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..
