So, SAS-LUCAS-WoO, we're all concerned about $Expensive$ Shock Systems, What about...

[SuperEight]

How come nobody wants to take the lead on out of control engine expenses? I mean some of these new power plants are approaching $50K and rebuild costs that run as high as a "New" crate CT525. I'm not saying nothing should be done about exotic shocks, but engines seem to be the #800 Gorilla in the room nobody wants to discuss. Don't get me wrong I love horsepower as much as anyone, but this has become obscene.

[Necrosis]

There is no way to control it. It'd be way to hard to tech any spec parts enough to matter. Making the "box" smaller makes it more expensive to maximize.

[W2Racing09]

I think you will see Dirt Track racing turn itself around once the CT525 gets some rules on the National tours. It's not going to be able to be a weight break for the crate, but a comprehensive rules set that will involve some pretty serious testing. That motor could allow a bunch of new people to hit the road with a tour. I'm sure you would see Chevrolet get behind it a little bit too, which puts more sponsorship dollars in the ring.

Thanks,
Jeff.

[SuperEight]

There is no way to control it. It'd be way to hard to tech any spec parts enough to matter. Making the "box" smaller makes it more expensive to maximize.

So your saying you can control the costs of shocks with rules, but not engines... I don't follow. Why couldn't simply outlaw aluminum blocks? Or maybe certain types of heads? I'm not advocating going to "crates" as a solution that was merely a cost comparison. I think doing something about available traction would be the best route, making big horsepower unnecessary and unusable. The shock behind setup has only made the whole situation for shocks and engines worse, in my view. The "Wedge" was outlawed for the same reasons... Food for thought.

[Highside Hustler25]

How come nobody wants to take the lead on out of control engine expenses? I mean some of these new power plants are approaching $50K and rebuild costs that run as high as a "New" crate CT525. I'm not saying nothing should be done about exotic shocks, but engines seem to be the #800 Gorilla in the room nobody wants to discuss. Don't get me wrong I love horsepower as much as anyone, but this has become obscene.

Not knocking your opinion Super8, but I don't understand why so many folks, including racers, think horsepower wins races. Come May or June, all these racers will only be using 35-40 thousand $$ worth of that expensive power plant? That extra HP is just not needed on the dry slick surface that the touring series race on.

[SuperEight]

Not knocking your opinion Super8, but I don't understand why so many folks, including racers, think horsepower wins races. Come May or June, all these racers will only be using 35-40 thousand $$ worth of that expensive power plant? That extra HP is just not needed on the dry slick surface that the touring series race on.

I never said HP wins races, but qualifying usually takes place when there is still traction in the track and having Extra HP is an asset then. My comments are ALL about costs, not what it takes to win. So HP may not be the path to victory lane, but it plays a roll, otherwise the professional teams wouldn't bother having the latest power plants if they had no use.

[Highside Hustler25]

I never said HP wins races, but qualifying usually takes place when there is still traction in the track and having Extra HP is an asset then. My comments are ALL about costs, not what it takes to win. So HP may not be the path to victory lane, but it plays a roll, otherwise the professional teams wouldn't bother having the latest power plants if they had no use.

While I somewhat agree with your assessment, a lucky pill draw can be more valuable than 20 more HP. Just sayin.

[bb14]

The big motors do make it easier in the slick due to the linear torque band.

I would be interested with researching limiting the size of the engines with the Sprint car teams. They had the 410 limit imposed. What was the cost? Did it help with long term costs?

Unfortunately the big teams would have multiple engines with different power curves.

There will always be haves and have nots. This is expensive and I don't think crates is the right direction. Unfortunately adding rules costs money for teams and series for tech.

We do need something to stop the bleeding car counts. We may have lost weekly super racing forever in some areas. I blame the crates for this along with far too many regional series.

No one solution will make everyone happy but we do need to prevent formula type technology from taking over.

[superdirt]

The series don't have to make anything that is currently being run obsolete or illegal. Give the CT525 a weight break, and a taller and wider spoiler. Put a little more weight on the open motors. Tweak it until they are equally competitive.

Also, CT525 rebuilds should NOT be allowed. The price of a new CT525 is not much more than an rebuild on an open motor. The initial cost of a CT525 is much less, and they last longer than a high power "time bomb" because of their lower compression.

ALL of the problems with crate motors come about from allowing the motors to be opened and rebuilt. Simply, if you can't open the motor ever, that will eliminate 99% of the cheating an rebuild errors. Plus it will eliminate getting motors "blue print" rebuilt to supposedly maximize the motor. This is another unnecessary cost.....getting motors rebuilt before they actually need it.

Super Late Model racing is in trouble whether people want to admit it or not. Car counts have plummeted. The numbers of successful drivers exiting recently is another tell tale sign. Tracks and series should be providing some more economical OPTIONS to keep more drivers in the division as well as to encourage crate and limited late model drivers to move up without a huge expense ($10,000 for CT525 vs the cost of an open motor).

The other thing is that the series/tracks have to stand their ground when one of these motors starts winning and the open motor drivers start complaining about it having "unfair" advantages. If it is outright dominating, that's one thing, but if it is winning and the opens are winning and they are both in the top 5, there is no issue. It was VERY disappointing to see certain series and tracks take away the bigger spoilers on the CT525's and spec motors over the recent years.

I personally would rather watch a field of 50% CT525s with big spoilers than a field that is 50% smaller or no Super Late Models at all.

[Josh Bayko]

Big difference with the new shock rules and what you suggest. The shocks outlawed weren't widespread at all. Only a handful of teams were going in that direction. It was done as more of a preventative measure to keep them from becoming a neccessary item for a team to have.

Trying to outlaw engines and parts already used by pretty much every super late model team is a very slippery slope. It affects the lower budget teams the most. They have already spent the money on the expensive engine(s), turning them into boat anchors (because aluminum big inch small blocks aren't really used in any other form of racing) and making them buy a fairly expensive crate motor(s) could be a killer blow to their program.

[W2Racing09]

Big difference with the new shock rules and what you suggest. The shocks outlawed weren't widespread at all. Only a handful of teams were going in that direction. It was done as more of a preventative measure to keep them from becoming a neccessary item for a team to have.

Trying to outlaw engines and parts already used by pretty much every super late model team is a very slippery slope. It affects the lower budget teams the most. They have already spent the money on the expensive engine(s), turning them into boat anchors (because aluminum big inch small blocks aren't really used in any other form of racing) and making them buy a fairly expensive crate motor(s) could be a killer blow to their program.

I don't think they should outlaw any of the engines currently run, I just think they need to create some rules to give the CT525 a chance against them.

[Necrosis]

So your saying you can control the costs of shocks with rules, but not engines... I don't follow. Why couldn't simply outlaw aluminum blocks? Or maybe certain types of heads? I'm not advocating going to "crates" as a solution that was merely a cost comparison. I think doing something about available traction would be the best route, making big horsepower unnecessary and unusable. The shock behind setup has only made the whole situation for shocks and engines worse, in my view. The "Wedge" was outlawed for the same reasons... Food for thought.

Aluminum blocks make things cheaper. They can be resleeved much easier, welded on, and much easier to machine. I've had a block that went through 5 blow-ups, and still held cylinder seal. That would have been 5 new steel blocks, plus all the prep time involved.

[bb14]

Crates aren't the answer. Don't think that the engine builders do not know how to get in them. It is very common. I am glad they did something about the shocks but the shocks can be somewhat like crates. Unless you educate and hire a tech person you may not know what is inside. Racers are very smart and many think they have to have an advantage.

I agree it is probably too late to do anything about the engines unless they have a long term phasing process. The blocks can be sleeved but smaller engines may not be the answer without other measures that cost too much to police.

For once we are discussing a topic without finger pointing and name calling. Keep it up.

[W2Racing09]

Crates aren't the answer. Don't think that the engine builders do not know how to get in them. It is very common. I am glad they did something about the shocks but the shocks can be somewhat like crates. Unless you educate and hire a tech person you may not know what is inside. Racers are very smart and many think they have to have an advantage.

I agree it is probably too late to do anything about the engines unless they have a long term phasing process. The blocks can be sleeved but smaller engines may not be the answer without other measures that cost too much to police.

For once we are discussing a topic without finger pointing and name calling. Keep it up.

The only answer aside from Crates would be for engine builders to make a reliable spec engine for under $15k that can keep up with the $50k motors. If that isn't going to happen then Crates need to be the answer. You can not have $50k motors and expect there to continue to be a weekly SLM division anywhere in this country. If you don't have weekly cars then races like the Dream, World, World Finals, DTWC, etc. will no longer be profitable, if they are not profitable they won't be racing. If they are not racing will it be worth it for drivers to spend $100k on a car for just the basic WoO and Lucas series base purse shows that would draw 18-20 cars? Furthermore would it be profitable for tracks to bring in the Lucas/WoO series if they only bring 18-20 cars?

The point is coming soon when only the National and Regional guys can afford to race SLM, and once that time is here tracks are going to struggle to fill out the WoO and Lucas fields -- let alone the Crown Jewels that expect to get 60+ cars.

Thanks,
Jeff.

[Bubstr]

Aluminum blocks make things cheaper. They can be resleeved much easier, welded on, and much easier to machine. I've had a block that went through 5 blow-ups, and still held cylinder seal. That would have been 5 new steel blocks, plus all the prep time involved.

Here is someone that knows that Aluminum is more cost effective over the long run. They don't give steel billet blocks away and cast iron, doesn't lend it's self to longevity.

I don't believe, engine limitations are effective and they are almost impossible to enforce. The only answer is to limit traction in one way or another. If they can't use it, they won't buy it. Another tool could be to eliminate time trials. This is where big horsepower has a advantage, if conditions are right.

Look at the Mods, with a smaller and harder tire, it allows crates to compete with open engines, with little penalty. Some open engine builders are even de-tuneing their engines to be competitive. With less power, longevity goes up and cost comes down.

The worse idea is weight breaks and spoiler variations to off set a advantage. The cost of running a crate engine is it's advantage. If we make them competitive with weight breaks and more spoiler, are we going to give money to the open engine guy to be fair? How about reducing tire size for the cure. It's been done before and was effective. You no longer see those big humper sprint car tires. It's very easy to police.