No worries. That’s why this is a board for discussion and opinion. If I was the only one who felt the way I do then there would not be a challenger to what is tired,old, and boring.

I've seen it many times over the years. 40 cars. one of the first five lays down a killer lap. about 20 cars you think the tracks done nobody can touch fast time and the 39th guy comes out and lays a lap that's fast time or top five.

To me that's a statement, One car, Two laps You're a hero or zero or somewhere in between but everyone's eyes were on you, the fan heard the drivers name, the sponsor, car owner, type chassis and motor of YOUR CAR without the distraction of four or five other cars on the track.

I actually like the split which also keeps cars in similar track conditions. My only problem with USAC is sometimes it isn't that big of a show. Three heats, no consi if a low car count or only four heats and one consi with a big car count. (Nothing I can do about it and probably not much USAC can either but come feature time There's fifteen that could win any night on any track. would love to see sprint week go five heats, take three and two consi's take three. But the racings great most times anyway.

Many years ago at a sprint week race at Gas City, a mini typhoon came through just before starting time. After a relatively short delay and a few somewhat tentative hot lap sessions they were ready to qualify. Eric Shively was first out and as he finished his second lap I looked at the guy sitting next me and said "well I got my money's worth". The first non-winged race I ever attended was the '99 sprintweek race at Bloomington. The second car out flipped. Then the fourth car out flipped and I remember thinking 'these guys are crazy'!

Over fifty years ago my dad and uncle took me to the burg and a few other tracks. fifty something years later we still look at each other and say they're crazy. Tracks have changed, cars have changed, But they're still the baddest thing on dirt.

I’ve been going to sprint car races since 1979 and have seen winged and non-wing and just about every format you can dream up. My favorite is the old standard with normal single car time trials. I don’t like the split either because fading track conditions sometimes cause top drivers to have to start at the back and it gives other drivers a better chance to finish up front. The top drivers are the ones who complained enough to get that pushed through. They got what they wanted and the same 6 guys finish up front and the fans don’t like it. Same with inverting 6 in heats instead of 8. Now half of them went the way of the wing and I say see ya. I will now be a fan of the ones who take their place. USAC has more money up for grabs this year than ever. I think they’ll be fine and hopefully the bashers on here find someplace else to go because the USAC bashing is getting really tired, old and boring.

The sport has evolved in the past 40 years. Any time you have evolution you must continue to change and adapt to current times to meet the situation. We can belabor "how it used to be" and the fact of the matter is its now how it used to be. The disparity in equipment has changed vastly and all these cars are now so equal now that has created a situation of adaption for the formats. Fast cars will always be fast because they are well equipped in every aspect of their program, but to say that we don't need to adapt is not a good view point.

Years ago, Kinser could draw a 70 pill at the Knoxville Nationals and be quick time. That won't happen today, he might be top 5 at best if the track was greasy early and got faster, but most likely a top 10 would be fantastic. On the flip side you have a car draw a top 5 pill and lay down a super fast lap and they won't pass a soul all week, but yet their week is made due to cutting one lap. You see it every year. One lap wonders. Is that racing or qualifying? The inversion being cut shouldn't make much of a difference the cars that would be on the front were slow and in the way anyways. Putting them in the back really shouldn't matter as they would get passed and would be non factors in the outcome of the program.

If you don't adapt you die and you can see that you favorite organization is being forced to adapt right now as there is a new "experimental" program in town with a bigger bankroll that can provide competition and provide for a decent living. Just do a recent search of companies that were once Fortune 500 and now no longer in business because they didn't adapt to the growth and evolution of things. If you have the ostrich syndrome you won't last long..... USAC has made very few adaptation over the years with any real changes. Maybe in the mid 80's with experimental promotors option, which has been mentioned on this board a few times. At the end of the day the program really isn't any different than it was in the 70's and that isn't always a good thing.

[QUOTE=Kart#51;549176]The sport has evolved in the past 40 years. Any time you have evolution you must continue to change and adapt to current times to meet the situation. We can belabor "how it used to be" and the fact of the matter is its now how it used to be. The disparity in equipment has changed vastly and all these cars are now so equal now that has created a situation of adaption for the formats. Fast cars will always be fast because they are well equipped in every aspect of their program, but to say that we don't need to adapt is not a good view point.

Years ago, Kinser could draw a 70 pill at the Knoxville Nationals and be quick time. That won't happen today, he might be top 5 at best if the track was greasy early and got faster, but most likely a top 10 would be fantastic. On the flip side you have a car draw a top 5 pill and lay down a super fast lap and they won't pass a soul all week, but yet their week is made due to cutting one lap. You see it every year. One lap wonders. Is that racing or qualifying? The inversion being cut shouldn't make much of a difference the cars that would be on the front were slow and in the way anyways. Putting them in the back really shouldn't matter as they would get passed and would be non factors in the outcome of the program.

If you don't adapt you die and you can see that you favorite organization is being forced to adapt right now as there is a new "experimental" program in town with a bigger bankroll that can provide competition and provide for a decent living. Just do a recent search of companies that were once Fortune 500 and now no longer in business because they didn't adapt to the growth and evolution of things. If you have the ostrich syndrome you won't last long..... USAC has made very few adaptation over the years with any real changes. Maybe in the mid 80's with experimental promotors option, which has been mentioned on this board a few times. At the end of the day the program really isn't any different than it was in the 70's and that isn't always a good thing

Huh, my memory says with a big field, Half the field was on the trailer before a heat was held back then.. Qualify, Hooligan if you didn't qualify well and on the trailer if you didn't make top two of Hooligan. Now they at least get a chance to transfer from a heat and seven spots from the consi..

Heat Race winners being able to improve their Feature starting position is a rather new thing in USAC. And Charles is correct that many USAC shows used to put cars on the trailer before the Heat races.

To say that USAC doesn't adapt and evolve makes me think that maybe YOU are the ostrich.

And now there aren't enough cars to worry about running non qualifier races. Why show up when only the top 32 make the field?
Organic attrition created an adaption, see my point? Now you get guys that will come and know they get at least a heat and B main.

Where are car counts going up in the last 15 years? Knoxville used to get 90 cars for each qualifying nights. Doesn't mean it's still not a great event