I have mixed feelings about a no testing rule. It would save the cost of the test itself, plus, it may give the funding impaired teams an increased chance of a better finish on any given day. But compared to a season long pavement budget for a serious team, a test or two, when doubled or tripled up with some other teams, isn't THAT big of a percentage of the total budget, and even less so for those competing for a points championship. Clearly though, if it were non existent, it would obvioulsy save some money for the teams that regularly test. Would they put it back in their pockets, or just spend it on something else like exotic materials(carbon fiber or example)? Money saved isn't money saved if you don't save it. It's money re-allocated. As a competitor, I like to be able to use a test as a shakedown if there is a potential problem with a car. I'd sure hate to ride all the way to Phoenix to find out I have a bent driveline, or a damaged rear end. More of a "peace of mind" thing I guess.
Tires Part 1: If there is no choice of manufacturer to the competitors, then there is no real motivation for said manufacturer to improve the product. I guess this mentality could be applied to everything in life. Why on earth would any company develop a product that would outlast the current version without being able to charge more for it? That's what competition does, right? It drives innovation while limiting costs. A "monopoly" if you will, also strips away the ability of some teams and/or drivers to have "tire deals" which means either free tires, or discounted tires. Either way, that's money that can be saved or re-allocated by those who have deals. Also, tire deals USED to help drivers get rides. Isn't that a form of ride buying? Sorry, that's another subject....... Tire width I don't get. I need someone to explain to me how this helps costs and car counts. I rather imagine that a little less raw material would result in a less expensive product. The cost in in the labor. I can see how it would turn a really strong motor into a disadvantage, so long as traction control doesn't exist.
Tires, Part 2: I have no gripes about the QUALITY of tires that HOOSIER provides us with on the USAC circuit. Tracy just set a record last Sunday on a HARDER compound than we were running ten years ago. I wouldn't call that a problem with quality. It's kinda rare to have a screwball tire that messes you up, but it does sometimes happen. C'mon. They're hand made. It's gonna happen from time to time. And, I've kinda made friends with the folks at Hoosier Tire Midwest. I like 'em. It's not my intention to take anything away from them, or anytihing like that. They aren't chemists. They don't create rubber compunds. They're on the distribution end. My questions pertain to the manufacturing end. I wonder if it's possible to create a rubber compound that doesn't become useless after 3 or 4 heat cycles. Pavement tires are affected by the number of times they gets hot, not the number of laps. For example, if we put on a brand new set of sticker tires, go out and run two laps and come in a park for 20 minutes, that's one heat cycle(roughly). Then we do that two more times. That's 3 heat cycles, and while the tires may not be completely devoid of traction, they're pretty impaired and are no match for stickers even though they only have a total of 6 laps on them. Plenty of tread left, but they're now "bricks". Champ cars run 100 lap features on one set, and still have plenty of rubber left on them, but only 1 or 2 heat cycles. At the Little 500, it's not uncommon to run 200-300 laps on one tire. Funding impaired teams probably run many more than that, and still don't see any cords. Therefore, if a tire could be "invented" that didn't lose it's "goody" so quickly, it may be able to run more than one event, which may save some folks some money or make pavement racing more appealing to some teams. I'm not a chemist, so I don't know. But I do know that in an evironment where there's absolutely no reason to even try, it won't be invented. The DT3 was supposed to accomplish that feat on dirt, but it doesn't. And it's been my observation that the guys that win on dirt, aren't running last weeks tire. They burn through DT3's at the same rate that they did the softer compounds when they were available. These are just my observations. Your mileage may vary.
Traction Control: No experience. I know it's available, but I can't decide if anyone is really using it or not. If a sanctioning body WANTED it gone, it would be gone(feel free to apply this principle to everything).
Changing headers: Different lengths of tubing and/or different diameters really do change the powerband of a motor, and to a certain degree, the horsepower and torque numbers. But the cost of an everyday pair of headers made of mild steel costs less than any two tires on the car, dirt or pavement. So, in the big picture, probably not a huge factor to most teams. If you won a race with a specific set of headers, you probably would've won it with a slightly different set.
Spec Cars: See Tires Part 1. No competion among builders equals a lack of innovation and probably a higher price. Besides, we're all running Beasts anyway. The only difference is that right now, someone COULD try to build a car to compete with Bob if he wanted to. Spike does it in Midgets. Drinan too? If there's a spec rule, that option is gone.
Summary:
1) If the current rules of any sanctioning body AREN'T enforced, then why create new ones that won't be enforced?
2) A tire manufacturer cannot call the shots. Ever. If it means they pull their point fund money, then so be it. I doubt that Keith Kunz ,or the Hoffman's, etc. are gonna quit racing because the check at the banquet in January isn't as big. They wanna win. The sanctioning body and the tire manufacturer cannot be in bed together. Business only. "You can sell tires at our races if you want to". The backlash however could be, what if nobody wants to?
3) Limiting or eliminating exotic materials or other aids like shock warmers does help, I think.
4) It seems to me that the same guys run up front, everywhere, no matter what rules or limits you impose upon them.
5) Has it ever NOT been expensive to race? Not in my experience, but I only go back about 20 years. I can't speak to what it was like before 1990. I'd bet that campaigning a midget in 1939 was pretty expensive considering what your income was at the time. In the final analysis, a person's decision to go pavement racing or not, is ultimately a business decision. Cost vs. Cost Recovery. Is it even possible to reduce the cost enough? If every single cost saving measure ever conceived were implemented, would it be enough? Purse increase? How much of an increase would it take? Where would the increased purse money come from?
I think that racing (in general) is the playground of the wealthy, but especially so on pavement. There's really no such thing as a competitive budget racer on pavement in "my" series'(USAC Sprint and Silver Crown). If you can't afford it, you can't do it, and that's what we're left with. I sure hope I get to keep doing it, and I'm sure glad that so many fans like to come out and watch it. It really is quite a conundrum.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conundrum
Most can't afford one car let alone two cars!!!!!!!!! Think about it! The pavement racing is history unless the do this!!!!