97car Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 What is everyones opinion on this,the current weight formula is a lot simpler,but I think we had a lot more variety of engine combinations when we had a 8.5lb per cubic inch engine rule.We had 320c.i.,331c.i.,355,358.377,etc.even 1 427ci. However I do like the concept engine now the 750 carbs.sound a lot meaner then the 390 carbs did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hray Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 I think the cubic inch rule is the way to go. We raced TAMS last year and they only used a 360 CID flattop motor. The east coast mods have a 7.01 lb/CI rule with a max compression which makes it easier to tech and a lot more flexible for the racers. The way it looks to me is the most expensive part of ROMCO is engine and tires. I think a lb/CI rule could help lower the engine cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacecar Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 From lots of experience, it has been proven that a smaller cubic inch engine will be the victor in a rule based upon weight per cubic inch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jracer98 Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 That matches my TIDA memory. It seems that there were many engines around 310 cu in. Plenty of gear, not much torque. K. Reithmier (sp?) ran a v6. Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 love this discussion. Since you mentioned the most expensive part of a ROMCO engine was engine and oil. What about broading the field from its current rules of concept and 9:1 and include this. Since there are alot of Romco style chassis laying around with out motors and the next level of motors down that a lot of people have are the 500cfm 2bbl wet sump motors. This combination was brought up by several racers that could afford the chassis but not the motor: Romco chassis with a TSRS/THR/LMs motor(wet sump): 2700lb 4" engine setback 59% leftside weight They stated that even though the 500cfm motor doesn't have the same power to weight 6to 1 compared to 5 to 1 then the leftside and lighter .weight would help them. The bigger setback to help with the iron heads on the lighter car. What do you think. They said they would invest in the chassis if they could take their motor with them. Maybe it would help the dwindling car count in Romco. Also it would give them a chance to get into this type of car and get the handling figured out before they step to the more expensive motor. A great way to get some fresh talent into the series. These cars would probably be very competitive at the shorter tracks but be hurting a little bit at SAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 I think something like this should really be considered. ROMCO down here in CC is really hurting for cars and this could help. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 Thanks jason for the vote of confidence. But what it is going to take is to convence ROMRD of its long term importance and why this will work. It will do nothing but help car count and at these weights there would not be some much disparity as there has been before when the TSRS/THR/LMS tried to get their cars light enough. Plus they would not be forced to put a 750 carb on a motor that is not designed for that much HP to be competitive. Their major investment (engine)would then live just as long as before but make them competitive. What alot of people do not realize (or do not want to) is that just the matter of reducing the weight will make the combo fast. Just look what happened to the ARTS trucks I believe (2700-2800lb)with that little 305 they run as fast as lets say SAS as the old Super Streets. Oh yea, one more slight advantage is they would not wear tires as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.