HoseHeads.com | HoseHeads Classifieds | Racer's Auction
Home | Register | Contact | Verify Email | FAQ |
Blogs | Photo Gallery | Press Release | Results | HoseheadsClassifieds.com


Welcome Guest. Already registered? Please Login

 

Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: filtalr  /  hosehead


Records per page
 
Topic: If a fan rewrote the 410 sprint car specs Email this topic to a friend | Subscribe to this TopicReport this Topic to Moderator
Page 1 of 3   of  52 replies
Murphy
May 08, 2018 at 09:05:58 PM
Joined: 05/26/2005
Posts: 1001
Reply
This message was edited on May 09, 2018 at 08:27:35 PM by Murphy

Conversation starter about how to redirect 410 sprintcar racing-

1) 4'x5' top wing. Sideboards to have same verticle offset on both sides. This would take away 20% of the downforce and some of the rudder effect.
2) Narrower rear tires- maybe 20% narrower?
3) A harder tire compound. Have it tested after the race. It hits the prescribed hardness; it passes. There would be no single manufacturer rules.
4)50# added to the minimum weight. This would allow the addition of some more safety equipment without having to make weight allowances somewhere else. Heck- maybe they could put on some real nerf bars and tail bars.
5) A realistic engine rule. Let the major engine builders put their heads together and come up with specs that lower the costs, provide good, dependable engines and is easily inspected. I don't know what that would be- maybe something to do with compression or intake size, etc.? I bet the engine people have ideas.
6) A better qualifying process that does not involve time trials. I have an idea that would combine elements of random draw, passing points and back row challenges. The Murphy line-up system.
7) Have the damn track race ready when the cars hot lap. 




blazer00
May 09, 2018 at 12:05:48 AM
Joined: 06/10/2015
Posts: 2147
Reply

How about: 

8) One established top wing angle

9) Only (X) number of inches in stagger. Maybe pre-set for each individual track.



TBSprintFan
May 09, 2018 at 12:39:07 AM
Joined: 02/01/2016
Posts: 52
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Murphy on May 08 2018 at 09:05:58 PM

Conversation starter about how to redirect 410 sprintcar racing-

1) 4'x5' top wing. Sideboards to have same verticle offset on both sides. This would take away 20% of the downforce and some of the rudder effect.
2) Narrower rear tires- maybe 20% narrower?
3) A harder tire compound. Have it tested after the race. It hits the prescribed hardness; it passes. There would be no single manufacturer rules.
4)50# added to the minimum weight. This would allow the addition of some more safety equipment without having to make weight allowances somewhere else. Heck- maybe they could put on some real nerf bars and tail bars.
5) A realistic engine rule. Let the major engine builders put their heads together and come up with specs that lower the costs, provide good, dependable engines and is easily inspected. I don't know what that would be- maybe something to do with compression or intake size, etc.? I bet the engine people have ideas.
6) A better qualifying process that does not involve time trials. I have an idea that would combine elements of random draw, passing points and back row challenges. The Murphy line-up system.
7) Have the damn track race ready when the cars hot lap. 



All of your points are excellent esp. the qualifying process (1 car on the track all by itself is so boring) . It is too bad that you do not work for the WoO.  This would be a great start to keeping more drivers in the sport and also in attracting new ones.



Dryslick Willie
May 09, 2018 at 05:06:58 AM
Joined: 12/17/2009
Posts: 1244
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Murphy on May 08 2018 at 09:05:58 PM

Conversation starter about how to redirect 410 sprintcar racing-

1) 4'x5' top wing. Sideboards to have same verticle offset on both sides. This would take away 20% of the downforce and some of the rudder effect.
2) Narrower rear tires- maybe 20% narrower?
3) A harder tire compound. Have it tested after the race. It hits the prescribed hardness; it passes. There would be no single manufacturer rules.
4)50# added to the minimum weight. This would allow the addition of some more safety equipment without having to make weight allowances somewhere else. Heck- maybe they could put on some real nerf bars and tail bars.
5) A realistic engine rule. Let the major engine builders put their heads together and come up with specs that lower the costs, provide good, dependable engines and is easily inspected. I don't know what that would be- maybe something to do with compression or intake size, etc.? I bet the engine people have ideas.
6) A better qualifying process that does not involve time trials. I have an idea that would combine elements of random draw, passing points and back row challenges. The Murphy line-up system.
7) Have the damn track race ready when the cars hot lap. 



Not bad ideas at all, but a couple of these things could never happen.   As far as no single tire manufacturer, that won't happen because of the money involved.  Same thing with the engine builders.   They're never gonna get together to lower costs if it would take money out of their pocket.  



Murphy
May 09, 2018 at 07:33:52 AM
Joined: 05/26/2005
Posts: 1001
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Dryslick Willie on May 09 2018 at 05:06:58 AM

Not bad ideas at all, but a couple of these things could never happen.   As far as no single tire manufacturer, that won't happen because of the money involved.  Same thing with the engine builders.   They're never gonna get together to lower costs if it would take money out of their pocket.  



    Never say never. With the right incentives (and pressure) a lot of things could be possible.

     I'd think that with sprint car racing currently dwindling, the amount of spec tires being sold is going down as well. Rebuild the sport and you'd rebuild tire demand. They'd lose out on the monopoly of being a track or sanction tire, but they probably give back most of that money in kickbacks (officially called rebates in our modern business climate). They'd sell more tires. It would be up to them to figure out how to make more money on the tires.

     The engine builders must be in a similar situation. If there's more engines to build, there's potential to make money. If the engine is $60,000 or $40,000, if one brand is dominating, demand for their engines goes up. Every time I read an interview with an engine builder, they seem to agree that something needs to be done about excalating costs. None ever say "Yeah, engine costs are getting so bad that fewer and fewer people can afford to race. Of course that's fine with me because I'm making a bundle on the ones that are left."



Murphy
May 09, 2018 at 08:09:54 AM
Joined: 05/26/2005
Posts: 1001
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: TBSprintFan on May 09 2018 at 12:39:07 AM

All of your points are excellent esp. the qualifying process (1 car on the track all by itself is so boring) . It is too bad that you do not work for the WoO.  This would be a great start to keeping more drivers in the sport and also in attracting new ones.



The Murphy qualifying system. The devil is always in the details, but here's the rough framework:

1) Line up all the heat races on a random draw
2) Post the lineups
3) Award points for where a car finishes
4) Award points for passing
5)When the cars approach the flagstand for the *1 to go* signal, the two front row starters have to decide if they want to start on the back row. If either or both want to, they to move back right then and be ready to race next lap around.
6)Award bonus points to drivers who go to the back row.
7)Features are then lined up by points earned in their heat races. Highest points starts on the pole.


     You'd have to do a lot of war-gaming with the points awarded to come up with a good, workable system. I'd want the guy that goes from 6th to 2nd to end up with more points than the guy who won from the pole. I'd want the guy who gave up the pole to start in back and finished 3rd to get more points than the 2 guys who finished ahead of him. Who wants to see Schatz and Gravel give up their front row starting spots and start their heat race Tail-end-Charlie



racefanigan
May 09, 2018 at 09:19:06 AM
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 147
Reply

I like the Sprints on Dirt rules. Open motor rules, basically run whatcha brung, however you ojly have 1 RR and 1 LR tire. RR is a Hoosier 100/13-15 medium, and Lr is a Hoosier 92/12.5-15 D15 compound. RR is the same compund as we run now, LR is a bit harder, but much smaller from the 105/16-15 or the 105/18-15 tires for the RR and the 90-96/15-15 tires for the LR. Evens the playing field.

Now this does not mean that you can only use 1 rr and 1 lr all night, you can change tires, however they have to be stamped the same. Anyone that knows anything about tires, knows that you can grow them, you could probably play with about 1.5 inches of stagger, so there is still some setup room, but still keeps everyone on the same playing field.



Keyboard Jockey
May 09, 2018 at 10:13:35 AM
Joined: 04/16/2014
Posts: 271
Reply

1) 4'x5' top wing. Sideboards to have same verticle offset on both sides. This would take away 20% of the downforce and some of the rudder effect. Good thought but what do you do with the existing 10,000's of 5X5 wings? What about wicker bills, pointed nosed, blunt noses, sideboard lead's, dish, flat, sideboard size? I see this potential rule change to be a logistical nightmare. you are talking about lowering engine costs, what ever they are able to take out of spending on the engines they would certainly make it back up by spending it on this new wing rule.  $15,000 minimum team expense


2) Narrower rear tires- maybe 20% narrower? 15" RR and 13" LR has some merit. Teams would be throwing away $10,000's of dollars in existing RR & LR wheels made obsolete, buying new 15" RR DBL wheels, and 13" LR DBL at $600 each to build inventory from scratch. $25,000 minimum team expense

3) A harder tire compound. Have it tested after the race. It hits the prescribed hardness; it passes. There would be no single manufacturer rules. Very fine line to walk on here, Immediately after the race? exact amount of time? temperature of the tire? what if the winner drives through a puddle? What if the tire blows at the finish line? 

4)50# added to the minimum weight. This would allow the addition of some more safety equipment without having to make weight allowances somewhere else. Heck- maybe they could put on some real nerf bars and tail bars. Compromise 25 lbs. 

5) A realistic engine rule. Let the major engine builders put their heads together and come up with specs that lower the costs, provide good, dependable engines and is easily inspected. I don't know what that would be- maybe something to do with compression or intake size, etc.? I bet the engine people have ideas.  Engine builders need to make money too, creating an everyone gets the same regardless of who you get it from for competition reasons is kind of like... I'm not even going to go there. It is a beautiful thing if you can build a better mouse trap than the guy next to you because you have done more homework than the guy next to you. There is a reason why teams have proprietary engine builders. 

6) A better qualifying process that does not involve time trials. I have an idea that would combine elements of random draw, passing points and back row challenges. The Murphy line-up system. Time trials is a part of 410 sprint car racing, ASCS already does that and it works for them. 

7) Have the damn track race ready when the cars hot lap.  Explain how this can be a rule, how it can actually be policed... if hot laps doesn’t roll off at 6:15 and the clock strikes 6:16 do you tell the teams to load up and head on down the road?

8) One established top wing angle. before the race? after the race? measured in victory lane? measured on a concrete slab before and after the race? what if the car has a flat LR tire? what if the car has a flat front tire? 

9) Only (X) number of inches in stagger. Maybe pre-set for each individual track. At who's cost?  RR's and LR's are inconsistent enough as it is. Does a team get 2 tires at the beginning of the night  everyone with the same chalk marks?  A 109 1/2" RR and a 99 1/2" LR. if you walked to the tire truck today and asked for those chalks your tires will come out anywhere from 103"-107" and 92"-95" if you are at Placerville the guy with the 107 and 93 is a lot better off. if you are at rolling wheels the guy with the 103 and 95 are probably better off. 

 

 

I do understand what you guys are trying to do and come up with but if you dont look at the little details all you are doing is spending a ton of other peoples money. 

I'll offer a few suggestions of my own, 

1. One RR tire all night, pick your compound and manage your RR tire. if it goes flat while not racing must be replaced with a used RR of the same compound. 

2. 1425 minimum weight, strongly encourage adding fire suppression systems. 

3. No wing slider, I don’t like it but it levels the playing field. 



Murphy
May 09, 2018 at 11:26:52 AM
Joined: 05/26/2005
Posts: 1001
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Keyboard Jockey on May 09 2018 at 10:13:35 AM

1) 4'x5' top wing. Sideboards to have same verticle offset on both sides. This would take away 20% of the downforce and some of the rudder effect. Good thought but what do you do with the existing 10,000's of 5X5 wings? What about wicker bills, pointed nosed, blunt noses, sideboard lead's, dish, flat, sideboard size? I see this potential rule change to be a logistical nightmare. you are talking about lowering engine costs, what ever they are able to take out of spending on the engines they would certainly make it back up by spending it on this new wing rule.  $15,000 minimum team expense


2) Narrower rear tires- maybe 20% narrower? 15" RR and 13" LR has some merit. Teams would be throwing away $10,000's of dollars in existing RR & LR wheels made obsolete, buying new 15" RR DBL wheels, and 13" LR DBL at $600 each to build inventory from scratch. $25,000 minimum team expense

3) A harder tire compound. Have it tested after the race. It hits the prescribed hardness; it passes. There would be no single manufacturer rules. Very fine line to walk on here, Immediately after the race? exact amount of time? temperature of the tire? what if the winner drives through a puddle? What if the tire blows at the finish line? 

4)50# added to the minimum weight. This would allow the addition of some more safety equipment without having to make weight allowances somewhere else. Heck- maybe they could put on some real nerf bars and tail bars. Compromise 25 lbs. 

5) A realistic engine rule. Let the major engine builders put their heads together and come up with specs that lower the costs, provide good, dependable engines and is easily inspected. I don't know what that would be- maybe something to do with compression or intake size, etc.? I bet the engine people have ideas.  Engine builders need to make money too, creating an everyone gets the same regardless of who you get it from for competition reasons is kind of like... I'm not even going to go there. It is a beautiful thing if you can build a better mouse trap than the guy next to you because you have done more homework than the guy next to you. There is a reason why teams have proprietary engine builders. 

6) A better qualifying process that does not involve time trials. I have an idea that would combine elements of random draw, passing points and back row challenges. The Murphy line-up system. Time trials is a part of 410 sprint car racing, ASCS already does that and it works for them. 

7) Have the damn track race ready when the cars hot lap.  Explain how this can be a rule, how it can actually be policed... if hot laps doesn’t roll off at 6:15 and the clock strikes 6:16 do you tell the teams to load up and head on down the road?

8) One established top wing angle. before the race? after the race? measured in victory lane? measured on a concrete slab before and after the race? what if the car has a flat LR tire? what if the car has a flat front tire? 

9) Only (X) number of inches in stagger. Maybe pre-set for each individual track. At who's cost?  RR's and LR's are inconsistent enough as it is. Does a team get 2 tires at the beginning of the night  everyone with the same chalk marks?  A 109 1/2" RR and a 99 1/2" LR. if you walked to the tire truck today and asked for those chalks your tires will come out anywhere from 103"-107" and 92"-95" if you are at Placerville the guy with the 107 and 93 is a lot better off. if you are at rolling wheels the guy with the 103 and 95 are probably better off. 

 

 

I do understand what you guys are trying to do and come up with but if you dont look at the little details all you are doing is spending a ton of other peoples money. 

I'll offer a few suggestions of my own, 

1. One RR tire all night, pick your compound and manage your RR tire. if it goes flat while not racing must be replaced with a used RR of the same compound. 

2. 1425 minimum weight, strongly encourage adding fire suppression systems. 

3. No wing slider, I don’t like it but it levels the playing field. 



     I apologize for this reply getting a little wonky. I can't see a clear way to respond to your notes at the end of each of my numbered notes above, and a couple of those numbered above were added by someone else. I do appreciate that some folks are willing to offer opinions. Yes- you do have to look at all the details. A lot of what's causing the racing community heartburn now is that it's been easier to just let things go.

In response to keyboard jockey above:

1) Wings- yes the people involved in the sport would have to get together and zero in on wing specs. Would having 20% less downforce save enough on engine wear to pay for new wings? Would an enterprising sould figure out how to remodel the existing wings? Would the expense for different wings be a onetime expense that becomes a continual cost savings after the first season (or the fist half dozen flips, whichever comes first)?

2)Tires- sort of the same thoughts as wings (exept for the remodeling part). Is there a class of racers like late models that uses the wider tires?

3) Yes- needs some clarification. How 'bout on the scale right after it's confirmed that the car made wieght?

4) Weight. The racing community as a whole should hash that out. I think we all agree some extra safety could be built into the cars.

5)Engines. Let's ask the engine builders. They will still make money- why wouldn't they? Let's be honest here. If the rule was changed to inline Chevy 6-cylinder engines tomorrow, Schatz would still have the best one and his favorite builder would supply it. I'd hope to shout that it wouldn't cost $60,000 but the cost to freshen it up should be less.

6)Time trials are part of sanctioned winged sprint car racing. Exactly half the world loves it, half the world hates it. It gives the advantage to high dollar teams.

7) Track prep- not so much a rule as a wish. Yes there are exceptions to every scenario, but how many times have you watched follow the leader heat races on a slimy, one lane track? Does that do any good for the racers or fans? It kind of goes hand in hand with the other thing that drives fans crazy- quit dinkin' around and get the show on the raod.

8) Wing angle- this was added by someone else. I'm kinda more in tune with the comment added down below about wing sliders. How 'bout eliminating wing adjustments from the driver?

1) (At the bottom). I'm not sure I understand how having a RR tire per night saves anything. As long as you have to meet the same hardness standard as everyone else after the race, what's the advantage of putting on a different tire?

9) Stagger- again, someone else added that. I don't how that could even be checked let alone enforced. As such, I don't see much value in it or how it could reduce racing costs.

Keep in mind, I'm not a racer or engine builder. I'm a long time fan. Folks have ideas. Let's talk about them.





linbob
May 09, 2018 at 12:02:36 PM
Joined: 03/12/2011
Posts: 1167
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Murphy on May 08 2018 at 09:05:58 PM

Conversation starter about how to redirect 410 sprintcar racing-

1) 4'x5' top wing. Sideboards to have same verticle offset on both sides. This would take away 20% of the downforce and some of the rudder effect.
2) Narrower rear tires- maybe 20% narrower?
3) A harder tire compound. Have it tested after the race. It hits the prescribed hardness; it passes. There would be no single manufacturer rules.
4)50# added to the minimum weight. This would allow the addition of some more safety equipment without having to make weight allowances somewhere else. Heck- maybe they could put on some real nerf bars and tail bars.
5) A realistic engine rule. Let the major engine builders put their heads together and come up with specs that lower the costs, provide good, dependable engines and is easily inspected. I don't know what that would be- maybe something to do with compression or intake size, etc.? I bet the engine people have ideas.
6) A better qualifying process that does not involve time trials. I have an idea that would combine elements of random draw, passing points and back row challenges. The Murphy line-up system.
7) Have the damn track race ready when the cars hot lap. 



Lower the compression on engines to say 13.5 and reduce injector stacks to  2.5 inch.  These are easy to check. Make a few changes at a time on tires hardness.  You do not want to have rules that make cars look like toys.  Small tire and a little wing are not the way to go.  Years ago they should have outlawed  titanium.  If no one had it what difference would it make?



sdhuntandfish
May 09, 2018 at 12:13:34 PM
Joined: 08/07/2012
Posts: 49
Reply
This message was edited on May 09, 2018 at 12:14:13 PM by sdhuntandfish

Quick question. Didn't Donny win the Knoxville world challenge at the Nationals a few years back with thier LS based "crate" that was supposed to cost around $20 grand new? And a refresh schedule that was much longer than the current 410 engine? There were some pretty stout cars in that field if I remember right...

Why on earth didnt that technology stick? Seems like a good program for most local budget racers.



JP50138
May 09, 2018 at 12:18:24 PM
Joined: 04/25/2016
Posts: 5
Reply

This is a good topic, and I hope it keeps going with positive feedback.  Obviously, everybody wants to see better racing and more passing, and I like a lot of what's been mentioned here, but overall I think sprint car racing needs to get back closer to its roots, with less rules!! Keep it simple.  Safety rules need to stay in place, including a minimum weight rule and minimum tubing thickness.  I think a wing rule is important, and it should be 20 sq. ft. (or maybe even 16 sq. ft.) but just as important would be a side panel rule, limiting the maximum cross section of sideboards on the top wing AND nose wing.   That would clean up the dirty air and take away downforce which would make passing easier and the racing better.  Keep the rules that you do have simple, and let the racers have room to be creative, which will also make more passing.  If you change the wing rules, you don't need to worry too much about the engine rules, make sure it's 410 cubic inches, and let them race.  They already de-tune the engines in a lot of places, so this would even the playing field even more, and make engines that are slightly down on horsepower more competitive.  I think with smaller wings it might be better to go to a softer tire, or at least have an option for a softer tire, which will also help passing and make better racing, and will allow the teams to have a couple of different strategies once it's main event time. 

With these simple changes, you could change the race formats, and give the best driver/car combination the opportunity to compete throughout the night and the best combination at the end of the night will win, and it will be exciting.  

 

 

 



blazer00
May 09, 2018 at 12:37:16 PM
Joined: 06/10/2015
Posts: 2147
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: sdhuntandfish on May 09 2018 at 12:13:34 PM

Quick question. Didn't Donny win the Knoxville world challenge at the Nationals a few years back with thier LS based "crate" that was supposed to cost around $20 grand new? And a refresh schedule that was much longer than the current 410 engine? There were some pretty stout cars in that field if I remember right...

Why on earth didnt that technology stick? Seems like a good program for most local budget racers.



That definately is a viable solution. So why then didn't that approach stick? Simple. A $20,000 crate engine takes the advantage away from the wealthy teams. The WoO would never insert an engine like that in to the rules book. The success of the wealthy teams (or so they think) is what the success of the WoO hinges on. In my mind as time progresses the success of the wealthy teams will cause the end. Even the playing field and too many drivers/teams become threats to winning a larger portion of the money. This is a sport of the haves and have nots, more so than ever before which is too bad.



blazer00
May 09, 2018 at 12:41:34 PM
Joined: 06/10/2015
Posts: 2147
Reply

P.S. And I'm not anti WoO. Nothing I'd like more than to see 30 plus travellers on the road all making a good living, and local racers being able to attract more sponsors and be competitive. But the way it is becoming now, the local driver can't begin to raise enough money to keep racing.



jz77
May 09, 2018 at 01:17:02 PM
Joined: 08/19/2017
Posts: 12
Reply

The more the cars are identical the less passing you will see (NASCAR).  Less rules = better racing.  The more shock/tire/wing  combinations etc., the more passing you will see.  Allow some inovation back in the sport.  Getting to be to cookie cutter.



BigRightRear
May 09, 2018 at 01:17:29 PM
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 3692
Reply

Limit wings and tire width / compounds..any engine manufacturer / size you want but no turbo, no nitro, no hybrid... methanol single spark.

Cheap horsepower with less rebuilds... Donny Schatz engine or bigger! 


Lincoln 1845 ft/.35 mile T1=118MPH 
Eldora 2287 ft/.43mile T3=135MPH
Port 2716 ft/.51 mile T3=TBD
Grove 2792 ft/.53 mile T3=135MPH
Selinsgrove 2847 ft/.54 mile T1=136MPH
"I didn't move to PA from El Paso in search of better 
weather." Van May

SAF92
May 09, 2018 at 02:29:22 PM
Joined: 01/24/2018
Posts: 135
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Murphy on May 08 2018 at 09:05:58 PM

Conversation starter about how to redirect 410 sprintcar racing-

1) 4'x5' top wing. Sideboards to have same verticle offset on both sides. This would take away 20% of the downforce and some of the rudder effect.
2) Narrower rear tires- maybe 20% narrower?
3) A harder tire compound. Have it tested after the race. It hits the prescribed hardness; it passes. There would be no single manufacturer rules.
4)50# added to the minimum weight. This would allow the addition of some more safety equipment without having to make weight allowances somewhere else. Heck- maybe they could put on some real nerf bars and tail bars.
5) A realistic engine rule. Let the major engine builders put their heads together and come up with specs that lower the costs, provide good, dependable engines and is easily inspected. I don't know what that would be- maybe something to do with compression or intake size, etc.? I bet the engine people have ideas.
6) A better qualifying process that does not involve time trials. I have an idea that would combine elements of random draw, passing points and back row challenges. The Murphy line-up system.
7) Have the damn track race ready when the cars hot lap. 



How about.....

1) Sprint car racing is great the way it is.

2) If you don't like it go watch something else.

3) Owning and driving sprint cars isn't for everyone.

4) If you can't afford it, do something else.

5) Passing points suck.

6) The Allstars already have a fair qualifying format that should be adopted by everyone.

7) Track race ready for hot laps? if you mean some rubber laid down, a cushion built up, multiple grooves? Dont know how that would ever be accomplished for hot laps.



SAF92
May 09, 2018 at 02:37:48 PM
Joined: 01/24/2018
Posts: 135
Reply
This message was edited on May 09, 2018 at 02:43:49 PM by SAF92
Reply to:
Posted By: blazer00 on May 09 2018 at 12:05:48 AM

How about: 

8) One established top wing angle

9) Only (X) number of inches in stagger. Maybe pre-set for each individual track.



Next you wanna get rid of crew chiefs? Have drivers hop in rental rides like its a public go-kart track or something?



SAF92
May 09, 2018 at 02:40:25 PM
Joined: 01/24/2018
Posts: 135
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: TBSprintFan on May 09 2018 at 12:39:07 AM

All of your points are excellent esp. the qualifying process (1 car on the track all by itself is so boring) . It is too bad that you do not work for the WoO.  This would be a great start to keeping more drivers in the sport and also in attracting new ones.



The WoO has a record amount of teams following the tour this year. And the number of full-time followers has increased every year for the past 3 years. Not to mention you can now watch every race live on PPV for a very affordable price. I just find myself disagreeing with this topic and every reply in it.



Murphy
May 09, 2018 at 02:54:45 PM
Joined: 05/26/2005
Posts: 1001
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: SAF92 on May 09 2018 at 02:29:22 PM

How about.....

1) Sprint car racing is great the way it is.

2) If you don't like it go watch something else.

3) Owning and driving sprint cars isn't for everyone.

4) If you can't afford it, do something else.

5) Passing points suck.

6) The Allstars already have a fair qualifying format that should be adopted by everyone.

7) Track race ready for hot laps? if you mean some rubber laid down, a cushion built up, multiple grooves? Dont know how that would ever be accomplished for hot laps.



    Thanks for the reply. You seem like a passionate sprint car fan. At the rate things are going, where do you see this in 10 years? When I look back on it 40 years, 30,20 or 10 years, the sport is shrinking.

To your thoughts-

1)The WoO etc. depend on local cars to fill their fields. They don't carry enough cars on their own to be like NASCAR. My feeling is that if nothing is done to keep the sport from shrinking, it will look like Formula One racing.

2) I do like it. I want it to continue. Heck- I want it to grow.

3) Can't disagree there.

4) I'm a fan. If too many racers can't afford it I'll have nothing to be a fan of.

5) & 6) Huh? I thought the AllStars format was based on passing points?

7) As I mentioned in a post above, that's more of a wish.


     Out of curiosity, what part of the country are in? How healthy is the local sprint car racing?

 





Post Reply
You must be logged in to Post a Message.
Not a member register Here.
Already registered? Please Login





If you have a website and would like to set up a forum here at HoseHeadForums.com
please contact us by using the contact link at the top of the page.

© 2018 HoseHeadForums.com Privacy Policy