Too many Touring Series?

[ProTree]

and jj&s your last sentence reinforces the ole saying "its not what you know,its who you know"

[SWitzsche]

The bottom line is there are to many touring series.

[Modracer]

Many of the people who haved posted have mad good points for the touring series and some have had points against. The bottom line is this we are all racers and love to race, otherwise we wouldnt be spending the money to do it. With the current announcement I wonder how many will still race the local tracks. Probably quite a few. One of the reasons that I got into the touring series is because of my work schedule. If they had the schedule that THR has proposed I doubt that I would have got into a touring series in the first place. Five Flags has gone to a schedule that THR has propsed and they have increased there spectator count. Most families cant afford the cost that it takes to get to the tracks, whether it be as a fan or a driver. In the long run it will all work out in the end.

[Truck99]

Many of the people who haved posted have mad good points for the touring series and some have had points against. The bottom line is this we are all racers and love to race, otherwise we wouldnt be spending the money to do it. With the current announcement I wonder how many will still race the local tracks. Probably quite a few. One of the reasons that I got into the touring series is because of my work schedule. If they had the schedule that THR has proposed I doubt that I would have got into a touring series in the first place. Five Flags has gone to a schedule that THR has propsed and they have increased there spectator count. Most families cant afford the cost that it takes to get to the tracks, whether it be as a fan or a driver. In the long run it will all work out in the end.

Modracer, I've wondered the same thing. Will the part-time schedule result in an increase in the local racers and a decrease in the traveling racer? One of the greatest benefits to the traveling racer is the time off.

 

Who knows. Only time will tell. I hope that the end result is the opportunity for racers to race the type of car they really want to race and the opportunity for an increase in fan and car count across the board.

[ProTree]

racers talk about how much better it will be for them running a shorter schedule,but the ? is, will it be better for the track profit wise-

[tqj3]

Tommy-

That's a good point. One thing that occurs to me is that the fixed costs for the track don't change, but they'll have fewer races from which to draw income. They're really going to have to up the fan count for it to work.

[ProTree]

that was my thinking TQ-

[jp17]

Just my own thoughts here but maybe a limited schedule minimizes losses incurred on nights when no touring series are there. I don't pretend to be even remotely informed about the financial relationship between touring series and promoters but my guess is that tracks do better when a series is present than when not. Before the anti-series crowd gets all huffed up just remember one thing. With the possible exception of TPS (Neil help me out here) and Legends cars every series discussed in this thread came into being when some track owner or promoter decided that he had enough cars thank you very much and eliminated that particular type of car from his weekly show. Most of us didn't start in a series because we wanted to, we had to. It was the only way we could still race the cars we had. I may be in the minority but for me to change classes I would need to generate some revenue from the equipment I already have. That's pretty hard to do when your car is rendered worthless overnight because that "class" has been eliminated. If you wonder why we’re loyal to our series remember this. Those of us that started in these series were all once loyal to a track that turned it’s back on us. USRA SLM, TSRS, TAMS, ARTS, and Legacies, are bad for the sport because all we wanted to do is keep racing? Give me a break. jp

[NeilTPS]

JP: Following is the "help me out" you asked for.

 

The Texas Pro Sedans were founded 30 years ago. TPS was formed because we were racing in 24 Hour four cylinder events in Mexico and at Texas World Speedway and in the River City Road Races in Austin. At that time, Texas asphalt short tracks had no races for our type cars. Forming the first touring series in Texas satisfied a natural and double need.

 

As I understand it, the Legends were formed in Texas because the little cars were being produced in North Carolina and they wanted to expand their sales to Texas and throughout the USA. For area sales people, it was necessary to form a Texas series so that their customers would have races.

 

Neil Upchurch

Race & Administrative Director

Texas Pro Sedans

[direct-flo]

JP

 

Legacy's are bad for the sport?

 

or did I read your post wrong....

[jp17]

Thanks Neil. direct-flo: No, was not implying any of them are bad for the sport.

[fishracer]

Tsrsfan, that tricked out chassis by the way cost me less than what Ervin has built some of these SAS lm's for, because it looks different than the port city, lefthander type cars most people look at in Texas doesn't make it trick,just different. By the way the chassis with interior sheet metal was $2850.00(less suspension), I believe a new lefthander with interior sheetmetal runs more than that now. I feel confident that the winning USRA latemodel had more in the motor than I had in my whole car or close to it. The perception that Robert's car is high dollar is wrong, he works hard to make his car look good and run good with very little funding. Obviously looks mean a lot to you, just doesn't necessarily make the cars go fast. As for junk, I resemble that remark. Who says you can't recycle race car bodies.

 

The whole idea I propose is to reduce the cost of racing, but yet increase the show for the fans by increasing car counts with long term cost effective reductions to the most expensive and most consumed part of the car- the engine. Like I said there are tons of very good cars with very good drivers setting out because they can't afford or will not afford a motor for the class that fits their chassis.

 

Make rules that make motor combinations that are durable and cost effective and make the speed with weight reductions if slm type cars are the preffered chassis.

[thumper]

Rio Grande Speedway has been running bi-weekly for some time now and it has not affected their crouds except on make up dates when people dont know the scedule.What works for them is I35 races on the weekends that RGS is closed and those that want to can race there too.The Texas Thunder Cars at CC Speedway are without a doubt the least expensive race cars to race and the racing is good.You can start for under 500$ and have a front running car for under 3000$.You then can move up to Pro Sedans with minor changes if desired.The perfect solution would be to have the tracks have the same rules for regular classes and the touring series have their own rules.The biggest problem I see is too many rules packages.IMCA is the most successful touring or local class because of uniformity in rules.Makes tecking cars easier too.You can race here or Iowa with the same car.Thats what we tried to do with Thunder Cars ( mini stocks )to allow almost any kind of 4 cyl car and driver and it works.22 cars Sat.By the way,RGS runs from the first of March to Dec.Still has over 20 races a year.It nearly killed me and my brother to each campain a modified and a Thunder Car for 38 races in a row before the change.Thunder Hill and SAS both need a 4 cly regular class using the same rules as CC Motorspeedway to allow travel and for Pro Sedans to have a base to draw from for the more enabled teams.But trying to get race track owners and promoters to work together is harder than getting drivers to agree on anything.The future of racing lies in the ability of the promoters to create and sell a show.Just ask Vence McMahan or the France family.Which track actually employs a professional promoter,not a racer?A promoter will create the show and sell it.If nobody wants to buy an Edsel,it matters not how many consessions you make,it will not be a success.Add chrome wheels a big engine etc,and they will line up to buy it.Just my opinion.

[1-Crew]

Looking at how the Grand Stock class has grown at THR, I agree with Thumper.. Put the same basic rules package on a 4-cylinder class and see what develops. I wish I could find the post again but in another forum I read an excellent paragraph from a mini-stock driver that basically said he really could not identify with the V8 classes and wanted to stay in 4 cylinders. The track was using the 4 cylinder class as a rookie class and expecting the drivers to move up to V8 ranks and he was resisting with the argument that racing a momentum car was totally different than running the other classes. He enjoyed it so much he offered to add 200 lbs to the car, run a restrictor plate or whatever restriction they wanted to impose if they would just let him stay.

 

How many closet racers (or fans) are out there waiting to get involved but not willing to because they can't "identify with the V8 classes".

 

I think the limited schedule is a great idea also. I'm with the Pro-sedans but at least part of the appeal to the TPS class is the limited schedule they run. Limiting the number of races means the weekly fans get a break to do something else and the occasional fan has a target date to plan around. Sure sounds like a win-win to me..

[tsrsfan]

Caveman,

I shall not argue against it from the supposed impossibility of infinite succession, barely and absolutely considered in itself; for a reason which shall be mentioned hereafter: but if we consider such an infinite progression, as one entire endless series of beings can have no cause from without, of its existence; because in it are supposed to be included all things that are or ever were in the universe: and ’tis plain it can have no reason within itself, of its existence; because no one being in this infinite succession is supposed to be self-existent or necessary (which is the only ground or reason of existence of any thing, that can be imagined within the thing itself, as with presently more fully appear), but every one dependent on the foregoing: and where no part is necessary; ’tis manifest the whole cannot be necessary; absolute necessity of existence, not being an outward, relative, and accidental determination; but an inward and essential property of the nature of the thing which so exists.

[direct-flo]

DITTO !!