Miller: USAC Needed To Make The First Move

October 21st, 2010

USAC President Kevin Miller (John Mahoney Photo)

INDIANAPOLIS — USAC has officially introduced RPM limits into its midget division.

But this week’s announcement was the end of a long road full of roadblocks for the sanctioning body, beginning in August of 2009

“We spent a whole day and we talked everything from harder tires, smaller tires, gear rules, air restrictions, everything,” USAC President Kevin Miller told NSSN by phone. “And there were some pretty smart people in the room. Rick Long, Honda engineers, Toyota engineers, General Motors engineers, Ford engineers and they are all smart people, many of who have been responsible for the programs in NASCAR, IndyCar and such, and after a great debate, we all left the room with the same thing to chase and that was RPM limit.”

As a result, USAC hired Ilmor to commission a study, but it didn’t take long before the sanctioning body was dealing with negativity from within in the midget racing community.

“Last fall, as this became more public, we saw the anxiety in midget racing because there is so much variety in the engine platforms,” Miller explained. “It’s not like sprint cars where everyone has a 410 engine.

“With midget racing you have different platforms and the anxiety of unfairness had been rolled out and crept in real fast. So, we took a time out and we went to Ilmor Engineering and we had Ilmor study more than 200 chassis dyno power curves that were all different platforms, all using the same chassis dyno setup, using the same tire, same gear, the same chassis set up and everything.”

“On top of that, all of this year we collected RPM data from racing action. We did it at ORP. We did it at Iowa. We did it at Haubstadt, Eldora, big tracks, small track, dirt track, pavement track. What they did was they looked at what they called a mid-match ratio of RPM, meaning that most engines aren’t going maximum RPM all the time, but at certain tracks you have a larger RPM range than at other tracks. At a big track like ORP, you are running pretty good all the time, when you go to a short dirt track, it is all about acceleration.

“We looked at those types of mid-match ratios over the tracks and looked at the different ranges of RPM on different platforms, giving them a baseline to where everyone was. We are trying to lower the baseline of the RPMs to save people money and do it fairly, which is why we brought Ilmor in.”

Miller says limited RPMs saves money two ways — by reducing the use of higher end components and by reducing the frequency with which engine rebuilds are necessary.

“A midget engine today is around $30,000. You can buy a lower priced engine for around $20,000 but they may not have the same components in them,” Miller said. “But if you are not spinning them as fast, you can bring down the pricing because you may not need the higher-priced components. That brings the initial cost down.

“Secondly, by lowering the RPM, you have a longer frequency between the rebuild.

“What we lack today is production-based motors that cost three to four thousand dollars in production that can be made into a midget engine and end up costing 10 to 15 thousand dollars, which is probably the right price point for a midget engine.

“We don’t have that. There are some things out there on the peripherals that are brewing. We like what we see, but we don’t want to reduce it enough where the competition level we see is taken away.

“We have one hell of a show right now in midget racing. Some of the most competitive racing out there,” Miller stressed. “We are not trying to take that away, we are not trying to take the speed away, we are not trying to take the track times away. What we are trying to do is get lower costs in the sport to produce the same show.”

USAC also has approved the use of the Esslinger EST engine for competition.

“The only difference between the EST engine and a non-EST is the electronic fuel injection, which we don’t allow in midget racing today, but why we allowed the EST is that it’s a lower-price point motor,” Miller stressed. “It does not have titanium. It has a steel crank and it runs at a lower RPM, but the EFI is sealed. It is a sealed box. Introducing EDI into our sport right now requires a lot of research and we are not ready for that.

“A sealed EFI unit in a sealed $20,000 engine is acceptable to us, but we are going to have to monitor that and keep a very close eye on it. There are a lot of engines out there that are that way. We are not opening up our series to EFI, we are opening up that engine to the series. It is a completely sealed engine at a lower price point, which we are trying to make an affordable option.

“With the RPMs being governed, that 9,400 RPM is going to be competitive at certain tracks, but it is not going to go to ORP and beat the best USAC has. For competitive midget racing, it is a viable solution.”

Miller knows this move will be controversial with some in the racing community.

“There is argument and debate in everything that you want to talk about,” Miller said. “That is why we spent an entire take with the engine builders and then we spent a full year to chase it. We needed to make the first move and do it the right way. So we did that and we are looking forward to 2011.”