Where are we headed?

[Vap8102]

Matt,First, I'm not sure there's a good answer to your question for all regions of the country. Everyone on here has a point that makes sense for where they race. All of this discussion is academic until a region of track promoters or series gets together on the same page. A lot of ideas could work to control costs, but unless enough large groups come together around one idea, nothing is going to change. And the only thing that will make any groups come together is economics. If the big series start to fail economically, something will change.With that, here's the situation out west. There's a few unlimited budget teams, but they don't win all the time. And because of that and my personal experience, I don't buy into the "wide bore is killing LMs". Even if there wasn't a wide bore, are any of us that are concerned about cost going to go out and buy a fresh 35k standard bore Cornett? It costs 10k for a Cornett freshen whether it's a wide bore or not. None of us budget racers can afford a new top of the line standard bore motor anyway, so that's not the issue. Bottom line is when you race the top of the line class, someone is going to outdollar everyone else. So the solution isn't to tell a guy how much he can spend but rather make those dollars less relevant. One big factor that seems to be working out here is the D55 spec tire. I think other rules that reduce traction (a little) would help to further minimize the impact of big dollars.I run a nearly 10 year old Victory Circle with an even older SB2, both of which I bought used. I can run (and occasionally win) with any of the west coast cars. I have outqualified Clanton and Moyer with my old equipment on a big track. I know I have less equipment than those guys, but those tires that are hard enough to make sparks make those big dollars a lot less important. And I'd sure rather buy new edges every few weeks than the alternatives.BTW, we should be outlawing 4 way adjustables...

[Matt49]

Matt,First, I'm not sure there's a good answer to your question for all regions of the country. Everyone on here has a point that makes sense for where they race. All of this discussion is academic until a region of track promoters or series gets together on the same page. A lot of ideas could work to control costs, but unless enough large groups come together around one idea, nothing is going to change. And the only thing that will make any groups come together is economics. If the big series start to fail economically, something will change.With that, here's the situation out west. There's a few unlimited budget teams, but they don't win all the time. And because of that and my personal experience, I don't buy into the "wide bore is killing LMs". Even if there wasn't a wide bore, are any of us that are concerned about cost going to go out and buy a fresh 35k standard bore Cornett? It costs 10k for a Cornett freshen whether it's a wide bore or not. None of us budget racers can afford a new top of the line standard bore motor anyway, so that's not the issue. Bottom line is when you race the top of the line class, someone is going to outdollar everyone else. So the solution isn't to tell a guy how much he can spend but rather make those dollars less relevant. One big factor that seems to be working out here is the D55 spec tire. I think other rules that reduce traction (a little) would help to further minimize the impact of big dollars.I run a nearly 10 year old Victory Circle with an even older SB2, both of which I bought used. I can run (and occasionally win) with any of the west coast cars. I have outqualified Clanton and Moyer with my old equipment on a big track. I know I have less equipment than those guys, but those tires that are hard enough to make sparks make those big dollars a lot less important. And I'd sure rather buy new edges every few weeks than the alternatives.BTW, we should be outlawing 4 way adjustables...

Kind of goes back to my idea of making some rules that make it possible for the "smart" money to out run the big money.
The shock rule discussion could almost be an entirely separate discussion but let's go there for a moment. While I'm not a fan of shock rules in general, I think we need to stay out of the inerter business. That being said, where do we draw the line? My fear is that if you were to make a rule that said something like "no 4-way adjustables" then someone would come up with some hidden way of adjusting the shock that the average person (let's face it that's about what most "tech" inspectors are) wouldn't be able to pick out. Then we're going to end up in the business of tearing down shocks like they tear down motors in classes with a bunch of motor rules.
I've heard the idea of a claim rule on shocks. I simply don't think claim rules work on anything. UMP modified engine rules being exhibit A.