Ford rearends under Chevy trucks are illegal

Jeff for some one that thinks it should be allowed anyway why would you make a problem over this. There is no statement in the rules about "if it is not covered it must me stock from the manufacture" there is no ford to ford Chevy to Chevy mentioned besides motor rule. So tell me why is a problem for you? Does an item like a rear end, make you faster? Give an unfair advantage some how? A legal part in 1 car can be illegal in another car LOL now thats unfair? What is the real point here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS rules are frozen for next year.
 
smokingjoe said:
Jeff for some one that thinks it should be allowed anyway why would you make a problem over this. There is no statement in the rules about "if it is not covered it must me stock from the manufacture" there is no ford to ford Chevy to Chevy mentioned besides motor rule. So tell me why is a problem for you? Does an item like a rear end, make you faster? Give an unfair advantage some how? A legal part in 1 car can be illegal in another car LOL now thats unfair? What is the real point here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS rules are frozen for next year.
Click to expand...
Joe, I was the president of this association from it's existance until last year. And the main reason I got out was because Fredericktown was closed and we were not going to be running the RAMS in this area. Since I work a lot of the time on Saturday nights it was just obvious it was better that I get out and let somebody else run things. Even though I didn't agree with everything that went on last year, it sure wasn't because the people running it established anything out of the ordinary via rules. In other words they didn't change a thing to speak of that we hadn't already established. No time in the history of this organization has it been legal to use parts from one type of car/truck in another. I've had a total of six mini stocks, including one I sold you. Speaking of that truck, that was of course the famous "raffle truck" and we went out of our way to make sure it was legal from top to bottom. I'm sure you didn't find a non-Chevy rearend in that S-10.
The only reason I have mentioned this rearend switching is illegal is because we have had precident for the incident in the past and NO changes were made in the rules for any changes to be made last year. So if you are allowed by switch a Chevy rearend to a Ford then there should be no reason you couldn't change an engine, or transmission.
I've said for a long time I would like to be able for us to be able to do something like changing those rearends like that, but it has always been voted down. And just because someone does it without bringing it in front of the association does not make it legal, no matter who does it. Since we are going to be running the RAMS at Fredericktown next year again it is very important for me about the rules. We have a few RAMS mini stocks here that have not raced all season long because they are illegal at Doe Run and the people either don't want to or can't afford to drive 2 hours to race at MCS. I just want to make sure the rules are the same for all. That's it. And since the rules are frozen through next year and changing rearends as previously discussed were illegal last year and nothing was changed to allow it I just want to make sure the rules are fair and just for all.
 
Where Is The RAMS President

Before i start this post ......... I am not being a smart *****, i am serious. Why doesn't TRASHDOG, the RAMS President , speak on this. Make it perfectly clear ! I am a firm believer in hearing things from the horses mouth. Then that aliviates any conflict. JMO ....... LD


P.S. i know i am not a current RAMS member but this is an issue that has come up before so that is why i felt justified in posting. Thanks
 
Joe,
I did some digging in the RAMS archives and found a couple of items that we were looking for.
First in the 2004 RAMS rules, there was a section at the end of the rules that somehow did not get reprinted. It was listed under "Important Notice". I think what happened was when they reprinted the rules the next year they just tried to pulled these items into the main body of the rules, but some parts got left out.
For instance rule #1 was "When you buy an exisiting vehicle the points accumulated DO NOT stay with the vehicle. Rule #2 was about substituting another vehicle. Rule #3 stated in you run a RAMS Points Series event, ALL RAMS rules and regulations must be followed. (I bet that was taken out because of Doe Run).
Rule #4 talked about Fighting Will Not Be Tolerated. And then came RULE #5!

"Anything not specified in these rules must be stock from the manufacturer. The track director and race officials will strive to implement rules fairly and equally among all participants."

Oh and Rule #6 - IGNORANCE OF THE RULES IS NO EXCUSE!

Then in the January 17th, 2004 minutes of the RAMS meeting, following the discussion of rules that had been "redefined," it states:

President Jeff Mills stressed Rule #5 under important notes: which reads "Anything not specified in these rules must be stock from the manufacturer."

That's my reasoning for this discussion. I'll be forwarding these to Butch.
 
That's nice but its not in the rules now, so there really is no point in beating it to death. The 2004 rules mean nothing today and as stated our rules are froze until 2008, maybe if that rule is wanted it can be voted in then.
 
And yes the rules must be allowed at any RAMS track. That is a clear rule.

PS: MCS has an added safety rule not a rule that disallows anything that's RAMS legal. That was brought up earlier and just wanted to clarify.
 
rules

rules state stock transmissions with all gears operational-can i run a bert or brinn???it is stock from the manufactures:D how about my head??must be stock from the manufacturer,well it is a stock part from esslinger???everybody interpets rules diffrently,just like calls from race officials-everybody will not always agree-who ever is in charge of teching for the farmington show,bring some teching tools-i might have to repay the favor that was done to me last year:eek:
 
smokingjoe said:
That's nice but its not in the rules now, so there really is no point in beating it to death. The 2004 rules mean nothing today and as stated our rules are froze until 2008, maybe if that rule is wanted it can be voted in then.
Click to expand...
I understand what happend now Joe..... And you're right.. At least I know who screwed up the rules now. But like I was telling you before, I was not against being able to use a Ford rearend in a Chevy because it will help out so much with gears and changing them. It was just one of those situations that had come up in the past and had been cussed and discussed. Also like I said before, you guys are doing a great job at MCS. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Take care and keeping up the cause in supporting Mel...
 
If you guys keep this up, you will need your own dictionary in the front of the rules to clarify what each word means! Such as stock as manufactured, it doesn't mean as manufactured by Brinn or Bert but by whoever built the vehicle! And I am sure you all know this! I used to push the GM thing in this class, but I don't think they should run Ford rearends. Far be it for me to actually care what the rules are anyway, but you guys have a good class and could get a bigger following if it is made accessable to more tracks. Arguing over every little thing and how it should be interpreted is counterproductive to the class. In other words, nobody is going to want a class at their track that has a bunch of rules that nobody agrees on!
 
My thoughts on it

This is my opinion and my opinion only, BUT the Ford rear end under a Chevy doesn't bother me at all, in fact it has made things more competitive becouse you can find the gear ratio more easily then finding gears to fit in a Chevy. Is it performance enhancing? not really but it depends on who you ask. Now some of the other "grey areas" do need to be addressed and defined a little bit more clearly. Maybe the thing that we need to do is at one of the future meetings have Mel and representative of Fredricktown give their input on the class as a whole and what they would like to see done. Yes there is a rules freeze BUT (theres that but again :p ) but in the rules it doesnt say anything about defining the rules more clearly. Honestly, when the time of the rules meeting last year, there were things that I voted on and there were some things that I didnt vote on becouse of a conflict of interest ( being a driver and the V.P. of the Rams). Like someone else said, there is a big opurtunity for the Rams class to grow and expand to more tracks and aquire more members but I agree that things do need to be defined more clearly. That is something that needs to be addressed and dealt with at the end of the season. Right now I am concentrating on the Bike Giveaway at MCS and keeping my bills paid and keeping my race car in operational. Oh ya, Jim this is all your fault ( it isnt but I am gonna blame ya anyway, your juz too easy :D :p :D ).
On a side note, we have 8 bikes we are giving away this week end at MCS. And anyone needing to know info on the kid that won their bike let me know, or if a team needs a bike to be given away due to a financial crunch, we will take care of it.
 
By the way rules say no racing transmissions, so there is no comparison to allowing a bert and a ford rear end. Like I said your theory it would be legal in one car but not the other. Give me a break or would you like this to be FRAMS (ford racing association of mini stocks) instead of RAMS. I would never accept any rule that lets that happen, regardless if its a racing shock or a rear end.

Oh and yea ask Mel what he likes, we talked about it the other day because of all the *****ing that had started back up over illegal racing shocks and now rear ends. Just 4 rules to check Weight, Tires, Carbs and clutches!!!!!!!!!

PS: As I satated at the meeting with all thats going on with MCS and Mel he is very feed up with the *****ing and trouble making that started back up!!!!!!! Its been a great year with all compition and the fans actually enjoying the RAMS. Lets not piss off 1 of our biggest supporters!!!!!!
 
you guys better listen to the statement about the griping. Lebanon had a good class of mini's and 2-3 griping all the freaken time and guess what I am using had instead of has.
 
new guy

i know im new this year with rams an probaly dont have a right to say muc h but here goes 1st i agree with joe about getting mel upset he got to much to worry about now i thought the rams was completely separated from mcs we was just allowed to race there if that so we should be talking to pres an our tech man 2nd about the rear end i might be wrong but i dont see what harm it matters an all if this was illegel why arent cars inspected at beginning of year an periodically there after but i might be all wrong if so i opoligize if stepped onany toes or pissed some one off
 
Why would Mel be involved from what I see all the complaining has been done hear and amung ourselves. Correct? But here is the deal the RAMS class was suppost to be a class that the every day hard working person could get into and we are loosing that. This will kill this class! I beleive this is the reason everyone is starting to complain, they don't want to loose this class. Look at the cost of engines now and there are people using iron duke heads, and now Ford Racing Performance Parts are producing a big bare casting competition aluminum head that has an official ford stap on it, how far are we going to go? And I don't see a "all ford show" I seen alot of trucks the last couple of weeks and they were running up front and seen a couple heat races won by a chevy!

And I do not believe that Jim won his heat races because he has a ford rear end in his truck!

So what the RAMS need is for everyone to stop bending or playing stupid with the rule! Because this is what is causing all the grief.
 
Tony Littrell said:
Why would Mel be involved from what I see all the complaining has been done hear and amung ourselves. Correct? But here is the deal the RAMS class was suppost to be a class that the every day hard working person could get into and we are loosing that. This will kill this class! I beleive this is the reason everyone is starting to complain, they don't want to loose this class. Look at the cost of engines now and there are people using iron duke heads, and now Ford Racing Performance Parts are producing a big bare casting competition aluminum head that has an official ford stap on it, how far are we going to go? And I don't see a "all ford show" I seen alot of trucks the last couple of weeks and they were running up front and seen a couple heat races won by a chevy!

And I do not believe that Jim won his heat races because he has a ford rear end in his truck!

So what the RAMS need is for everyone to stop bending or playing stupid with the rule! Because this is what is causing all the grief.
Click to expand...

Tony nailed it right on the head. We've done nothing but talk with each other about the situation on the RAMS board. This is what this board was designed to do. Nobody got nasty with anyone. When you have a group of concerned people and there is a question as to how and what is to be done the best way in the world is to talk it out. That's what we've done. By talking it out we found out exactly what has happened and what needs to be done. I thought it was a good job by all to discuss it properly.
 
I was sitting at the table next to Mel last year when we were voting. If he only wants those 4 rules why was he so discussed when we voted in using aftermarket rods? My 2 cents, but then again I am the biggest tight azz of the group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.




Back
Top