Spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to change over engines should be the very, very last resort.

Once again I will say this for the record: As far as I know, there has been no testing on dirt or pavement tracks regarding the effect of tire and wheel size, compound, offset etc. etc. etc. IMO, this should be the starting point and work from there.

Don, your absolutely right, without computer simulations and real world testing this sport is going nowhere.

Maybe Mr. Miller could ask USAC Properties for some help.

."USAC Properties Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of USAC, conducts land speed record trials and automotive testing for many leading manufacturers in the United States. USAC is a member organization for the Automobile Competition Committee of the United States (ACCUS-FIA), which provides a direct link with the International motor sports governing body, and FIA."

While I know your intentions are good, Don, changing the tires and especially the offset(on dirt anyway) will do little to nothing for the budget racer except cause more crashes which will in turn cost more money. The same drivers and mechanics that win now would win if you changed the tires because they know how to make their cars work. Therefore, change something that matters where there is a lot of disparity between the haves and the have nots. If you want to have a chassis set-up seminar for people like yourself then do that to close the knowledge gap but don't change the tires. Changing the tires will not change how fast they go down the straightaway!! The other gap that matters most is engines and how fast they are developing more HP. The haves are producing engines that are closing in on 400HP. The have nots are stuck with engines that make, in some cases, 30-50HP less!! The have nots cannot afford to have multiple engines and refresh them every couple races and they cannot afford to buy newly developed engines every other year.

BTW changing the rev limit on the engines would not cost a thing. I don't see how USAC could make the Esslinger run the same rev limit as a push rod motor. I have not seen one post where someone has said that. I'm sure they would have a rev limit for the push rod and one for the Esslinger. And I would hope they would put a top Esslinger, Toyota, Mopar and even a Gaerte on the dyno to determine the proper rev limit instead of just picking a number out of the air. This would help alleviate the need for rebuilds every couple races due to the lower stress level on the parts and increase reliability.

I'd hate to hire a medical doctor based on the premise that many of you are advocating on here. The answers to this ongoing problem would be in the data collected from controled tests, not a group of people sitting around in a room exchanging opinions, many with biased and vested interests in some of the products being discussed.

I'm sorry but if you think anyone is making that much money off of USAC midget racing you should be seeing a doctor and one for your head. The real money in openwheel short track racing is in Sprint Cars. Way more of them than there are Midgets.

We all have biased and vested interests in the sport. The fans, drivers, car owners, car renters, vendors, tracks and sanctions all have vested interests in this deal. Some more than others though.

As a fan I have the least because when midget racing dies I can go watch Sprint cars at my local track and I'm happy. Most drivers can go race something else. Car owners will be stuck with thousands of dollars of worthless race cars and parts if midget racing dies and therefore have the most to lose. The people renting their cars have some to lose but they don't invest their own money so they don't have as much as car owners do. Vendors would lose all the time and money invested in R&D but would be able to take their knowledge and equipment and either liquidate or switch to another form of racing (most if not all are already diversified in this respect because they have to in order to make money). Tracks will just run another class of race car as they do already on other nights. Sanctions will go by the way side or try to diversify by bringing on other classes of cars as USAC has with their Off-Road trucks.

So if I was going to listen to anyone right now about midget racing it would be the people with the most invested and the most to lose. And yes Don, I would test and come up with some type of LONG TERM plan to contain costs on the engines and preferably something easy to change such as rev limits and intake sizes.

It would make way to much sense for USAC to acquire four different motors at random and put them on the dyno to actually see what numbers they are producing. If Esslinger is so dominate, then take the C.I. away. Everyone spent so much to make them bigger, why is it any different to make them smaller?

The real reason for testing is to find out what car-tire combo will make anything producing over X amount of horsepower a waste.

Please see my earlier post. There is no "car-tire combo" that will make producing more power a waste. At last look the cars still go straight down the front and back stretch where they spend most of their time using the engines power. How much will narrowing up the right rear wheel or hardening the rear tires do to level the engines up on straights?? How often are the drivers driving the more powerful engines going to lift down the straightaways and the drivers with less powerful engines not lift because that is what would need to happen to level them up?? This should be common sense people you don't even need a "test" to figure this out.

Besides that this has already been tested in years past and it did nothing to level the field. The same people won that were already winning and the haves still put on new tires every chance they got because heat cycles are the issue not tire wear. On pavement you never see a team wear out a tire but they still replace them all the time.

MHess - cutting cubic inches on the Esslinger is exactly what they should do. Never cutting cubic inches on an engine but always increasing has been the problem with engine rules in midget racing since I can remember. Thats how midget engines got to be so big.

cutting the CI's on the Esslingers is the first way to Kill Midget Racing. Especially when it is 75% of the field!!!!!!!!!

I'm still waiting on someone to actually produce some testing data of ANY KIND regarding the performance of midgets on both/either dirt or pavement...engines... tires... wheel size... offset.... whatever. A lot of hot air being blown around on here about how this is and how that is.... but nothing to hang a hat on. Personally I'm not interested in what SOMEBODY THINKS... that's an unscientific opinion based on what??? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND TEL US WHERE THE TESTING TOOK PLACE, DATE ETC AND THE RESULTS. Otherwise coming on here and saying this and saying that is just a bunch of cabbage with no basis.

If you have a medical problem, a doctor is going to start from the ground up and explore all areas that may affect your health. Nothing different in determining what is effective in racing (midget ).

Midget racing will get NOWHERE if the nay sayers step in everytime with a bunch of boloney.