

I am just an idiot fan, who knows nothing, but what I'd like to see for tires in USAC pavement racing...

Run any brand or combination of brands, any compound, any stagger you want. Tire companies make deals with the racers and/or owners (not the sanctioning body) and offer incentives to them for winning with that tire company rubber. They get 50% of the incentive for winning with the RR, 75% for both rear tires and 100% for all fours. Or maybe owners get a price discount for using their tire and winning. I think this creates competition among companies and could be billed as "Sprint car tire wars" to make it maybe more interesting for fans.

Make the RR NARROWER. Maybe the same width as the LR. I don't know what this does as far as wear, heat cycles, blistering, etc., but I would like to see the driver finesse that throttle even more to keep those tires from spinning up off the turns.

Just my uneducated opinion. Somebody who is in the know can feel free to correct what I said.

[Dyno Don]

It is all about the purse.

They were paying $5000 to win 20 years ago. In this day and age the purse should be at least $10,000 to $15,000 to win if not more.

I am sure I would pay more for a ticket to see 30 Sprinters, vs 18 at Winchester (well maybe not Wincester). Look at Salem and the crowds they used to draw, granted the ticket price has not gone up, but the car count as gone down. Is there a relationship here, I believe so.

Up the purse so a team can at least break even and car counts would go up. Let's drop all the support series that most people do not want to see and put that money towards the main event.

It is all about the money and I believe that if you put on a good show with a good pay out, both fan and cars would show upl

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Dyno Don It is all about the purse. They were paying $5000 to win 20 years ago. In this day and age the purse should be at least $10,000 to $15,000 to win if not more. I am sure I would pay more for a ticket to see 30 Sprinters, vs 18 at Winchester (well maybe not Wincester). Look at Salem and the crowds they used to draw, granted the ticket price has not gone up, but the car count as gone down. Is there a relationship here, I believe so. Up the purse so a team can at least break even and car counts would go up. Let's drop all the support series that most people do not want to see and put that money towards the main event. It is all about the money and I believe that if you put on a good show with a good pay out, both fan and cars would show upl

$5000 to win 20 years ago? For a regular show? I'm thinking not, but your memory may be better than mine on that.

[Andrew S. Quinn]

It always amazes me that the ones that dont go to many races would like to pay more money for admission, while the fans like me that try to hit 100 races a year dont want an increase in admission.

[onthegas7j]

when i was 17 i followed the hell tour (i know fenders) but a couple of my friends were runnin it... I was workin for my dad during the morning/ days and he'd let me leave early every day now i dont know if any of you have been to a summer nationals date but admission is almost always higher, and me at 17 was still able 13 races in 4 states in just over 2 weeks... if you want to go to the race your gonna go to a race, i had an apartment and all kinda stuff to pay for but still made it work... like stated before il pay a little more to see more cars with higher quality racing.....

[racefan20]

Originally Posted by Dyno Don It is all about the purse. Let's drop all the support series that most people do not want to see and put that money towards the main event. l

As much as I hate to say it Don, the money the track makes off of the pit passes for the support classes is usually more than the purse for those classes and the rest goes to help pay the main event purse.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Andrew S. Quinn ... would like to pay more money...

Personally I would not like to pay more money for anything, anywhere, at any time.:2:

[Lucky161]

Originally Posted by Seadog I am just an idiot fan, who knows nothing, but what I'd like to see for tires in USAC pavement racing... Run any brand or combination of brands, any compound, any stagger you want. Tire companies make deals with the racers and/or owners (not the sanctioning body) and offer incentives to them for winning with that tire company rubber. They get 50% of the incentive for winning with the RR, 75% for both rear tires and 100% for all fours. Or maybe owners get a price discount for using their tire and winning. I think this creates competition among companies and could be billed as "Sprint car tire wars" to make it maybe more interesting for fans. Make the RR NARROWER. Maybe the same width as the LR. I don't know what this does as far as wear, heat cycles, blistering, etc., but I would like to see the driver finesse that throttle even more to keep those tires from spinning up off the turns. Just my uneducated opinion. Somebody who is in the know can feel free to correct what I said.

We're both fans, but I think that is a recipe for disaster. The exact opposite of what is needed, in my opinion. Tire wars are expensive and dangerous. Company H makes a deal with racers 1,2, and 3. They run off with show due to their unlimited tire supply. Company G comes in and makes a better deal with racer 2 and also makes deals with racer 4. Company G gives them better tires than anyone else has and they win the next race. Company H comes back with a better tire (better being faster, not really better) for racer 1 and 3 and they win. During this time racer 13, 14, 15 and 16 realize they don't have a chance and stay home. Company G comes back with a faster tire and their tire leads the most laps but racer 4 wears out his soft G tire and slaps the wall hard. He is uninjured, but the car is badly damaged. Next race company H comes back with an even softer/faster tire. Racer 1 appears headed to an easy win until his right front gives up and he hits the wall. His injuries are not too serious, but he's out for a couple of races. Meanwhile racer 4 makes the race in his back up car but is uncompetitive even with free tires. Racers 9,10 and 11 decide to stay home from the next race. Racers 15 and 16 are switching their cars over to dirt. You get the picture?

Oh, I forgot this part. Company G decides they are spending too much money supporting this series and quits furnishing tires to any competitor, especially free ones. Company H having won the war stops giving away tires and raises prices to pay for the free tires they gave away during the war.