Subscribe Today

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby Pol-Cat » May 1st, 2008, 4:42 am

[quote=mbenoy119] With the sleds the way they are now, it could easily lend to a situation where a single sled with a more "user friendly" geometry would have a huge advantage. [/quote]

I don't know the results of every race by any means, but from my observation, it appears to me that the REV has been a pretty dominant sled since 04 in the current stock class. I think going to a true stock sled with what sleds are out now would even the field out, and take away the advantage the rev has. But thinking back to the mid-90's, stock was stock, and all I remember were the ZR's ridden by Sturgeon, Young, Herzig, and the DeVaults often taking the top 3 spots, so there are times when something is going to come along and have the huge advantage you are concerned with, when that time comes, it's up to the powers to be to make a change that evens things back out.
My vision is better then my hearing...shut up and show me something.
Pol-Cat
Member
 
Posts: 551
Joined: December 22nd, 2003, 4:10 pm
Location: 989 MI

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby Fontaine Racing » May 2nd, 2008, 7:09 am

Hello
A couple Questions and comments about the stock racing proposal. these are some of my own questions, and some that I have been asked by others.
I see that the the proposal in general, is to be adopted in the 2010 season?
this question pertains to the stock 600 class. I see there is 4 proposed classes. novice, expert, semi pro, and pro. I see all of these classes maintain a 3 year model restriction, with the oldest model dropping from competition status every year. example-(in 2011 the 2008 model would no longer be legal). I am wondering if that would deter a novice that wanted to try oval racing with lets say a 5 or even 10 year old sled? I understand that the pro, and maybe semi-pro stock class should be ran with the newest models, in respect for the mfg's. but with a new set of rules making it pretty affordable and easy to get into stock racing, can we afford to turn some one away from an entry level class because there sled is not new enough?
Jerry
I know you will be the toughest guy to sell this one to. but here goes.
pro and maybe semi pro. allow short skis, oval built track, (has tall guides)optional front shocks, sway bar? reasons being. in close racing short skis are safer. and nothing makes a pro race sled look more like a pro race sled than short skis? (think of the Fans) same length and width as stock, oval track with more and taller clips. safety first, derailing in a close pack is dangerous! sway bar is essential. front shocks and springs- if you strap these things down far enough to put on a good show would there be any usable travel left in the shock? I know the Idea is to keep them as stock as possible and I agree with that. Just want to make sure there would be enough people willing to race the class or the rule changes will help nothing!
also with the stock class sitting right now with low numbers, possibly getting lower? why wait till 2010 to change? are the mfg's. going to be building a more XC style sled that will be more ice friendly in the next couple years? if not I don't see any reason too wait. I would be interested to hear what people think on this subject.
Thanks
Fontaine Racing
Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: March 18th, 2005, 10:01 am
Location: webster wisconsin

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby ice_racer_69 » May 2nd, 2008, 8:42 am

amateur/expert= anything goes (age wise), but stock stock (indy, zr, edge, pro-x, sno pro, mxz, iq, rev, ANYTHING). I bet the older stuff will beat the newer stuff. Should probably have short ski's to...it's just basic safety, like a chest protector or helmet.

semi pro/ pro stock- short ski's, oval R rated track, sway bar, open shock rule. Still easy to get into the class, and cheaper than it currently is. I think thats basically how the rules read back in 01-02??
ice_racer_69
Member
 
Posts: 438
Joined: January 29th, 2002, 4:45 am
Location: witty quote


Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby ussa 172m » May 2nd, 2008, 9:04 am

i think one thing poeple don t understand the 2000 2001 rules are about the same as we have now except you can t change rear skids and front end parts and can t change track length.shocks can be changed as polaris to polaris or ski-doo to ski-doo.pretty much whatever thay made.these sleds will still be pretty far from box stock.i think last out of the box stockers ended in about 1979 the rules in the 70 s were very strick you could nt even change a clutch spring.maybe we need to go all the back to what stock realiy should be.i think if you go with package all stock sleds should use same rules package so a lower level driver can use same sled as upper level driver.in my oprion the short ski s should have never been legal for stock racing.if a driver has a problem getting tipps ran over they he needs to back off alittle bit.as far as i know each sled has a brake.is rules going to happen this year or just a proposal.i think it should still use the 15 year rule to try to allow as much equitment as possible run if the old stuff beats the new then so be it .just my opion.racing since 1971 thanks pat duchene
172x
ussa 172m
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: July 31st, 2004, 11:40 am
Location: f aribault mn 55021

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby kenlacy » May 2nd, 2008, 9:07 am

Seems to me 4 levels of Stock class are excessive considering where the numbers are now. I would think going with 2 classes, Novice and Expert (stay away from pro/semi-pro - that should be champ only)would be sufficient. When numbers grow than more levels could be added.
Recently I was asked to play in a golf tournament.

At first I said, "Naw, I haven't been playing that well."

Then they said to me, "Come on, it's for handicapped and blind kids."

Then I thought...




Chit, I could win this!
kenlacy
Member
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: October 25th, 2001, 2:26 pm
Location: Foooore!

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby Spy-Guy 74 » May 2nd, 2008, 9:19 am

Chris I think what they are proposing for stock is not anything older than three years from production. So there won't be any ZR'S, MXZ'S, or PRO-X'S. They need to make sure it's off the show room floor, anyone can buy one, not some limited snow-cross or cross country sled that has limited builds.

Doug I agree the sooner the better for the switch in stock, but the only thing is the EPT has a good following of stockers now and it will be hard to convince them to make the switch. It has to be the same everywhere or it just won't work, and it won't be easy with everyone on board either.

All sanctioning bodies will have to agree that there are no specialty classes, and no exceptions to the rule. When you run specialty classes you just add racers, but they don't make the trip out to other sanctioning body's events. Make a place for everyone, but make sure they can race there sled everywhere too.

One thing for sure is Ovals have survived through some tough times, we'll see if other venues can to when things turn in a different direction. I think it's about time for ovals to have there day, lets all work together to make it happen.
Spy-Guy 74
Member
 
Posts: 317
Joined: July 25th, 2003, 11:38 am
Location: Almost in Canada, MN

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby that 31 car » May 2nd, 2008, 12:32 pm

Doug: the Readers Digest version of 2000-2001.
Track OEM or R-rated Spec tracks. So your clip dilemma is solved.

Ski suspension 43.5 C-C under the spindle center.
Any properly filed spring.
Any shock package that is interchangable between like models in the brand.
Any properly filed spring.
Handlebar can be replaced, but must remain in original position.
Oem spindles can be changed within the brand (like models)
OEM Plastic Ski, interchangable between like models.
Minimum ski width is 4.5 inches.
OEM windshield 5 inch high minimum.
OEM seat OEM fuel tank
No engine work, no air box/intake work/ no additional venting.

As far as the ski deal, your argument said nothing makes a sled look more "pro" than short skis. My argument says nothing makes a sled more "stock" than big shoes. I know the Minnesota crowd always felt different, but to me, short ski's encouraged aggressive driving. If you have stock ski's you need to be fully clear of the guy you pass when you pass, not just get to the hood and drop in. On the other side of the deal, Pat D is correct, the other handle is a brake, if the guy chops you off, you need to lift, settle it later. All the short ski deal did was make sure you could get to him with the bumper rather than your ski tip.

As I said at USSA's afternoon session, anybody who had a new era Pro stocker will feel these rules slow them down. Just remember they all slowed down equally. As far as ride height, my thought if and when this would ever become reality, is a center line of engine to ground dimension. Not the 2 inches of usable travel. Keep the ride height higher, don't necessarily run the geometry into bind issues, and keep it so as Bill Rader says "joe bag of donuts" can learn it himself. And No I ain't picked a number yet.

All the while I helped Jeff Tisler with his Mid American I *****ed about stock stub metric GM frames and you can't legally make the roll centers work out, and you had to live with 6 inch ride height, now we got a limited late model, throw away ride height, and the stock stub, yeah the car is faster, but it should be, its two inches lower for starts, it's purpose built and you can make the geometry work. But the other side of the coin is it costs more, has more money in shocks, and has it's own quirks. Would we ever give up what we learned with the Mid Am, hell no, cause that was the real proving grounds and the training grounds, but if you ask us, we still will ***** about the work it was. My point in this whole oration is, what made the original heros of ovals is that they all came through the system and learned. Now thats gone, and it's pretty much if you got the wherewithal you can race, don't bother with the work part, it can be bought. Will this whole concept work, I really don't know, but what we got now ain't working either, so lets give it a shot. Sooner the better.
Thanks for listening.
that 31 car
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: February 15th, 2002, 9:06 am
Location: Next to the big swamp. Menchalville, WI.

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby that 31 car » May 2nd, 2008, 12:37 pm

Ken Lacy:
Good point on the four class deal. As I hear it you got a good point, novice and expert may be all that's needed. My opinion only. I know Chuck is monitoring this stuff and if convinced with sound reasoning is open to change. One thing I do know is that he is not going with arguments from guys who are trying to work it out for their "garage" only.
that 31 car
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: February 15th, 2002, 9:06 am
Location: Next to the big swamp. Menchalville, WI.

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby Fontaine Racing » May 2nd, 2008, 1:20 pm

Thanks for all the comments
I want to make sure that everyone understands I am not trying to stir the pot here, or start any controversy! but the Isr meeting is coming fast! and just would like to get some points on this subject, so good decisions can be made. and a long lasting set of rules could be put in place.

Ken makes a pretty good point about 4 stock classes. maybe too many? I would have to agree, especially looking at this years entry's. hopefully we would have the need for that many in the future?? I do like the idea to have a novice class though.
also I just got a PM from a guy wondering if I was trying to run him out? (in good humor) when we talked he explained that he was in favor of what is best for the sport, and getting the mfg's. involved. but the sad reality of it is we would be eliminating one of our few competitors. some thing to give some thought about on the 3 year deal?
Pat
you brought up some good points! the rules are not that far off from what we have now , and after some thought, I agree that stock class rules should be just that " stock class rules" not different from novice to pro. but I think the new trend in skis (plastic) may tend to be a problem? (my opinion) maybe you could elaborate on your opinion that "short skis should have never been allowed in stock racing" do you run them on your stocker now?
I noticed that the Tigor racing group seemed in favor of leaving stock the way it is now.
Tony
are you guys seeing increased entries in the stock class over there? and do you think this rule proposal is good or bad? have you talked with any other of the stock class racers to know there opinion? thanks for any help on this.

I did see a reply on another post from Cat 22 from the Michigan circuit. he seemed to like the proposal? maybe we could get a consensus from the Mira guys?
Greg is right we do all have to stay on the same page. and go race every circuit with the same rules.
Thanks for all the well mannered comments! I hope we get some more?
Fontaine Racing
Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: March 18th, 2005, 10:01 am
Location: webster wisconsin

Everyone's Thoughts on Class Proposals 2011 and Beyond

Postby Fontaine Racing » May 2nd, 2008, 1:47 pm

Thanks Jerry
appreciate you help and opinions. we must have been typing at the same time?
I agree with you and pat on the brake issue.
Guess I still have to find some good backup on the Ski issue EH?
after looking at the rules under SKIES & SKI RUNNERS
1)OEM (for the brand) or aftermarket skies allowed
2)minimum flat length of ski bottom is 14 inched minimum ski width is 31/4 inches
3)reinforcement is allowed on the top of the ski board only

Thanks again
Fontaine Racing
Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: March 18th, 2005, 10:01 am
Location: webster wisconsin

PreviousNext

Return to Ovals & Enduros

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron