November 20, 2007
Mssrs. Deery and Carter
Dirt Motorsports, Inc.
7575 West Winds Blvd.
Suite D
Concord, NC 28027-3329

Dear Sirs:

Enclosed is our response to your Request for Proposal regarding tires for the UMP Late Model racing for weekly tracks and for special events. In summary, the proposal highlights are as follows:

1. The recommended retail price of the tires is $116 per tire.
2. A fee, to be determined by UMP DIRTcar, may be assessed to each tire sold. It is estimated that a $3.35/tire fee would be sufficient to pay the National, Regional, State and Summer National points funds in their entirety.
3. Tires are limited dimensionally and of comparable compounds like the Lucas Oil Late Model rule.
4. All manufacturers capable of meeting the dimension and hardness requirements can supply tires to the racers.
5. The tires will be uniquely marked for UMP DIRTcar Late Model racing and monthly sales of tires will be reported to UMP DIRTcar in a timely fashion.
6. No change to any manufacturer

[Chris Nunn]

What does this have to do with Sprint Cars?

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by Chris Nunn What does this have to do with Sprint Cars?

I think this line. "All manufacturers capable of meeting the dimension and hardness requirements can supply tires to the racers." Other race series tire rule allows different manufacturers. Unless of course this means sprint cars are going to run fenders at brownstown, I dunno.

[Chris Nunn]

Im still trying to figure out why he posted it on here...

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by Chris Nunn Im still trying to figure out why he posted it on here...

To get a response from sprint car owners about tire rules in usac and local tracks? Or he really wants fenders on sprint cars. Then this wouldn't be indiana open wheel, it would be........indiana any wheel? Or is that tire?

[Chris Nunn]

Well last I looked this is Indiana OPEN Wheel...

Maybe im wrong...

If I would have posted that...I would have been raked over the coals ten times over

[ThrottleHead]

I'm betting he's wanting the open wheel tracks with Hoosier tire rules to open their rules up to something similar to that. As it should be.

[Anderson36]

Have any of you read the latest Sprint Car/Midget magazine? The article about the lawsuit being carried out by American Racer is a very good read. Has anyone else heard anything more than what was in this article?

[Dirtfan]

Maybe he had a weak moment and thought it was, well you know that other place $M.

It was around this time last year that the tracks got together with Hoosier to try and mandate a spec tire. Lawrenceburg, Paragon chose an open tire rule, Kokomo chose a compound limitation rule. I found the following on another message board, and posted it here with the authors permission.

Tony Rose

People are missing the whole point. It is not *ILLEGAL* to run a one brand tire rule, it is not *ILLEGAL* to be a monopoly. Yet, according to the rules for fair business practices by the Department of Justice of the United States Government... it is illegal for a monopoly to leverage themselves using unfair business practices once they reach the state of becoming a monopoly.

American Race Tires, in their case, is alleging that in the short track motorsports market that Hoosier is a monopoly and is leveraging themselves in ways to run competition off and thwart any opportunity for competition by pulling the rug out from under their competition unfairly. THIS IS ILLEGAL. It's not illegal, by way of how the laws are written, for AR or Goodyear to undermine or use nefarious tactics to enact competition or blatantly steal marketshare by detrimental actions towards Hoosier but it is illegal for Hoosier to use those same tactics by virtue of being a monopoly, assuming AR, Goodyear, and/or BFGoodrich can prove that Hoosier holds a monopoly. These are laws that have been on the books since the Standard Oil days btw, for those curious. They were the same arguments that "convicted" Microsoft in the Department of Justice trial awhile back. In other words, Microsoft must play nice while their competition doesn't have to... and for them to stay on top they need to out innovate and remain the better and more viable product, assuming they were to start with. That is, in effect, what I believe is the best AR (and their competitive peers) can hope to ascertain from their suit.

By virtue of the # of tires sold on dirt/asphalt in the U.S. for short track racing, Hoosier by far and large has a clear sales advantage and thereby could be said to hold a monopoly over the sport based on their closest competitors sales #'s. They've used contractual agreements with racers without a fair and open opportunity for AR or Goodyear or <brand x> to compete under the written law, much less to use strong-arm tactics on racers, tracks, and car owners to prevent them from running on competitors' rubber while under contract (which Hoosier can not legally due in this set of circumstances; any evidence from the XTreme series situation years ago could be used to derail Hoosier's control in-full and could even lead to them being split into various companies). This is why AR is proposing a resolution to allow themselves an opportunity to compete.

It's not about who makes a better tire much less a cheaper tire... it's about Hoosier using their size and contractual agreements and holding them over various racers/teams/tracks/sanctions heads to prevent competition. It's about using methods that once achieving monopoly status are illegal that aren't illegal when you're in equal competition. It doesn't change the fact that Hoosier can't make dirt and/or asphalt tires, make better tires, and/or sign drivers to contracts... but it does change the reality that they need to allow an open form of competition that allows AR and Goodyear and any others to have the opportunity to compete by virtue of monopoly status. That could preclude Hoosier from holding any single-brand rulings that favor themselves.

In my honest opinion... I agree with many. AR on one hand preaches about the advantage of single brand rules (was on their website!) yet is using a government restriction to try to open up a single brand rule simply because it's not favorable to them. They showed disdain about Goodyear's involvement in XTreme a few years ago complaining about that they weren't provided an opportunity when it was never a requirement that Doug Bland and/or XTreme do so. Yet in this instance, I do believe that opening DIRTcar to multiple brands could help get Hoosier off of the hook while still being able to put tires on the track in that series. It might be wholly beneficial to do so as a way to eliminate the necessity for this trial, assuming it doesn't sort of convict them by their own actions.

Make no mistake... I'm no fan of single brand rules to start with and think that it's equally amicable that UMP, WDRL, Carolina Clash, USMTS, Fastrak, DTRA, et al. could run with rules open to all 3 brands very similar to what Lucas Oil's tire rules are designed and devised to do, perhaps preferably to eliminate the 20-style equivalents and just go with a 55-style tire (much better racing IMHO anyhow). I think it's quite feasible for Hoosier, Goodyear, and American Racer all 3 to invest in the point funds for all series' and thereby help the sport collectively, I think it's only fair that if AR and Goodyear want to be on enough cars they need to have tires competitive to what Hoosier submits and is found legal to use.

I think it's quite feasible for racers far and wide to sign contracts on a free and open market where all 3 brands can compete for racers and thereby help them get tires at competitive pricings if not via "sweet deals." In a sport where costs are already sky high and where I feel tire manufacturers are milking racers to death, I see no wrong in opening things up (as Kromulous noted) so that any racer can run any brand name tire they want as long as it falls within the series' specs and isn't designed or engineered to be anti-competitive. If it saves them some $, good deal... if there's anyone that deserves cost cutting and a better point fund in one fell swoop, it's the racers themselves. Restrict the costs in other ways and we won't need to blow purses up to epic proportions and cause promoters headaches and nausea trying to cover that which leaves them raping fans and racers at the gates to make happen. Economically, the answer to saving dirt racing isn't larger purses but less costly equipment and bills while not requiring a racer to dump everything wholesale without exerting their own right to choose. A nationally inclusive rules package tied to the weekly rules of the sport = the most ingenious way for the sport to go forward, despite the calling for a greater separation and thereby inability for the local racer to support a national show. Unhealthy... is the best word for that thought process.

I think it would benefit all 3 (or more) tire brands, all sanctions, and all racers and car owners over the long haul (i.e. long term vs. get rich quick and watch it all fold/disintegrate) assuming you have a controlled compounds restriction that allows a certain compound and no softer. This would not only eliminate the adverse affects of a tire war (think back to the NASCAR mess, much less the F1 fiasco at Indy) but require tires, via durometer, to be competitive with each other without overstepping the bounds. To go a step further, require all tires to be allowed to be submitted and certified in terms of design prior to the season's kickoff and have the sanction reserve the right to veto/remove from competition a tire at a later date with an opportunity for each brand to submit a better replacement option.

Microsoft was found to be illegal for much the same accusations that I see American Race Tires finding Hoosier to be under. Granted, the DOJ actually enabled Microsoft to tackle a new market via presenting coupons to an education market, as their penance, that they held little marketshare in prior to the hearing... thereby being opportune to "GAIN" marketshare via their penalty. It's not only disingenious but downright embarassing how missive our government was in handling that situation, so I have my doubts that AR could win a contest like this but anything is possible and I won't be surprised of an outcome either way. Yet by the written rule, if you take in the cold hard facts... what they're saying is true, they do have a valid argument, even though in the overall spectrum of what they say vs. what they're arguing... it's do as I say, not as I do, and ultimately... it's hypocritical. I've been a backer of the underdog (AR and Goodyear in this case) but in the end, even I can call them out when I disagree partially with their antics and statements.

I still think that overall... the quicker we get away from single brand rules, the better off we'll be.
__________________
-// IVI4RCU5 IVI4CK3Y //-