I see that a new set of rules in force for next year in the Sprint Car class. I am not sure I agree with some of the rule changes and what to get others opinions as well.

1. 24 lbs - I started racing these cars in 1991 and the rule was 19.5 lbs. I felt like we were just fine at 22 lbs and some people were able to make very strong cars that met that requirement. I believe at 24 lbs we are just making them heavier so when we do make contact it will just be that more damaging to each of the cars and not help them not break.

2. Wings 1.5 inches above the cage. You have got to be kidding me on this one, a real sprint car wing if you look at any picture of World of Outlaw car has the right side board ending below the right downtube on the chassis. I simply believe that this is to high and will not resemble a winged sprint car raced today.

3. Front tires up to 2.75 inches wide. I know this is an ongoing rule and not a new one but a sprint cannot and does not use tires that are this wide. In my mind it should be at a maximum of 2 inches to resemble any sprint car raced in the world today. I plan on submitting this request next year during rules review.

Just my opinions.

Thanks
Curt Verschuure

I agree with the front tire rule, but the wing is the center section, not the side dam if I was looking at it right?:rolleyes:

Joey

I agree with the 2 3/4 tire width for the front ,That is the width that WCM use's and install's on a new sprint , Robert

Racenut you are correct on the wing rule. The point I was attempting to make is that if you put brackets on top of the cage that have to be 1.5 inches tall, the wing will not be anywhere near the same location as on a full size car. Maybe I am not understanding the rule here but I think the goal was to stop the front wing mounts from being directly on top of the cage in the front and get the wing off the cage essentially.

Racenut you are correct on the wing rule. The point I was attempting to make is that if you put brackets on top of the cage that have to be 1.5 inches tall, the wing will not be anywhere near the same location as on a full size car. Maybe I am not understanding the rule here but I think the goal was to stop the front wing mounts from being directly on top of the cage in the front and get the wing off the cage essentially.

Curt-

This particular rule change (minimum wing height) was driven purely by aesthetics. Any conversation that deviates from this being the intention is wasted typing, talking or breathing; period.

In addition, I struggle with understanding exactly how this will be technically inspected. Will it be measured to the front mount? Will it be measured to the sag or low point of the wing? I realize there is a picture showing the measurement, but how easy will that feature be technically inspected?

Lastly, since it is an aesthetically driven rule change, what is the value in it? If it truly is a performance DISadvantage to run the front of the wing down on the cage, then let those individuals run their cars in that configuration as they choose.

All of that being said, I do not like this rule change. I voiced my thoughts on this to two of the gentlemen involved with the changes for the 2009 rules.

I too will be submitting a rules change suggestion for 2010.

Regards,
Joe

Joe Brooks
QSAC Member #39

1.weight dosn't have any more distructive power anything hitting the wall at 40 mph is distroyed 2. these are replicas of larger cars they are only close in appearance not the same 3. think i would rather have a wider tire on the front the power to weight ratio is insane allready. i dont think a narrow tire would turn better it would be less 4. i know qsac had a great team behind the rules package and the changes made were made for a reason just my opinion

i agree with the rules for sprint car except the 1.5 inches wing rule thats to much my bullseye i have right on top of the cage and its hooked up everywhere i go, and i have to agree with curt on this one. bob bates #99

i agree with the rules for sprint car except the 1.5 inches wing rule thats to much my bullseye i have right on top of the cage and its hooked up everywhere i go, and i have to agree with curt on this one. bob bates #99

Bob, as you know I was on the rules' committee with Dave Hart,Bob Elliot,and Randy Baker. The only rule, on the West Coast, we didn't like was also the 1.5 in. rule on mounting the wing. It was first brought up that someone wanted it changed to 3'' above the cage. So they said that's to much make it 1.5''. All I have heard on here is most sprintcar drivers don't want this change at all! I had put a suggestion to re-word it to no more than 1.5'' above the cage. That way if you think it is an advantage to run your wing higher, go ahead. I believe only a hand full of people run their wing above the cage already!! I have not heard that this rule or any other rule for the sprints will be changed this year for sure yet!! These were suggestions that some of the drivers put in.. Dennis Andrews

I have not heard that this rule or any other rule for the sprints will be changed this year for sure yet!! These were suggestions that some of the drivers put in.. Dennis Andrews

Dennis-

Check the QSAC website; the rules for 2009 for the Sprint Cars are posted on the home page.

Regards,
Joe

Bob, as you know I was on the rules' committee with Dave Hart,Bob Elliot,and Randy Baker. The only rule, on the West Coast, we didn't like was also the 1.5 in. rule on mounting the wing. It was first brought up that someone wanted it changed to 3'' above the cage. So they said that's to much make it 1.5''. All I have heard on here is most sprintcar drivers don't want this change at all! I had put a suggestion to re-word it to no more than 1.5'' above the cage. That way if you think it is an advantage to run your wing higher, go ahead. I believe only a hand full of people run their wing above the cage already!! I have not heard that this rule or any other rule for the sprints will be changed this year for sure yet!! These were suggestions that some of the drivers put in.. Dennis Andrews

hi Dennis, i agree with you, that would work great, and you did one hell of a job this season, i want to again congrat. you. it was alot of fun, see you guys soon, and tell denny hi for us to, and happy thanksgiving. bob bates #99:thumbsup:

i also wanted to note that if you have your wing up above your cage my opinion its an air brake especially over an inch. just my 2 cents worth, bob bates #99

I don't agree with the rule changes . I think the rules we have are just fine . I' m not going to raise my wing or feel like I have to build a bigger wing to compete . I talked to Rick today at wcm and he did'nt know anything about the rule changes . I think somebody should have talk to all the manufactures .

so nobody here voted for Obama???? time for change! lol...im out. i have not recieved my sprint yet or have enough experience with them to give much more opinion...

so nobody here voted for Obama???? time for change! lol...im out. i have not recieved my sprint yet or have enough experience with them to give much more opinion...

Obama?lol i dont think so, its a change for the worst. :freak::rolleyes:

Obama?lol i dont think so, its a change for the worst. :freak::rolleyes:


i agree!!! but he did warn its time for change! :freak:

The thing is that when they look at the real sprint cars , dont? most of them run dirt!! ,And most of the asphalt cars dont have wings ,, we Dont like Change ,Guess we got to get to,,, WORK ,,, My thoughts

Now you see Bob. They are unhooking the Bullseye. Well trying. It will be ok. Mine ran fine with the wing up.:thumbsup:i agree with the rules for sprint car except the 1.5 inches wing rule thats to much my bullseye i have right on top of the cage and its hooked up everywhere i go, and i have to agree with curt on this one. bob bates #99

I would think it should be up to the ones that run the class. It may need to be voted on at each NCS race this up coming year (2009) and then make the change if needed. That the only fair way to do it that I see.
I think that you will get more damage to the wing and car in a wreck. May not finish the race when it breaks the mounts. Just my 2 cents worth.

Heck I would like to see tuned pipes & any motor , If they want realism lets pull them front wheels down the staights ,,:thumbsup:

Jeff- i have to agree with you to it should be up to the racers in the class, i think your right we will be okay, could be worse,lol.

Knox- that would be a blast, they are pretty fast now without the tuned pipe, but with a tuned pipe would be alot of fun, but i just dont want to see anyone hurt if one gets away from us. i miss the outlaw class back in the 90's that was fun with the tuned pipe to.

bob bates #99

also i want to wish everyone a happy thanksgiving and be safe.

it just amazes me how most can bitch when they dont hardly race there is a suggestion form that can be filled out at the QSAC page and i bet it wasnt done like i said i know who put this together and those are the guys to beat anywere you go so i guess they dont know what they are talking about just my 2 cents

Hmmmm !!! who would think of that OUTLAW sprint car class not these sissy things we run now , Just stand back and watch them haul ,,I would do it , Who else ? :thumbsup: Robert

Some nice pictures here: Check em out!

http://www.stevehardin.com/picpg211d/DSC01982.JPG

http://www.stevehardin.com/picpg211d/DSC01984.JPG

with all do respect...now remember im sayin "with all do respect"......if i was new to this and was intrested at getting into 1/4 scale racing i would be just a tad dis-intrested by all the complaining..i know everyone is just expressing an opinion but the rules are there for a reason. i personally believe that a thread of this nature will not be very productive to QSAC or local clubs. Change is something we need to accept and move on. We really should be focusing on attracting new members to our clubs. i for one think that if nothing ever changed, we would become complacent and 1/4 scale racing would slowly die out. Im personally one for having a good time on here but when it rises to a point it could be detrimental to the clubs..its time to stop..Nothing can or will ever be solved on hobby talk. So lets all do our part to attract new members.


DC

I don't agree with the rule changes . I think the rules we have are just fine . I' m not going to raise my wing or feel like I have to build a bigger wing to compete . I talked to Rick today at wcm and he did'nt know anything about the rule changes . I think somebody should have talk to all the manufactures .

We out here on the west coast will probably keep the rules as they were for our own races but like I told everybody that had a say in this rule change,if the wing is raised, it will be more effective for the car because the air would be able to flow under the wing! This was told to me by Randy. So I say, if I don't want this "advantage" I should be able to run with the wing lower than 1.5" if I prefer! "disadvantage". Jeff, I don't think voting at the race would help. If you don't have what they want than you will have to start making brackets and so forth to be legal. Next race they vote the opposite. And I also agree that the manufactures should have had a say. Just my 2 cents...!!!I see you must have more than 2 cents if your from the west coast!LOL
Dennis

I thought everyone was having a good conversation will. This is the place to discuss things. That is what we are doing.

OH yea. I finished in front this weekend. :lol: Does that mean I know what I'm talking about. If so, go have another beer. :lol:

it just amazes me how most can bitch when they dont hardly race there is a suggestion form that can be filled out at the QSAC page and i bet it wasnt done like i said i know who put this together and those are the guys to beat anywere you go so i guess they dont know what they are talking about just my 2 cents

I thought everyone was having a good conversation will. This is the place to discuss things. That is what we are doing.

OH yea. I finished in front this weekend. :lol: Does that mean I know what I'm talking about. If so, go have another beer. :lol:i guess i will have another beer :thumbsup:

Dennis, I ment leave the rules as they was and Vote in 2009 and if need be change the rules for 2010. Sorry:thumbsup:We out here on the west coast will probably keep the rules as they were for our own races but like I told everybody that had a say in this rule change,if the wing is raised, it will be more effective for the car because the air would be able to flow under the wing! This was told to me by Randy. So I say, if I don't want this "advantage" I should be able to run with the wing lower than 1.5" if I prefer! "disadvantage". Jeff, I don't think voting at the race would help. If you don't have what they want than you will have to start making brackets and so forth to be legal. Next race they vote the opposite. And I also agree that the manufactures should have had a say. Just my 2 cents...!!!I see you must have more than 2 cents if your from the west coast!LOL
Dennis

A couple more:
www.raceindustry.com/ART/MIGI/100484_A_heckman.jpg

http://www.northwestracer.com/photos/2007/SouthSoundSpeedway/NSRA_ActionJune23rd.jpg

this is what i think they are the rules for next year deal with it i will be runing sprint 2 so there is no reason to question it or complain i will be new to it as well as others

A couple more:
www.raceindustry.com/ART/MIGI/100484_A_heckman.jpg

http://www.northwestracer.com/photos/2007/SouthSoundSpeedway/NSRA_ActionJune23rd.jpg

Wow them sure are pretty and asphalt too . Robert :thumbsup:

Nice pics Scott. I'm going to start working on the Hydraulic wing mounting devise. That should be to NO advantage.:thumbsup: LOLSome nice pictures here: Check em out!

http://www.stevehardin.com/picpg211d/DSC01982.JPG

http://www.stevehardin.com/picpg211d/DSC01984.JPG

Why not use the steerin servos Jeff so as the wheels turn the wing raises or lowers in the rear ...:thumbsup: Robert

all i want to do is be faster than Dennis..since he hasnt sent me a cd of his kick @ss guitar riffs! lol c'mon rock star u puttin that stuff on vynal???:wave:




DC

SHHHHHH, Our Co-chair is watching.LOL

Not me, $200 to $300 each month for a new pipe because their is a new one out. To rich for my blood. Now the motor my be cool. It would just be harder to drive and burn up tires though.Heck I would like to see tuned pipes & any motor , If they want realism lets pull them front wheels down the staights ,,:thumbsup:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:Why not use the steerin servos Jeff so as the wheels turn the wing raises or lowers in the rear ...:thumbsup: Robert

Yes about the tires Back in 94, Me and the Wing Man built some 10th scale sprint cars ,Based of the Barts parts 10 th sprint car with the OS nitro motors We ate up a set of new tires every week, gets costy , but them things would carry the fronts down the straights and were a bunch of fun ,Robert

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Back in the day there was this old guy [ now i am the old guy ] he built this 10th scale sprint out of steel rod a silver solder it was pretty nice lookin , he had hooked up the rear of the wing mnt to a cant lever system so every time the front wheels turned the rear of the wing would raise going into the turns it was pretty cool looking ,, Robert

Scott: thanks for the links to the photos of real sprint cars. Yes they do run there wings up in the air. The wing is designed to work with air flowing over the wing and under the wing, thats what makes the air pressure difference and thats what gives the down force. The wing on my sprint car has been at 1.5 inches above the top frame and it works and looks just fine. It has also survived many a mishap without damage to the wing or the cradle mount, just look on the QSAC web site at the photos from the NCS race at Freddies this season. You can cath my car getting ready to land on its lid and yes the car and the wing survived the crash to go on and finnish the race. As for the width of the wing you will still be allowed to run a 12 inch wide or a 12.5 inch wide or a 13 inch wide wing or whatever you want so long as its not over 14 inches. The weight rule could have been left at 22 lbs. but to be honest there are no cars being made today that come close to the 22lbs. It is not impossible to build a car that meets that weight limit but lets be honest with ourselves who wants to run a 22lb. car that most likely will not survive a sudden impact with the wall or a few end over end flips down the front stretch. As for the tire rule that has been in efect for a few years now and was put into place so as to allow a manufactures tires to be legal. Why raise a stink about it after all this time. They may not be true to scale but if you really want to get that damn picky then lets require drivers in all cars as they once were. Lets outlaw independent rears in the stock cars. I have yet to see a Nascar with IRS rearend. As for those who think the rules are either stupid or unrealistic then run what you brung at your local track but if you want to run QSAC then get with the program and run the rules. If you think you can pen a better set of rules then send them in. The rule changes that came about this year were considered by more than one person it was a groupe input that came up with the suggested changes.

Scott: thanks for the links to the photos of real sprint cars. Yes they do run there wings up in the air. The wing is designed to work with air flowing over the wing and under the wing, thats what makes the air pressure difference and thats what gives the down force. The wing on my sprint car has been at 1.5 inches above the top frame and it works and looks just fine. It has also survived many a mishap without damage to the wing or the cradle mount, just look on the QSAC web site at the photos from the NCS race at Freddies this season. You can cath my car getting ready to land on its lid and yes the car and the wing survived the crash to go on and finnish the race. As for the width of the wing you will still be allowed to run a 12 inch wide or a 12.5 inch wide or a 13 inch wide wing or whatever you want so long as its not over 14 inches. The weight rule could have been left at 22 lbs. but to be honest there are no cars being made today that come close to the 22lbs. It is not impossible to build a car that meets that weight limit but lets be honest with ourselves who wants to run a 22lb. car that most likely will not survive a sudden impact with the wall or a few end over end flips down the front stretch. As for the tire rule that has been in efect for a few years now and was put into place so as to allow a manufactures tires to be legal. Why raise a stink about it after all this time. They may not be true to scale but if you really want to get that damn picky then lets require drivers in all cars as they once were. Lets outlaw independent rears in the stock cars. I have yet to see a Nascar with IRS rearend. As for those who think the rules are either stupid or unrealistic then run what you brung at your local track but if you want to run QSAC then get with the program and run the rules. If you think you can pen a better set of rules then send them in. The rule changes that came about this year were considered by more than one person it was a groupe input that came up with the suggested changes.yep:wave::thumbsup::woohoo:

Fred

You, Randy Baker, Bob Elliott and myself all discussed this topic back-and-forth, up-and-down, and all-around on two separate occassions at MPR this past year as well as over email exchanges.

While I do not like the top wing height rule, I am more than willing to live with it, but I do believe it needs some further clarification or a thorough explanation of how it will be technically inspected.

If a minimum height is required, as the rules suggest, I would still like to know how/where this going to be measured.

I asked this question early on in this thread and have yet to receive an answer.

If it is going to be measured at the closest point between the wing and the frame, how will that be accomplished? With the wing in place, it will be a very difficult challenge to get a measuring device under the wing and above the frame to obtain a clear reading.

If the intention is just to make sure the front mount is a minimum of 1.5" above the frame, I would like to request that the rules be slightly modified to state this more clearly.

Regards,
Joe

Joe Brooks
QSAC Member #39
:thumbsup:

Fred

You, Randy Baker, Bob Elliott and myself all discussed this topic back-and-forth, up-and-down, and all-around on two separate occassions at MPR this past year as well as over email exchanges.

While I do not like the top wing height rule, I am more than willing to live with it, but I do believe it needs some further clarification or a thorough explanation of how it will be technically inspected.

If a minimum height is required, as the rules suggest, I would still like to know how/where this going to be measured.

I asked this question early on in this thread and have yet to receive an answer.

If it is going to be measured at the closest point between the wing and the frame, how will that be accomplished? With the wing in place, it will be a very difficult challenge to get a measuring device under the wing and above the frame to obtain a clear reading.

If the intention is just to make sure the front mount is a minimum of 1.5" above the frame, I would like to request that the rules be slightly modified to state this more clearly.

Regards,
Joe

Joe Brooks
QSAC Member #39
:thumbsup:

Joe:
I do not know that answer. I just found out about the rule as everyone else did. I would think a gage could be inserted between the lowest part of the wing and frame from either the rear of the car or from the front. I'll look it over and see what can be done. Trust me the wings don't look bad at that height. 3 inches I believe would have been excessive.

I do believe that the intent is to have the measurement taken at the lowest mounting point of the top wing or wing saddle. If so, then the wing could be removed and the measurment taken at the front mounting point of the sadle or where the lowest point of the wing saddle is in relation to the top of the frame.

I've been running my front and top wing at 3" since mid summer.....it's not a big deal and I think the car looks realistic. It only took about 10 minutes to fabricate the mounts. Most of you have 4 months before your next race...give it a try.
This forum is for this kind of discussion....just remember that every newsletter comes with a "rule suggestion page." Don't be afraid to use it.

I've been running my front and top wing at 3" since mid summer.....it's not a big deal and I think the car looks realistic. It only took about 10 minutes to fabricate the mounts. Most of you have 4 months before your next race...give it a try.
This forum is for this kind of discussion....just remember that every newsletter comes with a "rule suggestion page." Don't be afraid to use it.

Well stated Larry. It's hard to get help writting the rules but everyone wants to rewrite them when something different comes about. Don't knock it till youv'e tried it.

I say keep the chassis rule the same.....run a 29 or big bore with a 15 carb, stock can exhaust.....and let er eat! It's really not much faster on our track but a lot more fun to drive! I guess my car just likes HP!

But.....I will obey the rules whatever they may be!

I do believe that the intent is to have the measurement taken at the lowest mounting point of the top wing or wing saddle. If so, then the wing could be removed and the measurment taken at the front mounting point of the sadle or where the lowest point of the wing saddle is in relation to the top of the frame.

Fred-

This is, in some ways, how I envisioned this feature being technically inspected.

Given that I run a hammock or saddle (NOTE: Fred Murry Design; contact Fred if you are interested in purchasing one), I know that the "sag" is greater when the wing is mounted versus the "free state". I also think it would be very easy to "bump" the wing during inspection and obtaining a measurement that is not true.

Regards,
Joe

Joe Brooks
QSAC Member #39
:thumbsup:

Wow! who knew that a wing mount would cause such turmoil? I'll take the hit on this one also. Following QSAC procedures last spring I requested that the Rules Committee Chairman form a sprint car committee and come up with a set of "Stand-only" rules. The reason was 1) the increased popularity of the class and 2) eliminate the gray areas of the existing rules. The Chair followed procedures and set up a committee of the most experienced Sprint Car drivers. It was hoped that with their experience and the input of fellow racers that they are acquainted with, a comprehensive set of rules could be established. Although it took longer than I expected, I believe they accomplished their mission quite successfully. The problem with putting things to a vote is that the only reasonable validation method is though a mailing and that is very time consuming and expensive. It is also one of the reason we elect people to the Chair positions. These are the people we put in charge of getting things done. If you have a strong exception to their work there are procedures in place to address this. Hobby Talk is not one of them. I now understand why Co-Chairs get burned-out and almost all of them have quit racing. For the past three and one-half years(about), I have never work so hard to hear so many complaints. Whenever a QSAC official show any initiative to make the sport better he gets nothing but a ration of crap by everybody that has a personal agenda. Maybe I'm over reacting or maybe it's the burn-out talking but guys, if you keep blasting away there won't be any QSAC left.

Brent,
You hit the Nail right on the head :thumbsup: