NickHolt Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Check this out.. http://www.bigdawgchallenge.com/ Nick Holt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ups88john Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 that would be an awesome race, that and the true value are on my to do list. big john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierDaddy Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Wonder if any locals will make the long haul up to maine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
only a racing fan Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 The tough part is getting qualified for the Bigdawgchallange or the true value 250. And at a 1/3 mile track, 400 laps can't be fun. And a forty car grid to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 WOW, what a great set of rules. It really takes in to effect a lot of the issues everyone is complaining about here on TSZ. These are the regular series rules it looks like. Would it not be great if someone like ROMCO or TSRS could adopt these rules. The engine costs sound alot less than what Romco is running but they sound like they really have some good and thorough teching. This probably would not work here because they do not like to get that thorough. Oh well, don't complain about the car count if your not willing to work at the teching. They spell everything out in their rules why can't anyone do that here. Because we all need to keep it a secret, if you spell everything out you might give away someones advantage or if you tech them too hard they might run off and race 1000 miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97car Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Keep in mind the little notes like in order to qualify for the 100K you have to run 7 races in the series or the track,or else it pays 75K which is still good,I like their rules also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 The rules are ok, not any more cost effective than ROMCO or SAS. The problem with this race is that almost no touring car from the south is legal. ROMCO, SAS, Florida Pro, and Sunoco Series are all very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted September 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 97car, Yeah.. what a lousy deal. Only $75,000 to win... LOL What that rule is actually doing is giving the teams who run that series all season a shot at $25,000 extra "bonus bucks." Nick Holt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Hey Bandit, look again at the rules. They can only use a 600cfm-4bbl, 500cfm-2bbl or 390cfm. Thats a big difference than a 750cfm when it comes to horsepower and durability. It also seems like they really are specific about the heads used with the different carb combinations and you notice flat tappet cams only. They are very specific about alot of things that will close the field up and make the racing close. But it takes a technical staff willing to spend the time and effort to police each of the specifications. Unfortunately there is no technical staff at the level you mentioned willing to spend the time or else understand why they need all of these specifications. They even go as far as to change spoiler heights for different engine combinations. This series diffentlly seems to care about making the racing close even in their regular rules. Why do we not have the people with the insight to help promote cost effective racing or at least closer racing at that level. All it takes is a sweep of the pen to close the gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97car Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 If you notice they have gear ratio rules for each they run at,I think that could provide for close racing also,but I do know the different engine combos could affect this,but this may be a thought for down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Fishracer, I did take a close look at the rules and like I said the are not close to any other series. You can not expect cars to change there spoiler, carb, intake to drive 1500 miles and race. None of these rules save a dime except maybe the small carb. Just because you have a list of rules from hear to the north pole does not meen they will be enforced or applied evenly. The engine rules do nothing except reduce the power (which will help reliability). When you reduce power, the driver becomes less of a factor (remember traction control). The best thing ROMCO could do to help money is reduce the car weight 100 pounds, less weight= needs less brakes= less stess on chassis and components= softer impact during crash and did I mention better racing because the cars will handle better and be able to move around on the track more, but thats another subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 hey bandit, sorry I didn't get your reply earlier. What's up with this idea that less power takes the driver out, it puts the driver back in and hey, why do you need traction control when you make less horsepower? Control the costs and the power and you close the fields= better show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modracer Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Fishracer, just my opinion on the subject but anytime you try and control the cost in any form of racing you genreally end up costing more money in the long run. I would have to agree with Bandit on the less power aspect. Just look at NASCAR. They have made a bigger restrictor plate and less spoiler so that the driver becomes more of a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Hey guys, as you well know that if you allow racers to spend money they are going to do it until they run out of it. Obviously you as experienced racers know that some items will not make you faster and you can go fast with little investment. This experience did not come without cost. Why not cut the cost first and make the series./track more attractive to more people. Would you rather win in front of 20 cars or 40 cars. Would you rather win $3500 dollars or $10,000 dollars. Usually when the car count is higher the purse is usually more. More racers, more action, more fans=higher purse. Show that you are a responsible rules maker money wise and you will attract more racers. Yes, the normally fast guys will still be up front, but the racing will be closer from the front of the field to the back. A good close(and well enforced) set of rules is really a marketing and communication tool and the rules makers don't even know it in most cases. You have to attract the racers, then the fans will come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 I spent the better part of 4 seasons crewing one of those supposedly "low-cost, economical race classes". If you think having a ton of rules will save you money, listen to some examples of my FIRST HAND experience. We had a spec motor, designed to save us money. Ever race a cast piston? We asked for forged, got no for a reply. In 1999, while in the middle of as tight points chase, we lost two motors to cast pistons coming apart. Lost the blocks, cranks, cams, everyting in the short-block. About 4-6000 dollars apiece. What would the good forged pistons have cost us ? About $160 a set over the best cast ones out there. Because the sanctioning body tried to save us about $160 a motor, we lost thousands more. We wore out bolts changing damn engines. Rear ends. We lobbied for 9 inch rears. They said no. Instead of building one rear end, and 3 or 4 pumpkins, we had to build 4 complete gm housings for all the tracks we ran. No matter what anyone says, it is impracticle to change gears in one housing laying on your back. Remember we might run Dodge City one night, and Altus the next. They need different gearing. A quick change would have been even better. And I don't want to talk about the automatic transmissions (with torque converters) we had to run. Bottom line is this--A racer will spend money building what open rules allow him to, and he will spend the same amount trying to get around what stricter "keep the cost down" rules hold him to. That is just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Tom you are absolutely right on all of your data. But you remember when you and all those who jumped into the truck deal saw it has a genuinely inexpensive and unique touring opportunity. The rules got your attention and you and many others were sold and therefore went on the learning curve. Now everyone has learned how to qualify a racing series/track rules right? What the truck series did well was market their rules to the racers. What they didn't do well was look at the long term costs. If you remember, I believe the person who came up with the concept was a dirt car builder and the components they started with had held up under dirt conditions especially with the those 305's,302's and 318's. Unfortunately the guys enforcing and governing the rules were probably not as experienced technically as they should have been and have paid the price for their stubborn stance on the long term costs. Thats why their racer count is way down. Yes their will always be someone that will take advantage of the rules, but as long as great tech people are there to catch the vilolators then the series/track will have good car counts. The economics of the region of the country dictate the rules in large respect to racers ability to build and mantain their rides and to attract sponsorship. Unfortunately the way the top touring series we have is now, yes they have a decent car count but economics wise there are only a few teams that can afford to maintain a consistent winning car/team. That doesn't mean that a low buck guy can't win, it means that you probably will not see them win consistently at every race or be at each event consistently. The idea is to keep the costs of maintaining a top notch team down weekend and weekout or race meet to meet to insure consistent car count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 You're right, Fish, a lot of the problem was the leadership, to include officials, both at the local and national level of that series. We can add to the problem the fact that they were unwilling to consider any racer input of any kind. It was a waste of time to call their national tech director about anything. And it isn't just the trucks. How many Legends cars show up now, compared to a few years ago. Like you said, people jumped in on that one, then found out about the costs. The ROMCO racer I help, Eddy Wallace, has some interesting perspectives about the cost of running a legend car, versus ROMCO. We basically went into it with blinders on; didn't look at the big picture first. Now having said that, I think the trucks can grow if they stay on course with the changes being made by the Garretts and their group. Being racers themselves, they are doing things smarter and better than the original ARTS regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.