Jump to content

TPS


OHWOWBill

Recommended Posts

You cant go by hear say, you don't know for a fact that he did'nt have the restrictor

plate or not, and you don't know if he also had the 38mm carb or the 500. He has

been trying for years to win and finally got one and now everybody is saying that he

is cheating. Past tech and won, let it go. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You miss the point I am glad for his win !!!But I should be able to know if all my competitors are running by the rules that we all have not another set that only the people writing them and that competitor know about !!! I just don't understand why it was done in with out telling the whole membership as it has been done in the past ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the June 7, 2004 post on Texas Speed Zone from OHWOW Bill entitled, “Texas Pro Sedan Rules, R&D not rules”,

Following are exact copy extracts from 2004 TPS Rules and Specifications.

On track R&D is authorized in three different paragraphs of 2004 TPS Rules:

 

Page 1, para 2:

 

“CAR TYPES – ELIGIBLE CARS: TPS reserves the option to temporarily authorize certain Research and Development cars to compete with components not conforming to current TPS specifications”.

 

Page 3:

 

“D. Note: To maintain even performance potential between top-finishing competitors, TPS reserves the option to alter weight formulas as season performance justifies change(s).”

 

Page 5:

 

“Note: To maintain even performance potential between top-finishing competitors, TPS reserves the option to alter carburetor or restrictor plate specifications as season performance justifies change(s).”

 

The Texas Pro Sedans have always faced the problem of trying to create and maintain even competition between a wide variety of car makes and models. This objective is handicapped without a major technical lab such as NASCAR has. Without a dynamometer, for many years, TPS has been forced to rely on comparative track performance. In the past we have occasionally authorized certain cars to deviate from the existing rules to determine their performance potential for proposed rules changes under consideration by TPS officials.

 

These R&D efforts are not addressed in TPS Technical Bulletins since they usually only affect one or two cars.

 

TPS Officials will continue their search for performance equity in Texas Pro Sedans races under the authority contained in 2004 TPS Rules & Specifications issued to all members on January 1, 2004.

In addition, all TPS members will soon receive a letter from me explaining this situation in detail.

 

Neil Upchurch

Race & Administrative Director

Texas Pro Sedans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know for years the fords have run behind all the v w's and other front wheel drive cars . so now they finally get some things to make them run equal and u have i guy crying i think neil has done a good job trying to make the cars run closer together the only advantage lalo had a cc speedway is cause its his home track he has run there more than most of the other people so crybaby bill give it a break its not like he walked off from you or is it that you dont like competition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years the Fords did run behind the VWs, and it was not because there was any clear advantage for either configuration. In those same years, the Datsun 510 proved a RWD could run against the FWD VWs. Andy Tindell took Irene's pinto and ran strong as well. There were several other Pinto's that were a full second slower than Andy running under the same rules with a stock head! When the Fords showed up with the Esslinger aftermarket head (using a rule that I can only guess was originally intended to allow the air cooled VWs to compete) they were a full second or more faster than anything else on the track. They were in a class by themselves with everyone else running a race for third.

 

Last year the restrictor plate finally brought the Fords with aftermarket heads back to lap times consistent with the rest of the field. It was actually possible to see a race rather than a conga line. This year the restrictor plate was enlarged and an adjustment to the weight rule applied to satisfy a complaint that the restrictor plate was hurting the motors on the Ford cars. Since those same cars have had mechanical problems this year, we still don't know how effective that rules change will be so it makes sense to question why more adjustment is called for this early in the season.

 

Bottom line, rules are rules and we all have to live with them. In order to live with them, we need to know what they are. Corpus was a great race and Lalo drove the wheels off that Mustang but what are you supposed to think when after the race everyone is wispering "hey, did you know Lalo didn't run the restrictor plate". I don't want to take anything away from Lalo or the 26 team. They obviously have done their homework and are always good competitors. It would have just been nice to be informed that they were indeed running under TPS directive so there would be no question if they were legal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is looking for a solution to this problem,its very simple,force all cars in the class to run the"same" carburetor with no restrictor plate,and "POOF" the griping and arguing and finger pointing ends.I run the #50 aircooled Karmann Ghia,and have enjoyed running my carb the weber 44 I.D.F. and would willingly sell it and buy whatever carb was agreed upon to run,I understand that you chose and build the car you are going to race and I enjoy running the aircooled vw's as these are the cars I know best,so if it makes my car uncompetitive well thats my fault for running this type of car.Does this make any sense to anyone????????? Randy Larsen #50

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy, Why should you give up something that gives you parity with the rest of the field? I like the variety and I want everyone to be able to run up front without being "equipment limited". You are doing a great job of getting the Ghia there using the rules as they are. Do you want your torsion bars back too?

 

As far as I can tell this class is unique in the way the rules are written to allow the variety that exists. Most other "mini-stock" type classes are written to a specific car in such a way that the only way to compete is to run what everyone else runs. It certainly doesn't make it easy to tech but it keeps the car count up. I think the only issue here is keeping the members informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people wake up i have built and raced fords for over 13 years ive run with the pro sedans and at cc speedway the fords were never any challenge against the others until the alum head most fords weigh almost 2300 lbs what does the v w and others weigh my best finish in the pro sedans was 2 nd right behind bill labarge (sorry bill think i spelled your name wrong) and there was no way i could of caught him or passed him as far as irenes car was it was slow i know i could beat her on any giving day . the fords never used to have a chance on winning . now granted from what i heard about the mustangs of randy lee and the others i think there was a little more to it than just the heads but dont make it where the fords are racing for 5th and back again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy, You have a good point.

 

The #1 car ran a Weber 38 in Sat and #2 car will probably be testing one also when it comes back. If we stick to them that means we a bitten the bullet already with our 500cfm carbs. Because we are tried of changing the setups on these things or having to worry what change is coming weekend and week out. Who enjoys doing that?

 

Randy, my concern is what if this does not equal the playing field. Is TPS going to Post Bulletins every few weeks to slow who ever is running up front at the time? The only Bulletin's that have come out the last 1 1/2 seasons have been directed at the 2.3 w/Alum heads. Nobody likes to spend countless hours adjusting their car or fixing engines so all cars can compete. Like it the above post the only way a 2.3 could complete for places 5th or above was to go with the Esslinger Head. TPS did not slow down the cars for the 2.3’s to have a better chance of competing. But the guys with the aftermarket head also spent time on their setups so they could handle. Everybody knows you cannot win with just horsepower. CC is a perfect example that is Lalo’s home track so regardless of the situation he has the upper hand on gear and handling setup due to previous seat time there.

 

On another note before the Esslinger head was brought into the class. I did not see the see the guys running stock 2.3l cast iron heads competing very well. No rules change was made to slow down front running VWs and other cars. So in turn the 2.3l drivers bought the aluminum head to compete with the front running cars and now we are suffering the consequences [i.e. restrictor plate changes (blown engines as a result or premature engine failure), weight changes, time R&D for the changes and most important money spent due to changes occurring without proper Dynotime or Research completed before just slapping a restrictor plate on]. Why should we have to spend more time and money to know if restrictor changes are going to kill our engine? Weight changes takes time to properly set and you need practice on the track to get you handling adjusted correctly. Directly effecting cross weight, left side, front&rear weight. So the racers that do not have access the scales are basically screwed and handling of the car is now off until hours of adjusting and practice on the track before you can feel comfortable with the handling. That is time and money (Fuel and tires) wasted on that change that other cars in the series are not experiencing.

 

What makes the series interesting is there are such a wide variety of car that race and compete in class? Maybe we all should get more educated in what other drivers are running as far a engine combinations. Because I have no idea about a VW or other cars in the class besides a Ford. So why not have a couple of cars available on racedays so owners/drivers are more familiar what kind of car we are competing with? I’m not sure people know this but there is more than one kind of Esslinger Aluminum Head combination, not just the Aftermarket Aluminum Head that it always described as. Go to www.esslingeracing.com and the info is there. It’s just a full-blown race head with many years of R&D behind it.

 

I know am just a first year driver in the class but hopefully we all can come together and work on other things like getting the car counts back above 20 cars a race and just have fun. That is what I want to see, as a fan is a lot of cars on the track racing and having fun. From what I have seen so far, I know Neil and the rest of the TPS staff will continue to do what is best for the class on making proper changes. Anyways as we all know we do not race for the $$$$$$ because if we did I need some to pay my wife back for my engine.

 

Bryce TPS #1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following is a memo sent to all Texas Pro Sedan Members and Officials shortly after noon, June 9. It is being posted on TexasSpeedZone.com for the benefit of all who have shown interest in this 29 year old racing organization by logging on to this thread during the past few days. Thank you - Neil Upchurch

 

TEXAS PRO SEDANS

 

June 9, 2004

 

Memo to: All Texas Pro Sedans members

 

Texas Pro Sedans have been conducting a research and development (R & D) test over the past four TPS races. As has been the TPS practice in the past, the R&D test was conducted without member notification. I was asked and confirmed the test on June 5. The test involved the #26 and #7 cars. The R&D test was initiated from verbal permission granted by the TPS Race Director and the then Chief Inspector for the two cars to use their 500cfm carburetor without a restrictor plate, but with addition of 100 lbs to their weight formula. That formula was indicated at all R&D races on their windshield inspection decal.

 

There is no requirement to notify members, except for permanent amendments, as shown in TPS Rules para 23, page 8. The R&D test was temporary and done under authority of 2004 TPS Rules which were dated January 1, 2004 and are listed below for your reference:

 

Page 1, para 2: “CAR TYPES – ELIGIBLE CARS: TPS reserves the option to temporarily authorize certain Research and Development cars to compete with components not conforming to current TPS specifications”.

 

Page 3: “D. Note: To maintain even performance potential between top-finishing competitors, TPS reserves the option to alter weight formulas as season performance justifies change(s).”

 

Page 5: “Note: To maintain even performance potential between top-finishing competitors, TPS reserves the option to alter carburetor or restrictor plate specifications as season performance justifies change(s).”

 

The Texas Pro Sedans have always faced the problem of trying to create and maintain even competition between a wide variety of car makes and models. This objective is handicapped without a major technical lab such as NASCAR has. Without a dynamometer and for many years, TPS has been forced to rely on comparative track performance. In the past, as per TPS rules, we have occasionally authorized certain cars to deviate from existing rules to determine their performance potential for proposed rules changes under evaluation by TPS officials.

These R&D efforts were not addressed in TPS Technical Bulletins since they were temporary.

 

The three race R&D (in which only #26 provided effective information) was completed on June 5. Resuming with the June 19 race, the TPS Technical Bulletin dated May 1, 2004 will again be used to regulate carburetors, restrictor plates, overall weight and left side percentage weights on all TPS cars.

 

Future R&D projects may involve a car equipped with fuel injection, but with added weight. In addition, the invitation to area Mini Stocks to race with TPS, under their rules, but with three performance upgrade options, continues to be listed in all TPS Race Bulletins.

 

TPS Officials will continue their search for performance equity in Texas Pro Sedans races under the authority contained in 2004 TPS Rules. TPS Officials will modify the past policy. Future R&D projects will be announced before competition in drivers meetings.

 

Neil Upchurch

Race & Administrative Director

Texas Pro Sedans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil, as indicated by the rules clarification posted, I don't believe the R&D subsection has been there until this year (I may be wrong). Contrary to what has been posted in rebutal, I do believe that the Tindell entry Pinto was competetive without the aluminum head. I agree that rules should not be changed quickly, but how long did it take to make adjustments after the 30 and 1 cars started running away by over a second a lap?? There was a weight penalty of 100 lbs applied to all FWD cars to try and slow them down to the Fords. The VW air cooled got the bigger 44 IDF carb to help speed them up. The Fords were allowed to run shocks in any location to help them run weight jacks, the VW air cooled were allowed coil overs instead of torsion bars. All kinds of rules changes have taken place to help everyone remain equal but the only change that has created clear domination is allowing the aftermarket head fords to run the 500 carb. It only makes sense to adjust them down when there is nothing left to adjsujt everyone else up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Crew – Apparently your driver has not been keeping you up-to-date on TPS rules through the years. The R&D subsection you mentioned has been in TPS rules in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Yes, Andy Tindell did win a TPS race in Houston with OEM Ford heads. Years ago, FWD cars did carry a weight addition because they were much faster than RWD cars. The 44IDF has been allowed on air cooled VW’s for about 10 years. Your assumption that only the Fords were allowed weight jackers and coil over shocks is incorrect. All TPS cars have been so allowed that optional modification for the past several years. The 500cfm carburetor was originally allowed to help the OEM head Fords & Chevrolet. The after-market heads were initially allowed on all cars, but only the air cooled VW’s put them on. Then along came Esslinger and you know the rest. Thank you for recognizing and respecting TPS’s judgment in, as you said, “the adjusting down” we have had to do. The problem is nobody wants to be the car owner who gets “adjusted down”! (See Bryce #1 post above) Neil Upchurch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top Dog,

Congrats on the win in CC. But you all ready know it is all handling down there with good tires. See ya in Kyle.

 

Thank you for recognizing and respecting TPS’s judgment in, as you said, “the adjusting down” we have had to do. The problem is nobody wants to be the car owner who gets “adjusted down”! (See Bryce #1 post above) Neil Upchurch

 

Neil, Your right about not wanting to adjust down. These are race cars and everybody wants to go fast. So what do we do? We spend time and money on trying to be a front runner, only to have hard work put to waste on what is being refered as "adjusting down". These cars were built by the rules. As far as adjusting down, right now I'm running a Weber 38/38 like most of the FWD cars instead of the Holley 500cfm carb. Nobody wants to adjust down and have any other cars in the past had to be slowed down? Just Curious. Anyways Neil thanks for the update on the R&D. We'll follow guidance and respect the TPS rules and you as Race Director. So there is no reason beat this dead horse anymore. Goodluck everyone and Hopefully see ya in Kyle.

Bryce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryce,

 

The Texas Pro Sedans have a long and consistent history of making rules changes to maintain parity among a large number of makes and models of race cars. That's really what TPS is all about.

 

Face it Bryce. Those after market Esslinger heads changed the TPS formula so drastically that TPS had to change the rules or TPS would have died. Those cars were about 1.5 seconds faster than any other type of car running and something had to be done or TPS soon would have been just another Ford 2300 class.

 

Did the Mustangs build according to the rules at the time? Yes, I believe they did. Did they so thoroughly dominate the series that something had to be done? Yes, I believe so.

 

Nick Holt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to take anything away from Lalo or the 26 team. They obviously have done their homework and are always good competitors.

 

And, I'll throw in a pitch for how well the 70, 20, 33, 50 and 48 cars are doing as well. Obviously the field had been tight over the last few races, noteably without the 1,2 or 6 cars. I look forward to them returning and I hope the field is just as tight!

 

Nuff said.

 

Your assumption that only the Fords were allowed weight jackers and coil over shocks is incorrect.

 

?? Not my assumption - I do read the rules, I never said they were for Fords only.

I don't believe the R&D subsection has been there until this year (I may be wrong).
apparently I was, I stand corrected..

My statement was just recognizing that adjustments have been made in all areas to bring parity and that some have been directed at bringing the slow cars up while other bring the fast cars down, the adjustment process is not new and I am aware of that.

 

I recognize and appreciate how tough your job is Neil, this is not a bash on you or the series but an honest question about how the decisions are made and communicated. I agree with BigDish, these are race cars and we all want to go fast. I am concerned that decisions are made with limited data but again, I recognize how tough that call can be.

 

I think I type too much, let's go racing..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people you cannt compare lola's car to some of the other fords . when we built his car it has a stock frame ( not tubular) almost everything on that car you can get at a junk yard the rear springs are not racing springs his shocks are not racing shocks he has stock a frames his car weigh's almost 2500 lbs now if we had all the other stuff tubular frame after market a arms maybe i could see the restrictor plate but his car handles from years of working with the mustangs we have been building these cars since 1982 neil knows all of these things people tell us that we where the first people in texas to start building the mustangs but i dont know about that so people give credit to the driver and car builder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D I agree lets go racing,I have not complained when I ran before and other cars dominated,I just figured I needed to do more on the homework side of my own setup. We are not talking about major size in displacements here,most are 18-22cubic inches except when going down to a 1600cc.The adjustments have been made and I feel the field is pretty close now,and like has been said we are not only dealing with different engine sizes here,also dealing with engine locations and choice of driven wheels too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...