Because a J-bar is not necessary. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The biggest thing anyone can learn from this, is not what the device is/does, but that you shouldn't let linguistics define the box that you think in. And for that, we are all guilty. Bottom line, your time is spent best not copying, but by removing any and all barriers in your thought process. This includes language. Dirt cars don't speak English, they speak the same language engineers do. Physics.
This looks like the thing LeCroy ran on his Rayburn that he won hundreds of races in. He used swing arm when wet and when track slowed down he went to 4 bar behind with this, in the Discovery race at Spring city I helped him that nite and when feature came he put it on because they were not going to water track before feature,then at last minute they watered it, but it was August and he left it on. Works best when you are hunting traction. But he had several rubber round things not a hock,he says rubbers are springs.
Does anybody remember the custom chassis cantalever set up that Freddy Smith used to dominate with years ago he was just about unbeatable for a while with it.I think its the same type deal but more refined.
When I first started helping a friend of mine, his father had one of those reverse cantilever cars, but those are different animals than this. The custom deal looked like this picture below.
Left 4M and Dirt Late Model racing, 04/12/2016 @12:06AM.
Interesting angle on the 4 bars. I know its a picture , but they look within 5 degrees at top 45 bott. 40. On my computer software the fwd. steer is almost the same as std. bar positions if I shorten the bottom rod 1 1/2 inch. HMMM?
Things/ideas like this is why many people don't want the proposed rules changes, since it's obvious to me the series don't have a clue to what they are trying to outlaw they are making rules with such a broad envelope that they are basically going to take away anything that isn't a basic 4 link suspension. If they want to stop this devise, fine but don't eliminate everything new suspension wise, do your research instead of blindingly making rules that eliminates innovation and make the proper rules.
I know many don't know or haven't been told what the rules will likely be, but basically they are talking like you can't do anything different then a STD 4 bar. Too Quote a series lead tech official (the one that makes the rules) when I asked to define what you call STD or clarify some wording his response was classic: "IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT AND DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN'T RUN IT." WTF, kind of rule is that?
Keep in mind that whatever lucas/Woo does most other series are going to follow, so these new rules are going to effect pretty much everyone including Modifieds as USMTS and USRA and others are most likely going to follow.
Straight from Rumley's FB page:
"I feel like I'm being persecuted for having an education. The left rear device was using common sense to solve an obvious problem, no real engineering used at all. When a rule is blindly created that's when it gets expensive. It's going to take $36k to do the same thing within the proposed rules. That's about how much it would take to design a mono-leaf to function as a current 4-link. See where I'm going with this?"
And I agree with him 100%. You show me the size of a rule book and I'll tell you how much it will cost to be competitive in that class. NASCAR has rule books the size of an NYC phone directory and you aren't getting your foot in the door without a 8-figure budget. All because of rules that were intended to keep costs down but instead forced people to do more with less and ultimately spending more money in engineering to do it.
Innovation and engineering are NOT the same thing. If the people that wrote the rules understood that, we'd all be a lot better off.
What do yall think about this? Since Rumley has contractual ties to Longhorn, I wonder if Lucas officials thought this device was too "self-serving"? In other words, shouldn't they have been selling it to other Longhorn owners instead of "hoarding" it for themselves? Im pretty sure none of us knows the details of his contract with Longhorn. Something just dont add up to me, when supposedly Davenport had the only one.
I think it is a way to control and dampen left rear drop , which also controls rear steer , from inside the car. His statement " The left rear device was using common sense to solve an obvious problem" speaks volumes. I have not read all the rules, but some say you can only have a brake bias adjuster inside the car. they may consider this to be like the on board weight jacking device and not allow it. just thinking out loud but it would be nice to control rear steer from inside the car. no matter what, its given me and a lot of others something to ponder.........
What do yall think about this? Since Rumley has contractual ties to Longhorn, I wonder if Lucas officials thought this device was too "self-serving"? In other words, shouldn't they have been selling it to other Longhorn owners instead of "hoarding" it for themselves? Im pretty sure none of us knows the details of his contract with Longhorn. Something just dont add up to me, when supposedly Davenport had the only one.
Its simple. They have 10 series regulars crying foul. That is all.
36k $ to do the same thing within the proposed rules... thats just plain stupid talk. To believe anyone would quote it much less believe it is entertaining. It wouldn't cost 36 grand to convert a leaf car to a 4 link car, for 36 grand you could buy how many new chassis?
Usra and USMTS changed or clarified suspension rules last year because someone with a cantilever set up for a pull bar won half the races. It already should have been illegal, but either way the guy still won most of the races he ran this year with a conventional set up.
I think his point went over your head. He is talking about engineering "solid" links to behave as springs. As part of a more complex system. It was tongue in cheek, but has nothing to do with a leaf spring to 4 link conversion.
If the rules are solid links, then I guess he should thank them for saving him 36 grand.
Everything on earth has a spring constant. It is cheaper to just let a guy run the spring he wants. If he can't, he spends 36 grand to circumvent the rule.
Over the years ive learned that when you add traction to one corner you need to add it to another to keep things balanced and headed in the intended direction. So with rumleys device adding additional traction to the LR, did this facilitate the need to put the RR in the cushion to get the car to turn? JD seemed to run better on tracks with a good top side than he did on those with a dominant slicked off lower groove.
Everyone on this board knows more about how to make the rumley left rear work than rumley does. And everyone on this board has won more money In a year than rumley has also .... Just ask them and they will tell you.... The funny thing is they don't want it banned because they think they figured it out not realizing that rumley has probably moved on to something better already anyway lol
Everyone on this board knows more about how to make the rumley left rear work than rumley does. And everyone on this board has won more money In a year than rumley has also .... Just ask them and they will tell you.... The funny thing is they don't want it banned because they think they figured it out not realizing that rumley has probably moved on to something better already anyway lol
I was at the same track as Davenport (to race) twice this year. I don't care what he has.
I finally got my head out of the sand and realized I had the ability to do some things. My budget wasn't as limiting as I once thought it was.
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Necrosis
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks