Economic times affect the Texas Super Racing Series

[hray]

The announcement today that TSRS will become the premier THR series I believe is a good decision. With the intent to help further decrease the cost of racing, I offer the following additional suggestions for changes:

 

1. Initiate a tire rule. Many variations of this have been posted on here. Just pick one--preferably one that limits the number of tires per race, and standardizes the tires across classes so the lower classes can run higher class pull offs.

2. Eliminate the shock wars by having a spec shock or a max $ amount allowed per shock or a shock claim rule.

3. Open up the motor rule so that racers can get equivalent horsepower at lower cost. Maybe a weight per cubic inch rule.

 

That's my ideas. I'm sure there are many others. Just like Aaron's "Silly Season" posts awhile back, if just one cost saving idea comes out of this it will be worth discussing.

[NickHolt]

Agree with 1 and 2.

 

1) The solution to the tire problem is twofold.

 

-- Go to a two-tire a race program. Yes, it takes the track a lot of time and effort to keep track of each tire and, yes, there are ways around the rule if you happen to be in tight with another tire vendor willing to risk his reputation to provide counterfeit tires. I ran a one-tire a week program at SAS in the 90's and it worked well for the most part and brought up the number of cars competing each week once folks figured out that they now could compete against the well-funded teams since they could no longer outspend everyone else in the tire department.

 

-- Impound under lock and key all registered tires between races. That stops soaking. Sure, it's a pain in the butt for the track, but if the goal is to put everyone back on an even playing field, that is the solution. Up north (I know, I know) they not only impound but also durometer the top five after every race right there on the track before going to the pits.

 

2) The only way to control shocks is to mandate a particular, low-cost shock (with serial numbers) that can only be purchased from one source and routinely pull shocks in tech to be dyno'd. Period. Claim rules on shocks don't work because there are way too many ways around that one.

 

I know that many of the teams that have invested thousands of dollars to make their Big Bar/soft spring setups work (and a few area businesses that specialize in shocks) don't want to hear this, but if the goal is to cut expenses and even the competition, then a 50-50, non-adjustable, non-rebuildable, steel-bodied shock is the solution. This sort of shock makes both the conventional setup teams and the BB/ss setup teams set up around the shock rather than the other way around. This would also mean that older conventional cars would now have a fighting chance since it would now be setup knowledge that wins instead of who can spend the most on shocks and bump stops.

 

3) I don't know enough about engines to really say much here, except the general rule for keeping costs down in the engine department is to not allow "improvements" or open up the rules.

 

Nick

[PAPA]

I dont have a dog in this fight but I've always thought the "weight per cubic inch" is a pretty good idea.

[hray]

Nick,

The point of weight per cubic inch is to be able to make hp without having to spend megabucks on high tech components. If a team wants to put a $15K, 355 cid, 550 hp together, go for it---or build a $6K 383 cid that makes 600+ hp. You'd have to tweak the weight to make a level playing field, but it's being done successfully other places.

I know you and I always get snickers when we bring up tracks in the NE, but they have been thru all this before. Why reinvent the wheel. Just go on most any track website in IN, PA, OH, NY, MA, ME etc. and see what they do. Most those tracks have been rationing tires for many many years and they've seen it all.

[PAPA]

So far its just been us 3 old farts talking about this. I REALLY would like to hear from the RACERS. There must be some other ways also to cut cost in this series. You guys are Bad A$$ and I know it takes a lot of $ to run these cars. What other ways are there to cut cost? A little here a little there.......and so on. I now turn it back over to "Bubbles".

[NickHolt]

So far its just been us 3 old farts talking about this. I REALLY would like to hear from the RACERS. There must be some other ways also to cut cost in this series. You guys are Bad A$$ and I know it takes a lot of $ to run these cars. What other ways are there to cut cost? A little here a little there.......and so on. I now turn it back over to "Bubbles".

Sure, the racers will have their say, but - and I am going to take a bunch of crap for saying this - racers are their own worst enemy. Racers have one primary goal and one primary goal only and that is to win no matter what it takes. They give lip service to "keeping the costs down," but in the end they will spend the grocery money to keep up with the front runners...

 

It's up to us old farts who have seen racing from a whole bunch of perspectives for a whole lot of years to tell it the way we know it to be and let bitchin begin!

 

Nick

 

P.S. Papa, "Bubbles" is txtom, not me...

[RobbinsSr]

Why not put all classes on the 970?

[abrungot]

Why not just put all classes on the same tire, not specific to the brand/Model... just the same.. with a phased in approach that supports the right classes & Expenses..

[rebelracewriter]

Claim rules on shocks don't work because there are way too many ways around that one.

 

How can there be "ways around" claim rules?

Simply put: $xx claim on shocks.....If claim is denied....fined and suspended.

How's that hard to figure out?

 

 

From the site that too many racers "cringe" over

SHOCK CLAIM PROCEDURES: (No driver may claim same driver’s shocks more than once during current calendar year. Driver claiming shocks cannot claim engine or carburetor on same night.)

1. Follow all engine claim procedures and eligibility requirements. Penalty for shock claim refusal is $1,000 and 30-day suspension.

2. IMCA Modifieds, Stock Cars, Crate Models, Northern and Southern SportMods, and Hobby Stocks - Any driver finishing fifth on back in feature that is scored on the lead lap can claim any shock for $50 from any of the top four drivers. One or all shocks may be claimed, counting as one claim.

3. Should any driver voluntarily withdraw a legal shock claim, he/she will be charged with a claim with no penalty.

[Ford27]

I 'm a big fan of the no entry lower purse approach....I would guess cars that win pretty often might disagree.

Not that it matters, The chassis rules keep me from running tsrs otherwise I would be there pretty often. 2 hour shorter haul.

If I could run I think tires are the next biggest expense. Then beer....seriously...lol

[rebelracewriter]

Keeping with the shock theme.....you want to talk about "ways around" rules....Let's look at the ASA shock rules for North/South/Challenge series.....

 

G.6 Shocks, Any adjustable shock absorber may be used, and is subject to the ASA LMS approval and must be fully functional as purchased with a racers cost not to exceed $835.00 per shock for ASA North/South/Challenge Div. All shock parts(internal or external) and must be of the same manufacture

 

Ummm....how do the verify shock cost? Ask teams for an invoice?....I guess no one owns a computer/printer to "create" invoices.....

 

Now I'm not picking on ASA(or its rules) just picked them to point out the cost effective differences.

 

Now some will say "claim rules suck" and they're usually the teams with big budgets.....but that does NOT help build/maintain a class.

 

Others will say "claim rules" don't work.....in part I will agree somewhat.....Only because more people don't use them and as in the case of IMCA's motor claim rule the addition of the "swap option" was the worst idea that they've come up with.....Never worked for UMP sanction to keep costs on motors down and it's been in effect since back in the days that I lived in Indiana with dirt tracks under UMP sanction.

 

Seems nowdays people are afraid to use them because they don't want to risk getting a motor that in actuality costs less than one they're giving up, or getting their ass kicked......and it's even been "rumored" that some tracks are disuading people from claiming.....

[PAPA]

$835 for ONE shock? Racers are crazy. Anyone who would spend that kind of money on a shock should be admitted to the nearest crazy house. No wonder there are low car counts. I give up you people are crazy.

[Truck99]

$835 for ONE shock? Racers are crazy. Anyone who would spend that kind of money on a shock should be admitted to the nearest crazy house. No wonder there are low car counts. I give up you people are crazy.

 

PAPA, I know you're not just now realizing that!

[NickHolt]

$835 for ONE shock? Racers are crazy. Anyone who would spend that kind of money on a shock should be admitted to the nearest crazy house. No wonder there are low car counts. I give up you people are crazy.

 

Papa... there are some shocks from certain shock builders that are more expensive than that.

 

Put that together with the tire soaking that is all too common in nearly every class these days, crate engines that sell for five to six times what you can buy them for from Chevrolet (hmmmmm, wonder why anyone would spend that much on a motor that is sealed at the factory... LOL), hidden telemetry systems that utilize GPS technology to control how the traction control system deals with any particular section of any particular track in the good old USA (yes, even THR and HMP) and you have a $100k short track car. It doesn't make any economic sense to allow this nonsense to kill stock car racing when there are proven ways to control each and every one of these issues. There are a few sections of the country and Canada where the track/sanctioning bodies have taken steps to curtail these costs to the racers and car counts are up in those areas even thought the well financed teams screamed bloody murder when their advantages were removed.

 

All most racers ask for is an even playing field. Why build a car when you know that to even get in the ball park you have to have thousands invested in shocks and hundreds more each week in soaked tires. Not to mention the fact that certain crate motors produce 50-75 more horsepower if you pay the price to cheat.

 

Nick

[joneill814]

As an owner and driver of a TSRS car I would be all in favor of having a 2 tire rule and a shock rule. I approached Mary Ann and Jack both about it last year but it just wasn't meant to be I guess. As one of the lowest budgeted teams and smallest teams (2 people - me and a helper) out at the track both the tire rule and the shock rule would greatly help me to compete with the front runners. I had 2 sixth place finishes this past year and the rest were top 10's but I just couldn't afford to have a shock specialist that could help me run on bumps and such like the front runners do. Anything that can be done to level the playing field is a move in the right direction in my mind.

 

Thanks

Jeff O'Neill

#28 TSRS Late Model

www.jeffoneillracing.net

[97car]

8.5 or 9 lbs per cubic inch worked rather well for years depending on late model or superstock.

[LM-RACER-20]

Weight to cubic inch rule will not work. You can build a 600hp 355 with enough money. It would make it a bigger money game. People would spend big bucks to build a 311 that makes 550+ hp. I know, we used to build those motors. NOT cheap.

If you want to make this all cheaper.

Make a tire rule for a harder tire. ( less traction will slow the cars down )

Allow a big 4 bll carb on all motors. ( you wont need to spend all the money on hp since the tires wont hook up anyway, and the carb makes more power cheaply )

 

And shocks, good luck there. I know guys that spend 4k plus for a shock package just for one track. Then spend another 2-3k on a new dyno setup for the next track. And yes, these are TSRS guys. I believe that these shocks and dyno setups are by a big name NASCAR team shop. It would be hard to mandate a certain shock, even with serial numbers. There are guys with connections that will get those shocks setup for them and they will apear legal. Just make a shock claim rule. And make sure that the claims are done if someone wants them. I know of one attempt for a complete car claim and motor claim that was not granted because someone with the team being claimed pitched a fit and then was not made to give up his car. And they were not pentalized for this.

 

So in short. It can be made cheaper and you can put a lot of guys on a budget closer to the big budget playing field. But it has to be done and not just talked about and dreamed of.

 

Good luck to the TSRS series. Maybe everything will turn around for all of us for the 2011 season.

[PAPA]

Technology and greed has come a long ways.

[racer61]

I dont believe the 2 tire or two race per set rule will work. most of the well respected tire makers do not make a thick enough tire. The entry of the BBSS setup puts so much force on tires that they wear alot faster than traditionally. The present hoosiers wear out between 75 and 100 green flag laps. Even if the races are only 50 laps the tires wont make but one race weekend. So unless alot harder tire is used (which will decrease grip even more), the tire situation wont change. There are cheaper shocks to mandate BUT, most teams have already spent lots of $$$ on shocks, so costing them more money in lesser shocks doesnt sound like a great idea. Changing the engine rule to lb per ci is probably ok, maybe. Why not just take an idea from the promod rules, a penalty or break for differant combinations. My opinion is that money is a problem in every class in every form of auto racing. And just as Nick said, If I can afford to spend 800 dollars on one shock just to get an advantage than I will pay it, even just to win a 500 dollar purse. Its just the way racing is. If you cant afford to run in the TSRS class, than dont! Quit trying to change every class to fit everybodys budget. It wont work.

If I had to make a suggestion, shorten the races. Not as much expence in gas. at 8 bucks a gallon, a fifty lap race is possibly 25 dollars cheaper than running 75 laps. JMO.

The other idea I had (along time ago), enforce the rules, sternly! The tore up cars at every race ran off several cars. Every racer alive spends all they can and put all there blood sweat and tears into these cars and hate to have them tore up because some yo-yo with deep pockets drove over his or her head and collects cars week after week and nothing is done because "we didnt see it". If anybody was to ask me, thats why my car left the state. Keep the racing clean and people will want to be apart of it. Its the same in every class, Im not singling out TSRS, it alot of classes.

I hope that this can be a rebuilding year for TSRS. Texas is the biggest state and we need to compliment that with the best latemodel series around.

[hray]

Gosh, where to start!?

1. As far as the weight/cid rule is concerned, most tracks that have that rule specify a minimum cid that will give a weight break (usually 350ci), so you can build a 311ci if you want, but you have to weight the same as a 350ci.

2. If it were me, I'd put the top 2 or 3 classes on the 970. They will run 2 or 3 races. Cary and Chase ran way more than that on their SS. Let the beginner classes run a DOT tire or a used 970 (no new 970's in these classes).

3. I'd do a claim rule on the shocks and I'd encourage claims. It wouldn't take long to stop $1000/shocks and eventually those that claimed would sell the expensive shocks and buy something that was not as likely to get claimed. If you don't think that will work, then have a spec shock in the $150 - $300 range. Some tracks I know require a Penske 7100, 7200, 7600 or 7800 series. You choose based on your budget. All these shocks can be valved (interior components are the same), but the prices vary based on body -steel or aluminum-threaded body or smooth body.

4. Cory reminded me of something I haven't mentioned. Allow all classes to run E85. Jason (Parr Performance) has been experimenting with 2brl and 4brl Holleys modified to run on E85. They've dyno'd several motors now. E85 is $2.25/gal, makes slightly more hp than 110, doesn't milk the oil like methanol, cools better than 110 and only burns about 25% more than 110. That would reduce the race nite fuel bill from $160+ to $45. Modifications are relative inexpensive and any gas carb can be modified.

[racer61]

Hray, thats some good ideas and Im not trying to knock em but If it was me (and its not, just my opinion) I wouldnt want to run a true late model on treaded tires. Its like not allowing weight jacks, just not right. I agree having all classes on the same tire, its easier to help out other teams and probably easier on tire supplier to only need to worry about 1 inventory instead of 2.

[hray]

Cory, I agree. My preference would be to run the TSRS cars on 10", true racing slicks like a Hoosier 2045 or the Goodyear 10" slick. But, because TSRS won't go to a 10" and for the sake of cost, I think the 970 is the next best choice followed by the Goodyear 8" treaded (I won't go into why that order here). Besides, these are not true late models, anyway. The whole idea is to cut costs - both initial costs of building a car, and cost of operation. This "diet" needs to go on for all classes, not just TSRS, with the idea that changes in one class should not adversely affect another class.

 

97CAR, 8.5lbs is good for the Limited Lates like TSRS and that would keep the weights about where they are now. A 355cid car would be 3017lbs and a 383cid would be 3255lbs. Minimum weight 2975lbs.

[Waco Racer]

Is there a chassis dyno near the track? You could run a lb/hp rule. Require a dyno pull, log timing and temps, and determine weight from that. @ 8lbs/hp 400hp = 3200lbs. @ 7lbs/hp 450hp = 3150lbs.

[racer61]

I would be willing to bet the chassis dyno idea (although a great idea) will never happen. The engine builders will not want that info out in the open. Besides if they were to do a chassis dyno, it NEEDS to be in the classes that have crate (and I use that term loosely) engines, and that wont happen either. So maybe we can clean up that little 5 year disaster.

[97car]

In the old days the late models were 8.5 lbs per cubic inch with a minimum weight of 2750 when they ran 390 four barrel carbs, 9-1 compression got a weight break and later the stock subframed cars got a weight break as well and left side weight was 58% and later went down to 57% if I remember that part right. The 3017 is what the high compression motors used to have to weigh. The superstocks with a 355 weighed 3195 with 9lbs per cubic inch and 55% left side back then and usually had some of the better racing.