Subscribe Today

Limited 500

Limited 500

Postby mbenoy119 » February 14th, 2013, 7:40 am

One argument here that I can't agree with is the "guy with money" buying or building something that is going to run everyone else from the class. That type of thing exists with ANY class. If the class continues to grow and all of the sudden draws interest from someone with financial means above and beyond the bulk of the people in the class, guess what... Even under the current rules (or under ANY set of rules for that matter) this guy isn't going to be racing a converted old champ... He's going to call up to Greenbush (among other places) and have something built that is going to do the same thing!

Don't make rules thinking that you're going to keep people with financial resources from dominating a class if they choose to, it's like wiping your arse with a wagon wheel!
mbenoy119
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: January 16th, 2005, 9:06 pm
Location: On the Tee box

Limited 500

Postby watcher » February 14th, 2013, 7:45 am

Yes Greg, you are correct. it has a one year lag time unless it is a safety issue. but i did see thing not go by that rule before (does not make Dick Gokey happy when they don't follow that rule).

Limited weight rule is 350

watcher
watcher
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: October 8th, 2002, 1:29 am
Location: where is waldo

Limited 500

Postby Fontaine Racing » February 14th, 2013, 11:46 am

mikes comment is all too true.
I thought politicians were the only ones that could protect us from ourselves??
Fontaine Racing
Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: March 18th, 2005, 10:01 am
Location: webster wisconsin


Limited 500

Postby ussa 172m » February 14th, 2013, 1:17 pm

that 31 car.i sent you a p m. thanks pat
172x
ussa 172m
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: July 31st, 2004, 11:40 am
Location: f aribault mn 55021

Limited 500

Postby tuner78 » February 15th, 2013, 1:07 am

All BS aside, there is nothing wrong with the rules as they are. As previously stated in this post, the rules were written with limits in place to control overall build and operational cost over the long term to promote participation and close competition, keeping in mind the racers and spectators alike. Addressing the comment that there were only 3 this season, actually there were 3 regulars at USSA events. I counted 5 at most events & maybe 6 at ER. Also, I know of 4 more that did not make it to the ice this year for various reasons and the rules wasn't one of the reasons. I own one of those 4, it stayed in the shed this season because we didn't have a driver for it. We'll likely have it back on the track next season unless the rules change enough to make it impractical. Change the track to something affordable that will last two seasons or so? Yes, we would do that. All though we would retain the stock chain case. Much more than that & we would probably let it sit and wait to see what happens over time. Concerning the 106" vs 116" track issue. Let's take an HONEST look at it. For argument sake let's say that the cost of the two tracks is the same, at around $750. Then the cost of studs, say another $450 for a total of $1200 to install a new track, we'll include the stud cost because nobody is going to take the old studs out and put them in a new track. The 116 x 15 is a moderate durometer rubber with a standard full heavy lug (much like what is found on a trail sled) with a lug height of 0.725" tall, it weighs 30.5 lbs. The 116 x 13.5 is the same moderate durometer with a wiper style lug instead of the heavy full lug - also 0.725" tall, the premise of the wiper style is that it doesn't have enough mass to support the weight of the vehicle and thus folds over, this in effect increases the useable stud length by 3/16" or so, it weighs 27.5 lbs. The 106 x 13.5 is a soft rubber construction that as Jerry stated has inherent durability issues and thus will not last as long (insert $1200 per change out here. I don't know how often but I do know that we currently have 4 seasons on 116 x 15). The 106 also has a wiper style soft rubber lug that folds over very easy, it weighs somewhere around 25 lbs. (< 5 lbs less than a 116 x 15) I'm not sure on the lug height. In review, the 106 x 13.5 has softer rubber that is more pliable which allows the wiper to fold over easily (longer stud = improved traction, Champ sleds rarely spin at the line) and it creates less rolling resistance because the whole thing is not as stiff which equates to less parasitic HP loss just to turn the track. The comparative performance advantage of the 106" is substantial. The bottom line is this, if the 106 x 13.5 is allowed, everyone will have to run that track to compete. The 116" doesn't have a chance. If you think I'm blowing smoke, go tell all the Champ teams they have to run 116 inchers and see what happens. Limited 500 was never intended to be a champ class. The first year it was offered we ran the class with an 05 MxZx 440 stocker with the Houle front and rear stuff on it. Not everyone wants to or can afford to race champ or a champ class chassis. It's a good class that was designed encompass more than one demographic. Stop lobbying your personnel agendas in an effort to build a class that you can dominate. 12 sleds go to the line for a final - 1 wins, 11 lose as it should be. There's no whining in racing - we're supposed to be better than that.
WINNERS:
Show up prepared
Are never intimidated
Don't give up
Are professional
Keep the faith

[b]Team Behn Racing[/b]Tuner78
tuner78
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: February 3rd, 2006, 6:33 am
Location: Weyauwega - WI

Limited 500

Postby Dahlke882 » February 15th, 2013, 4:30 am

Im starting to agree more and more with Terry and John ect...

-Fix/Reword the hood rule

-Discuss/Fix the rear slide rail rule

Leave the rest alone for now... The only way you'll keep old stock based champs/sprints in the hunt is by keeping the latest and greatest iron out. Blaine showed everyone an old trailing arm sled can be just as fast as the "LEGAL" Limited A arm stuff. If you plan on running champ, Limited may not be your best bet. Not everyone wants to progress to Champ. So we cant penalize someone who wants to try and compete on a budget, or with limited experience or resources by allowing a full blown Champ into Limited.

Maybe the best bet for anyone with a NEW champ chassis's would be getting the Factory 600 class addedd as Jerry suggested. That is CHAMP with a stock motor! :)

My final thoughts, Ill save the rest for the spring meetings...

Alan
Dahlke882
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: February 19th, 2011, 4:27 am
Location: -

Limited 500

Postby watcher » February 15th, 2013, 5:02 am

My though are now.. the limited 500 class, fix rail and hood deal. Open the Limited 600 class up, change chaincase, hood, rails, track (allow 13.5x116)and let the Limited 500 jump up for more track time.

watcher
watcher
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: October 8th, 2002, 1:29 am
Location: where is waldo

Limited 500

Postby mbenoy119 » February 15th, 2013, 6:40 am

[quote=Dahlke882]Im starting to agree more and more with Terry and John ect...

-Fix/Reword the hood rule

-Discuss/Fix the rear slide rail rule

Leave the rest alone for now... The only way you'll keep old stock based champs/sprints in the hunt is by keeping the latest and greatest iron out. Blaine showed everyone an old trailing arm sled can be just as fast as the "LEGAL" Limited A arm stuff. If you plan on running champ, Limited may not be your best bet. Not everyone wants to progress to Champ. So we cant penalize someone who wants to try and compete on a budget, or with limited experience or resources by allowing a full blown Champ into Limited.

Maybe the best bet for anyone with a NEW champ chassis's would be getting the Factory 600 class addedd as Jerry suggested. That is CHAMP with a stock motor! :)

My final thoughts, Ill save the rest for the spring meetings...

Alan[/quote]

I'll tell you once again... It doesn't matter WHAT the rules of the class are, if someone with a big budget decides to play, and play with brand new, purpose-built equipment, and they have an adequate driver behind the bars, you're going to get a good look at his tail light all year. Then people will be finding the "one" thing that is making his unit dominant and it will get outlawed. Then this guy is going to get frustrated because he paid premium money for a class-legal sled that is now no longer allowed.

You already have a budget class with F-500, and you're seeing it to some degree there. When you are talking about a mod chassis class where builders and innovators are going to get involved, you might as well throw the idea of "budget" rules out the window! You'd be better of with class divisions like they've done with F-500, but that requires numbers you don't have yet.
mbenoy119
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: January 16th, 2005, 9:06 pm
Location: On the Tee box

Limited 500

Postby lynxer » February 15th, 2013, 7:25 am

The chaincase rule also needs to go...

Do you realize the expense and fabrication involved in changing the chain case? I actually remember Dahlke on here not to long ago looking for a chaincase a certain length. Well When you can't find one then you start scrambling and it turns into a project. You can't find a used champ sled 2003/2004 and newer hardly that has a stock oem chain case from the original owner.
lynxer
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: September 10th, 2009, 8:16 am
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN

Limited 500

Postby Greg Bihner » February 15th, 2013, 8:11 am

Some of you guys are thinking way too far into this. The goal is to get more enteries in this class and make it easier for guys to get into. So lets look at the numbers. 5 years ago when this class started how many sleds where there?? Well there was 3 of them this year. My guess in 5 years there was not a heck of alot of growth. After 5 years and you have 0 growth or even went backwards. Not good. Don't you think you should try something else?????
Greg Bihner
Member
 
Posts: 51
Joined: June 21st, 2011, 11:49 am
Location: Oakdale MN

PreviousNext

Return to Ovals & Enduros

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron