Brandon Paul
Free agent score guy
I've decided to separate a new thread on the whole spec late model debate from the now infamous "taking down rubber" thread.
I whole heartedly agree with Mottsinger's objection to WISSOTA-like byzantine rules regarding restrictor plates, weight breaks, etc. I do like the idea of perhaps going to a "Crate" Model fomat, like the fastrak series in the Ohio Valley. But if a track/series would go to a sealed motor, it probably should be limited to ONE serial number from ONE builder or manufacturer. Keep it simple. Yes, that would be a restraint, but I don't think anyone--short of engine builders--is really going to raise that objection if it can cut costs.
As I've said in the past, the biggest problem with IMCA is simply one of perception--everyone knows that IMCA MODS have a $350 claim rule. My fear would be that fans would have the MISCONCEPTIONthat the LMs had a claim rule, too. They wouldn't, but I'm afraid fans wouldn't take the class seriously because of a "phantom" claim-rule.
And I agree with all the posters who say the LMs should go to a tighter tire rule. I'm not sure that it would have to solely be a D-55, but maybe it could be limited to D-30 or D-55.
One more thing: Such a class would have to be marketed agressively as a legitimate Late Model class--otherwise everyone would refer to it as limited or econo late models, creating in fans minds the old UMP econo LM class of the late 80s, which had a number of cars with bodywork that more closely resembled today's sportsman class. That's why I like how TCS refers to their class as "Ironman" late models instead of simply as steel block late models.
I whole heartedly agree with Mottsinger's objection to WISSOTA-like byzantine rules regarding restrictor plates, weight breaks, etc. I do like the idea of perhaps going to a "Crate" Model fomat, like the fastrak series in the Ohio Valley. But if a track/series would go to a sealed motor, it probably should be limited to ONE serial number from ONE builder or manufacturer. Keep it simple. Yes, that would be a restraint, but I don't think anyone--short of engine builders--is really going to raise that objection if it can cut costs.
As I've said in the past, the biggest problem with IMCA is simply one of perception--everyone knows that IMCA MODS have a $350 claim rule. My fear would be that fans would have the MISCONCEPTIONthat the LMs had a claim rule, too. They wouldn't, but I'm afraid fans wouldn't take the class seriously because of a "phantom" claim-rule.
And I agree with all the posters who say the LMs should go to a tighter tire rule. I'm not sure that it would have to solely be a D-55, but maybe it could be limited to D-30 or D-55.
One more thing: Such a class would have to be marketed agressively as a legitimate Late Model class--otherwise everyone would refer to it as limited or econo late models, creating in fans minds the old UMP econo LM class of the late 80s, which had a number of cars with bodywork that more closely resembled today's sportsman class. That's why I like how TCS refers to their class as "Ironman" late models instead of simply as steel block late models.
