UMP Modified chassis rule

[Bcollins82]

Clearly fabricated would be lighter.

If there were no advantage there would be no reason to want one.

Anyone can make a few fixtures to "measure points on the Chinese clips now" nobody chooses to do so.

We addressed the weight issue a few posts ago, the manufacturer would have a weight spec the same as a factory clip to eliminate that advantage. The advantage to the chassis builder not fighting the junk China parts, and the advantage to the racer would be better tech if it's enforced, and hopefully a chassis that doesn't bend frame horns quite as easily. They absolutely could figure out a way to tech the China clips, but I'm betting most sanctioning bodies are worried about running off cars that were built "out of spec"

[Bcollins82]

I don't pretend to know everything but I'd think if one of those companies would make a tire that lasted longer and had more speed in it at the lower cost than every racer would be buying that tire. If that tire would work well everywhere that even better. Right now in my opinion, the UMP is a expensive crappy tire. That makes sense if you compare that tire to the rest of the rules, policing, policies, procedures, etc...We haven't discussed the number of racers who would buy the lesser expensive tire just to play on. Theres more guys like me who have only won a time or two buy pure luck or just race for fun and comraderey. I'd argue that most of the guy out there racing weekly and locally. What would be more fun? Ten teams with nearly bottomless budgets or 100 running cheap parts and cars?
Around here, the lower classes are dominating the number game for this very reason I believe. It's still affordable.
I suppose in this case the "people" need to stop going to UMP tracks and force the tracks to use a different governing body like USRA/USMTS/IMCA and others. Or perhaps some one should step up and create their own and lobby the tracks to the benefits of that rule set. I wish I could be that person but as a single dad now that's not really in the cards for me most likely.
I agree with racers being their own worst enemy and as long as UMP is tolerated it's going to be a thing. We the racer still have the power to change it if they really want to. As far as Im concerned, if you write in a rule, don't police it, your better off just not having one.

If a company was to build a longer lasting tire that had more speed do you think it would stay cheap very long? And do you think it wouldn't be improved on by another company that would charge more? I feel the same as you about the UMP tires, especially since UMP has a tire the same size as the current D and A that will last longer and have more speed. The RC2 and RC4. Why don't they use those in UMP? Because they aren't about giving anyone a better tire, they are about selling more tires. Changing clips, running on hockey pucks, opening up the tire rule, whatever your point of view, it's just a drop in the bucket in the big picture. The only way you'll get more guys running UMP mods again is making it more affordable by taking away lots of traction so you don't have a huge engine bill and so you aren't ripping tires apart at the rate they are now. If I could make any change to the current rules I would limit down travel in the rear suspension to 2" limited by a solid chain on each side, and make a solid pull bar and no lift arm rule. Anyone with a flashlight, Jack, and tape measure could check it after a race when the car is being scaled. You could build a fixture to go on the wheel and check it if you wanted to take the tape measure out of the equation. How's that for a thread hijack? Lol

[RaceTechKs]

With all the trouble we just had this year with all the Chinese Clips and still do, because they still are not fixed like they should be and now someone don't want a Fabricated Stub..... These Chinese stubs have been narrowed, rolled, mounts moved, mounts changed not even stock, clipped trimmed for clearance, cut out and changed from the spring pockets forward, trimmed and narrowed from front to rear where they weld together as much as two inches. And then the chassis builders are allowed to come up with this BS plate deal to alter the hole placement so things seem to be in the correct place.....WHAT A JOKE. All that did was butcher the frames even further and make it even a BIGGER JOKE. But there are guys out there that say MY CHASSIS WAS FIXED.....BULL CRAP. The only way to fix the stubs that were narrowed is to remove the stub completely and replace it with an unaltered one or put back what was removed. And if that has not been done then that frame is not legal its as simple as that. And anyone who thinks I'm wrong, Terry Phillips openly admitted in an interview that "GRT had been messing with the frames and trying a few things to get an advantage over the competition for a while now". So I guess we see this year how many frames have been fixed correctly. As for tires, all a sanctioning body can do is pick a tire, ONE tire and that's what everyone uses. OH.... And I am all for the FAB STUB......

[Bcollins82]

How did you address the weight? You found builders who are going to build a fabricated clip with what 1/4 metal so it would weight the same?

Then it would be stronger and flex less and be a advantage. You just said you want it made stronger so it doesn't bend the horns, that would then not be the same as a chevelle clip it would be better. lol.

I thought this post was about ump now your lumping in all sanctioning bodies with them?

IMCA has specs and has measured them and made us fix our frames multiple times.

Yeah, it would be stiffer. Some believe that is a disadvantage. I'm not one personally, but nevertheless people still argue it either way. It would definitely be stronger, without a doubt. I did lump other sanctioning bodies in, but I do know for a fact UMP will skip busting someone in tech, give them "a week to fix it" then let it slide so they don't run racers away by making someone load up instead of fixing the issue to be legal like the others. It happens every week. That's great that IMCA is doing something about it. Do they actually measure the clips to be sure both sides are in stock location and haven't been moved in relation to each other? Or is it just a balljoint to frame rail measurement?

[Lizardracing]

"]If a company was to build a longer lasting tire that had more speed do you think it would stay cheap very long"

Yes of course they wouldn't!

And do you think it wouldn't be improved on by another company that would charge more?

Yes of course they would! Now imagine two or more companies making good tires that last a long time all trying to sell tires to a group of people. A lower price would give a company the advantage right? Then the other companies begin losing money because they can't sell tires and lower their price too. This is a called a price war which brings down the cost's of tires will driving innovation to make the their tire better. Now let's say you have multiple companies selling a great tire at about the same price but one is a A hole and the other provide great customer support. I don't think the customer is going to tolerate that too much so they buy from the nice guy. Now your getting a good tire, at a good price with good customer support. The tri-fecta!

I feel the same as you about the UMP tires, especially since UMP has a tire the same size as the current D and A that will last longer and have more speed. The RC2 and RC4. Why don't they use those in UMP? Because they aren't about giving anyone a better tire, they are about selling more tires.

I agree...and you have NO CHOICE.....which is my point. They charge what they want, they treat you like crap and you keep buying until you just can't take it anymore and quit racing altogether.


Changing clips, running on hockey pucks, opening up the tire rule, whatever your point of view, it's just a drop in the bucket in the big picture. The only way you'll get more guys running UMP mods again is making it more affordable by taking away lots of traction so you don't have a huge engine bill and so you aren't ripping tires apart at the rate they are now. If I could make any change to the current rules I would limit down travel in the rear suspension to 2" limited by a solid chain on each side, and make a solid pull bar and no lift arm rule. Anyone with a flashlight, Jack, and tape measure could check it after a race when the car is being scaled. You could build a fixture to go on the wheel and check it if you wanted to take the tape measure out of the equation. How's that for a thread hijack? Lol

I think we are making the same points here. We agree the cost is too high and corruption is too rampet. I don't think you can legislate your way to affordability however. That's what we have now and it's it's not really working to well is it? . A free market type system isn't perfect, but allowing some choices in would be a benefit I believe.

[buzzxxx666]

Fab stub might work in IMCA or USRA where they actually tech. in UMP in would be full blown late models without fenders in a matter of minutes.

[Bcollins82]

"]
Yes of course they would! Now imagine two or more companies making good tires that last a long time all trying to sell tires to a group of people. A lower price would give a company the advantage right? Then the other companies begin losing money because they can't sell tires and lower their price too. This is a called a price war which brings down the cost's of tires will driving innovation to make the their tire better. Now let's say you have multiple companies selling a great tire at about the same price but one is a A hole and the other provide great customer support. I don't think the customer is going to tolerate that too much so they buy from the nice guy. Now your getting a good tire, at a good price with good customer support. The tri-fecta!

I understand your point, and it sounds good in a fairytale world, but that's not what we're dealing with. It doesn't matter if manufacturer A is the biggest jerk you've ever met and he's charging double, if his tires are 1/2 a 1/10th per lap faster everyone will be on them. Then when manufacturer B builds something 1/2 a 1/10th better you've just forced everyone to throw tire A in the garbage and buy all new. This would go in circles until racers were out of business, not the manufacturer. I know better tires sound nice, but better tires that are good enough are already available. The increased traction that comes with them are not needed in budget racing. Once upon a time that's what UMP modifieds were... What's needed is a single tire in a single compound that takes heat cycles well. Free market systems are wonderful in real world business, but sanctioning bodies are better run when they are ruled with an iron fist. Lol And you can absolutely legislate your way to affordability in racing. Less traction=lower cost...

[RaceTechKs]

I would love the chance to Tech your GRT frames.....or do you still have them. LOL. Or did you get the patch plates put in them and call it fixed...... Your a joke trying to tell people that buy doing that it fixed the problem....LMFAO.

[7uptruckracer]

I followed this last year and admittedly don't always agree with you but I guess people don't realize you didn't build this car lol GRT did. Lots of manufacturers skirt these rules Most builders will always do what someone else got away with and a little
More that's racing and I think that's what happened here. Guess people don't want to let it go...I know a big big name driver that had one and he was winning a lot and promptly got switched chassis from GRT to a compliant one lol oh well

Why are you so infatuated with me? I didn't come up with the fix, Joe Garrison did that.

I still have two grt, come on over and measure away, one is still hanging from the shop ceiling the same way I got it from grt.

[HEAVY DUTY]

The new Speedway Illustrated preview that I got in an Email said that there is an article about Howe building a fab chevelle stub in the upcoming issue. The Chinese chevelle has increased in price about $200 in the last 3 years. I bought 10 in Sept. They cost 630 shipped. Then I have 13 hours in putting them together, and plating around the spring buckets. Do the math. The chassis builders have well over $1000 in these clips, compared to probably $500 I am guessing, in the fab clips. This not only increases the cost on a new chassis, but also increases cost on a clip job. The only bad thing I can see about a fab clip that takes all the stock steering, and suspension is the perception that guys would have that their older cars couldn't be competitive with the fab one. That is the reason why the weight would have to be the same.

[Bcollins82]

The new Speedway Illustrated preview that I got in an Email said that there is an article about Howe building a fab chevelle stub in the upcoming issue. The Chinese chevelle has increased in price about $200 in the last 3 years. I bought 10 in Sept. They cost 630 shipped. Then I have 13 hours in putting them together, and plating around the spring buckets. Do the math. The chassis builders have well over $1000 in these clips, compared to probably $500 I am guessing, in the fab clips. This not only increases the cost on a new chassis, but also increases cost on a clip job. The only bad thing I can see about a fab clip that takes all the stock steering, and suspension is the perception that guys would have that their older cars couldn't be competitive with the fab one. That is the reason why the weight would have to be the same.

Well said... I don't think many racers realize the time it takes to prep a clip wether it's Chinese or from a junkyard. Most shops are 60-100 an hour for fab work, even on the conservative side you would be at $1410 for the clip and labor before you pay for the steel used to plate it up and all your tabs and brackets for a Chinese clip. If you want to go the junkyard metric route you've got to give $200+ for a clip now, then spend time washing, stripping, sandblasting, cutting, grinding and rewelding seams, straightening, plating... That's lots of time, and lots of money. This rule is so old and outdated that we've started importing parts from China as the answer? Lol That's not good for anyone. Almost no one drags a clip out of a junkyard and builds their own chassis like they used to, and that's who the rule was designed for. It's time the sanctioning bodies realize this and allow fab stubs, but I believe it's also time for them to put a system in place to tech them and put some specs in place to assure that it isn't an advantage over a stock stub. The last thing anyone should want to do is obsolete every chassis built to that point..

One other thought... What about mandating IMCA chassis rules and requiring a 1.75" cage if you build a fab clip car? I've seen too many 1.5" cages move a bunch when they've been upside down the last few years. Might be a far fetched, but it could be a way to keep drivers safer and get the sanctioning bodies closer together on rules without making it happen all at once.

[Bcollins82]

I don't see ANY chassis builder lowering the price of their cars or price to clip a car. Nobody has done that when they add more china made stamped parts vs American made etc.

The initial cost for a China clip is more than an American junkyard clip.. The savings were supposed to be in the labor by using new metal but the parts are low quality so labor is still high to assemble. How can you lower the cost of a product if you have just as much money of time in it?

[Bcollins82]

I don't think you have actually looked around and confirmed pricing on these things?

When I was going to have my cars built last year I found via car-part.com MANY chevelle frames sitting in yards for $200-400 each. One yard in Oklahoma had over 20 of them stacked up. They are not rare and are not in demand any more. The yard cited the new Chinese clip as having killed their selling of them.

Yes, I know what they are selling for. If my 1st grade math isn't failing me then $200-$400 for a junkyard clip is cheaper than $630 for the China clip, therefore making the initial cost of a China clip higher than a junkyard clip. They may not be super rare, but they were getting harder to find, especially a good solid straight one.

[dereksehi]

Everybody will have to start using crown vic clips easy to find and cheap.

[Lizardracing]

"If a company was to build a longer lasting tire that had more speed do you think it would stay cheap very long?"

of course not....

"And do you think it wouldn't be improved on by another company that would charge more?"

Yes it would.....and here's my but(eww) the same tire isn't going to be the best tires for a given track surface, car type, chassis design, driver style, or budget so choices wins out on that argument. Another thing that needs considering of the 8000 or something UMP licenses sold last year, I'd guess 7000 or so of those racers aren't at the track expecting to win as much as they are expecting to have a good time and hope to make their money back so they can come back next week. I'd be more interested in saving those guys more money rather than the big budget guys. I don't really feel UMP is interested in small budget teams however. Picture an added 20 cars to the modified class at every track even with the typical top five having the best shot at winning. I also think tire chemicals should be allowed because I believe that guys are doing to make the tire better by lasting longer and saving money even at the added cost of the product. It's expensive to tech and I think likely goes on anyway.

I feel the same as you about the UMP tires, especially since UMP has a tire the same size as the current D and A that will last longer and have more speed. The RC2 and RC4. Why don't they use those in UMP? Because they aren't about giving anyone a better tire, they are about selling more tires. Changing clips, running on hockey pucks, opening up the tire rule, whatever your point of view, it's just a drop in the bucket in the big picture. The only way you'll get more guys running UMP mods again is making it more affordable by taking away lots of traction so you don't have a huge engine bill and so you aren't ripping tires apart at the rate they are now. If I could make any change to the current rules I would limit down travel in the rear suspension to 2" limited by a solid chain on each side, and make a solid pull bar and no lift arm rule. Anyone with a flashlight, Jack, and tape measure could check it after a race when the car is being scaled. You could build a fixture to go on the wheel and check it if you wanted to take the tape measure out of the equation. How's that for a thread hijack?

I could get on board with reducing traction as long as drivabilty didn't suffer too badly. I'd also increase the weight of the cars to 2600 or 2800 pounds to compliment the harder tire. A lot of good driving cars makes for exciting races even if it is a little bit slower laps times. We used to have a booming 4 cylinder front wheel drive class with nearly 40 entries most weeks. Even though the pace laps werent alot slower than the actual racing there was plenty of on track passing and door rubbing which made it fun to watch.

Ill use the USMTS/USRA spec head as an example. When this head is mandated, it has small ports to reduce power so everyone was forced to go to ultra light weight cranks and rods and pistons and driveshaft and rear gears and axles and hubs and a host of other parts to compensate but the prices of those all went sky high with the demand. I don't really think it's save the racer money but USRA does have a engine/weight rules that help a lot.

Racing cost's the same today as it did 30 years ago....every dime you have!