UMP Modified chassis rule

[Bcollins82]

They are not hard to find at all.. car-part.com

Rarity and price are no reason to allow a fabricated clip that will be a advantage, perceived or not.. Not to mention I guarantee you nobody is going to sell chassis xxx for 20k with stock clip, 21k Chinese clip, 19k fabricated clip it just wont happen.

Of course they aren't hard to find right now. They've stacked up over the past few years at these yards because everyone switched to the China clips. As far as price, if your builder is buying a spec fab clip for roughly the same money he's getting a box full of un assembled stamped China parts then charging you the same price I'd be looking at other builders. It would be pretty hard to explain to the customer why the price was the same, but I'm certain the price wouldn't drop a dime at some places just like you say.

[Bcollins82]

"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!

I guarantee you that 7000 out of 8000 racers are not doing this to kick back and have a good time. There are a small number of guys that show up like that, but the vast, vast majority are there because they want to win. They may know they are outgunned, but they do everything they can to compete and do the best they possibly can. If you spread the gap between those guys and the guys that have giant budgets, huge amounts of tires from multiple brands in multiple compounds that know when and where to use them you'll see those racers going to a different class or doing something else...

Taking away traction is THE ONLY way to make a significant reduction in overall cost. Of course It's going to reduce drivability, that's the idea.. And just as you have seen a lower overall cost will increase the number of competitors and bring up the entertainment factor.

You've got it right about the every dime part, but when your dimes don't equal a competitive chance you'll see guys leaving. It's been happening all over for years as speeds, traction, and cost increase hand in hand...

[let-r-eat]

A modified should be a support class. The late model car should be the headline. IMO it's ok for people with big budgets to try and destroy the late model class but destroying the modified class shouldn't happen with $$ alone. $50K cars and $50K engines, $5000K shocks should be left to late model classes.

Even crate classes *aimed at being economical* should never be allowed to run a shock you can't buy over the counter for $100 bill. A welded shock only.

[Racer96m]

$50K cars and $50K engines, $5000K shocks should be left to late model classes.

If it was only that easy. I have seen lots of 50K+ cars running around in the back.