Question the outcome of the rules meeting for pevely

Intake said:
Leaf springs are still allowed. If you want to waste your time doing all that work I would say have at it. I would venture to say that the same cars, same guys are still going to be the ones to beat JMO
Click to expand...

Why does Allied have to make it so complicated?

By Allieds rules, You can take your coil spring car and whack it up and put leaf springs on it if thats what you want.

By Allieds rules, you can now put a camaro stub on the front of your car if that what you want.

But, by Allieds rules, you can't have a Camaro? That is a factory leaf spring car and the 2nd generation Camaros will fit the 108" wheelbase.

You can have some over engineered morphodite, but you can have the real thing???? :confused:

Sounds to me like you can take a Camaro, put some metric rails on it and a late model looking body on it and go????

That is unless Intake can tell us specifically why it wouldn't pass the rules.
 
Unfortunately you aren't able to please everyone no matter what the situation is. But when you do look at the big picture AARA is the best organization around this area. Yeah there are some downfalls to them and or the rules but the good things deffinately out ways the bad things. I could think of many of things that i don't like about the rules but you have to keep this class within reason too.

I would like to see the weight limit reduced. I have to add almost 600 lbs. of lead to my car to make weight. And that is with a 32 gallon fuel cell. Just a personal preference though.

I also would have been game for the Fall National rules to be the regular season rules. The only bad thing about that though is there would need to be good tech done every night to make sure you are what you are claiming. So i do understand that.

I could go on about a few more things but it really isn't necessary. I think we are plenty fast enough as we are right now and AARA is drawing the best car counts in this division compared to any other track around here.

The only thing that i don't agree on is how it always seems to be that when someones car or drive train is in question come the following year the rule is changed to make it legal. I know the rear suspension was a big thing this year too. Well those with 4 -link. I ran 4 link this year so mine was always being looked at to see how it was mounted and what not. If someone is running something that is totally off the wall then why didn't it have to get changed throughout the year? But come this year they make the rules official on how it needs to be and then that affects some people that were in question. Obviously what they were doing wasn't right otherwise the rules wouldn't have been changed. And if that is the case why were they allowed to run all year with it. I am not positive on how many ran this set-up that was in question but i know it was out there. Didn't affect me any since i am legal but rules are rules. Hopefully it is all enforced fully this season.

I also think that come next season pull bars need to be looked at better. Drilling the rubber biscuits out in the center and running a spring is being done .

Ok well enough from me. Just thought that i would give my own opinion on the situation. And by no means am i dogging on AARA. Like stated above i think they are the best organization around here. I will continue to run with them too. Just hopefully the tech is a little more in depth this year on all the rules that they are enforcing. Good luck to all in 09'.

Tom
 
P.A.E said:
Why does Allied have to make it so complicated?

By Allieds rules, You can take your coil spring car and whack it up and put leaf springs on it if thats what you want.

By Allieds rules, you can now put a camaro stub on the front of your car if that what you want.

.
Click to expand...

On the supplement they handed out it still does not say you can run a camaro stub.
The Supplement says on Page 13 Remove camaros from number 2.

If you go to the rule book Page 13 rule #2 deals basicly with body's. For them to allow Camaro stubs they would have to reword rule #11 on page 15 which deals with frames.

Sounds like Jimmy has a good idea, just grandfather the 1 or 2 cars from last year. Maybe some type of weight penalty added on the front end.
 
i dont really see how they can enforce having to have your trailing arms in the stock hole anymore. if you can cut your front stub off and put a camaro stub on there, then i guess you could but your front stub off and shift it sideways like people claim bob pierce does on his modifieds. i always thought it was understood that the frame was supposed to be unaltered from the front to the top of the rear end, but apparently you can chop it up and move stuff. so who is to say where the stock trailing arm holes are? i would think i could cut my rear frame in pieces and raise the hole up 6" if i wanted to. so why couldnt i have an extra hole? who is to say i cant have 2 frame rails stacked on top of eachother for that matter? see what i am trying to say? this sounds a little confusing, i know.
 
I would like to know where in the rules that it says that you HAVE to do any of this?????
You can build a car that is legal and competitive to run at any and all of the area tracks. Why would you want to build something to stick you in in one place ???
 
Been There said:
On the supplement they handed out it still does not say you can run a camaro stub.
The Supplement says on Page 13 Remove camaros from number 2.

If you go to the rule book Page 13 rule #2 deals basicly with body's. For them to allow Camaro stubs they would have to reword rule #11 on page 15 which deals with frames.

Sounds like Jimmy has a good idea, just grandfather the 1 or 2 cars from last year. Maybe some type of weight penalty added on the front end.
Click to expand...

Good point!

With all the discussion about cut, chop, scab, weld on, recreate, etc. see rule book page 6 under Protesting and #1 also page 1 under General Rules and page 12 under Rules and Regulations.
There is also a rule that cars must meet approval of officials.
 
So, do you think that sentence would somehow allow an official to deny entry to an otherwise legal car.

Allied oficials have only the authority to enforce the rules as contained in the rule book, not to unilateraly decided if they like the rules or not.
 
Phoenix 2 said:
So, do you think that sentence would somehow allow an official to deny entry to an otherwise legal car.

Allied oficials have only the authority to enforce the rules as contained in the rule book, not to unilateraly decided if they like the rules or not.
Click to expand...

No I don't.
 
i am building a car now for a customer, per allied board member "NO CAMARO OR NOVA STUBS OR, NOVA LOWER CONTROL ARMS WILL BE ALLOWED OR HAVE EVER BEEN ALLOWED, ALLIED WAS JUST READJUSTING RULES" MY CAR IN 2000 was not allowed nova lowers and anything i built since had to be removed. the rule was written years ago for neagers mopar ,UNIBODY! technology is abundant with available equiptment, so dont cut your cars up now days ,the wheel does not need to be re-evented
 
Phoenix 2 said:
Good, because one of the biggest downfalls over the years with AARA has been due to over zealous officials.
Click to expand...
Carfull I said something about favortisim and got pounded because I forgot to explain myself. :D They might want you to go down there and find you a over zealous official.:D
 
so what you are saying is that this entire posting was for a rule that dont exist,that is acording to kwikrnu.....some one needs to get the story stright
 
This is very confusing. Can anyone clear this up?
Is a metric chassis with a Camaro front stub going to be legal?

Any clarification is appreciated.
 
its confusing for all, the board member said this has become a pain so the outcome was they removed the word camaro from the rules and resort back to allieds rule"if its not in the rule book its illegal" and there would not be anymore discussion and the member wants to be left out of it, same old allied!
 
When i first heard about this change i thought this is the first step toward getting the UMP Sportsman united with a set of rules. Other places run stub cars with coil or leaf rear suspension. It's been 3-4 years now since Sportman took on the UMP banner & you still have big differances in the cars in differant regions. I know getting all UMP Sportsman on the same page rules wise is going to take a long time & maybe this is the first small step toward this. It will be good when you can go & run a UMP Sportsman anywhere like a Mod. or a L.M. & know what you are competing against. 4-6 more years down the path maybe that will happen, but meanwhile during the change alot of people are not going to like the change. The transition period will be the toughest time. This is my opinion.
 
O-TAY all ya brain-i-acs..answer this

First off I talked to a GENUINE ALLIED O-FICIAL and yes,it is 100% true,ya can SCAB a nova or camaro stub on a metric chassis,,now,lets C how much brain matter ya all's got,camaro/nova and firebird came out with a bolt on sub frame in the 60s,which car had it first and in what year?also,in the mid 70s one other gm car shared the sub frame or so called "STUB",name that car.....
 
FIREBALL said:
First off I talked to a GENUINE ALLIED O-FICIAL and yes,it is 100% true,ya can SCAB a nova or camaro stub on a metric chassis,,now,lets C how much brain matter ya all's got,camaro/nova and firebird came out with a bolt on sub frame in the 60s,which car had it first and in what year?also,in the mid 70s one other gm car shared the sub frame or so called "STUB",name that car.....
Click to expand...
Lenny, How about '62 Chevie II for the first and Buick Apollo as the other car in the 70's.
THANX RICH
People say I'm getting crankier as I get older. That's not it. I just find I enjoy annoying people a lot more now. Especially younger people.
 
Same Old Dick. I never knew that you were not always crabby. :confused:Thats my buddy.

I came out to eat lunch with you Monday and you did not show up!!!!!!!! Geez Dick
 
actually there was 3 cars baised on the nova.the apollo,pontiac ventura and the nova,all shared the same tub so i figure they were novas on steroids,,the 62 chevy II is correct,not really a stub but had a unboltable front sub frame..the stub car i am looking for was produced to compete with the lincoln zepher,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.




Back
Top