HoosierDaddy Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 As far as car count goes, 40 cars is only a wreck fest when you have low quality drivers out there. You could have a five car field with four good drivers, but that one good for nothing but a yellow every five laps driver will turn the race into a wreck fest real quick. Put forty Brandon Bendeles, Eddy Wallaces, Ricky Turners, or Jason Hogans out there without the fruit loops that cant handle a racecar, and I guarantee those kind of guys could race close all night long without touching each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gasman Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 good one Hoosier. Rules are there for a reason. Should we change our rules and open our borders here in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hray Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Hoosierdaddy, You're right, but the unfortunate truth is just because someone can afford to race a SLM doesn't make him a Brandon B. If you think the rules assure quality drivers in ROMCO your wrong. There are many drivers in lower classes that could easily be competitive in ROMCO but can't get in because of cost. Your compradres have held up Busch and Nextel as examples, but if you think the best drivers are in those series, you have no clue what MARKETING is/does. Now before you jump to conclusions, I don't necessarily support a rules change along the lines suggested in this thread. I think 3 motor combo's would be confusing and a tech nightmare. Why not just open up the motor rule and say you can run any flattop, 750 carb, unmollested head, 44 lb minimum crank motor you want, but you've got to weigh 8 lbs/CID (maybe have a compression limit). All you need for tech is a bore scope, pump, whistler, and carb "go-no go" gauge. You can spend a lot of money on a 350 CID or if you're on a budget and want hp, go more cubes. You could put a weight penalty in front of the firewall for dry sump and alum. heads. It's a fact in racing, more rules only increase cost, it never decreases it. IMCA is a classic example when they said you could only run xmissions with the clutch in the bellhousing (a cost cutting rule according to IMCA). It only took 2 yrs to reverse that decision when the racer found out what a Richmond with 5.5 in clutch cost compared to a Bert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 So what you are saying and what it looks like is that you equate driving talent with the ability to spend your way to the front. If you allow teams with lesser backing your are sure to get poor quality driving ability. I smell arrogance in its finest form. I believe I have seen more bone heads spend and cost more people money in some of the ROMCO races as in any of the other so called "less cost=less talent" series/tracks. How many times have you seen some egotistical fool who has the cash buy one of these cars and take out half the field because he didn't want to lower himself to learn in one of the lower classes. So don't tell me that money is the barrier to keep out the lack of talent. What you don't seem to grasp is that for the type of car I am talking about to be competitive it must be a pure super latemodel chassis with the exception of the engine. With the exception of tires and fuel the engine is the most expensive consumable item. The economics in this part of the country can not afford to sustain a series and car count with these costs much longer. Match the series to the economics, because you can't do the reverse. Just ask yourself why there are sooo many dirt tracks in Texas and so few asphalt tracks. Simple economics. Â What I am speaking of is helping to broaden the field of drivers so as to make these fine drivers shine even more and give an opportunity to other drivers with maybe the same ability but without the financial resources. Please do not drag these fine drivers through the mud, they got to where they were with their talent not their abiltiy to spend money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 I agree cutting cost would do nothing but help the series. The facts are simple, the $15,000 or $12,000 dollar engine that everyone is saying we need to run is already winning ROMCO races. We won three in a row at KYLE and qulified at Houston a 13.82 and 13.84 on consecutive laps (nobody else has done this) with this motor. As a matter of fact, get out your note-books because this is whats in it. Stock GM 010 block w/ billet main caps, Scat 50 pound crank, oliver rods, JE standard weight pistons, the cheapest Moroso oil pan, HexAdjust timing chain, Comp 280 roller set at 103 deg, Dart 215 heads with stainless valves (no titanium except retainers), no rev kit, Jessel SS rockers (these are the same price as stud rockers w/girdle), a twelve year old SCP drysump pump, Davinci carb. Instructions for use: set timing at 37 deg, at 12 qts of Kendall GT1 sae50, hit gas and kick ass! Where are the trick parts here? We won three races this year and should of had four if 13 would not have blown all the water out in Houston and took us out, all this and missed four races. Message to ROMCO racing hopefulls: build simple reliable motor, invest money in shocks and chassis advice, and get to know your shock builder-they know alot about setup. One last thing, study basic aerodynamics at your local library, most of the ROMCO and TSRS bodys look pityful. I bet you wished you would have better attention in high school phyisics. And remember, almost anything I know is free (except to looneydude). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supertx Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 bandit i believe that you run a light weight engine also i heard that you like your heavy motor on on the smaller tracks . Fishracer your right on dry sumps to make power to a point the reason that we started running dry sumps back in the early 70's was that we found we could not control keeping the air out of the oil where with a dry sump we can do it with baffeles in the dry sump tank, the other problem with wet sump is that with the RPMS that you guys are turning now we can't keep enough oil in the pan the quality of drain back in a sbc is poor at best with out pulling a vacum on the oil pan. This is just a start on reasons that a wet sump is not up to the standards of a modern day SLM race engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.j.&s.racing Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 we ran romco with wet sump motor one thing i know they run hotter oil temps. thats not good for valve springs.the one thing that hurts smaller funded teams is shock testing equipment,some teams changing tires every practice.tires win races, shocks save tires .dont change to much for the series just have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy5249 Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 I can not agree with Bandit anymore. Sure you must have a motor to get around the track. BUT it is all the setup. You can go buy the best stuff in the world go out and spend $30,000 on a motor but the problem is you get you that 600+ horse power but if you cant get the car into the turn, through the center of the turn. or out of the turn. You just wasted $30,000 till you learn to setup your car. Sure a lil extra hp helps down the straight away but san antonio is the only track that this really hurts you at. But if i recall i think 55 did pretty good there, i know 49 has done good there. It all has to do with what shock spring combo you want to run. But you defenatley dont have to have a $30,000 motor. Even a $15,000 motor is more than what one team spent after hurting 3 motors in a season. A motor makes you go fast. And as for jj&s the tires we practiced on for every race were the tires we ran in the race the week before we bought one set of tires per race. And maybe 1 or 2 at the track to get what you need in roolout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 Supertx we do have light motor for SA, but when we try it at Kyle or Houston we slow down. Randy5249, do agree or disagree with me? Your point sounded the same as mine but you started out saying you could not agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy5249 Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Bandit, I do agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted December 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 No doubt about it, handling is the name of the game in short track pavement racing. The sad part is that suspension engineering knowledge is no where near as expensive to obtain as racing engine, or a TC device, or tires. Yet team after team will spend big bucks on the hardware and leave the handling to Lady Luck, or whatever the chassis builder recommends, or old wives tales, or trying to find out what set up the front-runners are running. Â Obviously, a race car needs power, and plenty of it and I'm not saying engines are not important, but it is well known that you can have all the power in the world and if the car doesn't get through the turns well, or if all that power is just smoking the rear tires, you loose. Â For anyone who wants (needs) to learn more about suspension engineering priciples, I am conducting a six-week suspension engineering seminar in Houston starting in January. Email me or PM me for more information or see the ad in the "sticky" section at the top of this Texas Auto Racing forum. Â Nick Holt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tqj3 Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Nick's telling it like it is, kids. On short tracks, handling will make up for lack of horsepower, but horsepower won't make up for lack of handling. If it isn't hooked up, you're going backwards in a hurry. Most racers are like the golfer who will buy every new club on the market, the golf ball that goes the farthest, a new glove, the latest big head driver, you name it. But he won't go to the golf pro and get a lesson, or a critique of his swing. The racer's version is that, if he gets beat, it isn't because he can't drive as well as the next guy or his car isn't set up as well, it's because the next guy is A) cheating, has more money, or C) has a lot more horsepower. Nick will give you information that will probably make you more money next season than the cost of the seminar, and Bandit (and a lot of other drivers) will tell you anything they know if you are willing to listen; both options are a lot cheaper than spending a fortune on more horsepower when you may not yet be using the power you have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonestar88 Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I'm not a ROMCO driver but I sure do like the Bandits recipe and the end results...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Bandit as well as others seem to have some very good arguments to justify their positions. Bandit your only contradiction is that you have a lighter(more expensive I guess to run SA). That right their is my point, I assume(you know what that means) that you built this SA motor because the time before you ran and you didn't do as well and what gets the blame?? Not enough bucks, uh I mean mean motor, uh. Yes this is part of racing. But when car counts dwindle people look for a quick fix. There is nothing quick about a rules change, the results may take a long time to absorb from the beginning of change. It is easy to convince yourself you don't need something if you can win some of the events, but you are only as fast as  Hey, I wasn't asking for a testimonial of how cheap someone has won. I know and alot of the people who have been in the sport for some time know that especially on the shorter tracks you can get away with less. But would not everyone want to feel they could go to every track with the same engine combination that did not cost an arm and a leg and feel that they would be competitive. The growth of this series is not from the teams that are already in it, it is from the teams looking to come in to it. The rules like I stated before are the advertisement for the series, if you read them It basically says the skys the limit, but we know that is not necessary and not necessarily the spirit that the series really has. It is funny how many people assume that everyone knows that. All I was trying to recommend was to give some of the talent without the cash an opportunity to use some of their equipment as they move up and the cost to those already there "0". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Fishracer I am tired of hearing about not being able to run ROMCO because of cash flow. I work two jobs to be able to run ROMCO. I have a total annual income of $60,000 after both jobs. I don't waste money on smoking or drinking or partying. I spend my money on my house, wife, stepson, dogs and racecars. Thats it. Instead of having a freightliner pulling a double stacker, I have a 1994 ford with 200,000 miles. I take the time to learn what makes one of these cars tick, not trying buy bigger war wagons. If you want to come to the track to look like a big shot with big money, go ahead, I come to win. Winning and top fives pay the bills. I will never understand these guys that get these high dollar motors then send them back for $5000 rebuilds when there are many local machine shops that will do it alot cheaper, or learn about it and do it yourself! Our "light motor" you like to bring up is just like the one listed above except it has a 37 pound King's crank and rods and titanium intake valves. Total cost increase= about $2000. That is still alot cheaper than what most people think is neccassary to run ROMCO. Make all the rules you want, teams will always spend the same money. The guys on the lower level that you say can compete with us (and many can) should do what we did; take out a loan and buy a decent car. Then, year by year work your way up by learning and developing your setup. Look at our first three years, First year: a few top tens and few top fives, Second year: two wins, Third year: three wins and six top fives out of ten races run. Any team running at a lower level that has the skill should be able to do the same thing. I just hope you know what your getting in too, there is alot more to it than big motors and running the latest "hot setup". We are already developing new pieces in conjuction with Carrera for next season. What are you doing this offseason? I am not trying to talk big stuff, I am trying to let you know what it takes to win in ROMCO not just run. No matter the rule, the same cars will be up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusty_rusty Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 well said bandit and thats damn respectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supertx Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 If ROMCO is to expensive to race be it engines or tires or whatever go to a cheaper class and race. Some people like to race at the upper level of motorsports, super late models are not at the very top but they are on the highway to bigger and better things.Yes engines are expensive if you do them yourself or have a professional engine builder but it doesn't make any difference if you are racing over your budget. If you make 20 grand a year and go buy a street stock engine for 2 to 4 grand it's to expensive. If your going to play with the big boys you have to have a big boy budget or you have to work harder like Bandit. The way to get car count up is pay better money put on a more professional race series where people can get sponsors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gasman Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Well said Bandit. The biggest lie in Racing "I dont have the money to run with them" The biggest lie in the strip joint "I'll be right back". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Thanks gasman and supertx. I don't like working two jobs, but when you want to do somthing bad enough you figure out a way. With all that said, I would support some rule changes to cut down on the 'exotic' parts. The first thing that needs to go are the 9 to one engines because of the expense of the heads and intake and the heads over 200cc (intakes) on the concepts because they allow the motor to turn too tight. We need to run a Southern Allstar Style concept engine. I do also believe you need to allow engines currently being run to continue to run with some sort of grandfather clause. Also, reduce the weight back down to 2800 to take some stress off of the brakes, suspension ect. Whatever you do, don't slow them down! If you do, don't call them super latemodels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gasman Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 by the way, who is complaining about the engine cost? I hope ROMCO does not lower their standards just because people who dont race complain about the costs. They allow $7500 TC but are considering engine rules?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Bandit, first let me say I greatly respect your being so resourceful and do greatly applaud the fact that you have done alot with little. You are just the type a racer that ROMCO needs to help with their rules. Like I said there are many teams just like yours that just need a little help with the rules so that they can make that leap. I admire the fact that you have taken your dollars and made them go very far. I think your ideas on the heads and weight are going the right direction. As for your comments about the doubledeckers and the war wagons, right on brotha. But on the flipside unfortunately the fans perceive this to be a sign of a professional racer and is some of the subliminal advertising that goes along with the series. I greatly agree on the 9:1 subject, yes they can be much more durable, the cost of the port work is limitless, even heard one team is possible running bush 9:1, if at least limit to 23degree and limit the concept motors to the 200cc heads. Maybe even bring the carb on the concept down to 600cfm like hooters pro cup is using, their making 525-550 with unported heads. Â Gasman I concur on the TC subject. Supertx your wisdom is greatly appreciated. Â FYI, the team I am associated with can more than afford to run the series but looks at it like a business and has been around racing enough years to realize that unless the rules allow a broad base of racers to participate and the rules thoroughly written and strictly enforced. This so that our teams performance will not be overshadowed by the assumption that the bucks got us there. The comment that no matter what, the racers will spend lots of money is true to a certain extent, but if you spell out as much as you can what you cannot do it will close the gap of costs a little bit more. A applaud what Terry and Robert and the gang at ROMCO have done to keep super latemodel racing alive in Texas but to make it continue to grow and not just exist they must put something back into it and its not money. TIME. Time to write a set of rules with lots of parity and specifics. Time to tech those specifics. Time to explain reasonably why the rules are the way they are, so as to sell the racers on their ideas and not just be another cookie cutter latemodel series. Time to obtain more sponsorship for a points fund so as to help the racers continue to afford to participate. Do not get me wrong ROMCO has more rights than wrongs. Lets just all help racing by being more fiscally and mentally open minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hray Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 One other high cost area being overlooked is tires. It's not in the best interest of ROMCO to limit tires, but these teams spend a minimum of $12,000/yr and that's just 2 sets/race. Some teams show up with 3 or 4 sets. I know it's hard to get a setup on used tires, but there's got to be a way to limit the # of tires/race. Even Craftsman Truck had to limit tires. Maybe ROMCO should be looking at reducing the # of tires. I realize that would hurt their revenue, but it might be made up by new teams joining the series. If you work on both aspects (engine cost & tire cost) you cut costs in the 2 most expensive areas of SLM racing and hopefully that will attract more teams into the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishracer Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 HERE, HERE. Hray. May points exactly. Â After bringing up the concept I was have been talking about. I was told about ASA's new latemodel series. Actually it has been around for a while under the name USPRO racing. Â The concept of a lighter car with less horsepower and more durability is the key in these rules. Basically it is a crate motor with a 650cfm unblessed carb in a 2600lb standard superlatemodel chassis. What a concept. Just right for the economics of our area. Â check it out at www.usproracing.com/usprorules.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 fish, I brought that up a few months back and got tarred and feathered... People dont like change. Even if its for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.