The idea of a combo car is almost impossible to enforce. How do you tell a car owner that he can't take an old dirt car, shove everything to the left and out-run a traditional dirt car? If USAC would run Bloomington more than Newton, this debate would be small.

i would like to see the cu. inches cut by 15% on all motors. that way you are not singling out 1 motor. secondly safety, lets slow the cars down. with less hp. you could go to a narrower and a little harder right rear. you may save a little tire money as well.

To me it seems that the 3 most cost effective ways to even things up
are weight,restricting induction and tires. Weight is pretty easy as 5 lbs. = 5 lbs. In Ca ,Spec Sprints must weigh 1700 lbs, so many teams use steel for floor pans,side panels,motor plates, ect. Not only cost effective but likely safer as well. Induction is a little tougher. As Mr. Moore stated, testing would have to be done and there is the rub. There would be a lot at stake for the motor builders and some (or all) might be inclined to slip in a detuned unit for said test. I ain't sayin' ....... I'm just sayn':2:. So, if a particular Engine Builder was a major series sponsor.......uhh. Which brings us to the biggest political Football in Motorsports, Tires. Believe it or not the MG-7.8 came about because of BCRA. I was on the Board in 2002 and we found out that WMRA was running the MG-8.0 as their Spec R/R. It was hard and had good repatability with most teams getting 2-3 programs on it. As I recall, the 8.0 was no longer being produced so at the 2002 Promoters Workshop in Reno, BCRA, USAC and Hoosier got together and came up with the 7.8. From our perspective, the tire did it's job with the difference in lap times between the top cars and the lower dollar teams shrinking. Having said that, just because there is a number stamped on a Tire, that is no guarantee that all Tires are equal. I will leave it at that except my opinion is that the only numbers that matter come from a durometer and the number of "winds" (nylon/rayon) .inside the tire.

So a 1000 hp or a 1500 hp engine will work in a sprint car and blow away one with the current engine?
A non-wing sprint car using a DT3 tire is just as quick as one using the old softer, wider RC1?

With respect,
Don

Don,

I would put my money on the HP. Quite some time ago we were running at Terre Haute with Dave Darland. This show featured both non-wing 410s and winged 360s.

We were already locked into the feature but we missed our hot lap session with the non-wing 410s. They shoved us off with the wing cars to get heat in our motor but waived the green for the winged hot lap session while we were still on the track.

Much to my surprise in 4 green flag laps were were not passed by a single car. I really thought they would pass us like we were tied to a post but Dave would drive away from them on the straights and they would catch us in the corners.

Horsepower rules!

Respectfully,

Rob Hoffman

Great story Rob,

The image of that brings up repressed perverse thoughts in my mind like; Who would win a 1/4th mile dirt track event
between the USAC non-wing sprint cars and the USAC midgets?

Put your money on the Horsepower or the Handling?

lol,
Don

More power equals more speed no matter what wheel and tire combo you put on the cars. That is what it boils down to.

Lets do this you buy a dirt sprint car with a 360ci engine in it and I'll buy one with a 410ci engine. You can run the softist widest baddest tire you can find and I will run a narrow DT3. We will set the cars up identical and put two drivers we feel are of equal ability in them. Then we will go to any half mile and run a match race to see who wins. Then we will bet $100,000 cash and the winner takes all. Sound like a good enough test for you??

Wait just a minute. I see several problems with this idea. 1. Where is USAC going to find the money for four engines? 2. How are you going to be sure your are getting representative samples? 3. If a certain motor produces more power, why penalize the users of that motor? It meets today's rules package. Shouldn't the builders of the other engines just work harder to catch up?

USAC, like NASCAR, would not have to buy them. Just borrow them from some of the top teams after a night of racing when there is a break in the schedule. Pay the teams for the use of the engines if you want, whater it takes. This isn't the greatest idea but it is better than not doing anything. It does, however, take away the problem of not getting a true representation of what they are running consistantly.(They should have taken them the night of Turkey Night then they would have had a nice break to get them all on the same dyno and back to the teams well before the next race).

This is not about penalizing people. This is about reducing costs, increasing reliability and leveling competition between the haves and the have nots. The budget teams cannot afford to buy a "new and improved" version of their engine every time they make a new cyl head. Heck even some of the super teams are obviously struggling to afford it. Look at how many are gone or are reducing their schedules. And they weren't even spending their own money!!!

USAC is not NASCAR and I really don't thing you are going to get anyones best motor. I have heard the name Ilmor as the one doing this independent test. That I think is a conflict of intrest as they themselves build a motor that competes with the other motors. It is going to be very hard to get a true reading unless you can take 4 cars right off of the track load them in the USAC trailer and take them to a Chassis dyno