Suspension rules get locked down ....

[a25rjr]

I ran spring rods in 1997. That is not new technology! Any suspension with a solid rear axle has always been legal until 2016. It isn't now because people are scared of a guy named Kevin Rumley. End of story

Everything that got outlawed was simply collateral damage in an attempt to slow the 6 car and rid it of a device the rules guys didn't understand.

So did I. Was one of the first to run Penske's tracking dampner. But, you didn't see anyone running two or more on the same side?

Two racing organizations do NOT spend all that time and money to slow one car down. Get real! Forrest would have had Ritchies head on a platter if he was on that type of a witch hunt!

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

So did I. Was one of the first to run Penske's tracking dampner. But, you didn't see anyone running two or more on the same side?

Two racing organizations do NOT spend all that time and money to slow one car down. Get real! Forrest would have had Ritchies head on a platter if he was on that type of a witch hunt!

There was no other reason to go NASCAR style with the rules. None. Late models were not broken.

Who cares if a guy runs 4 spring rods? He isn't going to consistently be fast.

[old fan]

That is too perfect. And makes too much sense.What a joke!

why is it a joke most sanctions will have the same rules isn't that a good thing

[old fan]

i was wondering if that was the same John Darby.What does a nascar guy know about late models?

he doesn't, he was there to make the riules as complete as possible some guy name Roger Slack was also involved

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

why is it a joke most sanctions will have the same rules isn't that a good thing

Dirt racing was the place you could still go in motorsports to see innovation. Why go the NASCAR route where they have a boring, dying product as they have continued to pile on more and more rules year after year?

[old fan]

http://myinforms.com/en-us/a/2907169...pension-rules/ well its gotten out of hand

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

The generic comments in that story say nothing. We already had broad accessibility. Any suspension was OK. Now, what you have likely is not in some way.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

Going from a monoleaf to a 4 link was radical. It was OK, because the other elite teams could copy it and it didn't dominate right away.

[grt74]

what has happened is the nascar guys like the dirt late models because of the freedom there is in it a far as an engineering stand point,so testing and trying new stuff is more important than ever to keep up(and i think the sport just can't afford it or support it),which in turn costs money,rumley and those guys along with davenport(the guy can drive too)are very sharp people also,along with bloomer,richards,and a few others,but the days of an up and coming driver getting it done with these guys is almost gone,it just takes to much time and money for the reward,and having a job 5 days a week even at 100,000 per year just won't work(remember now a job that pays that good or better is going to take up some time),and I'm sorry to say crate is falling right in there with it,just my opinion

[a25rjr]

There was no other reason to go NASCAR style with the rules. None. Late models were not broken.

Who cares if a guy runs 4 spring rods? He isn't going to consistently be fast.

4 spring rods at $300 each, 1 extra lr shock at $800 each, Hourly testing expenses at $500/hr.....Im sure the "small" teams greatly appreciate the new rules.

It appears it hasn't slowed down jd,josh, or scott....but it surely has saved them some money!

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

4 spring rods at $300 each, 1 extra lr shock at $800 each, Hourly testing expenses at $500/hr.....Im sure the "small" teams greatly appreciate the new rules.

It appears it hasn't slowed down jd,josh, or scott....but it surely has saved them some money!

Those guys test a lot. And will test a lot if we are on truck arms. It isn't like they are going to quit improving their car because we have a different rules package.

Those costs are laughable when you look at the number of tires they put on during a race event. The cost of a wide bore engine that should have never been allowed into competition. The fuel they put in the rig to go race in the Dakotas and Minnesota.

Then, just like the trailer full of strange oval axles for each track and event, those items you listed above will result in little to no consistent speed benefit.

Fools will poor their money down a rabbit hole if they want to, regardless of rules.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

I hate the new rules. I can't afford 10 new tires a night. But I can dream things to speed my car up and build them for a couple hundred bucks.

[a25rjr]

Those guys test a lot. And will test a lot if we are on truck arms. It isn't like they are going to quit improving their car because we have a different rules package.

Those costs are laughable when you look at the number of tires they put on during a race event. The cost of a wide bore engine that should have never been allowed into competition. The fuel they put in the rig to go race in the Dakotas and Minnesota.

Then, just like the trailer full of strange oval axles for each track and event, those items you listed above will result in little to no consistent speed benefit.

Fools will poor their money down a rabbit hole if they want to, regardless of rules.

Tire costs?....Lucas only allows 6 per event, unless you have a flat.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

Tire costs?....Lucas only allows 6 per event, unless you have a flat.

That is the only positive rule Lucas came up with.

And that is only Lucas and only new this year.

But, you kinda got me on one point...

[Matt49]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
You show me the size of the rule book and I'll tell you what it costs to be competitive in that class of racing.
It happened with NASCAR and it will happen to late model racing and I'm afraid we're already on that slippery slope.
We used to race karts and most tracks in karts also operated under "unified" rules published by the WKA. Every year a new rule book came out and every year it was thicker. And every year it got more and more expensive to race.
People that don't race can't seem to wrap their brains around this concept. The smaller you make the box, the more time and money you are going to have to spend to find speed in that box. NASCAR has a HUGE rule book all written in the name of keeping the cars as "stock" as possible. And look what it costs to field a competitive cup team. But all of those rules were written to keep cost down!?!? Get a clue people!!!

[a25rjr]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
You show me the size of the rule book and I'll tell you what it costs to be competitive in that class of racing.
It happened with NASCAR and it will happen to late model racing and I'm afraid we're already on that slippery slope.
We used to race karts and most tracks in karts also operated under "unified" rules published by the WKA. Every year a new rule book came out and every year it was thicker. And every year it got more and more expensive to race.
People that don't race can't seem to wrap their brains around this concept. The smaller you make the box, the more time and money you are going to have to spend to find speed in that box. NASCAR has a HUGE rule book all written in the name of keeping the cars as "stock" as possible. And look what it costs to field a competitive cup team. But all of those rules were written to keep cost down!?!? Get a clue people!!!

I basically agree with you and mbracer on those points.....but if dlm racing series don't do something, it will turn into f1 style of racing. Only affordable to the very wealthy and huge corporations.

So, I'll put this discussion into your court....what rule changes would you make, on the chassis side?

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

I basically agree with you and mbracer on those points.....but if dlm racing series don't do something, it will turn into f1 style of racing. Only affordable to the very wealthy and huge corporations.

So, I'll put this discussion into your court....what rule changes would you make, on the chassis side?

I would get the bodies back to the early 2000s and throw out all the manufactured stuff that caused the rules to be bent from that point to begin with. I don't care how much money you kick in a point fund.

Outlawing the Penske inerter stuff is fine. Those are very expensive. The connected shock stuff being outlawed is probably not a bad idea either.

Beyond that, leave chassis rules alone. You can't reduce cost effectively there. Your best hope is to limit aero dependence.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

You don't even race you said you quit 3 years ago..

Never said anything about quitting. I have a car in my possession right now.

[Matt49]

Okay...I'll rant...

What rule changes would I make on the chassis side? NONE

The problem that we have here is that sanctioning bodies tend to behave like governments: They have a set of rules that they either don't know how to or don't want to enforce. Things get out of hand and then they decide the best solution is to come up with NEW rules. It's the definition of insanity.

The current body rules go almost completely unenforced. The current engine rules go completely unenforced. And the tire rules are racing's version of crony capitalism (back to my government analogy). And also much like government, the people writing the rules don’t understand the supposed problems that they are writing rules to supposedly fix. So let’s hit on each of these shall we?

Enforcement of the current body rules doesn’t require NASCAR-style body templates. A guy needs a tape measure and a straight edge and 30 cars can be inspected (to some degree) in under 2 hours. Pretty much every car at every late model race you ever go to has multiple violations of the existing body rules. An obvious one that almost EVERY car is in violation of is Lucas Oil rule 12.6.A. To provide some background for those that may not know, the max width of the top of the body (decking) at the back of the doors is 76” and the max width of the top of the body at the back is 72”. Rule 12.6.A is the rule that states that the rear quarter panels must taper evenly on both sides from the 76” at the back of the doors to the 72” at the spoiler. I haven’t seen a single late model body constructed that way in over 10 years. Everybody builds their bodies so that all of the taper is in the left quarter panel leaving the right quarter panel flat to act like a sail board in the corners. This rule is not unique to Lucas. WoO rule 15.7.7.C is pretty much the exact same. It’s a rule that has been around for a long time and simply not enforced to the point that it’s a joke that it is even in the rule book anymore.

Engines are the main expense that needs to be brought under control and once again we see an unenforced rule that has caused the cost of engines to sky-rocket over the last few years. It’s already been mentioned but it is the spread bore motors. Late model racing rule books have, for a very long time, had the “based on a factory design” engine rule. The word “American” used to be in there somewhere too but it probably offended a minority group so they had to pull it out. The spirit and intent of this rule was to keep the cars using blocks that were at least BASED on Chevy/Ford/Mopar small and big block dimensions of motors that were in FACTORY produced automobiles. What we have today instead is a class dominated by spread bore motors that have never appeared in a factory produced vehicle while the CT525 (based on a Vette motor) is completely illegal under most sanctioning bodies because everybody is scared of what kind of magic lingers in that there coil pack.

Tires? Tire rules are a win/lose in my opinion. A single tire rules presents its own set of unique problems depending on the rule and an open tire rule presents its own set of unique problems. The series that I race has a two compound rule and I actually like it. We’ve got a soft tire and a hard tire. Groove them how you want, sipe them how you want, run any size you want, etc. but it has to be one of those compounds. And tire doping rules, of all the things they actually try to enforce, is one of the most difficult things to enforce accurately. There is no way to scientifically prove that a tire was doped by the owner. There are all kinds of things that can happen to that tire on accident to alter its chemical make-up WITHOUT enhancing its performance. But I do find it ironic that sanctioning bodies take this so seriously despite it being one of the few things that is almost impossible to accurately enforce. That’s all I have to say about that.

And last but not least is the people writing the rules not understanding the subject matter. A shining example of this is the often used rule (usually in a crate or limited classes) that states “no canister shocks”. Usually with the word “no” in all caps to make sure we know they really mean business here. Only a person that knows NOTHING about shock technology would craft a rule like that. There is no magic in that canister and you can go buy another set of shocks with the same technology in a bulb for pretty much the same cost. So while these geniuses thought they were saving everybody money by outlawing Ohlins shocks, everybody goes out and buys a set of Integra IDAs for about $4K and obsoletes the set of Ohlins that cost him $4K. That’s just plain idiotic.

But the rule that takes the cake when it comes to just plain ignorant wording is the one that states “no live axle rear ends.” So are we supposed to be running front wheel drive? Because every automotive engineering book I’ve ever seen defines a “live” axle as one that also transmits power to the wheels I guess I’ll leave the quick change gears in the trailer and push my car around the track best as I can. SMH.

But chassis rules on the MECHANICS of the suspension need to be left alone. I agree with the rules outlawing inerters and active suspensions. Hell, even F1 has outlawed this type of stuff. But to get rid of things like spring rods and brake floaters is asinine. And this nonsense that Lucas has in their rulebook about any chassis or component design being submitted to Lucas before it will be allowed in competition?!?!?! That’s basically just saying, “We’re not sure what these new rules really mean so just bring it to us and we’ll let you know if you can run it.” WTF is that? Why would I ever spend the time and effort fabricating something new that apparently fits within the scope of the rules just to submit it to the sanctioning body for them to ban it before it ever hits the track??? And their reason for banning will probably be, “that’s a pretty fancy contraption there and we don’t know how it works so we’re gonna have to put a stop to that.” As if they haven’t already set precedent for that...

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

Really? You want me to go find where you said you QUIT 3 years ago and are helping someone now? wtf.. whiners will whine.

You won't find it. It has been longer than that since I drove. But I have never been out of the sport. Flame on!