jamie37 Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Can anyone tell me why the #5 truck got DQ'ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arts22 Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 The right upper control arm was aluminum.... That made him able to pull out a straight away lead, I guess.... If the trucks are still running by the old rules, he should have been told what was wrong and not to have it on th truck at the next race.... The only way it would help is if it was on the LEFT side(for weight) and it would help if it gets hit, a steal arm will bend your mounts and frame, aluminum will give way........Thats a bad call on the tech staff if they stand by their DQ decision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 The right upper control arm was aluminum.... That made him able to pull out a straight away lead, I guess.... If the trucks are still running by the old rules, he should have been told what was wrong and not to have it on th truck at the next race.... The only way it would help is if it was on the LEFT side(for weight) and it would help if it gets hit, a steal arm will bend your mounts and frame, aluminum will give way........Thats a bad call on the tech staff if they stand by their DQ decision... If the part was not legal it was illegal. No amount of rationalization will change that. The series officials' job is to enforce the rules fairly and without regard to who the team is or whether they are front-runners or back-markers. I don't know who made the call, but if the part was illegal, then the official made the right call. Whether the illegal part gives a performance advantage or not is beside the point and really shouldn't even be part of a discussion about legal and illegal parts. But, to set the record straight, their is indeed a performance advantage to running lightweight suspension parts. One-half of front a-arm components are sprung weight, but the other half is unsprung weight. Any time you can decrease the amount of unsprung weight, you are gaining a handling advantage. That's why teams in the elite divisions of racing spend tons of money and effort in getting their unsprung components to the lightest possible weight that will still be strong enough to withstand the forces applied to them. A few years back at SAS, I had the unenviable job of informing a very successful driver that I had disqualified his car for running aluminum trailing arms. My ruling cost that team a lot of money and I felt really bad (and still do) for having to make the call. To make matters worse, one of my closest associates in racing, Rick Rapp, was a member of the team involved. I suppose it would have been a whole lot easier on everyone if I had just pretended that the magnet stuck to the trailing arm and let it slide. But I would not have slept well that night and sooner or later my reputation as a fair, unbiased official would have been compromised. Instead of criticizing the officials involved in making the call, most of us will secretly be applauding. When an official makes a fair, unbiased call, the rest of us know that we can expect the same behavior from that official in the future. After all, isn't that what every competitor really wants? A fair, unbiased playing field for all competitors? Nick Holt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProTree Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 just think if you told a driver "dont have that part on next race"-what would happen?i can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy5249 Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 How do you say that he should have been told not to have it on at the next race. If fa part is illegal then its illegal you dont get a second chance if your cheating and get caught then you got caught. you go home take it off and come back the next week. The 5 truck ran a really good race. and everyone knows as well as i know that that was not a performance inhansing part. and it didnt help him win the race. But the rile book does say that it must be steal. the 5 truck did run a good race and congrats to him and his team sorry about the bad luck. Congratulations Bryan and crew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arts22 Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 Nick, Tommy, Randy, It happened last year more than once...... One person was deducted points but not DQed. Dont know about the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jont66 Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 That's because we were trying to keep everyone happy, and not run anyone off. With an average of 12-14 trucks per race, I had to do whatever to keep them coming. But now, avg over 20 trucks, rules are rules. The rule book hasn't changed in years, everone knows what's in it. If you know what you have isn't right, then take it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHigdon Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 I can vouch for Nick thoroughly on this one; anytime you can alter the un-sprung weight of any racing vehicle you are greatly altering the handling. By using an aluminum control arm you greatly change the wheel rate along with the way the vehicle handles transitions, in many cases reducing un-sprung weight will increase the relative “responsiveness” of that given wheel. I’m not judging on any other aspect, just saying it could very easily positively change the handling of the vehicle. We spend hundreds of hours every year doing absolutely anything possible to decrease the un-sprung weight of our car and it does make a HUGH difference James Higdon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arts22 Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 It was the mounting point not the entire arm. This part is stationary. It will NOT have anything to do with unsprung weight..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHigdon Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 The right upper control arm was aluminum.....It was the mounting point not the entire arm.. If the mounting point was Aluminum then it would obviously not effect un-sprung weight, but was an Aluminum mounting point welded to the steel frame? If this is the case then while there is no large performance advantage (neglgable weight savings) I can definatly see the benefit because in a wreck the mounting points would break before the suspension components thereby saving parts and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jont66 Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 There is no advantage on the trucks to running the al. shaft a-arms, but it is the rule. Before that rule was made, I ran them, and when I changed back to steel, there was no differnence. That's not the reason he won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHigdon Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 There is no advantage on the trucks to running the al. shaft a-arms That makes sense, if it was the cross shaft that was aluminum then besides a totally insignificant weight loss the part would seem to have no benefit besides maybe breaking away easier in a wreck. I couldnt understand why yall kept on saying an aluminum A-arm wouldnt make any difference... This makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerx Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 The 09 got to run at THR with illegal rear suspension and was told to change it before the next race...the officials told us that even though it was illegal, that was not the reason why he had a top 3 qualifying time, which he was allowed to keep and race later that night. He even got to do the double down. It was all known before the race. What is the difference between that and this? The 5 makes every race, even when he can't afford to...the 09 has been in two races this year...none last year, the 5 entered all of them...Not bagging on the 09, he has proven he's fast regardless, this example is not about him...just not sure how the rules are being applied...the rules are the rules except when they are not the rules. There was no pre race tech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 The 09 got to run at THR with illegal rear suspension and was told to change it before the next race...the officials told us that even though it was illegal, that was not the reason why he had a top 3 qualifying time, which he was allowed to keep and race later that night. He even got to do the double down. It was all known before the race. What is the difference between that and this? There was no pre race tech? racerx, You have made my point very well. Rules should be enforced the same for everyone. When they are not, issues like the one you have brought up rear their ugly head.... As I have said on many occasions, most racers simply want the rules enforced equally for all. Didn't I read that there has been a change in the Tech Official in the USRA ARTS series? I'm sure I read that Bubba Bankston is no longer with the series. And whenever there is a change in Officials, there is bound to be a change in the way things a run. And as far as illegal rear suspensions in the USRA ARTS series, well.. I don't know for sure, but any "stock" four link rear had better be made so that it doesn't bind up during body roll or it will loosen the chassis way up after a certain amount of body roll. It's just the nature of the beast. And I'm seeing some pretty significant body roll in many of the USRA ARTS trucks. It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out that some of the rear trailing arms may have been slotted. phoney bolted or spring loaded to some degree or other. Nick Holt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HMPFlagman Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 As far as I know they pre-race teched. Didn't see Bubba at the track this weekend. Due to my HS graduation i got to the track intime to grab a radio/headset - get in the flagstand, set my rig up and go. Left after the truck race, twas a good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasissman Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 nick your on the right track but giving us way too much credit for being smart. my trick on the 5 truck is to block the left side frame rail an chain it down. then i have a 916 cat loader an jus put the loader bucket on the top of the roll cage an just push it down to the ground 3 or 4 times it gets all the rear susp parts just right an waalaa you get all the body roll you need. an it was a detroit locker that was in question at thr an yes they make em for 7.5 in the 09 truck think that is a preformance enhancing part ??? terri dickerson the imca a frame you said to use dont fit our mounts it got a wider spread so thanks for your help an yes it was an alum bar that was illegal an most parts stores carry alum cross shafted a arms now steel cost more an are special order most of the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeg Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 If there was a question about a Detroit Locker, I wonder why the cover was not pulled to check. That takes about 3 minutes if you are not mechanicly inclined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerx Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 There was no question before the THR race...the officials, including Terry Barden directly, said the rear end was illegal and it would have to be changed before the next race, but he would be allowed to race because it was deemed not have any effect on performance. There was no question about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RandyBorlace Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 Chassis man, there is an IMCA stock car Spec A Arm and it should fit any stock mount on a metric front end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeg Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 A Detroit Locker does not effect performance but a upper control arm with an aluminum shaft does. I guess I am stupid. No, I know I am stupid for even commenting on this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Definitive Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 It is getting kind of old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeg Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 It will get a lot older in the days to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 chasissman, nick your on the right track but giving us way too much credit for being smart. my trick on the 5 truck is to block the left side frame rail an chain it down. then i have a 916 cat loader an jus put the loader bucket on the top of the roll cage an just push it down to the ground 3 or 4 times it gets all the rear susp parts just right an waalaa you get all the body roll you need. I believe that's called fine tuning, sir. I can't believe I suggested such stupid solutions as slotting mounts and/or the trailing arm, re-angling trailing arm mounts, etc. Your way is much more effective and a lot less time consuming. Nick Holt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasissman Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 randy borlace the mounts on these trucks are not stock they are fabricated mounts an the bolt spread is 6 in not 7 as in a metric stock mount so you see the imca a arm wont work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
09x Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 iam not doing this s%%% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.