UMP Modified chassis rule

[badfast47]

I know Camaro clips are not allowed but why is it there not allowed. Thanks in advance

[Anonymous24]

Originally to keep costs low. I would assume. Easier and cheaper to work with frame stubs rather than unibody. Also options for the frame stub are fewer than what one could do to a unibody clip.

[Bcollins82]

Originally to keep costs low. I would assume. Easier and cheaper to work with frame stubs rather than unibody. Also options for the frame stub are fewer than what one could do to a unibody clip.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I'm certain UMP for the most part copied their rules from somewhere else, the full frame rule was most likely in there already. If you want 70-81 camaro geometry (the clips everyone uses) you can use a mid 70s Monte Carlo clip. I believe the geometry is the same.

[Anonymous24]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.I'm certain UMP for the most part copied their rules from somewhere else, the full frame rule was most likely in there already. If you want 70-81 camaro geometry (the clips everyone uses) you can use a mid 70s Monte Carlo clip. I believe the geometry is the same.

Please explain how I am incorrect. All I see here is a diffence in opinion. Thanks.

[Bcollins82]

1. Cheaper and easier? How is it cheaper to buy a full frame vs a clip? How is it easier dealing with a complete full frame rather than just that bolt on camaro stub? Have you ever actually seen a camaro clip? Lol

2. Options. I don't even know what you are trying to say here. That a full frame is somehow harder to cheat up than a camaro clip?

3. Watch Billy Madison dude.. It's a joke, lighten up.

[HEAVY DUTY]

The original rules were written by IMCA in about 79. UMP copied the rules in 91. There have been rules omitted since then. The frame rules used to say " any American made full framed perimeter style passenger car frame. No sports cars or uni-body sub frame allowed, and must extend to 36" from the center line of the rear axle" Now the Chinese frames are allowed, because of availability. Now UMP allows them to be cut at the motor plate, so the 36" from rear axle doesn't apply. There aren't any wrecking yards left in a lot of areas to get frames, and builders are forced to use the Chinese frames, which cost the racer a lot extra. It is time for the sanctioning bodies to look at getting a spec front clip made, that the builders can build off of. They would be stronger and cheaper for the racers. Make them weigh the same as stock, with all the stock suspension and steering parts that are still available at the parts store. That way they wont be an advantage over stock

[Bcollins82]

The original rules were written by IMCA in about 79. UMP copied the rules in 91. There have been rules omitted since then. The frame rules used to say " any American made full framed perimeter style passenger car frame. No sports cars or uni-body sub frame allowed, and must extend to 36" from the center line of the rear axle" Now the Chinese frames are allowed, because of availability. Now UMP allows them to be cut at the motor plate, so the 36" from rear axle doesn't apply. There aren't any wrecking yards left in a lot of areas to get frames, and builders are forced to use the Chinese frames, which cost the racer a lot extra. It is time for the sanctioning bodies to look at getting a spec front clip made, that the builders can build off of. They would be stronger and cheaper for the racers. Make them weigh the same as stock, with all the stock suspension and steering parts that are still available at the parts store. That way they wont be an advantage over stock

Couldn't agree more on the spec clips! Spec clips built by one manufacturer that provides the sanctioning bodies with a quick, easy jig to check the mounting points.

[let-r-eat]

Those aftermarket tube clips aren't cheap either? Howe, Port City, etc?

[Lizardracing]

I just think it's funny that you guys think that UMP had a thought on the why it's a rule! hahaha!
Most of the rules in the UMP book make little sense in the context of expense, availability, durabiltiy, etc...

Asking one or two companies to have a monopoly on a "spec" frame will drive the purchase price up because no one else can compete forcing the price down with options.
The same thing has happened with tires....Buy the Hoosiers at Hoosiers price or don't race! Imagine this...20 tire companies trying to sell you tires. You would get options as each company tries to make their tire more competitive against the other 19. Now imagine 20 places to get frames.....each bidding for price, availability, durabilty, etc...the price goes down. One could argue what happens if you get a frame that's somehow cheated up or the pick up points moved around or whatever.....That's on the purchaser to make sure what they are buying fits what they need. All it takes a Datem and a tape measure to verify.

In the street machine world of hotrodding there are already lots of companies making Chevelle and metric Stubs and frames for use in restorations and performance. . Any of those several companies can help a racer out I'm sure.

Personally I love choices....I get exactly what I want to pay for and get to decide how I want to pay for it.

[Bcollins82]

I just think it's funny that you guys think that UMP had a thought on the why it's a rule! hahaha!
Most of the rules in the UMP book make little sense in the context of expense, availability, durabiltiy, etc...

Asking one or two companies to have a monopoly on a "spec" frame will drive the purchase price up because no one else can compete forcing the price down with options.
The same thing has happened with tires....Buy the Hoosiers at Hoosiers price or don't race! Imagine this...20 tire companies trying to sell you tires. You would get options as each company tries to make their tire more competitive against the other 19. Now imagine 20 places to get frames.....each bidding for price, availability, durabilty, etc...the price goes down. One could argue what happens if you get a frame that's somehow cheated up or the pick up points moved around or whatever.....That's on the purchaser to make sure what they are buying fits what they need. All it takes a Datem and a tape measure to verify.

In the street machine world of hotrodding there are already lots of companies making Chevelle and metric Stubs and frames for use in restorations and performance. . Any of those several companies can help a racer out I'm sure.

Personally I love choices....I get exactly what I want to pay for and get to decide how I want to pay for it.

We're not saying you must run that fab spec clip, just make the pickup points the same as a Chevelle because that's what most everyone is using anyway, make it accept the stock parts, and make it weigh roughly the same. Leave the upper control arm mounts off and let the chassis builder position those like they can now. Then it's your choice to use the spec clip, a metric clip, a ford clip, etc... There are no front clips made to these specs that I'm aware of. I know Howe builds a Camaro clip, but I'm not sure it's built to weigh the same. If you let multiple companies build the clips there would be no control just like now with the lower A arms...

UMP won't use a tape measure to check anything besides a body, and they most certainly aren't going to do the measuring it would take to verify a fab clip hadn't been altered from stock. You'd have to use some sort of go/no go jig that slid under the car to verify the points that a dummy could use, because that's exactly who would be using it.

If you think you will save a racer money by letting 20 tire companies in and compete so racers pay $90 for a tire instead of $110 you are delusional. Brand X will work better at one track, brand Y works better at another, brand Z works better here, how many tires do you think the racer will have to buy? Do you seriously think competing tire companies wouldn't need to constantly R&D tires driving the price up? And with the volume sold it wouldn't be worth messing with for most companies. You'd end up at a single brand or 2 brands in no time. The problem is UMP allowing Hoosier to sell multiple compounds instead of a single tire like IMCA.

[Lizardracing]

Well then there ya go....If it's not going to checked in technical Inspection and enforced than the problem is NOT who makes the clips or how many there are or anything else.

Without consequence there shall be no catalyst for change.

If I were to own or promote a track I would make Technical Inspection the highest paid and most powerful employment position. It would also be the most demanding and volatile. I would also make a protocol procedure that any DQ would have to be visually inspected and agreed too by the Tech Man, the flag man, the promoter and the owner. The following week the infraction would get announced at the drivers meeting. No names or car numbers would be publicly givenas that's not very important however drivers/teams knowing that that tech is watching and enforcing is.

I really enjoy respectful debates to learn things and gain a different perspective too. I really think that civil discourse can fix almost every problem we have whether it be racing or politics or just coexisting as fellows Americans. However when a difference in opinion becomes to much for one to handle and name calling ensues....I lose respect for that person. I am not delusional. I do have an excellent understanding of what I believe and why I believe what I do as well as an understanding others have opinions that matter too.

I think in the case of multiple tires allowed in, your dead on about a certain tires possibly being better in some areas but that's the beauty of the free market type system because the choices racers have will force the tire companies to make their tire more attractive to buyers at a lesser price or simply go out of business. If they do go out of business, than that's an opportunity for someone else to step up and make that tire attractive to buyers. Chassis guys might even step into this also making their chassis work better on certain tires and tracks and promoters are going to have step up and make their tracks more attractive to the drivers/chassis/tire companies. All these choices drive a product to cost less with higher quality. I cannot agree to a monopoly ever being a benefit for anyone expect the person who owns the monopoly nor can I get on board with assigning a monetary value to everything for enforcement reasons

[Bcollins82]

The problems most definitely lie in the inspection or lack thereof. But with UMP who is going to get the inspectors together and change the process? Their fearless leader can barely tell a carb from a starter... The tracks definitely need to step it up on inspections as you suggest. This lack of effort on inspection is absolutely the reason there needs to be a fast and easy way to check a fab front clip without a tape measure. If you use a tape in UMP and 36" is a rule, 37" or 38" will be allowed, well then that's normal so the rule gets pushed to 38", then 40" is allowed. There is no end to it with them. And who is going to police the chassis builders to make sure their clip weighs X amount and is built to spec other than where a jig would hit? It's a can of worms that doesn't need opened IMO.

But on tires I believe you are dead wrong. The racer is his own worst enemy. If there are endless tire options I see endless amounts of tires purchased. Yeah, you will end up with better quality tires, but at what cost? It absolutely won't be a lower price that sells a tire, it will be performance. Then everyone will have to buy the better performing tires no matter the cost until someone else builds a better tire, then all your current tires are obsolete. None of this will save any racer a dime... And it will definitely discourage traveling because tire A works better at your track, but tire B works better at another track so you've got to buy tires just to be competitive somewhere else. If you want to save guys money in racing you have to take traction away. Period. And better tires definitely don't do that.

[sirleafalot]

Great discussion, as mention ump will not tech stubs and they are not even capable of doing so, I fear stubs would get out of hand rapidly. But yes stubs and tires are something are real sanction should look to change. Ump can't even get the rules out before the season

[Bcollins82]

Whats wrong with the Chinese stamped chevelle clips? If you want a tube clip get a late model.

What's the difference between a fabricated Chinese Chevelle clip and a fabricated tube clip that accepts stock parts? The only difference I can tell would be if the manufacturer of the fab clip provides a way to tech them. Otherwise, they could just make them accept the stock parts that everyone is already using and set a measurement to the outside of the front tires...

[Lizardracing]

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.