Left-Rear Weight

[ReignMan23]

Hopefully someone smarter than me could shed some light here. I always thought the lighter the better but it seems that thinking is changing. What is the deal w/adding weight directly to the left rear? How is this helping the cars? At what lengths are guys willing to go to put weight on the left rear? Are there any rules preventing the addition of left-rear weight? Is this beneficial for a tacky and a slick track? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[dalemcfan]

You'll prob get more help if you post this in the Tech section than here.

[Ryan21mid]

the unified rules council just this past week released rules pretty well preventing any additional weight being added to the left rear. All it does is simply put more weight on the left rear tire without effecting body roll imo. Helps plant the tire and give the car more drive in the slick. It'd tighten the car up drastically in the mud.

[tb1545]

When i first heard people doing this 2 years ago, it didnt make much sense to me, sure the weight might help hold that down in smooth ideal situations, but what i dont understand is track surfaces arent smooth, therefore if you hit a bump in the track surface, the suspension now has to try to control more weight before putting it back down to the ground.
I look at it like the medicine ball quick catch and throw workouts people do. When you throw and catch a 20lb medicine ball it takes longer to catch, control and in return throw back than a 5 lb medicine ball does. Maybe the mechanical leverage of the LR is so much that any loss of control doesnt matter.
I always thought it was one of those things people were doing to screw with people while they were making speed up somewhere else.

[Centeroff]

Reignman, adding left rear weight will change the balance and cross of the car dramatically. You normally do not just add a ton of weight to the LR of the car. We call LR weight "bite" so if you load the lr your always gonna add weight to the rf as well because loading the lr can cause a push. Most of these new cars are sooo LR and RF balance dependent. You also have to decide where to bolt the weight on the LR of the car because that's where weight transfer comes into play. The higher on the frame that the weight is added the more transfer and roll you will create. I could talk LR weight for days. You can watch certain cars on the track and almost watch the car teeter totter off the LR and RF. Bloomquist and Macdowell are two that come to mind. I know the basics but you will have to listen to someone like Shane Macdowell to really get accurate with it. The 116 of weaver looks like he may run higher cross in his cars also. It's all about balance and being able to keep the RF tire on the car for 100 laps.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

the unified rules council just this past week released rules pretty well preventing any additional weight being added to the left rear. All it does is simply put more weight on the left rear tire without effecting body roll imo. Helps plant the tire and give the car more drive in the slick. It'd tighten the car up drastically in the mud.

They stopped well short of preventing added weight. They mostly prevented added rotating weight. And, only if checked.

There are quite a few things going on with it. Don't forget, the tire is a spring itself.

[ReignMan23]

Dalemcfan, I didn't even know there was a tech section, I will have to cross-post and see what I get there, thanks for the info. Thank you Ryan, TB, and Centeroff, good info! I have been researching and found a company called Strange Oval, they sell heavier and lighter axels, i'm guessing heavy for tacky tracks, and the lighter axels for when the track slicks off. Are guys really going to be switching axels pending if it's dry or tacky? Seems expensive if this is what guys are doing.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

When i first heard people doing this 2 years ago, it didnt make much sense to me, sure the weight might help hold that down in smooth ideal situations, but what i dont understand is track surfaces arent smooth, therefore if you hit a bump in the track surface, the suspension now has to try to control more weight before putting it back down to the ground.
I look at it like the medicine ball quick catch and throw workouts people do. When you throw and catch a 20lb medicine ball it takes longer to catch, control and in return throw back than a 5 lb medicine ball does. Maybe the mechanical leverage of the LR is so much that any loss of control doesnt matter.
I always thought it was one of those things people were doing to screw with people while they were making speed up somewhere else.

You got the actors in the wrong place. The uneven track surface is the guy trying to throw the medicine ball. The medicine ball is the rear assembly, and the tire is the guys arms.

[MI Dirt Fan]

So there's weight on the LR during the entire weight transfer in the corner. Seems like a bottom side setup. Maybe reduce wheel spin converting it to traction

[flagone]

The key is unsprung weight. Not weight mounted to the frame.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

The key is unsprung weight. Not weight mounted to the frame.

Correct. Some pieces were left untouched by the rules. I guess too many folks already selling a part?

[MI Dirt Fan]

No weight can be mounted to the axle tubes?

[billetbirdcage]

No weight can be mounted to the axle tubes?

You can't clamp a weight to the tube (cheap and can be done safe), but you can conveniently buy some heavy products from certain people to put on the rearend. Who would have thought, that's the way they went with the rules.

[MI Dirt Fan]

That's what I thought. That's why I can't figure out why Keyser's sells clamps to mount weight to the axle tubes.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

That's what I thought. That's why I can't figure out why Keyser's sells clamps to mount weight to the axle tubes.

They have had those for over a year. And not everyone has adopted those rules.

[stock car driver]

That's what I thought. That's why I can't figure out why Keyser's sells clamps to mount weight to the axle tubes.

people sell traction control and all kinds of other parts not deemed legal.

[stock car driver]

Dalemcfan, I didn't even know there was a tech section, I will have to cross-post and see what I get there, thanks for the info. Thank you Ryan, TB, and Centeroff, good info! I have been researching and found a company called Strange Oval, they sell heavier and lighter axels, i'm guessing heavy for tacky tracks, and the lighter axels for when the track slicks off. Are guys really going to be switching axels pending if it's dry or tacky? Seems expensive if this is what guys are doing.

225$ for a lr axle that can drastically change your cars drive and turn is cheap

[flagone]

Really the only part left untouched is the axle tube and there is only so much you can do with the restricted diameters and materials. Some builders have used steel tubes on the left for years. The available "heavy" tubes are only a few dollars more than a standard tube. Check with ALL of your manufacturers to confirm that. If they are selling for more than that you can bet the the material is wrong (only aluminum and magnetic steel allowed). If that becomes an issue series will simply swapping tubes out.

The birdcage is pretty well covered with the same general design on both sides. Meaning you can have a big thick bird cage but you have to have them on both sides. And remember that just because there are no maximum weights listed for a birdcage doesn't mean they can't be removed and weighed to help with an index of suspicion on material.

In regards to weight on the axle tubes - yes there is a method that would be plausibly safe. However for every one that used that method 10 more wouldn't. Anything that is dynamic shouldn't have ballast mounted to it. We have a problem in this sport with guys mounting seats and belts properly. Or guys using out of date belts and safety equipment, which is as much the series' fault as the drivers - however you see the point.

[zyoung25]

There are/were axle tubes out there being made of carbide.....there's where your heavy axle tubes are. Carbide weighs almost twice as much steel, and is stronger. It is not cheap stuff either.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

Really the only part left untouched is the axle tube and there is only so much you can do with the restricted diameters and materials. Some builders have used steel tubes on the left for years. The available "heavy" tubes are only a few dollars more than a standard tube. Check with ALL of your manufacturers to confirm that. If they are selling for more than that you can bet the the material is wrong (only aluminum and magnetic steel allowed). If that becomes an issue series will simply swapping tubes out.

The birdcage is pretty well covered with the same general design on both sides. Meaning you can have a big thick bird cage but you have to have them on both sides. And remember that just because there are no maximum weights listed for a birdcage doesn't mean they can't be removed and weighed to help with an index of suspicion on material.

In regards to weight on the axle tubes - yes there is a method that would be plausibly safe. However for every one that used that method 10 more wouldn't. Anything that is dynamic shouldn't have ballast mounted to it. We have a problem in this sport with guys mounting seats and belts properly. Or guys using out of date belts and safety equipment, which is as much the series' fault as the drivers - however you see the point.

All your dynamics must be referenced to ground. Is the chassis not very dynamic?

What is wrong with two heavy cages?

And why is buying a thick tube cost saving over shoving a sleeve in the one I have?

[Bubstr]

They have essentially took a safe, cheap bolt on part and made the extra weight cost the racer a bunch. If the weight bolts where high enough grade and large enough it was a cheap safe deal. Now it's not cheap, just like most rules.

The thing is, the shocks got so good in dampening and tune ability they no longer fear unsprung weight.. There is a very large thread on this in the Dirt late model section.

[flagone]

The chassis is significantly stronger and less likely to break than an axle tube, radius rod or birdcage under dynamic motion or in an impact.

You can do 2 heavy cages but I don't think you will see anyone doing that.

Sleeves are no cheaper than buying an axle tube.

[oldfart50]

There are $10,000.00 Tungsten axle tubes out there that are really, really heavy...

[billetbirdcage]

The chassis is significantly stronger and less likely to break than an axle tube, radius rod or birdcage under dynamic motion or in an impact.

You can do 2 heavy cages but I don't think you will see anyone doing that.

Sleeves are no cheaper than buying an axle tube.

25# lead bolted to a 1.25 or 1.5 .065 DOM or Moly tube with a small weight clamp on the chassis is stronger then clamping the same 25# a 3.0 x .25 wall aluminum tube or 3.0 x .125 wall steel tube? Wow, didn't know that.

And where does it say they have to weight the same left vs right on cages? Wording is so bad, it says as similar as possible nothing about weight at all. Lots of room for interpretation there.

[flagone]

The only way, OTHER than using illegal materials, to make a birdcage heavier would be to add material - making it bulkier or larger overall.

How often to frames break compared to the other parts?

My last post on the subject. The rules are in place. Everyone has a better idea - everyone. But these are what we have.

[flagone]

And oldfart they are illegal because of what they are made from.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

The chassis is significantly stronger and less likely to break than an axle tube, radius rod or birdcage under dynamic motion or in an impact.

You can do 2 heavy cages but I don't think you will see anyone doing that.

Sleeves are no cheaper than buying an axle tube.

I will send you a picture once I get my cages done.

[billetbirdcage]

My last post on the subject. The rules are in place. Everyone has a better idea - everyone. But these are what we have.

Why did they go away from the plan on weighing the whole rear assembly hanging in the car. It's fair, fast and easy to tech. I just do get that part at all. Then you guys backtracked on the cage weights again don't understand that besides it's a nightmare to tech.

I'm not trying to make you mad or clown you, just don't understand why they decided to go the route they did. Either stop it all or none of it.

Granted you guys did take care of the most dangerous part of some of what was going on with the rules (many don't know about this so I'm not going there but you should know what I talking about), but seem to gave in to others and make getting the weight there more expensive in many ways.

[flagone]

It is a group decision. I am only one vote and voice. But at the end of the day everyone having the same rules is cheaper no matter what.

MasterSbilt please do. My phone number and email are both posted.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

It is a group decision. I am only one vote and voice. But at the end of the day everyone having the same rules is cheaper no matter what.

MasterSbilt please do. My phone number and email are both posted.

I think we have reached the point that Lucas and Woo should just go their way and fight their battles and leave the grassroots racers alone. They can fill their series or not.

[Stede Bonnet]

Hopefully someone smarter than me could shed some light here. I always thought the lighter the better but it seems that thinking is changing. What is the deal w/adding weight directly to the left rear? How is this helping the cars? At what lengths are guys willing to go to put weight on the left rear? Are there any rules preventing the addition of left-rear weight? Is this beneficial for a tacky and a slick track? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Your a few months late to this discussion, but in synopsis it has to do with the difference between sprung and un-sprung, dynamic and static weight, plus aerodynamic versus mechanical grip. All things being equal, up to a point, the tire with the greatest load has the most traction. What this means is as setups have evolved since 1998, when the spring behind setup went mainstream, that introduced massive instantaneous mechanical rear traction or "Drive". The problem was though it was generally too much of a good thing and the cars were a handful to drive, they tended to go in unpredictable directions when you let off the fuel and a lot of shocks were ripped apart in the process. Prior to 1998 the typical RF spring was 550#, but as the setups have progressed or digressed depending on your POV, the RF spring got softer and softer until now its barely strong enough to hold the car up sitting still. What they realized was if they softened the RF, all the energy thrust into the chassis at the LR by the rods hiking the car up could be absorbed into the RF by softening the spring, thus keeping the front end on the ground. The tradeoff though was loss of "Drive" for better "Steering", so in comes the bump stops and coil binding setups, this way you could have your cake and eat it too. The bumps allowed you to run a soft spring on the RF so you could keep the frontend down, but at a specific set point in travel you could induce the lost mechanical grip, but its a fine line and requires expensive shock packages and testing to control effectively. In the middle of all this they found that keeping the nose piece as close to the surface of the track as they could further allowed them to introduce more drive and the aero downforce on the nose would help them to turn. In the midst of all this other parts of the car were developing as well, lighter and lighter doo-dads, low friction this and that, and HP peaking beyond 900!!!

Now skip forward to 2014 and an enterprising young man named Kevin Rumley had noticed a short coming in the much worshiped and ballyhooed 4 link rear suspension. He devised a component that would further enhance rear traction and still have a car that would turn, add to that a young talented driver with something to prove and you get the 2015 Lucas Oil season. Now along the way everyone is scrambling to match speed with the Rumley car and pulling out all the stops, more power is demanded from engine builders, but getting all that HP to stay hooked all night is nearly impossible and TC is illegal, so what do you do?

Increased Load equals more traction, up to a point. Just adding weight to the chassis on the LR won't work because it will upset the balance. You see adding weight to the chassis is "Sprung weight" or weight carried by the springs, which moves around during body roll and cornering, so in order to get the weight to stay in the LR it must be un-sprung weight, ie axle tubes, bird cages and suspension links. Having the rear end be heavier on the left side, on its own, helps more of the static weight stay on the LR for when you need it at corner exit. Now the reason for the heavy wheel spacers and brake rotors is two fold, one you get the added un-sprung weight for the LR, but two, you get a dampening of the engine torque and less wheel spin thru the centrifugal force, essentially legal traction control. They could've saved everyone a lot of money had they dealt with the shock/spring behind the axle back in the day and enforced the body rules and the 1 shock per wheel rule, but Pandora's box has been opened and the snakes are out. Bon Voyage.

[Stede Bonnet]

The chassis is significantly stronger and less likely to break than an axle tube, radius rod or birdcage under dynamic motion or in an impact.

You can do 2 heavy cages but I don't think you will see anyone doing that.

Sleeves are no cheaper than buying an axle tube.

The axle feels the same weight regardless of whether its a heavy tube or frame, weight is weight, 2300# is 2300# and it all gets fed thru the birdcage into the axle, so I call BS on it being at risk to break. If y'all were gonna worry about axle's breaking it should've been when they started propping the LR up on 2 solids rods instead of the weight being fed progressively thru a spring.

[chop6259]

Your a few months late to this discussion, but in synopsis it has to do with the difference between sprung and un-sprung, dynamic and static weight, plus aerodynamic versus mechanical grip. All things being equal, up to a point, the tire with the greatest load has the most traction. What this means is as setups have evolved since 1998, when the spring behind setup went mainstream, that introduced massive instantaneous mechanical rear traction or "Drive". The problem was though it was generally too much of a good thing and the cars were a handful to drive, they tended to go in unpredictable directions when you let off the fuel and a lot of shocks were ripped apart in the process. Prior to 1998 the typical RF spring was 550#, but as the setups have progressed or digressed depending on your POV, the RF spring got softer and softer until now its barely strong enough to hold the car up sitting still. What they realized was if they softened the RF, all the energy thrust into the chassis at the LR by the rods hiking the car up could be absorbed into the RF by softening the spring, thus keeping the front end on the ground. The tradeoff though was loss of "Drive" for better "Steering", so in comes the bump stops and coil binding setups, this way you could have your cake and eat it too. The bumps allowed you to run a soft spring on the RF so you could keep the frontend down, but at a specific set point in travel you could induce the lost mechanical grip, but its a fine line and requires expensive shock packages and testing to control effectively. In the middle of all this they found that keeping the nose piece as close to the surface of the track as they could further allowed them to introduce more drive and the aero downforce on the nose would help them to turn. In the midst of all this other parts of the car were developing as well, lighter and lighter doo-dads, low friction this and that, and HP peaking beyond 900!!! Now skip forward to 2014 and an enterprising young man named Kevin Rumley had noticed a short coming in the much worshiped and ballyhooed 4 link rear suspension. He devised a component that would further enhance rear traction and still have a car that would turn, add to that a young talented driver with something to prove and you get the 2015 Lucas Oil season. Now along the way everyone is scrambling to match speed with the Rumley car and pulling out all the stops, more power is demanded from engine builders, but getting all that HP to stay hooked all night is nearly impossible and TC is illegal, so what do you do? Increased Load equals more traction, up to a point. Just adding weight to the chassis on the LR won't work because it will upset the balance. You see adding weight to the chassis is "Sprung weight" or weight carried by the springs, which moves around during body roll and cornering, so in order to get the weight to stay in the LR it must be un-sprung weight, ie axle tubes, bird cages and suspension links. Having the rear end be heavier on the left side, on its own, helps more of the static weight stay on the LR for when you need it at corner exit. Now the reason for the heavy wheel spacers and brake rotors is two fold, one you get the added un-sprung weight for the LR, but two, you get a dampening of the engine torque and less wheel spin thru the centrifugal force, essentially legal traction control. They could've saved everyone a lot of money had they dealt with the shock/spring behind the axle back in the day and enforced the body rules and the 1 shock per wheel rule, but Pandora's box has been opened and the snakes are out. Bon Voyage.Well, reading through some of these post, I was going to make a response, but Stede Bonnet did a pretty good job of summing up the main points. The one thing I might add is that you have to recognize that force is developed at the contact patch through three paths: elastic (i.e. springs shocks), kinematic (i.e. the bars), and the unsprung mass. If the car is up on the bars, the elastic path has been pretty much diminished leaving the forces to mainly reach the tire through the bars and the unsprung mass. One other thing you have to remember is that the kinematic forces are developed as a reaction to lateral and longitudinal forces at the contact patch. If at any time while up on the bars, the driver has to work the throttle, there goes your kinematic path when forward thrust is removed. The only thing left is what little bit of force the shock will carry and the unsprung mass. Increasing the unsprung mass on the left rear will help to keep the tire loaded as the driver works the throttle while on the bars.http://www.bartlettmotorsportengineering.com

[cjsracing]

I'm just glad my sanctioning body didn't adopt these "Uniform" rules.

[chupp n bloomer fan]

Your a few months late to this discussion, but in synopsis it has to do with the difference between sprung and un-sprung, dynamic and static weight, plus aerodynamic versus mechanical grip. All things being equal, up to a point, the tire with the greatest load has the most traction. What this means is as setups have evolved since 1998, when the spring behind setup went mainstream, that introduced massive instantaneous mechanical rear traction or "Drive". The problem was though it was generally too much of a good thing and the cars were a handful to drive, they tended to go in unpredictable directions when you let off the fuel and a lot of shocks were ripped apart in the process. Prior to 1998 the typical RF spring was 550#, but as the setups have progressed or digressed depending on your POV, the RF spring got softer and softer until now its barely strong enough to hold the car up sitting still. What they realized was if they softened the RF, all the energy thrust into the chassis at the LR by the rods hiking the car up could be absorbed into the RF by softening the spring, thus keeping the front end on the ground. The tradeoff though was loss of "Drive" for better "Steering", so in comes the bump stops and coil binding setups, this way you could have your cake and eat it too. The bumps allowed you to run a soft spring on the RF so you could keep the frontend down, but at a specific set point in travel you could induce the lost mechanical grip, but its a fine line and requires expensive shock packages and testing to control effectively. In the middle of all this they found that keeping the nose piece as close to the surface of the track as they could further allowed them to introduce more drive and the aero downforce on the nose would help them to turn. In the midst of all this other parts of the car were developing as well, lighter and lighter doo-dads, low friction this and that, and HP peaking beyond 900!!!

Now skip forward to 2014 and an enterprising young man named Kevin Rumley had noticed a short coming in the much worshiped and ballyhooed 4 link rear suspension. He devised a component that would further enhance rear traction and still have a car that would turn, add to that a young talented driver with something to prove and you get the 2015 Lucas Oil season. Now along the way everyone is scrambling to match speed with the Rumley car and pulling out all the stops, more power is demanded from engine builders, but getting all that HP to stay hooked all night is nearly impossible and TC is illegal, so what do you do?

Increased Load equals more traction, up to a point. Just adding weight to the chassis on the LR won't work because it will upset the balance. You see adding weight to the chassis is "Sprung weight" or weight carried by the springs, which moves around during body roll and cornering, so in order to get the weight to stay in the LR it must be un-sprung weight, ie axle tubes, bird cages and suspension links. Having the rear end be heavier on the left side, on its own, helps more of the static weight stay on the LR for when you need it at corner exit. Now the reason for the heavy wheel spacers and brake rotors is two fold, one you get the added un-sprung weight for the LR, but two, you get a dampening of the engine torque and less wheel spin thru the centrifugal force, essentially legal traction control. They could've saved everyone a lot of money had they dealt with the shock/spring behind the axle back in the day and enforced the body rules and the 1 shock per wheel rule, but Pandora's box has been opened and the snakes are out. Bon Voyage.I may not agree with everything you say, as no one should ever agree with everything someone says, but you make really good posts. And this one is at the top.

[Clayton_Wetter]

One pound of carbide is about 2.4 times heavier than iron.

[Stede Bonnet]

One pound of carbide is about 2.4 times heavier than iron.

1 pound of steel is equal to 1 pound of carbide and both are also equal to 1 pound of aluminum in weight.
Nobody is voluntarily putting and extra 200#....

[Bubstr]

Does anyone else see the reason the Rumley device was outlawed last year? If the rules committee wasn't smart enough last year to make a comprehensive rule that would have made this left rear rule unneeded, what makes them smart enough today. You can see by the defense, (this is what it is, like it or lump it) attitude says. They have no defense, they don't really understand it, don't want to explain it and don't want to be told about it. That is a sad way to do what is best for the sport.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

Does anyone else see the reason the Rumley device was outlawed last year? If the rules committee wasn't smart enough last year to make a comprehensive rule that would have made this left rear rule unneeded, what makes them smart enough today. You can see by the defense, (this is what it is, like it or lump it) attitude says. They have no defense, they don't really understand it, don't want to explain it and don't want to be told about it. That is a sad way to do what is best for the sport.

Fear, caused by being overmatched, causes regretful knee-jerk reactions. We see it in all phases of life. A little investigation and understanding sure beats flailing wildly at the boogeyman.

[Stede Bonnet]

Fear, caused by being overmatched, causes regretful knee-jerk reactions. We see it in all phases of life. A little investigation and understanding sure beats flailing wildly at the boogeyman.

Nail on head as usual.

[a25rjr]

Stede is right about 1lb is 1lb even a pound of carbide is exactly the same weight as a pound of bread. I think what Clayton wetter meant to say was just say a 2"x2" piece of carbide would be 2.4 times heavier than a 2"x2" piece of iron.

Its actually 1.74 times heavier.....lead (.41lbs/cui), tungsten carbide (.70 lbs/cui).

However, very few use pure lead, esp if you melt lead weights from a tire shop.

[RCJ]

Has the minimum weight been raised to 2350 for UMP?

[Clayton_Wetter]

Stede is right about 1lb is 1lb even a pound of carbide is exactly the same weight as a pound of bread. I think what Clayton wetter meant to say was just say a 2"x2" piece of carbide would be 2.4 times heavier than a 2"x2" piece of iron.

I stated that carbide is 2.4 times heavier than steel or at least that was my intent. And those are the facts.

[Stede Bonnet]

I stated that carbide is 2.4 times heavier than steel or at least that was my intent. And those are the facts.

Your right, but some of the rule dudes are acting like these guys who've used the heavy weight exotic materials have added extra weight to their cars, above and beyond #2300, like they've all bumped up to #3200 cup cars and this added weight is in danger of breaking a now, "presumably" over loaded axle... To me this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding physics or racing on their part. The LR wheel and therefor the LR axle is still seeing roughly the same weight, +/- a few, as it would normally. They've simply traded ballast for heavy weight parts and for those of us without extravagant means to purchase exotic materials, lead is cheap to use as a substitute. If mounting was their concern they should've mandated a certain number of approved clamps and give a size and/or max weight for the mounted weight, simple. Like others have argued if they think its unsafe to mount ballast on an axle, then its unsafe to mount it to the chassis, they both see the same speeds and gyrations. My confidence in this committee and leadership is now a negative number and give me no hope for future growth or participation rates. I'm glad a few organizations here in the SE had the common sense to tell them they would NOT comply. As in the past and demonstrated by other organizations, rule makers end up doing more harm than they intend to fix because by and large they don't understand the thing they are effecting.

Its funny to see the advertisement to the left of this box while I'm typing still advertising the axle clamp they fear. Look I don't want to be hit by flying lead anymore than anyone else, but I've never witnessed an inspection at any race I've attended or participated in where the tech even laid a hand on or closely examined anyone's ballast or clamps. So outlawing axle weight, to me, does nothing to improve on this issue.

Trends come and go, and like Kevin Rumley has said in many interviews I've listen to with him, if the powers that be would've just let the trend curve continue its natural wave all would have re-balanced as technology leaked out, instead of penalizing those brave enough and creative enough to see and try new solutions to old problems. Instead they interfered when the weak minded, lazy and uncreative boo-hoo'd about somebody else being fast. We live in an age where so many believe they should be able to just buy their way to the top or conversely rewrite the rules to eliminate the experience advantage other have over them as "new racers". I actually had a gentleman tell me this week it wasn't fair to allow those with experience to be able to do things that made them quicker, he wanted new tire rules that eliminated all choice and skill so everyone was exactly equal and that I should spend 2 weeks with a new team to see how frustrating it was for them to not win right off... OMG. I told him to flip his advice on its head and he should spend 2 weeks with a veteran team and learn how to be faster and stop sniveling. I can't believe this so called, "equality" political crap has creeped into racing too. Look I'm not in favor of letting people outspend to dominate everyone, but writing rules that only further hinder those less funded is just stupid.