RaceNewYork
RaceNewYork Discussion => Racing Discussion => Topic started by: MJRKat on January 05, 2014, 08:39:47 AM
-
Ok, now just kind of putting this out there..Just a bit of an idea I had last night, just wondering what some input is on it from other drivers and fans.
I was thinking of an IMCA type of modified that had a mix of rules from a couple different sanctioning bodies with a twist to kind of cater to our tracks in the North East. What I was thinking is having the main part of the rules, as far as chassis, body, suspension being like IMCA, but being able to use a quickchange rear, run a 5" spoiler, run a better tire(was thinking something like a Street Stock tire, or maybe an Emod tire, have to run a spec head that can't have any port or polishing done, and then have the main part of the engine rules the same as IMCA(No roller cam, steel block, etc..). Also, only running on strictly gas, no alcohol or additives with a stock mount fuel pump, and running a rev chip of 7400 RPMs.
Here is my thinking behind this...With running the some what lower RPMs, you will most likely have to change gears more often, running the quick change would make life a lot easier with that(and I think IMCA will be goin to that within the next couple of years), with the spec head, and the lower RPM limit, it would help keep it more affordable for guys that don't have the pockets, yet still be able to keep up with the guys that have deeper pockets. This would also be less stressful on the engine turning less RPMs through out the season, which means $ saved..
There is a lot of people that complain about our tire, so going with a better tire, it will help draw more people into the class, along with I believe it will make for a better show for the fans on our surfaces around here. I'd have to look into some of the details on like the rear ends, as I'm not real familiar on widths and such, but if we went with the same as what a Sportsman/modified ran it would make them readily available due to the fact that there are so many of them around, and we would just have to put our Pull bar mount onto them(which is bolted on).
As far as pay, well, I would really like to see the class pay $400-500 to win with a decent pay back through as well..If pay was about in that range, it would make it so that it could be a stepping stone between a street stock, and a sportsman, which I think would help the class grow more also.
You can call this probably a bit of a pipe dream, but just an idea I thought of, and was wondering what people thought of it? I know, I know, there isn't enough IMCA cars as it is in this area and it would thin out that class as well, just kind of saying, what if here..If you get my drift..lol
-
Personally, I think the rules are fine. For the class to grow, implement your pay scale, give the "built" engine cars a 3" spoiler, and the crates a 5". Just a little help for bite in the rear. Leave the tires alone, they are affordable and they last for a while. The pay, IMCA has nothing to do with, but the spoiler, I think, is a change they should make. If they did, then it would remain IMCA and wouldn't "split" cars off and dilute what cars are here. JMO
-
You'd have to explain what a "better" tire means. On asphalt this is huge.
-
You'd have to explain what a "better" tire means. On asphalt this is huge.
By better tire, I mean a softer tire..
Personally, I think the rules are fine. For the class to grow, implement your pay scale, give the "built" engine cars a 3" spoiler, and the crates a 5". Just a little help for bite in the rear. Leave the tires alone, they are affordable and they last for a while. The pay, IMCA has nothing to do with, but the spoiler, I think, is a change they should make. If they did, then it would remain IMCA and wouldn't "split" cars off and dilute what cars are here. JMO
Personally, I think there is to much that can be done to the crate, and can't be found unless really tearing into it(I don't have an issue with crate if it's policed, but I don't think it will happen around here). I wouldn't even have crate rule in this division..The problem I see with just implementing the spoiler and not doing tires as well, is you still have to steer the car, and you will still have the same tire on that RF, causing basically the same problem that most have now, car is to tight, pushing like a truck, then snap car loose, go all over track, and/or spin out.
To me, with the motor, the "less" rules the better, just have a couple of limiting factors, easy to tech and it will keep things more on the up and up so to speak..Thanks for the input Billy..
-
I agree on the crates Matt.... not a fan of them.
-
You'd have to explain what a "better" tire means. On asphalt this is huge.
By better tire, I mean a softer tire..
Personally, I think the rules are fine. For the class to grow, implement your pay scale, give the "built" engine cars a 3" spoiler, and the crates a 5". Just a little help for bite in the rear. Leave the tires alone, they are affordable and they last for a while. The pay, IMCA has nothing to do with, but the spoiler, I think, is a change they should make. If they did, then it would remain IMCA and wouldn't "split" cars off and dilute what cars are here. JMO
Personally, I think there is to much that can be done to the crate, and can't be found unless really tearing into it(I don't have an issue with crate if it's policed, but I don't think it will happen around here). I wouldn't even have crate rule in this division..The problem I see with just implementing the spoiler and not doing tires as well, is you still have to steer the car, and you will still have the same tire on that RF, causing basically the same problem that most have now, car is to tight, pushing like a truck, then snap car loose, go all over track, and/or spin out.
To me, with the motor, the "less" rules the better, just have a couple of limiting factors, easy to tech and it will keep things more on the up and up so to speak..Thanks for the input Billy..
The low hp and hard tire guys want just the opposite of what we currently have in the asphalt Modified world. Might want to rethink that. :-\
-
Sure they (the drivers) want a softer tire... The softer, the faster! BS! Here's our rules, play by them, or go someplace else! Everybody has the same tire, so deal with it. You have a hard tire that will last half a season and you work with it to go faster. Softer tires equals more purchases, which equals more $$$ being spent, cost goes up, everybody leaves the class! The IMCA's were a great class for years with 20 gazillion of them all over the country. What happened to leaf springs in the rear? Cheap and easy to adjust if need be. Look at the rear suspension now! All puckered up like a dirt late model, making them so complicated that people got scared and went away. Took away the $350 engine claim (which even I agree was a little low by todays standards). The stock clips are going to run out eventually, but a spec replacement is already available. As far as I'm concerned, the rules need to stay the same, including the tires, except that the rears need to be a leaf spring, and a $1000 engine claim. The quick change I'm still debating.
-
I think the QC makes it easier for a guy who wants to travel to other tracks but handicaps
should be explored to equalize cars for those that want to continue with a straight rear.
-
I think the current rules are fine, but they need more enforcement of them.... that is to say, they need to check more items, more often. Not that I feel there are very many guys out there doing much outside the rules, more that I think by showing the effort to MAKE SURE of that, it would entice more guys to want to run IMCA's. From my point of view, the fact that the IMCA mod rules are only 4 pages long, and they make very few, and very small, changes each year are a huge positive. That is a tough thing to ask of the tracks, as they are very understaffed in that regard. Think about it... most tracks have 2 or three tech guys.... some have ONE! They are expected to check roughly 100 cars on a normal night. It's asking too much of them. I know to hire more manpower, and competent ones that will not solve, but rather CREATE problems, would be tough and expensive. Also, those 2 or 3 tech guys are expected to know the different rules for multiple classes.
I think the solution would be to have one tech inspector per division. That would allow that inspector to concentrate on really KNOWING the rule book for that class, and it would cut the average cars to be checked per inspector from 50 or more to roughly 24 or less. If one inspector is sick or can't make it, whichever other inspector with the best knowledge of the absent inspector's division could double up for one night. This system would provide built in backups. just don't expect this to happen due to limited qualified personnel, and for financial reasons.
In other words, I think tech guys are overwhelmed at times.... quite often.
-
IMCA rules are fine the way they were in 2011 before they allowed the '604 crates in. That was the worst thing they could have done. If they are going to stay, they should have to add 200 lbs. to the front cross member. They certainly shouldn't be given any advantage. Other than that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Sure they (the drivers) want a softer tire... The softer, the faster! BS! Here's our rules, play by them, or go someplace else! Everybody has the same tire, so deal with it. You have a hard tire that will last half a season and you work with it to go faster. Softer tires equals more purchases, which equals more $$$ being spent, cost goes up, everybody leaves the class! The IMCA's were a great class for years with 20 gazillion of them all over the country. What happened to leaf springs in the rear? Cheap and easy to adjust if need be. Look at the rear suspension now! All puckered up like a dirt late model, making them so complicated that people got scared and went away. Took away the $350 engine claim (which even I agree was a little low by todays standards). The stock clips are going to run out eventually, but a spec replacement is already available. As far as I'm concerned, the rules need to stay the same, including the tires, except that the rears need to be a leaf spring, and a $1000 engine claim. The quick change I'm still debating.
Not only that, but going to a softer tire, or doing anything else to increase traction will increase engine costs since the car will be able to hook up more power. Engine rules and claim (now $1,050?) are just fine the way they are. Adding engine rules will only make them more expensive, not cheaper. If you put a rule in banning ported heads for example, all that will do is make Brzezinski more money. Keep the current tire and there is no need to mess with the engine rules, nor anything gained from it. IMCA already banned lift bars (torque arms), maybe they also need to ban the spring loaded pull bars (torque links). As far as the stock clips disappearing, there is already an IMCA approved reproduction Chevelle frame being produced that solves that non-issue.
Also, if the street stocks are on a softer tire than the IMCA mods, then that could at least partly explain why the class is struggling these days. IMCA Stock Car rules could do wonders there as well.
-
i have to agree with groundpounder about the rules, don't mess with the heads, im not a fan of the crates, as far as the torque arm,i don't see anything wrong with it. imca reasoning to change that rule was it promoted rear bite,well,what does a 4 link do? creates a ton of bite, more than a torque arm does. there are still guys out there building their own motors with what they have or can buy cheap new or used,i have 3 sets of heads that the dirt guys couldn't use from when I started in imca,good heads,bought for cheap. one thing I can say for imca is,load up and go anyplace that is imca sanction,unload and go racing. there are somethings that I don't like about imca,but that's going to be with anything. the biggest problem that I see with imca,is that it just is not being promoted by the tracks/promoters to try and get lower entry type levels to step up into this (modified) class. pretty bad when one of the local racers has to step up and get sponsorship for end of season race.im sure ill get some flak for this,but its just my opinion.one more thing,when brewerton became imca sanctioned,harvey pushed this class to make it work, one thing that he did to get some interest was that he paid for your first imca license out of his pocket to help get it going,maybe something that other tracks should take a look at,just a thought.
-
has anyone seen an exiting I.M.C.A. race in New York state ? they sound like drag cars noy going nowhere J.M.O.
-
has anyone seen an exiting I.M.C.A. race in New York state ? they sound like drag cars noy going nowhere J.M.O.
LOL. I have seen exciting ones at Skyline and I-88. Not at Brewerton. Not at 5MP. It seems like some tracks are more suited to them.
-
well,why don't you step into one and tell us how to get it around and what we are all doing wrong,JMO.
-
has anyone seen an exiting I.M.C.A. race in New York state ? they sound like drag cars noy going nowhere J.M.O.
That is basically my point for wanting the better tires..With most of the tracks that we run on around here the tracks are slick. When I say track is slick to guys in a Street Stock, or a Sportsman, they say they have lots of bite. A street stock ran with the IMCA one night this past year to try out his new motor. Granted, it was Non winners night, so that took about 4 of the faster cars out of the equation, but he was a ton faster than the IMCA. If you put us on a better tire, he wouldn't be able to keep up very well with the faster cars. I have watched some racing from the stands of the IMCA, and I am bored with it a lot of times, but it depends upon the track also.
IMCA rules are fine the way they were in 2011 before they allowed the '604 crates in. That was the worst thing they could have done. If they are going to stay, they should have to add 200 lbs. to the front cross member. They certainly shouldn't be given any advantage. Other than that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Sure they (the drivers) want a softer tire... The softer, the faster! BS! Here's our rules, play by them, or go someplace else! Everybody has the same tire, so deal with it. You have a hard tire that will last half a season and you work with it to go faster. Softer tires equals more purchases, which equals more $$$ being spent, cost goes up, everybody leaves the class! The IMCA's were a great class for years with 20 gazillion of them all over the country. What happened to leaf springs in the rear? Cheap and easy to adjust if need be. Look at the rear suspension now! All puckered up like a dirt late model, making them so complicated that people got scared and went away. Took away the $350 engine claim (which even I agree was a little low by todays standards). The stock clips are going to run out eventually, but a spec replacement is already available. As far as I'm concerned, the rules need to stay the same, including the tires, except that the rears need to be a leaf spring, and a $1000 engine claim. The quick change I'm still debating.
Not only that, but going to a softer tire, or doing anything else to increase traction will increase engine costs since the car will be able to hook up more power. Engine rules and claim (now $1,050?) are just fine the way they are. Adding engine rules will only make them more expensive, not cheaper. If you put a rule in banning ported heads for example, all that will do is make Brzezinski more money. Keep the current tire and there is no need to mess with the engine rules, nor anything gained from it. IMCA already banned lift bars (torque arms), maybe they also need to ban the spring loaded pull bars (torque links). As far as the stock clips disappearing, there is already an IMCA approved reproduction Chevelle frame being produced that solves that non-issue.
Also, if the street stocks are on a softer tire than the IMCA mods, then that could at least partly explain why the class is struggling these days. IMCA Stock Car rules could do wonders there as well.
The point of the heads is to limit the Hp so that it keeps the cost down of the engine, the same holds true with the gear rule. Lets face facts, the engine claim doesn't work, and is non existent in IMCA racing, so no point in having one really, that is why they came out with the 604 crate because the cost of an open engine became unaffordable for some, which means the claim didn't do it's job. By limiting the head size, and the RPM, you can run cheaper parts inside your motor, but yet still have the longevity, and get the hp on more of a budget.
If you went back to just leaf springs, you would see the class die around here in a hurry, the cars would be even slower on the current tires. I believe the reason for the "evolution" is because tracks now a days are nothing like they used to be, they have no where near the amount of traction in them, even as far back as the 90s, and the 4 bars, in most of the rest of the country, keeps the cars faster. Guys that run the WoO Latemodel series put their "small" motors in when they come to the NE tour, that says something about the tracks in our area right there, and those guys travel around the country and race.
I think the current rules are fine, but they need more enforcement of them.... that is to say, they need to check more items, more often. Not that I feel there are very many guys out there doing much outside the rules, more that I think by showing the effort to MAKE SURE of that, it would entice more guys to want to run IMCA's. From my point of view, the fact that the IMCA mod rules are only 4 pages long, and they make very few, and very small, changes each year are a huge positive. That is a tough thing to ask of the tracks, as they are very understaffed in that regard. Think about it... most tracks have 2 or three tech guys.... some have ONE! They are expected to check roughly 100 cars on a normal night. It's asking too much of them. I know to hire more manpower, and competent ones that will not solve, but rather CREATE problems, would be tough and expensive. Also, those 2 or 3 tech guys are expected to know the different rules for multiple classes.
I think the solution would be to have one tech inspector per division. That would allow that inspector to concentrate on really KNOWING the rule book for that class, and it would cut the average cars to be checked per inspector from 50 or more to roughly 24 or less. If one inspector is sick or can't make it, whichever other inspector with the best knowledge of the absent inspector's division could double up for one night. This system would provide built in backups. just don't expect this to happen due to limited qualified personnel, and for financial reasons.
In other words, I think tech guys are overwhelmed at times.... quite often.
I agree, the rules do need more enforcement. We had issues with Tech trying to do their job, but they didn't do any type of research, and was threatening to DQ someone for something that was completely legal. I think IMCA rules are among the simplest to tech because of what you said, there is not as many. That's the reasoning behind my bringing up a spec head, instead of a crate option, or having a C.I. limit..Something simple to tech really. Main reasoning also for a better tire, and the spoiler combined is to try to entice fans, and drivers both. Like I said, I have had a bunch of people tell me that are drivers, that they won't get into class because of the tires, in a way, I don't blame them, but it is what it is. I have had fans tell me they would like to see them on a better tire also.
I think the QC makes it easier for a guy who wants to travel to other tracks but handicaps
should be explored to equalize cars for those that want to continue with a straight rear.
With IMCA, if you follow the series you do travel often. With the less Hp motor, you need to change gears more to keep the motor where it needs to be in the RPM range. That is why I think you are going to see IMCA go to the quick change very soon since the 604 is coming in to play so much. That has a lower RPM limit on it, which means you need to change gears more often as well to keep it in that RPM range. As far as a "handicap" for the ones using the 9", I don't think one is needed. From what I hear, a 9" actually puts about 20-25 more Hp to the tires compared to the quick change, so I personally don't think one is necessary for them.
You'd have to explain what a "better" tire means. On asphalt this is huge.
By better tire, I mean a softer tire..
Personally, I think the rules are fine. For the class to grow, implement your pay scale, give the "built" engine cars a 3" spoiler, and the crates a 5". Just a little help for bite in the rear. Leave the tires alone, they are affordable and they last for a while. The pay, IMCA has nothing to do with, but the spoiler, I think, is a change they should make. If they did, then it would remain IMCA and wouldn't "split" cars off and dilute what cars are here. JMO
Personally, I think there is to much that can be done to the crate, and can't be found unless really tearing into it(I don't have an issue with crate if it's policed, but I don't think it will happen around here). I wouldn't even have crate rule in this division..The problem I see with just implementing the spoiler and not doing tires as well, is you still have to steer the car, and you will still have the same tire on that RF, causing basically the same problem that most have now, car is to tight, pushing like a truck, then snap car loose, go all over track, and/or spin out.
To me, with the motor, the "less" rules the better, just have a couple of limiting factors, easy to tech and it will keep things more on the up and up so to speak..Thanks for the input Billy..
The low hp and hard tire guys want just the opposite of what we currently have in the asphalt Modified world. Might want to rethink that. :-\
You can get a heck of a lot more bite in the asphalt world than on our dirt tracks around here. That is the reasoning I said about the spec head, and RPM limit, to keep the guys with less hp on more of an even playing field by limiting the amount of hp a guy can get, since you get your hp from your heads. The RPM limit, for me personally, wouldn't even effect me in my IMCA anyways, I hardly ever turned over 7000 RPM in my car last year. I think in 50 or so races, I turned it over 7000 maybe 4 or 5 times.
Thanks for all the input guys, and your opinions..Just something I was thinking about the other day, thought it would be interesting to see what responses were to it, and so far, they are pretty much what I had expected.. ;D
-
A little advice from open e-mod country... don't mix tire brands if you're gonna have a compound rule. Hoosier Medium seems to be medium. We got some AR medium tires that durometered in the 30's. That's fine if you're trying to go fast against Hoosiers in certain conditions, but when we bolted on 4 mediums for a slick track thinking we were smart then smoked them off the car, well, it's not so convenient then.
I forget about the horsepower differences sometimes though. IMCA cars and Street Stocks can probably use much softer tires than we were able to. Trying to put 650 HP through an 8" tire can be pretty rough on the rubber.
-
Not taking anything away from either class (IMCA or EMOD), its too bad we all couldnt fall under one set of rules and drasticaly increase the car counts across the NE Region. But trying to get IMCA guys to go EMOD or EMOD guys to go IMCA, would be a nightmare.
-
A little advice from open e-mod country... don't mix tire brands if you're gonna have a compound rule. Hoosier Medium seems to be medium. We got some AR medium tires that durometered in the 30's. That's fine if you're trying to go fast against Hoosiers in certain conditions, but when we bolted on 4 mediums for a slick track thinking we were smart then smoked them off the car, well, it's not so convenient then.
I forget about the horsepower differences sometimes though. IMCA cars and Street Stocks can probably use much softer tires than we were able to. Trying to put 650 HP through an 8" tire can be pretty rough on the rubber.
It would be a specific tire, no running different compounds. Some IMCA that run in the front, aren't that far off from the 550-600hp range I don't think. I know my motor was somewhere in that range. I have talked to guys in the street stocks, and they are getting about the same amount of time out of their tires as we do in the IMCA. I will put that theory to the test this year as I will be in the Street Stocks, and will get a better idea on wear comparison. I know in my IMCA, when I wasn't handling good, and spinning, I wore the tires a lot more than when the car was hooked up, and it seems that would hold true with if you had a softer tire, it would hook up easier, and not get as much wear as often, but I could be wrong..It's been awhile since I have been on a soft tire..lol
Not taking anything away from either class (IMCA or EMOD), its too bad we all couldnt fall under one set of rules and drasticaly increase the car counts across the NE Region. But trying to get IMCA guys to go EMOD or EMOD guys to go IMCA, would be a nightmare.
Well Andy, Emods are goin to the G60 tire for this coming year, at least last I heard, so that part of it wouldn't be so bad. Once IMCA goes to the Quick Change(if they do, just a theory of mine they will), it would make it a lot easier for guys to run both..
-
The point of the heads is to limit the Hp so that it keeps the cost down of the engine, the same holds true with the gear rule.
And that little fallacy right there has ruined more than one class through the years. First of all, there is no foolproof way to tech ported heads. The best is probably the tools Brodix has available for their spec heads, so if you want to mandate that everyone run those heads, it might work. Otherwise, people will just spend more money than they are now to get all they can out of the heads within the new restrictive rules. The fact that IMCA only allows cast iron heads is a good thing, since all the exotic head castings are in aluminum (UMP/E-mods miss the boat here). I don't know if anyone is doing it yet, but it might be a good idea to add a rule prohibiting any welding on the heads so the ports can't be raised beyond what the original casting allows. Other than that, leave the engine rules alone.
-
You are answering your own question about the tires...
-
The point of the heads is to limit the Hp so that it keeps the cost down of the engine, the same holds true with the gear rule.
And that little fallacy right there has ruined more than one class through the years. First of all, there is no foolproof way to tech ported heads. The best is probably the tools Brodix has available for their spec heads, so if you want to mandate that everyone run those heads, it might work. Otherwise, people will just spend more money than they are now to get all they can out of the heads within the new restrictive rules. The fact that IMCA only allows cast iron heads is a good thing, since all the exotic head castings are in aluminum (UMP/E-mods miss the boat here). I don't know if anyone is doing it yet, but it might be a good idea to add a rule prohibiting any welding on the heads so the ports can't be raised beyond what the original casting allows. Other than that, leave the engine rules alone.
Which classes are those? I'm not familiar with classes with a spec head rule that have gone by the way side..Not being smart here, asking a serious question, I didn't know of any specifically that have had this happen, if it's more up north, and/or asphalt that would probably be why.
You are answering your own question about the tires...
I don't quite get that Allen..Please reiterate..lol
-
The point of the heads is to limit the Hp so that it keeps the cost down of the engine, the same holds true with the gear rule.
And that little fallacy right there has ruined more than one class through the years. First of all, there is no foolproof way to tech ported heads. The best is probably the tools Brodix has available for their spec heads, so if you want to mandate that everyone run those heads, it might work. Otherwise, people will just spend more money than they are now to get all they can out of the heads within the new restrictive rules. The fact that IMCA only allows cast iron heads is a good thing, since all the exotic head castings are in aluminum (UMP/E-mods miss the boat here). I don't know if anyone is doing it yet, but it might be a good idea to add a rule prohibiting any welding on the heads so the ports can't be raised beyond what the original casting allows. Other than that, leave the engine rules alone.
Which classes are those? I'm not familiar with classes with a spec head rule that have gone by the way side..Not being smart here, asking a serious question, I didn't know of any specifically that have had this happen, if it's more up north, and/or asphalt that would probably be why.
I wasn't necessarily referring to spec heads, but rather rules "to limit the Hp" in general. The Nascar modified rules are a prime example. They implemented rules back in the 80's to reduce horsepower (in part to slow the cars down for safety reasons) and all it did was drive the cost up. A top of the line Hutter engine in '87 was $17,500. Today it's around $50k thanks to all the research and development that had to go into getting every last horsepower out of an engine that is choked by a 390 carb and other restrictive engine rules. Those engines make around 600 hp. With IMCA rules, you can make 600 hp for probably a quarter of the price, maybe less.
Lower horsepower doesn't automatically mean lower cost. Whenever you can use all the hp that you can make, engines are going to be more expensive because the engine builders will have to look for ways around the restrictions to squeeze out every last hp. When traction is the limiting factor, a lower cost engine can compete with a more expensive one on even ground. Just because someone is spending big bucks on an IMCA engine doesn't mean you have to spend the same to be competitive with him. That's been the guiding principle of IMCA for over 30 years, and it's served them well. Of course now they've gone and screwed that up by allowing the 604 crate.
-
Ok, gotcha..Yeah, I just don't agree with the crate at all..There is a place for it, but the problem that I see with it is like I said, it has to be teched, and things don't get teched as it is(of course that could hold true with the heads as well, but I was thinking it would still be an easier thing to tech, especially if you still leave the bottom end basically open). I don't believe a carb limitation, or even a Restrictor plate is the right way to go because of what you said about engine builders.
Back on the crate deal..There are videos online on how to take the cable seals apart that are used, and not ruin them so that you can put them back together, also, there is now a well known Engine shop(CNC Motosports) advertising about putting a little umph in your 604, and how much depends on how much you want to spend. I just don't like the idea of the dang thing, but the only good thing that I think will come out of it, is the fact that I think they are going to have to allow quick changes because of having to fine tune the gearing more often to keep it competitive with the opens. The bad part about the quick change, is they will probably allow steel tubed, which that will pretty much mean you would have to buy a new one instead of being able to pick up a used rear from a Modified, Sportsman, or Late Model guy.
-
I was looking at the QC rear in the mod in my garage last night and no way would it fit in a IMCA as is. You could use the center section and ring/pinion (maybe) but that's it. No way IMCA is gonna allow aluminum tubes or birdcages, even if they start allowing QC's, so buying a used late model rear isn't all that practical either. I don't agree with IMCA allowing QC rears; it's another one of those things that is "gonna save racers money" but will end up bankrupting a lot of budget teams.
The idea of this post wasn't to question IMCA rules. I think what Matt is trying to say is that LOCALLY, the IMCA's are struggling to win fans/drivers due to their hard tires and the super slick surfaces they race on. NATIONALLY, IMCA is the biggest and most popular group of mods without question but around here it's a tougher sell due to the over-abundence of big tire/small motor classes. Yes, IMCA's tend to have more cautions (not always) than the crate DIRT mods but you don't have to be an engineer to figure out why.
IMCA= 500-650hp on a hard 8" tire
Crate= 350hp on a soft 14" tire
I propose the tracks that have IMCA run them earlier in the show; when their is still some bite in the track. None of the other classes in the N.E. are as traction challenged as IMCA so why not give them the track when it has what little grip most tracks offer? I also gotta agree with Groundpounder; better tires would only make for more expensive motors. For the money the IMCAs run for? That seems like a bad idea
-
Matt, If you are able to buzz your tires now, you have too much horsepower, correct? So you want a softer tire, which means it will hook up better? Then what? More horsepower will be wanted, engine cost goes up. More power to the wheels, faster speeds, tires will wear faster, increasing purchases... Cost goes up. Pretty soon, horsepower is too much, tires start buzzing again... It's a vicious circle. I think originally IMCA offered one tire, with one compound. Their idea was to keep the horsepower manageable to that tire, which kept engine costs down. I don't know... I'm not ALWAYS right... ::)
-
QC is the way to go soft tire is the way to go.I'm not really sure what imca dose for the guys here but as I see it not much.we have a imca and a ump cars for next year the only reason for the ump car is tire and QC I already have the aluminum head motors I think it won't b long and u will se imca type cars on good tire and QC and sail panels not sure what track but someplace will do it JMO
-
Matt, If you are able to buzz your tires now, you have too much horsepower, correct? So you want a softer tire, which means it will hook up better? Then what? More horsepower will be wanted, engine cost goes up. More power to the wheels, faster speeds, tires will wear faster, increasing purchases... Cost goes up. Pretty soon, horsepower is too much, tires start buzzing again... It's a vicious circle. I think originally IMCA offered one tire, with one compound. Their idea was to keep the horsepower manageable to that tire, which kept engine costs down. I don't know... I'm not ALWAYS right... ::)
Allen is exactly right. If you're spinning the tires, the IMCA philosophy is working just as intended.
-
Matt, If you are able to buzz your tires now, you have too much horsepower, correct? So you want a softer tire, which means it will hook up better? Then what? More horsepower will be wanted, engine cost goes up. More power to the wheels, faster speeds, tires will wear faster, increasing purchases... Cost goes up. Pretty soon, horsepower is too much, tires start buzzing again... It's a vicious circle. I think originally IMCA offered one tire, with one compound. Their idea was to keep the horsepower manageable to that tire, which kept engine costs down. I don't know... I'm not ALWAYS right... ::)
Here is kind of what I was getting at..A softer tire is easier to hook up(most times), so if you aren't spinning as much, you aren't wearing as much. To give you an example(I know they have different compounds, but not sure exactly what they are running), the sportsman at 5 Mile, some of those guys are getting just as much, if not more laps out of their tires, the street stocks are doing the same with theirs, and I know the Street stock is the softer compound.
Maybe I'm going about it the wrong way, maybe we just need to go to a 2bll carb instead of a 4? Maybe spec heads isn't the way to go? If we were on better tracks(and by that, I mean softer, one that has more grip with out rocks, or what have you), then maybe our tires would last even longer? I know at I-88, I could get about a month, maybe a bit more out of my rear tires, at 5 Mile, during the summer months, we are lucky to get more than 2 weeks out of them, same goes for Street Stocks, I have also seen nights where Street Stocks have less wear on their tires than ours, even on nights I have been hooked pretty good.
I could be all wrong, just some things I have seen from my own experience, and some speculation as well.
QC is the way to go soft tire is the way to go.I'm not really sure what imca dose for the guys here but as I see it not much.we have a imca and a ump cars for next year the only reason for the ump car is tire and QC I already have the aluminum head motors I think it won't b long and u will se imca type cars on good tire and QC and sail panels not sure what track but someplace will do it JMO
I know IMCA did soften the tire a bit about 2010 a little, I bought tires that were like new, and they were hard as a rock that year, but were used, the new tires that I got(2 that year I think..lol), were a bit softer. I don't think you will ever see IMCA go to a softer tire, like an emod, or anything like that. I do think you will see the quick change come in to play with in the next couple of years though, like I said, with the crate, ya gotta have it, even for running the same track week in and week out.
Thanks for the input tho guys..Bringing ideas up, and such..
-
Not to sidetrack the thread, but back when Dad was running his Street Stock in the late 70's on asphalt, they had to run a street D.O.T. tire. I remember him buying a bunch of brand new B.F. Goodrich Belted T/A's, and giving them to a friend who's wife had a Big Block Chevelle, and a very heavy right foot. She would burn 2/3 of the tread off, then give them back to Dad for the race car. ;D
-
lol..That's a win, win right there!
-
one thing to look at with a street stock is it weighs a lot more than an imca mod.,which would also help in getting some bite. I don't think the quick change is a bad idea,and you can find them at swap meets reasonable out of a pavement car, problem is right now you cant run a wide 5 hub. I don't think the tire change is the answer, as far as a 2 bbl, I know that carmen vona ran a 2 bbl with a lot of success.
-
Just a quick tidbit, I love the fact of the imca tire. I puts us on level ground. If any rule was to change I would hope the tire would stay the same. There are reason lots of us run imca and that the affordability of it.
-
Not to sidetrack the thread, but back when Dad was running his Street Stock in the late 70's on asphalt, they had to run a street D.O.T. tire. I remember him buying a bunch of brand new B.F. Goodrich Belted T/A's, and giving them to a friend who's wife had a Big Block Chevelle, and a very heavy right foot. She would burn 2/3 of the tread off, then give them back to Dad for the race car. ;D
True true. I did the same when I crewed on the Billy Seamon 25 Street. The owner had a couple of crew guys put on new BF's and "have at it". I'll bet
some of the back roads in Madison Co. still have some black down from my ElCamino SS. Tire smoke and noise on someone eles dime......Was lovin' that. ;D ;D
-
hey mike,did you work with billy when he won at Oswego?
-
Hey Uticamike, was that you spinning your tires out in front of our house when I was a kid? lol
-
Just a quick tidbit, I love the fact of the imca tire. I puts us on level ground. If any rule was to change I would hope the tire would stay the same. There are reason lots of us run imca and that the affordability of it.
THAT is what I wanted to hear from an IMCA guy!
-
I'm with 14ward. I have no issue with the current rules or tire. Really puts the driver into the equation, and the setup guy. I've seen a ton of really good IMCA races the last 2 years.... sometimes, yes, there are a lot of cautions.... but I've seen that in EVERY division from time to time. Only change I would like to see is more checked, more often, and equal enforcement of penalties. That last one isn't really much a problem (where tech is concerned), because not much gets checked (and that is my point). This all falls on the tracks though, not IMCA.
As I said before, I honestly don't feel it's a lack of effort or intent on the part of the tracks or their personnel (95% of the time anyway, there are exceptions), but rather a matter of a lack of manpower.