|
|
Post by paulskirocks on Jul 16, 2009 11:12:27 GMT -5
I'd like to start getting opinions on how to keep the cost of racing clones down to a reasonable level.
It has been predicted by many gurus in this sport that the cost will skyrocket, people will cheat, and the whole class will go down the toilet like all the classes have in the past... History repeats itself... yadayadayadayada...
So, I choose to believe that there are ways to prevent this class from turning into a cesspool of spoiled crybabies with deep pockets...
Before I even begin to give my ideas, I would like to hear from YOU!
Todd Hinton, kart shop owner, co-founder of NFRA, you have been around karting for a long while and you have expressed concerns... What are your concerns, and what do you believe can keep this class under control?
Dan Chase, you also have been around karting for a good while and have already expressed positive feelings on this class, as well as some ideas on cost control. Please elaborate...
Everyone else, what are your feelings? How can we keep costs down? How can we have consistent rules from track to track if they decide to have their own clone classes?
|
|
|
|
Post by speedrome on Jul 16, 2009 12:35:09 GMT -5
Glad you asked Paul! You really nailed it here with your "yada, yada, yada" statement.. The problem is as long as these classes follow history, history will repeat. Facts and numbers are stubborn so dont expect a different outcome if the same path is followed. Its as simple at that. Want to know why the Animal and World Formula classes are not doing well or non existent around here? Stock, sealed engines are tuff to govern at the "Karting" level.. Clones are on the same path unfortunately. There is more to this story so ill be sticking around this thread. I still think the Clones have some promise but there may be some fixes that wont make everyone happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad Wunder on Jul 16, 2009 13:24:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure the issue is with just "stock, sealed" motors. Seems to me that they key is to have a clear set of rules established and that those rules are enforced with rigorous post race tech. One without the other is useless. For example, the F200 class has a very detailed set of rules. But those rules didn't stop people from cheating. As you all may remember, there were "issues" last year.
Regarding the clones, I'd think it would be a good idea to get the Roseville/Davis BSC guys together with the Dixon BSC guys and any other interested parties and do some brainstorming on how cost can be contained. Make those containment measures a part of the overall rules package and then stick to them with post race tech.
My 2 cents worth. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Chase on Jul 16, 2009 15:12:54 GMT -5
I hate keep bringing quarter midgets up, but our rules worked really well for the stock Honda class. We had a claimer rule, if your motor was claimed you kept all the bolt on like pipe, linkage, air filter etc. When the motor was claimed it was teched, if it was found illegal, you were DQ's from the race, the motor was confiscated and destroyed and you had a 1 race suspension. If you were caught twice, you were banned for a year from competing in the Honda class. Harsh, yes, effective? Extremely! We had very few instances of cheating and actually, very few motors were claimed. IIRC, the claim price was the list price of the motor plus $25-$50 for race prepping & shipping. We never had any problems over claimed motors, if you wanted to race the class, that was the chance you took. You would have to race in the class you claimed the motor in, so racers that just needed a motor wouldn't just claim one to save themselves some work. As a side note, they upped the price of the claimer and now blueprinted Hondas are the norm, the claim price has to be low enough where it's not worth your time or money to build the motor. Tires are another potential problem I see. I know everyone is probably getting their YHC's for free, but the first time someone slaps on a new set of skins and spanks the field, it will be the order of the day. It will also favor the new generation of karts. I would eventually like to see a hard compound tire rule. It will also make the racing more fun sliding around a bit. If Dixon was more seasoned, the karts would have been pinned all the way around the course, even as it was, I only used a little break and throttle control in the hairpin. The old YBN tires would last a half year to a year in 3 hole Sportsman and we had to break and/or lift in several spots around Dixon, the racing was always very tight with a 1/10 of a second often separating the top 10 karts.  The only other potential problem I see is fuel, Kalifornia pump gas is hard to tech. Maybe we go to a pump around on the starting grid to solve that? |
|
|
|
Post by brad42 on Jul 16, 2009 23:39:21 GMT -5
Pump around is a great idea. For those unfamiliar with the concept, everyone shows up with thier individual fuel, it all gets thrown in a big can and mixed together, then distributed to everyone. So if you bring Nitro, now everyone has a little nitro. I would actually like to try this on F200 and WF too.
Tires is the biggest ongoing cost, and I agree the first time someone slaps on a set of YHC or YKC stickers and wins it's all over. Hard tires is the way to go (think Flintmobile). The challenge is to find a true performance tire (not a fun kart tire) that has enough supply available thay they are priced reasonably.
I have never liked claimer rules, because the claimed cheater motor usually just goes to the "buyer" and is back at the front the next race. But the way you describe it was handled in the QMA makes sense.
What I suggest is that the clone drivers get together and have a meeting where everyone has a chance to voice an opinion, and people walk away with action items to address these issues early on. That has worked for us in the NFRA.
|
|
|
|
Post by norcalacr on Jul 17, 2009 10:19:42 GMT -5
Why not take away control of the engine from the driver?
Drivers buy their way in by providing an engine. All engines go into a pool and are randomly assigned each race weekend. At the end of the season, another lottery distributes engines back to the drivers for the winter. Setting a standard throttle linkage would make swaps simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by brad42 on Jul 17, 2009 10:44:29 GMT -5
Why not take away control of the engine from the driver? Drivers buy their way in by providing an engine. All engines go into a pool and are randomly assigned each race weekend. At the end of the season, another lottery distributes engines back to the drivers for the winter. Setting a standard throttle linkage would make swaps simple. There are a couple of tracks that I know of doing this back east. It works good for the first season when all of the engines are new, but subsequent seasons the engines need to be cycleld out or you risk a broad range of where the engines are in their lifespan. |
|
|
|
Post by paulskirocks on Jul 17, 2009 11:06:33 GMT -5
Well, having a motor pool is OK if they are all put together and/or sealed by one builder. I don't like the idea of being forced to use another person's engine when I don't know how much care went into it. I think a claimer is the way to go. If you think my motor is faster than yours, then claim it, and I'll be happy to put together another. And, of course, vice versa..
|
|
|
|
Post by speedrome on Jul 17, 2009 12:06:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure the issue is with just "stock, sealed" motors. Seems to me that they key is to have a clear set of rules established and that those rules are enforced with rigorous post race tech. One without the other is useless. For example, the F200 class has a very detailed set of rules. But those rules didn't stop people from cheating. As you all may remember, there were "issues" last year. Regarding the clones, I'd think it would be a good idea to get the Roseville/Davis BSC guys together with the Dixon BSC guys and any other interested parties and do some brainstorming on how cost can be contained. Make those containment measures a part of the overall rules package and then stick to them with post race tech. My 2 cents worth. ;D You know Brad, Your right... Rigorous teching should be done! You might want to take a look at that IKF procedure book B.  BTW, Brads eluding to me for "cheating".. I think Tim was trying it as well.. lol. We where trying to help find a problem with the F200 cranks and during that process we balanced a crank and tested it(thats illegal).. If you look at lap times for that season there was not an improvement in speed, actually went slower than the year before. Unfortunately it really ended up not showing any net results other than Billy is hard on stuff and was faster than everyone by a large margin because he is a great driver.. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by paulskirocks on Jul 17, 2009 12:18:26 GMT -5
Soooooooo, what can we do to keep the CLONE class in check??!! Todd, what are some of your progressive ideas that might keep the clone class a great class to race??
|
|
|
|
Post by speedrome on Jul 17, 2009 12:34:00 GMT -5
I think a little "Blueprint Education" is in order.. If you are familiar with "stock" classes in racing you would also be familiar with the term "Blueprinting".. Here is a little more on that subject: karting.4cycle.com/showthread.php?t=174189&highlight=BlueprintingI think there needs to be an understanding of history before proceeding with any "helpful" new ideas from the un-enlightened. Following will be a "positive" look at making a great 4 cycle class. BTW, I do think Dan is right about the claimer deal.. Love it or hate it it will keep some of the cost in check.. Claiming is a subject within itself...  |
|
|
|
Post by paulskirocks on Jul 17, 2009 12:56:42 GMT -5
OK, I read the thread, and it is a good read for those who haven't been following the progress of the clone class... Still, it is just a bunch of lip service, or tongue flapping, as one guy wrote!
|
|
|
|
Post by speedrome on Jul 17, 2009 13:01:51 GMT -5
So your saying there isnt any truth to the thread Paul?  Maybe we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya? lol |
|
|
|
Post by paulskirocks on Jul 17, 2009 13:07:39 GMT -5
So your saying there isnt any truth to the thread Paul? Maybe we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya? lol I can play Kumbaya on the harmonica! NO, I'm saying that I started this thread asking for both concerns AND solutions. That thread you posted is a very good and important read. Yadayadayada... Yes, there is pure truth to it. Now what? |
|
|
|
Post by speedrome on Jul 17, 2009 13:17:03 GMT -5
Well, as folks can see from that thread i linked, its easy to see the "box stock" classes can be a nasty can of worms.. You can also see its very important to "design" the stock classes very carefully by avoiding the pitfalls of past mistakes. Breaking the engine down with lots of rules on "specs" mostly leads to difficult and costly tech inspections and lots of places in the rules for "loop holes". I think its wiser to limit things that are easy to control such as a claimer rule. It has worked in the past and is easily understood by most racers. Dont get me wrong, "claiming" has its problems as well but it can work. Other solutions could be making classes according to skill level and/or lap times. Breaking the field down by skill level/lap time would automatically keep the hardcore competitive types in front where they should be and the rest of the guys in their respective places behind them. It would be more like the hugely successful model of Motocross racing.. Racing with guys your own skill set would obviously be a lot more fun than getting your heiny handed to you at every race.
|
|
Maybe we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya? lol