-
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..