When did he have one of the fastest cars at Charlotte? Or were you referring to the testing a week before? Did that pay $12k to win???
Printable View
When did he have one of the fastest cars at Charlotte? Or were you referring to the testing a week before? Did that pay $12k to win???
Second night qualified top five, won the heat and was DQ'ed from a front row starting spot in the feature. I'm not saying that was a World 100 victory, but my argument is to challenge Bayko's claim of "Perennial Backmarker".
To build on mastersbilt_racer point about how it is an unneeded rule. Let’s say it is better than independent front. Add up the costs of an independent front suspension. For the costs of a set of cheap uppers you could easily fab your own straight axle. Many sprint car guys build a simple jig and build 3-4 spares at a time for about $100 each. I’m not saying it is better or worse, I am just pointing out they are simple to self build, simple to replace and much cheaper than a full front end set up.
I have been impressed by Kirkpatrick and love to see guys bring a different mouse trap and do well. The debate on which is better somebody can always make an argument, that’s not the point of the post or rule. What made late models cool is guys can be different.
Gettin to much like NASCAR
Look at that, you sh!t in peoples Cherrios. And are now a millionaire. (not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word). Next you’ll marry Kate Upton.
I agree with you.
Got a younger guy at work who tends to do things that aren’t smart either. You got to understand the hierarchy of a situation. Did he get DQued for the axle, I dunno. Would I, no. But it’s similar to what JD and Rumley did. You can’t try and tell the higher ups f you when they got the power.
And all this hate for Richards. Aren’t you the same ones who champion capitalism? Hate a guy because he is at the top. Does he throw weight, probably. So does every other big business, and a helluva a lot worse.
CnB,
What does an economic system, based on supply and demand, have to do with coercion?
I love Richards but if someone comes along and builds something better than so be it (that is true capitalism)
I like how every thing woo does is automatically marks fault and or doing lol the blue number one comes out on top no matter who's and box their playing in so I'm not thinking they were that concerned about kirkpatrick. I'm sure he may of been asked about his opinion on it but i doubt he was behind it.
Richards ain’t no better than Laborite and Longhorns
Flyboy, I hope you lose internet forever.
It's pretty simple. He supplies 90% of the cars. The guys in charge of woo don't know squat about race cars. He can tell them anything. He can get 10 of his drivers to call and complain. He's gonna get results.
Aside from Rumley Rules, when hasn't he gotten his way?
Is it just me or does it seem like the more rules that get added to the books the less choices we have for competitive chassis. 20 rules and 20 years ago we had GRT, Mastersbuilt, Warrior, Shaw, Victory circle, Rayburn, TNT and probably a long list of regional builders that were able to compete and no one hears about most of them anymore.
Not as many cars and tracks these days, but we have really just 'swapped out' builders. We have Longhorn, Black Diamond, Capital, Bloomquist that did not exist 20 years ago and less participants in the sport. I don't like to see the ingenuity taken away either but also have been around long enough to see the evolution of how we got to this point. First step for dirt late model racing is to actually enforce the rules they have before adding new....
Are we ever going to see another "shock behind" type idea that is allowed in the sport? And I mean how that changed the way cars raced as a whole, not being literal. It doesn't seem like any kid of innovation is allowed anymore.
From someone who was in the dirt world and now works in NASCAR as an engineer, all that happens when you make rules to restrict or "save money" is that you make it harder and harder for people to gain an advantage. What then happens is you have to dig deeper and deeper engineering wise to find an advantage, and that costs more money. So instead of allowing the simple and cheap solutions to add speed they are forcing guys to find speed through more costly methods. Not to mention it becomes harder and harder to find those small advantages, so it keeps the little guy from figuring it out. Same thing that has happened in NASCAR and its why the same teams dominate every week.
hotshoe65s - You get the hitting the nail on the head award right there.
98-06 I worked as a tech in NASCAR. Our series ran 390 carbs on 9:1 engines. We had all those neat tools and go-no go gauges to check those carbs plus a box stock Holley we could could compare to. Why then at the time were some of those carbs costing teams $4500, and maybe more?
Well, they were buying technology from teams that ran BGN (now Xfinity) and those teams also ran 390cfm carbs at places like Daytona, where they also ran the plate. So, they had to get every little bit of air through that carb and still make the power they wanted, and still pass the tech test. Big time engineering and costs just trickled on down.
So, right there is a good example of how that "cost saving measure" in the form of a box stock Holley, race ready for your short track series, became a very expensive part - a part that many teams thought they needed just to be competitive and stay near the front runners.
I remember holding a conversation with a DLM driver after a show and he brought up to me that maybe the series he was running should consider going to a 390 carb. My reply, "NOOOOOOOOO." When I explained the above example in a bit more detail he reconsidered.
You were spot on in your comment.
I agree somewhat with hotshoe, but also know there are not many simple and cheap solutions in the end. Like it or not, money will always buy the better mousetrap and the cream will rise to the top. I do also believe we need to leave room for the guy to give it a shot on the floor of his garage, but can tell you open engine, body, and tire rules would have completely ran dirt late models out of existence years ago. Just because there is not a rule does not mean that a cheap, out of the box piece will be competitive.... The money will be spent to make it the best regardless, have also seen this on every level of the sport.
So I've read through this, and my thought was it really necessary to create a rule against it? Just like all designs, they have their pros and cons. Independent suspensions and straight axles each have them. Unless it was something that was engineered by F1 type of dollars, I personally don't feel there should be rules against stuff like this. But this is just my opinion...
I'm not up on all the new chassis dynamics and tricks and gadgets..how could a straight axle be a help?
I might be wrong, but wasn't there a 4 wheel drive dirt late model corvette d7, Jerry Inmon?.. and a mid-engine dirt late model, Charlie Swartz ? Way back in the 70's ?..What ever happend to them.... ?
Bill Frye had a car with 3 or 4 wheel drive. Believe it was when he and Bloomer tussled.
kinda be funny if someone trolled him just to get him to reveal what he is doing and it wont actually get banned
Not a troll job, there is always a possibility that the sanction body reverses their decision before it gets to print but I highly doubt that.
It's also not like the other top major teams, didn't already know about the axle at least as far was there was one under the car. They all knew months and months ago
I think the original topic has been beat to death. Most new rules are not about affordability. They are about protecting and promotion of vested interest. Otherwise, we would not have the bodies we have. We wouldn't have noses that are half as tall as the first "stock appearing noses". We wouldn't have flat roofs, tilted, with vortex generators.
Every once sacred body rule has been tossed since an aftermarket supplier has been available. Rome burns and Dirtcar and Lucas only cares what a very small number of people think. Often, those people have interests that oppose the health of the sport as a whole.
I just wonder if the spoiler size changed from 8" tall to 4" how that would affect the racing? Less grip and that's probably the easiest thing to change on these cars. Would there even be a need for wide bore motors at that point? Sure you could have them, but may not be necessary. I'd like to see something like that that would make the number of super cars in all areas boom.
Blue ridge outlaws run the sideboards.. I say bring those back for all late models.
Wouldn't side boards be counter-productive since that increases aero? If people want to have that as a "one-off" deal to run sometime during the year, I think that would be fine. But finding a way make supers more affordable and more attainable to more people, I think less aero is part of the answer. I feel that if we could find a way to make supers more achievable like in years past, that we wouldn't see the need for so many multiple late model classes, like we currently now have in the SouthEast for example. Just food for thought...
Like masterbuilt said..... gotta takeaway the traction to make racing cheaper. If youre running soft azz tires and a car that makes stupid downforce, you then neen huge HP and expensive engines. Theres a reason you only need about a 10,000$ engine to be uber competitive in open wheel mods
How about this one??? And 43 wins in 43 starts???
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXWgf_9_u2s
To me, Austin is the modern dirt late model version of Jim Shampine who innovated and built better mouse traps, so to speak, in the super modifieds at Oswego Speedway in NY. He would build a new design car and practice it before the races until he know it was ready to win.