Public Forum – Sept. 1, 2010


Missed Opportunity
I’m writing about the recent USAC Sprint and Must See Sprint races at Salem (Ind.) Speedway. In a time when car counts have been an issue, my family thought that having a show including both sanctioning bodies was a big step toward increasing the car count for USAC, but they didn’t take advantage of what was right in front of them.

The Must See Sprints had 23 cars on hand and USAC had 13 cars on hand. With the exception of the wings and car setup there is virtually no difference in the race cars.

One would think that after towing to Salem and all the cost involved that several race teams would have taken advantage of both sanctioning purses and tried to earn as much money as possible to make the trip and race worth the attempt.

This would have been exciting to see. We thought that at least seven or eight cars would have run both shows. Only one car attempted to start, but did not race the feature. We came to find out USAC made it hard on the Must See Sprint teams and basically impossible to make this happen by not having a one-day pass, instead having all the red tape of registration and membership involved.

Going forward USAC is going to have to create a way to have this happen if it wants to increase the pavement car counts, and to entertain and maintain the fans who pay for the tickets.

Both shows were very good, but we believe the Must See Sprints showed up USAC on this day. With 36 sprint cars on hand USAC only had 13 cars race its feature. USAC missed an opportunity to grow.

Joe Green
Bedford, Ind.

Action Is Needed
So Robin Pemberton feels that the action between Kyle Busch and Brad Keselowski in the Bristol Nationwide race was just good, hard racing?

Is that the term one gives to intentionally wrecking someone as Kyle did to Brad? Perhaps someone can give Pemberton a good, hard kick to the head. Maybe that’s what Robin’s brain needs since it hasn’t truly worked in awhile.

I’m hoping to see more of the drivers engage in good, hard racing with Kyle Busch, hopefully resulting in many DNFs for the arrogant piece of garbage.

Ken Bagenstose, Jr.
Temple, Pa.

Cheaper Is Better
I was heartened to note that after 35 years of running up the costs on what started out as a cheaper, four-cylinder, stock-based engine alternative to the Offy midget engines, some midget clubs are finally recognizing the need to limit unnecessarily high engine costs that limit participation.

While I enjoy high-tech, high-powered engines, the fact is the current stock four-cylinder DOHC four-valve engines are far more high-tech than their higher priced pushrod two-valve alternatives that only prevail due to their higher allowed cubic inches.

In 1975 we had stock-based Chevy/Cosworth DOHC aluminum engines, often powering low-slung offset roadsters, when diversity was more appreciated.

Since then convention, but not costs, have been locked in. In the last 25 years the automotive industry has been essentially selling high-tech midget racing type 2-2.4 liter stock engines, but the rules discriminated against them.

With stock turboed 2.4-liter engines putting out more than 300 reliable warranted bhp, for a quarter the cost, it’s hard to imagine why these flex-fueled engines aren’t being used.

Even with new rods, pistons, dry sump and self-starters it’s a no-brainer. Think three-quarter midgets!

Dick Lee
Seattle, Wash.