rule change or not

[roach]

here it is...................

should the rules allow class 3 to run coil-overs in front no matter what was factory. (FRONT ONLY, NOT REAR, unless you have stock coil-over rear).

i say yes, allow them.

[jonnyslick]

I voted "yes" b/c in the grand sceme of things i don't think it's that big of a difference in cost.

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

I voted "no" for a few reasons. 1) I don't want to see the class get out of hand like class 8. 2) The whole idea of class 3 is to offer a class for vehicles closely resembling "factory" offerings. Once they change that, it opens a hole other can of worms.....Like: "Some factory vehicles offered rear coils, so I want to run rear coils", or , "some factory vehicles offered 108" wheel base, so I want to run 108')...and so on. If they start making major changes like like that away from the factory design, they may as well just say; "OK, maintain a 110" wheel base and skins to resemble the factory truck and do WHATEVER else you want. Then we end up with a high dollar mini TT class.....so, I vote to remain as is.

[Salttoy]

I voted "no" for a few reasons. 1) I don't want to see the class get out of hand like class 8. 2) The whole idea of class 3 is to offer a class for vehicles closely resembling "factory" offerings. Once they change that, it opens a hole other can of worms.....Like: "Some factory vehicles offered rear coils, so I want to run rear coils", or , "some factory vehicles offered 108" wheel base, so I want to run 108')...and so on. If they start making major changes like like that away from the factory design, they may as well just say; "OK, maintain a 110" wheel base and skins to resemble the factory truck and do WHATEVER else you want. Then we end up with a high dollar mini TT class.....so, I vote to remain as is.

I agree, if you want all the trucks to be the same, go buy a Pro Truck.

[Blanco]

I also voted NO!

Because I'm trying to do what we cant to save the current class, not Modify it. :rolleyes:
If we start trying to change alot of rules at this point it goes along with why BITD got rid of it.

I do see why it might be nice to allow it....
But if you picked a Chevy Blazer to race, Just deal with it! http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/wiggle%20tongue.gif

[shaner17]

I voted YES.

For one thing I think it might help bring some more competitors to the race's,
and alot more competiton during the race at the same time.

Im not saying that alot of the rules should be changed and we should turn the class 3 into mini TT's but the coil-over will bring a little more excitement to the sport and help some of those straight axle guys get going a little faster thru the rough stuff.

If the TTB guys can do it then I think other's should be able to run it as well.

[Blanco]

Hey shaner17, Moss Bros are both straight axle & coil over. :cool:

[shaner17]

I meant for the chevy, dodge etc... who came stock w/ a leaf sprung front axle.

I saw a straight axle chevy 4-link w/ coilover's that was pretty badass at tuff trucks del mar last year, it ate up the tiny course and took the turns quick and easy w/ 4wd.

You would see some pretty bitchin set-ups if you allowed some other trucks to run coil-overs IMO:D

[jonnyslick]

and realistically speaking adding coilovers to the front is not gonna' change the overall cost one way or the other that much.

are broncos allowed to run coilovers per class 3 rules already?

[3amigo]

I voted yes, purely for selfish reasons, but in the mean time I worked on my frame last night to reincorporate t-bars. I'm going to use the longer trooper bars and try the stock replacement SAW units. They claim 20-30% higher rate.
The rules do say that coil overs can be run as secondary suspension as long as the primary spring can maintain ride height plus or minus 1-2 inches.

[roach]

are broncos allowed to run coilovers per class 3 rules already?

yes,

after talking with savage a while back i confirmed this. when the rules say stock concept it means the truck has to be suspended by whatever the factory put there to hold it up. the mounted method is open, so you can have a shock holding the coil(s). i think alot of people get cought up in the "coil-over" aspect of it being that there is a shock inside the coil and the factory had a bucket holding it up. the rules are pretty clear as far as mounting methods though.

in black and white...........the TTB's are suspended by a coil from the factory, regardless of a coil-bucket. a coil-over shock is nothing more than another form of a mount for the coil that suspends the truck.

and just so many of you know...........
go and get a rule book. class 3 is not as limited as you might think. compare the rules side by side and word for word with class 8. they are just short of a photo copy of each other. only the wheel base, 4X4, and leaf sprung trucks are the limitations.

motor: open, as long as it has a cast block, punch it to whatever you want
tranny: open
transfer case: open, you can run the Herbst tranny if you wanted to
brakes: open
shocks: open
steering: open

do i think someone will go and spend $80K on a class 3 bronco or blazer.......no i doubt it, but someone could and they would still be within the rules.

[jonnyslick]

yes,

after talking with savage a while back i confirmed this. when the rules say stock concept it means the truck has to be suspended by whatever the factory put there to hold it up. the mounted method is open, so you can have a shock holding the coil(s). i think alot of people get cought up in the "coil-over" aspect of it being that there is a shock inside the coil and the factory had a bucket holding it up. the rules are pretty clear as far as mounting methods though.

in black and white...........the TTB's are suspended by a coil from the factory, regardless of a coil-bucket. a coil-over shock is nothing more than another form of a mount for the coil that suspends the truck.

and just so many of you know...........
go and get a rule book. class 3 is not as limited as you might think. compare the rules side by side and word for word with class 8. they are just short of a photo copy of each other. only the wheel base, 4X4, and leaf sprung trucks are the limitations.

motor: open, as long as it has a cast block, punch it to whatever you want
tranny: open
transfer case: open, you can run the Herbst tranny if you wanted to
brakes: open
shocks: open
steering: open

do i think someone will go and spend $80K on a class 3 bronco or blazer.......no i doubt it, but someone could and they would still be within the rules.

Yeah those are good points ... I'm flipping back and forth between the 8 and 3 rules and you're right they are very close. The motor however ... you CAN run an aluminum block IF that's was what was available in the stock vehicle. It's not that you can't run an aluminum block motor ... just the fact that you're block has to match the same material, manufacture, and number of cylinders the original chassis did.

[jonnyslick]

Roach ... i just relized that by cast you mean cast iron or cast aluminum as in the process the engine is formed and not a forged racing block ... yes ... in that aspect you have to use a cast block. but i think think that's kind of a mute rule anyway seeing as how the block has to be by the same manufacture as the chassis (ie ford -> ford, chevy -> chevy) but that i'm aware of no manufacture offers forged blocks anyway do they? can you get a ford racing forged block? i dunno' maybe in the racing bins at dearborn there are some in there????

[retroblazer]

I just voted. I voted yes to allow coilovers. Contrary to some mistaken belief
that this is a "stock class", it's not. In a large part, this is a cost consideration, custom made spring packs run approximately $750 per spring. They require constant re-arching. I replace the two top main leafs after every 1000 miles at the longest. Trust me, it's not free. It used to be exotic to have coilovers, but today they are a very cost effective suspension option. The other option for this class is to limit front wheel travel, but like most, I'd rather modernize and go faster. Sure, nobody likes to give up an advantage, so if I'm a full size Ford owner, I don't want anybody to have an equal suspension, but the object is to level the playing field to the degree that it's fair and it encourages more people to build. The fact is something needs to change in class. There have only been three to five cars per race in any series except the Formula 4x4 class in the Midwest, which has fifteen to twenty short wheel base trucks per race. So before you wannabe's vote not to allow them, think about it. ;)

[petepecas]

I voted no, if you like coil springs in your suspension, build a truck that came that way from the factory, there's plenty of candidates out there either way, leaf or coils, straight axle or ttb, A arms, etc...
Keep class 3 the way it is and get the most out of your set up with ingenuity and driver skills.... that's the way I see it.

[Blanco]

http://bestsmileys.com/argue/1.gif

[chupakabras]

yes, i love coilovers, man, you can set up how your supension behaves, a lot of spring rates available.
i just don't like to be bouncing like a crazy mdf the whole time, haha, for us, just to swap from coils springs to dual rate coilovers was a step beyond our imagination, i just love it. :)

[roach]

the vote is 50 / 50!! who is going to be the tie breaker?????

[petepecas]

Any body else out there for class 3 remaining or opening pandora's box?, he,he.

[retroblazer]

yes, i love coilovers, man, you can set up how your supension behaves, a lot of spring rates available.
i just don't like to be bouncing like a crazy mdf the whole time, haha, for us, just to swap from coils springs to dual rate coilovers was a step beyond our imagination, i just love it. :)

Oh sure, just rub it in.

[straightaxle]

Just to stir things up, has anyone out there considered CHOOSING a VEHICLE that fits the rules, rather than trying to change the rules to fit specific vehicles? Why are you Chevy guys set on using a straight axle, leaf sprung Blazer? Didn't the late model stuff come with SLA suspension? Maybe the full size stuff has too much wheelbase, but the S10 is right there. By the time you add coil overs, some kind of exotic steering, and links to the front of a straight axle, you are at the same scale of work as a longer SLA setup, and it will still steer like a pig. The FJ's making it work. While not as tough from the factory as a TTB, with the rules as loose as they are, there's no reason they can't be built that way. SLA is going to handle far bettter than a TTB or beams, you don't see either on Trophy Trucks anymore.

[roach]

i agree with Don. the only reason we chose a bronco was for the front suspension. if i had my way, i would love to run a small block chevy 350. they are cheap and plentyfull. you can build a good race motor for half the price of a 351w. but the suspension of a ford beats (IMO) that of a SA chevy. i am not a big fan of the C-6 either. they are OK, but i would prefer the TH400.

we are running the 351w with a ATI adapter to run the TH400 with a NP241C.

here it is........
http://www.atiperformanceproducts.com/products/adapterk/akit.htm

they are cheap enough at just under $400.

[retroblazer]

Just to stir things up, has anyone out there considered CHOOSING a VEHICLE that fits the rules, rather than trying to change the rules to fit specific vehicles? Why are you Chevy guys set on using a straight axle, leaf sprung Blazer? Didn't the late model stuff come with SLA suspension? Maybe the full size stuff has too much wheelbase, but the S10 is right there. By the time you add coil overs, some kind of exotic steering, and links to the front of a straight axle, you are at the same scale of work as a longer SLA setup, and it will still steer like a pig. The FJ's making it work. While not as tough from the factory as a TTB, with the rules as loose as they are, there's no reason they can't be built that way. SLA is going to handle far bettter than a TTB or beams, you don't see either on Trophy Trucks anymore.

If it was that simple, why don't you think that anybody is building them. The answer is simple. It's too expensive. What we're asking is pretty simple. We're keeping the primary suspension limitation the same. A solid front axle, or in the case of another brand running torsion bars, an arm set-up. The cost to change from a leaf spring to a linked coil-over is modest. It doesn't require anthing more exotic in the steering department than a ttb does. If a Blazer was built with a linked front end to begin with, it would be no more expensive than a leaf spring truck, and in the long run is cheaper and easier to maintain. Don't even try to tell us that you think that custom fabbing an a-arm set-up is cheaper than a solid axle.
The real issue is do you want to have more competition or do you just want to have three or four guys to race against? If you really want to race a production truck, go race in the "stock classes".
Rules can change to benefit competition, it happens all the time.
Last, you say the fj is making "it" work. First, either my truck or yours will spank it most of the time. No offense to the Donohoe guys. I replaced a driveshaft, I had no fuel pressure for the last forty miles, and I didn't prerun or have gps. Second, how many guys do you know that are going to start with a core vehicle that costs 20 grand plus? Do you think that Donohoe bought the truck?

[straightaxle]

If it was that simple, why don't you think that anybody is building them. The answer is simple. It's too expensive. What we're asking is pretty simple. We're keeping the primary suspension limitation the same. A solid front axle, or in the case of another brand running torsion bars, an arm set-up. The cost to change from a leaf spring to a linked coil-over is modest. It doesn't require anthing more exotic in the steering department than a ttb does. If a Blazer was built with a linked front end to begin with, it would be no more expensive than a leaf spring truck, and in the long run is cheaper and easier to maintain. Don't even try to tell us that you think that custom fabbing an a-arm set-up is cheaper than a solid axle.
The real issue is do you want to have more competition or do you just want to have three or four guys to race against? If you really want to race a production truck, go race in the "stock classes".
Rules can change to benefit competition, it happens all the time.
Last, you say the fj is making "it" work. First, either my truck or yours will spank it most of the time. No offense to the Donohoe guys. I replaced a driveshaft, I had no fuel pressure for the last forty miles, and I didn't prerun or have gps. Second, how many guys do you know that are going to start with a core vehicle that costs 20 grand plus? Do you think that Donohoe bought the truck?

Are you saying its too expensive to start with a vehicle that fits the rules? I am in complete agreement that it is many times cheaper to maintain a coilover than a leaf spring, and if I thought that would bring in hordes of class 3 entries, I would be at Sal's front door asking to make them mandatory! We ran more race miles on the stock spring buckets than all of the current Class 3 trucks combined, before switching over to coilovers. There are a million factors out there that cause car counts to go up and down, but mainly its the determination of the individual teams to make the effort to get out there. I applaud the Donahoe effort and technique, and I believe that they have not even scratched the surface of their potential. Does anybody remember the Kia?

[jonnyslick]

yeah the kia team is up on RDC ....

[jonnyslick]

Kia Team for Sale (http://www.race-dezert.com/cgi-bin/trader/atl.cgi?ct=2&mct=&md=second&id=20208)

here ya go ... i'm assuming this was the one you were referring to? $40K for the Boff of 'em.

[retroblazer]

Are you saying its too expensive to start with a vehicle that fits the rules? I am in complete agreement that it is many times cheaper to maintain a coilover than a leaf spring, and if I thought that would bring in hordes of class 3 entries, I would be at Sal's front door asking to make them mandatory! We ran more race miles on the stock spring buckets than all of the current Class 3 trucks combined, before switching over to coilovers. There are a million factors out there that cause car counts to go up and down, but mainly its the determination of the individual teams to make the effort to get out there. I applaud the Donahoe effort and technique, and I believe that they have not even scratched the surface of their potential. Does anybody remember the Kia?

I guess we agree to disagree. I know that we would add more trucks to the class if we changed these rules. I just spoke with one of the guys this past week. He is the owner of Blitzkrieg Motorsports. He converts Blazers to four links. He has a truck ready to go. Catrell, who formerly raced the class would like to redo his Blazer. These are just two, but given the number of enties that we've had running it's meaningful.
What is it you're afraid of if we make this change?

[Dave G]

Where will it stop? That's the first issue I have with this idea!

Let us all just say this change is made... Imagine in 5 years when all the current racers have moved onto other classes, the next generation of C3 racers will justify the change to coils on all corners and make 2WD acceptable, because "the rules already allow a departure from stock concept in the front", and "it would be a LOT cheaper to eliminate leaves altogether", and "just think of the numbers we could get into the class if 2WD was allowed" ?!?!?!?!


Secondly, every vehicle has it's own beneficial and detrimental features, it's the duty of the racer to weigh those out and decide which vehicle they feel is best suited for the class.
In the Moss Bros. case, the 78/9 bronco was specifically chosen for it's simplicity and durability combined with the potential for horsepower.
I'd imagine the Beals chose the pathfinder as their platform (with which they dominated the class for several years) because they viewed the IFS and lower weight as more important than easy horsepower.
On the other end of the spectrum of class 3 nominees, are the GM offerings (Blazer and Jimmy), which offer the cheapest horsepower available (by far) and a superior transmission (IMO), but whose shortcomings are the leaf springs in the front. The K5 has been proven capable in the past, (think Pikes, White Lightning, and even Gatrell's propane burner) so we know that the GM platform can be made to perform.
Perhaps it will cost a bit more to get your leaves checked out each race, but I have no doubt that it's more than offset by your engine savings when compared to the price of per-race maintenance, and yearly rebuilds of a Ford engine!
To change the rules and allow the crossover of a competitive advantage from one manufacturer to another would be completely unfair to, (and a slap in the face of) those who have weighed their options and built their vehicles to the letter of the existing rules.

FWIW, I'm a chevy guy, and I'd rather see a chevy win fair and square using it's own design than see it win using Ford's "Better Idea"... I think it kinda cheapens it somehow!

[retroblazer]

First and foremost, this is a 4wd class.The only reason that 2wds have been allowed to run is that there weren't enough entries. Don't go gettin' your undewear in a bunch because your imagination is running wild. Nobody is suggesting anything other than one specific change.
Your comment about Ford engines being that much more expensive that a Chevy is no longer true. Not in a meanful way. It's quite easy and affordable to build a stroker Windsor that has five hundred plus horsepower.
In this day of modern off road suspensions, a linked suspension is no more a Ford than it is anything else. Jeeps, Range Rovers, Toyotas all come equiped with linked front ends. So no, I don't feel it's any less a Chevy because I use a solid axle that's linked as opposed to leafs. It's another story if I was asking to stick a ttb under it.
As the rules say, this is an open production class. Why not make the cars easier to build and cheaper to maintain?

[petepecas]

Hey,

Just get a class 8.....or a Ford.

[lr3racer]

HI u all.i runn a aluminum block and coil overs and orange paint in class 3.:eek:

[Brokenbronco]

I voted no. I just don't agree with the whole if i don't like the rules i'll try to change them thing.

[pigracing]

I voted yes.
Over time things need to be tweaked to reflect new technologies and such. Coil overs are just the way to go now and I think everyone deserves to be able to cash in on their benefits. Besides I don't see this as giving an advantage to some but leveling the playing field just a bit for all. Nothing wrong with that.
And again, I just think things from time to time need to be addressed and possible changes may come about but as long as their dealt with in a fair and subtle manner with out a complete overhaul of the class then I have no problem with that. Just seems natural to me...

[jonnyslick]

HI u all.i runn a aluminum block and coil overs and orange paint in class 3.:eek:


and an abbundence of electrical problems? hahaha :p

[retroblazer]

HI u all.i runn a aluminum block and coil overs and orange paint in class 3.:eek:
We already had one of these running in the class. Too bad it rolled hard.

[chupakabras]

HI u all.i runn a aluminum block and coil overs and orange paint in class 3.:eek:

hey jerry, what's up,, que onda jerry, que dicen los range rovers pues, when we will see you back in a class 3?,

[Blanco]

Your comment about Ford engines being that much more expensive that a Chevy is no longer true. Not in a meanful way. It's quite easy and affordable to build a stroker Windsor that has five hundred plus horsepower.

I must agree & also agree with the fact that the Crew Cheif to the most sucessful Class 3 ever is a chevy guy. :rolleyes:

But I as a ford man must say that TODAY FORD's are not like 10 years ago I could build a 450 HP ford for about the same price as a chevy!
& I say this as a guy that spent about 10 years working on custom race engines...
Yes ford traditionally have costed more to build......
But not so much today....

If you call AFR, A set of Aluminum heads cost about the same FORD or CHEVY.
ETC etc.......

I still think that if you picked a leaf sprung front end & have a problem with that! you should re-think your race platform! http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/wiggle%20tongue.gif

[Dust]

Seems to me that if yer stuck on leaf springs yer needs to re read the rules...
Shocks are wide open so is the secondary suspension...
Gut the leaf pack so that it will hold the truck at 1" below ride height.
Toss in a coilover to hold the truck at ride height.
Poof! Coiloverz and all the Ford peepz saying WTF.:eek:

Further if a body was to get creative one could build the spring pack so that it would work like a trailing arm (might take a bit of figuring out) and thus locate the axle while allowing the C/O to do all the work...
You are now within the rules and running a coilover.

Dust
I hate rules!

[Blanco]

Could it really be that simple? :confused:

[lr3racer]

que pasa chupacabras.we are working on the body of the 88 RANGE ROVER for the BAJA 500. if we make it on time:rolleyes: is the EFI problem corrected?on the chupacabra.

[retroblazer]

que pasa chupacabras.we are working on the body of the 88 RANGE ROVER for the BAJA 500. if we make it on time:rolleyes: is the EFI problem corrected?on the chupacabra.

Seriously, the 500? Love to see ya down there.

[lr3racer]

count me in for the 500

[roach]

que pasa chupacabras.we are working on the body of the 88 RANGE ROVER for the BAJA 500. if we make it on time:rolleyes: is the EFI problem corrected?on the chupacabra.

y que pasa para la mil?? vas o no vas??

whow, bet blanco didn't know that he was goind to have to ad a spanish section, did he???:D

[chupakabras]

que pasa chupacabras.we are working on the body of the 88 RANGE ROVER for the BAJA 500. if we make it on time:rolleyes: is the EFI problem corrected?on the chupacabra.

not yet, the problem still there, well, we haven't done that much to find the problem, we are working on other things, we finally install the rear fox bump stops, and a lot of other things that takes some time to do, so we're busy, ha, so, hope to find the problem before the race, right, ..

..keep on working on your racer, it will be cool to have you back in the race, see yaah..:)

[Dust]

Could it really be that simple? :confused:

Nothing is ever that simple!

Dust

[Blanco]

Nothing is ever that simple!

Dust

Yeah thats about what I figured. :rolleyes:

[retroblazer]

not yet, the problem still there, well, we haven't done that much to find the problem, we are working on other things, we finally install the rear fox bump stops, and a lot of other things that takes some time to do, so we're busy, ha, so, hope to find the problem before the race, right, ..

..keep on working on your racer, it will be cool to have you back in the race, see yaah..:)

If its a fuel injection problem on a Ford V-6, the guy in the shop next to mine, is well known. His name is Juan, operates under Juanco. He shares space with Fiberwerx. He lives in TJ and commutes to El Cajon where the shop is located. Fiberwerx has a banner ad on the RDC website. Fiberwerx is owned Jason McNeil.

[chupakabras]

[QUOTE=retroblazer;1817]If its a fuel injection problem on a Ford V-6, QUOTE]


that's for sure, we are going to try to do our best to find the problem, and i'm pretty sure that we will find it, the symptoms are pretty simple, that's why i believe that the problem is fuel related; but if not, we will look for a professional help, so, thks for the tip.

[lr3racer]

workin long hours no pay:p all for fun.........

[lr3racer]

:D chupacabras is going big...:eek: fox bump stops....................bump stops = big air:eek:

[petepecas]

Soory to break up the romance, but I guess the progressive guys won on the coil spring issue, or is anybody else gonna vote, I understand there´s about 80 members, anybody...:confused:

[lr3racer]

if its not broken dont fixit my bina:eek:

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

Soory to break up the romance, but I guess the progressive guys won on the coil spring issue, or is anybody else gonna vote, I understand there´s about 80 members, anybody...:confused:

Not likely! I dont think any rule is going to be changed with just a simple majority like this. (unless it was a safety issue) 13 to 11. I'm guessing SCORE/Sal Fish wouldnt touch it unless it had something like a 75 to 85% or more majority.

[retroblazer]

Not likely! I dont think any rule is going to be changed with just a simple majority like this. (unless it was a safety issue) 13 to 11. I'm guessing SCORE/Sal Fish wouldnt touch it unless it had something like a 75 to 85% or more majority.

If the only guys against the rules change are Ford owners, and the rest of haven't raced a single SCORE event this decade, then I'd say there is still a chance. It may not happen this year or next, but Rome wasn't built in a day. I'll spare you guys any more of my diatribe. I hope all of you who are talking about building trucks get the chance to do so. My main goal is to see the class grow and prosper. See ya in Baja :D

[petepecas]

If the only guys against the rules change are Ford owners, and the rest of haven't raced a single SCORE event this decade, then I'd say there is still a chance. It may not happen this year or next, but Rome wasn't built in a day. I'll spare you guys any more of my diatribe. I hope all of you who are talking about building trucks get the chance to do so. My main goal is to see the class grow and prosper. See ya in Baja :D

We will see you on the 1000, and the rules or quantity of participants has not changed since last decade in SCORE, so I guess my blazer, leaf springs and all, still has a chance at beating your blazer, I dont see any validity or logic in the arguments to change the rules, cause there's other classes and other vehicles, I wold not blame it on the car....or bad luck, a well prepared vehicle will make the finish line, that's half the battle right there, the other is good, intelligent driving skills, to put it bluntly.:cool:

[Grimm]

Just added another vote on the nay side. Now, I havn't raced YET... but the reason that I picked a 78 Bronco to build was 1.) because I have wanted one ever since before i could drive and 2.) Because of the components that it came with straight out of the factory. Perhaps one of the toughest trucks straight from the factory ever assembled, made with best parts of its time and some are still today the cream of the crop. You cannot deny the strength of a C-6>NP205>9">D44 combination. Add the coil spring front and you have everything. I agree that we should be picking our platforms for builds based on their capability. Had another manufacturer come stock with the above or comparable drive line and the 78 not, I would probably be building that.

It appears that from what we have being built on this site right now that in the next two years you should see the class attendance double, without making any rule changes at all. So whats the big deal. I think the class will grow soon, just look at all the new media exposure to the sport. Its all over the 4 wheel mags and tv right now. As a matter of fact, Don Moss' name was just in print in the latest OFF-Road mag featuring a new ATX Ranger build.(sponsorship).
anyway my .02

[3amigo]

Seems to me that if yer stuck on leaf springs yer needs to re read the rules...
Shocks are wide open so is the secondary suspension...
Gut the leaf pack so that it will hold the truck at 1" below ride height.
Toss in a coilover to hold the truck at ride height.
Poof! Coiloverz and all the Ford peepz saying WTF.:eek:

!

This is exactly what I am doing with the amigo. I installed the the smallest t-bars I could find, just enough to hold up the front end. I am also running a coil over with a tender spring to take up the slack and a bigger main spring to take the bumps. I'll have to put some testing on it to prove the concept, but it should keep me in the RULES and give me more,cheaper tuning options.

[retroblazer]

We will see you on the 1000, and the rules or quantity of participants has not changed since last decade in SCORE, so I guess my blazer, leaf springs and all, still has a chance at beating your blazer, I dont see any validity or logic in the arguments to change the rules, cause there's other classes and other vehicles, I wold not blame it on the car....or bad luck, a well prepared vehicle will make the finish line, that's half the battle right there, the other is good, intelligent driving skills, to put it bluntly.:cool:

According to your previous posts, you haven't raced in Class 3 directly in SCORE, and you haven't raced your Blazer in quite awhile, then I guess I can understand why you lack the ability to see the validity of the rule change. If your only chance to win, is when everybody else breaks, then you and I have different ideas about what constitutes "racing".

[jonnyslick]

13 to 13 ... scores tied for now

[Dust]

13 to 13 ... scores tied for now

Tempest in a tea pot… :eek:

Dust

[Stephen]

The rules that will maintain the essence of this class control these factors:

wheelbase
trackwidth
4wd
stock motor position
stock suspension concept

Allowing a torsion or leaf truck to switch to coilovers is not going to add travel potential, that's limited by the driveshaft or axle shafts. It's not even going to add any handling advantage over what's been done with leaves. All we're talking about is making it cheaper and easier to build (or at least to maintain) a leaf or torsion bar race vehicle. We're not switching a K5 to TTB or putting a-arms under a solid axle frame.

This rule change will not affect the outcome of a race given that a well prepared vehicle will make the finish line, that's half the battle right there, the other is good, intelligent driving skills, to put it bluntly. So what's the big deal?

[petepecas]

The rules that will maintain the essence of this class control these factors:

wheelbase
trackwidth
4wd
stock motor position
stock suspension concept

Allowing a torsion or leaf truck to switch to coilovers is not going to add travel potential, that's limited by the driveshaft or axle shafts. It's not even going to add any handling advantage over what's been done with leaves. All we're talking about is making it cheaper and easier to build (or at least to maintain) a leaf or torsion bar race vehicle. We're not switching a K5 to TTB or putting a-arms under a solid axle frame.

This rule change will not affect the outcome of a race given that a well prepared vehicle will make the finish line, that's half the battle right there, the other is good, intelligent driving skills, to put it bluntly. So what's the big deal?

I don´t believe i´ts that simple,
It will affect the way the truck handles by changing the whole suspension design, now you have to link the axle to the frame, you need to engineer it (not free) and you need to build it (not free or cheap).
Now you have entered a whole different territory, one that WILL add to the cost of building a vehicle very similar to a class 8 truck, but slower ´cause of the limited wheel base, might as well build a class 8, sooo, just get a ford if you like that design, don´t re-invent the wheel!:p

[Moss2]

The rules that will maintain the essence of this class control these factors:

wheelbase
trackwidth
4wd
stock motor position
stock suspension concept

Allowing a torsion or leaf truck to switch to coilovers is not going to add travel potential, that's limited by the driveshaft or axle shafts. It's not even going to add any handling advantage over what's been done with leaves. All we're talking about is making it cheaper and easier to build (or at least to maintain) a leaf or torsion bar race vehicle. We're not switching a K5 to TTB or putting a-arms under a solid axle frame.

This rule change will not affect the outcome of a race given that a well prepared vehicle will make the finish line, that's half the battle right there, the other is good, intelligent driving skills, to put it bluntly. So what's the big deal?


It wont help the steering??? But didn't you post the following among other shortcomings of the Blazer front end on another forum??


This is kind of an old one but since there's a bit more action on straight axle GM's going on I brought it back.
One thought on using stock steering with long travel springs: I tried the stock steering with a set of custom springs I designed a few years ago and the big problem wasn't bumpsteer but roll steer. This is the reason so many rock crawler/recreational offroad types go to crossover steering. The factory steering system places the draglink a few inches outboard of the leaf spring so when the axle articulates under the truck (steering the axle as a result) the draglink can't keep up. I tried running a locating bar from in the factory swaybar mounting locations on the frame and ubolt plate and the bumpsteer was minimal but the roll steer was still terrible. One solution I've seen was turning the box sideways like a dodge truck and running the draglink very close to the leaf spring.

The crossover system with a panhard bar referred to earlier was mine and despite a pretty nice mount on the frame it still tried to crack out until I field welded it to the crossmember that was touching it anyway. One inch of chicken poop applied with a battery welder ended the cracking problem. There is a problem with running a panhard with leaves in that leaves don't really want to move side to side very much so you're going to induce a lot of bind into the system. I had a sliding bushing at the front of the spring to give it about 5/8" of side to side motion without bind and it cycled through about 12" of travel pretty easily. I have some ideas on how to get that side to side motion in a more durable way but it doesn't take very much messing around with it to justify the universal answer: link and coil or coilovers.
__________________
Owner of one slow K5.

[Stephen]

Moss, I think this proves the point I'm trying to make, it's possible to make it work with leaves but it's really cumbersome to build and hard to maintain. Have you seen the class 4 jeep honcho trucks? I know Kenny Wartluff from south idaho has one and runs in the BORE series sometimes. Anyway, the truck has semi-elliptic front springs, a triangulated 4 link (in front), steering box mounted under the seat and the shocks set back on the upper leading arms. I'm sure it runs 18" or so vertical, seems to handle well (as well as if it had a c/o on it) and would be legal in class 3 currently but what a nightmare to build and maintain!

Pete: we're not talking about changing the rule for linking up the axle, that's legal now. We're talking about changing the spring type to allow any spring as a primary.

[kkspeedracer]

i believe if you are going to allow open suspension to certain vehicles on the front then coils should be allowed on the rear of non-coil vehicles also. when you make changes that only advantage a few racers it usually becomes pretty nasty. i would have to vote no.

[retroblazer]

i believe if you are going to allow open suspension to certain vehicles on the front then coils should be allowed on the rear of non-coil vehicles also. when you make changes that only advantage a few racers it usually becomes pretty nasty. i would have to vote no.

First, nobody is talking about the rear suspension. Second, nobody is getting an advantage out of this change. Equalized, yes, but no advantage. How can this be an advantage when three quarters of the field already is equiped this way?

[kkspeedracer]

i've been racing score class 3 since the late 80's so i guess i'm still a wannabe......but.....i'm with petepecas, if you want coils build a car that came with coils. in off-road racing suspension is what wins races. if you're talking about any changes to the front it directly effects the rear. after twenty years of racing i know the costs and i would have loved to have coils in the rear. but the rules don't allow it. the reason i brought up rear suspension is what is good and cost effective for some vehicles in the front is good for others in the rear...you have to keep it even or it will cause problems. btw front wheel travel is already limited in the front.

[kkspeedracer]

to make my opinion more clear i would say other rules such as independent suspension front and rear, fuel injection, coils front and rear, wheel base, and the option of two or four wheel drive have huge advantages over the older vehicles. when i started the max wheel base for class 3 was 101". score is talking now of an increase to 110". it kind of killed the jeep guys back at 104" a couple extra feet of wheel base really put them at a disadvantage. they did however alter the rules back when the the kia was running to allow multiple valves which didn't really matter much in the desert.

[Blanco]

http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/humm_smilie.gif Interesting how even this Poll has been.

[GATRELL]

I'll admit that I bypassed reading all the previous posts(but I will in the next day or so) but wanted to make a quick post. In regards to any rule changes, it should only benefit the class as a whole. For those that have been around the class for a long time and I am talking about those involved since the early eighties and maybe even the seventies, the class as a whole has survived but considering the fact that at some of the races we used to have 20 or more entries, even over thirty at some of the Mint races(Classes3, 4 or 14, take your pick). The primary reason for any possible changes is not necessarily to bring out newer vehicles but bring out any vehicles that have raced in the last??? number of years or others that just like the class concept. One other quick mention, the concept of having to build a vehicle that is most suited for the class does nothing to promote the longevity of the class and what happens to your racer if someone comes out with something that is legal to race the class and just BLOWS everyone out of the water....?Guess that means that everyone will throw their old car away and build a new one? Just a quick thought, I hope I didn't step on anyones toes by not reading the previous posts, If so, I apologize and lets try and get this rezolved and put to vote and forwarded to Savage in a timely manner so that building or refurbishing can get going.......Todd

[Stephen]

I think everyone wants to see more people in this class, whether it's to insure it's survival, increase competition, provide more sheep to fleece, whatever, more is better. Make it easier for guys that like Blazers, leaf jeeps, Fourrunners, etc to participate and there's a better chance they will.
I can understand guys looking at the pros and cons of different vehicles and if we let a K5 run coils it's messing with the factory pros and cons but....
What's the difference between a K5 and a straight axle bronco? Motor, that's it. The rest is or can be the same and at this point in time, it's not that hard to build a stompy small block ford on a reasonable budget.
I don't see how this proposed rule change can make things worse.

[kkspeedracer]

hey mr gatrell great to see you on here !! i think if we are going to start messing with factory configurations, retroblazer had it right back in this discussion a bit when he said just open the rules so that max wheelbase, coils, track width etc. apply to any and all vehicles reguardless of factory configuration. you could strech, widen, and suspend any way you like and the field would be even....not taking into consideration the nuts behind the wheel of course !! it would be the old class 14 re-born !! i could use some more wheel base...my rear driveline is about 30". my back could use it too. just had surgery #2 last nov.

[petepecas]

Just to follow up,

I'm still not buying, I think that if we allow change, it will kill the class, very few will spend the same amount of dough to go 30 mph if you can go 40 mph....the fj has shown that there's a new breed coming out from the factories with capable equipment, maybe we want to mess with old stuff tryng to keep up with the new? any way, there's plenty of platforms to pick from, staying within the rules the way they are now... I think class 3 will thrive, the dinosaurs are being eliminated...natural selection baby.
Remember, I own an old class 3 blazer, but I can't be stubborn or selfish and try and change the rules so that I can keep up... i'ts like tryng to get a 40 yr. old brod to look like a 20 year old thru plastic surgery... expensive and innefective:eek:

[kkspeedracer]

very true. but the factories only come out and play for a couple years. seems like when the $$ go away so do the rigs. the old dinosaurs seem to never die. i think the last factory backed team i ran against after skiltons kia left was a mitsubishi and they ended up putting him in his own class in san felipe...class 3 i (for international)

[petepecas]

Yes, the factories are there just to promote a new product, where I'm going with this is that the newer technology does trickle down to average joe racer,
which is the main guy running class 3. IMO this will spawn grouth in our class, the factories are targeting the small wheelbase 4x4 market, very hip with the newer generation. Look at chupacabras, with time and more pesos, an explorer can be very fast, (think class 7, same suspension as the ranger)it's lightweight, fuel injected and with coils in front... the fj... coils all over.. give it time.
just for the record, I love old blazers, broncos and ramchargers.:cool:

[retroblazer]

hey mr gatrell great to see you on here !! i think if we are going to start messing with factory configurations, retroblazer had it right back in this discussion a bit when he said just open the rules so that max wheelbase, coils, track width etc. apply to any and all vehicles reguardless of factory configuration. you could strech, widen, and suspend any way you like and the field would be even....not taking into consideration the nuts behind the wheel of course !! it would be the old class 14 re-born !! i could use some more wheel base...my rear driveline is about 30". my back could use it too. just had surgery #2 last nov.

Nice to see an experianced racer agree. Thanks. It really is that simple.

[kkspeedracer]

i only agree to the point in case that "if" we start making exceptions to rules for certain vehicles it would have to be opened up completely or there will always be protests. this poll is a true indication of that. i'm still a die hard "by the rules" class 3 supporter as long as the rules are written that way. to tell the truth score kind of made this decision when they trashed class 14 and all of the now illegal vehicles in it. i think you would really have to come up with a truthful number of how many consistant entries you could produce to get sal to make a change. if there is actually a large number of people wanting to race "unlimited" swb 4x4 maybe the route should lean towards starting a new class. the legal class 3's would still have the option of running either class. it seems though if people are stressing over $750 leafs they won't be racing very often anyway. in fact it seems to me my last set of king 3" coils cost a bit more than that. i'll have to look it up. any way you cut it boils down to racing isn't cheap.

[Moss2]

Nice to see an experianced racer agree. Thanks. It really is that simple.

I would love to see some real statistics comparing class 14, 3, 4, Stock full over the years. My recollection of class 14 from my brief exposure in the 80s was they were slow and unreliable compared to the other classes. I thought I was being open minded and tolerant by remaining nuetral when you tried getting me stirred up about the track width issue. It really doesnt matter what I think since I am not a car owner anyway so pick your battles more carefully.

[retroblazer]

i only agree to the point in case that "if" we start making exceptions to rules for certain vehicles it would have to be opened up completely or there will always be protests. this poll is a true indication of that. i'm still a die hard "by the rules" class 3 supporter as long as the rules are written that way. to tell the truth score kind of made this decision when they trashed class 14 and all of the now illegal vehicles in it. i think you would really have to come up with a truthful number of how many consistant entries you could produce to get sal to make a change. if there is actually a large number of people wanting to race "unlimited" swb 4x4 maybe the route should lean towards starting a new class. the legal class 3's would still have the option of running either class. it seems though if people are stressing over $750 leafs they won't be racing very often anyway. in fact it seems to me my last set of king 3" coils cost a bit more than that. i'll have to look it up. any way you cut it boils down to racing isn't cheap.

Not to cloud the issue, which is about getting more cars in the field, why is it that people don't want to race this class? Is it because it's too slow, is it because there are few vehicles the can be competitive under the rules? Why?
The only reason we point out the cost of the leaf springs is to illustrate that the initial cost may be the same, but I will have replaced them three times a season. I'm betting your coils will last at least a season or two. So six sets of leaf springs to your one set of coils. Great Is it any wonder why there are no GM products racing in the class?
Look, I like Fords myself. But is that all everyone wants to race or see on the track?
No, there should be no exceptions. The rules should apply without regard to mfg. We want the simplest rules possible so there aren't any nittpicking rules to protest.

[kkspeedracer]

hi mr moss !! i ran with the 14's a few times and yes there were a bunch that shouldn't even have started the race. but there were a few fairly high tech cars mixed in. of course those were the days where if you didn't pre-enter the mint soon enough you couldn't even get in. i can check through my pile of broken parts and race paraphinalia and see if i can find some old entry lists. seems to me there were 20-30 in each 3 and 14 at least at the mint. the parker 400 was a fairly large draw also. you moss guys run a top notch car and come ready to race for sure. (i know from eating your dust on occasion !!) the 14's were a good draw i believe because you could use whatever parts you had laying around. i know chev-powered jeeps showed up a bunch. fab skills, design, and off-road race oriented parts, shocks in particular have come a long way also so i don't know about judging the reliability between then and now. my take on retro's question is no one really knows where the 3's went. dan smith (rough rider bronco) went to TT's, dan white (blazer)went to 8's. darren skilton (kia) TT's and dakar. don adams (jeep) still in colorado somewhere. conejo off-road used to run gadzooks jeep cj6. mr gatrell is on here somewhere(blazer) he has tried continually to drum up entries but i'm sure he is frustrated also. i think sponsorship has alot to do with lack of entries. for some unknown reason score, TV, and all of the off-road mags refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are other classes than TT and the herbst truggy. other than your local bar it's a pretty hard sell to get someone to advertise on a class 3.

[kkspeedracer]

didn't chev try IFS on the blazers back in the 90's ? maybe that might be a less expensive route after the inital cost of course. i know dan white ran it on his class 3. also do you have to change the whole stack ?? i use to just change out the main leaf on my rears. i don't know fronts might be a different animal. i've never run them.

[Moss2]

Hello Kurt. I enjoyed seeing your Bronco at some of the races. I am envious of you racing back in the heyday of the sport. The sport is growing again but it seems different. Fewer people work on their own rigs and experiment with new ideas to the extent they did 20 years ago it seems. I to am surprised no Chevy guys have tried a IFS Blazer. It has to be as easy to build as a Toyota FJ, plus you are wider and can have 600hp if you want. The H2 and H3 guys are making the GM IFS stuff work somehow and faster than most current class 3s but they do have the wheelbase advantage. I think trying to bring back the old guys is a lost cause. Most have moved on to new endeavors or just plain trying to relax and rightfully so. Most of the interest I have seen is from rock crawler guys in racing the short wheelbase stuff. From the surge of Jeepspeed lately I would say the majority couldn't care less if everybody is running the same brand as long as the competition is good. Nobody has steadily campaigned a newer big bronco for years but that is what a lot of arguments are based on for rules changes, seems a little odd. Wish we had the time to show that something else could be made to work. Kreg is in the process of showing it now. Anyway enough ramblings from me, It is good to hear from you Kurt and have another link to some history of the sport. I suggested to Cam that he start a History section to the site to collect old photos, stories and whatever. I still rummage for old magazines at my folks house to gather info on the sport.

Ken

PS- Cam maybe you can acknowledge Kurt is a past Champ under his title like you did to us.

[kkspeedracer]

cool, the last big bronco i ran against other than yours was dan smiths rough rider bronco....a very nice piece !! i think it's down in mexico now cabo i think.

[Dave G]

...snip... I too am surprised no Chevy guys have tried a IFS Blazer. ... snip...

Perhaps it's because they're too long! The ones I measured were 112 +/- inches (the '92-'99 series) - Yes, the two-door ones!

Don't think I haven't checked it out!!

[Blanco]

I suggested to Cam that he start a History section to the site to collect old photos, stories and whatever. I still rummage for old magazines at my folks house to gather info on the sport.

Ken

You did? :confused:
I dont remember that?

I like that I idea! Though. :)

What should we call this new Forum? & should it be a sub-Forum on main Forum?

Ask Dave? He seems pretty opiniated on how I should place Forums/Sub-Forums etc... Dont get me wrong, I know that sounds bad the way I wrote it. :o
But I do appreciate his input. :)

PS- Cam maybe you can acknowledge Kurt is a past Champ under his title like you did to us.
http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/humm_smilie.gif.............................

Consider it done! http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif

[Dust]

What should we call this new Forum?


Glory Days on Thunder Road.
<O:p
</O:p
ok, Springsteen is playing...:)

[Moss2]

Perhaps it's because they're too long! The ones I measured were 112 +/- inches (the '92-'99 series) - Yes, the two-door ones!

Don't think I haven't checked it out!!

Oh man can't Chevy get anything right?! Can you still retrofit the IFS to the old frame like class 8 did to use coils in the rear of the Chevys. Frames are probably not too compatible I would imagine. Sorry if we already discussed this on a long roadtrip to somewhere Dave! Well thats the last straw, open rules for everybody. Where did I put that phone number for Trevor Harris. I think this lotto is gonna be the one..

[Dave G]

...Ask Dave? He seems pretty opinionated .....


ME?? Opinionated?? Really??....

[Dave G]

Oh man can't Chevy get anything right?! Can you still retrofit the IFS to the old frame like class 8 did to use coils in the rear of the Chevys. Frames are probably not too compatible I would imagine.

Back in the day, the C8 chevy guys were taking the frames from the 60's era pickups (that came with coils in the rear), and building on that platform!

The Ford guys were complaining that it created an unfair advantage for the Chevys in that class, and they changed the rules to allow coils for all manufacturers! Does that sound kinda familiar??


If I recall correctly from other internet discussions - (take that for what it's worth!) - that's exactly what Dale White did on his Blazer! Yeah, the mounting may be a challenge, but it could be done, and with the availability of hi-angle u-joints/CV's today, it would be reasonable to expect a reliable 16" of front travel, since the front driveline is no longer an issue!

If we want to talk about rule changes to bring in more (older, V-8 Powered) vehicles, lets think about making the wheelbase a set limit, whether or not the vehicle was originally longer! (The current rules expressly prohibit any vehicle that was longer than 108" as manufactured!)

[Stephen]

Going back a few threads to the "interest in the class" subject:
I think there's a lot of interest waiting to be tapped. The recreational 4wd guys are the ones to target and they will identify with this class, given a chance. As it is, there are pics of Moss's bronco in 4wd mags several times a year, we have mag editors riding in all kinds of 4wd racers (stock full, stock mini, class 3, that I know of) and the entire offroad world is starting to recognize what quality suspension can do for you. We're even selling reservoir shocks as upgrades to "lift kits" on old chevys in the midwest. Why do they want cool shocks? Because everybody else is doing it, they're learning that they work way better, they have a little more money to spend, whatever. These guys are at least entertained with racing when it involves vehicles they identify with. I don't know what manufacturers have seen in sales numbers after using Jeepspeed to market but I know if I had an XJ, I'd look at what people are racing with to make a purchase.

The key to getting more exposure is more vehicles and keeping on with the marketing but lets face it, even really enthusiastic fans are turned off by a field of 3.

Also, from a manufacturer's standpoint, with everyone swapping everything over to coilovers, modernizing the class (by at least allowing an open spring in front) opens up room for the aftermarket to use it to develop and sell suspensions. I'm not thinking we'll see Fabtech advertising a full page on a coil conversion for K5's, but maybe a racer shows up in our ORD ad. Maybe Moss's get some more widespread popularity and end up in a the ATX ads. Then I think we're all on a roll. We're already seeing the FJ's around in print.

Once again the key is the class has to have more entries and while I think a "formula 4x4" type class could draw nicely from the recreational 4x4/rockcrawler crowd, for now let's work on class 3. I obviously think that opening the suspension type will entice more entries. Heck, if even if it's only 3 more trucks, that DOUBLES the field in a lot of the races.

We haven't even looked at more "crazy" stuff (that's already happening) like taking our racers to trailride events like Donahoe at the Moab jeep safari. That netted them a 2.5" square picture in Petersen's. Think Donahoe racing and Nitto might be pleased? There is LOT of opportunity out there for this class, let's try to tap into it!

[Stephen]

Just for the record, I'm not opposed to a formula 4x4 type class. I just don't know about doing it now since it would replace class 3 as opposed to doing just one rule change in the existing class3.
If they racers were into it though, maybe it would fly.
wheelbase LIMIT: 108
Center of tire to center of tire: 70"
bodywork must cover tires and have stock appearing openings
Front axle in stock position compared to frame
Windshield frame in stock position compared to frame
Motor in stock position compared to frame
All 4 wheels capable of being driven
Stock suspension concept
Open springs

I think we'd have some funny looking early broncos and jeeps around, and maybe some S-10's, all with more money in body work than anything else!

Now this would really appeal to the rockcrawler crowd!

[Dust]

Make the rule read OE type axle. (if Solid OE then solid it stays).
Front springs open... BUT...

Say you have a K5 which was solid axle in front then you can go to a CO set-up that copies the Ford Solid coil set-up...
In other words a well defined envelope that keeps the field equal...
The envelope should allow for some mods from whatever the baseline is so that all builders can stretch the envelope...

This would keep the field equal and yet allow the K5 for example to be in more ways (Economic, & etc) competitive. That should bring in more entrants.

Just a thought:confused:

[retroblazer]

Make the rule read OE type axle. (if Solid OE then solid it stays).
Front springs open... BUT...

Say you have a K5 which was solid axle in front then you can go to a CO set-up that copies the Ford Solid coil set-up...
In other words a well defined envelope that keeps the field equal...
The envelope should allow for some mods from whatever the baseline is so that all builders can stretch the envelope...

This would keep the field equal and yet allow the K5 for example to be in more ways (Economic, & etc) competitive. That should bring in more entrants.

Just a thought:confused:

Exactly, it's just what we have been asking for. Simply change the sentence about original spring type to be open.

[Dust]

Exactly, it's just what we have been asking for. Simply change the sentence about original spring type to be open.

No, While we may be talking the same...
What I'm thinking is that the truck say the K5 would be allowed to run the better suspension design of the Ford...
I think that is a wee bit more specific then just saying Open...
For example to me Open says I could use a 4 link which I could get to work better then the Ford Rad-arm, conceivably getting more WT then with the Ford R/A set-up.
None of that addresses the fact that someday, maybe, a factory might do an A-arm that would be better... It just levels the dinosaur field.

Clear as mud?

[3amigo]

Oh man can't Chevy get anything right?! Can you still retrofit the IFS to the old frame like class 8 did to use coils in the rear of the Chevys. ..


Man, now your playing with my head. Would this be class 3 legal? I would love to use the coil sprung rear end used in the later model troopers. My particular year came with leafs, but by the quote above, why couldn't I use the coil rear end on my racer? If so I have some 63" springs for sale.:)

[Dust]

Man, now your playing with my head. Would this be class 3 legal? I would love to use the coil sprung rear end used in the later model troopers. My particular year came with leafs, but by the quote above, why couldn't I use the coil rear end on my racer? If so I have some 63" springs for sale.:)

06 rule book, C3:

Suspension must retain the original design & concept (A-Arm, MacPherson Strut, I-Beam etc.) & all primary spring systems must retain the original concept ( Leaf, Torsion Bar, Coil, etc.) that was delivered on the year chassis that is in use.

Hence this lil'discussion...

[roach]

man has this post gone on for a while. and talk about a close call. if this were a horse race, we would all be on our feet.

and the thing is, everyone is going overboard on this. talking about rear suspensions, changing to something other than OEM type suspensions, and so on.

it seems though, the only thing that has been brought up in the past as far as rule change goes, is allowing coil-overs up front on leaf sprung front end cars. that is all that was proposed. rules are changed with time -IN ALL CLASSES!! that is why new rule books are always coming out to replace the old rule books!! this rule change is for front coil-overs ONLY. if in 10 years people in this class want rear coil-overs on non-coil-over trucks, then that bridge will be crossed then. for now focus on the main issue people have been asking for - allowing non-coil-over trucks to run coil-overs. give raffo what he has wanted for a while. i see no reason other than fear in the competition to not give them that. my next pole is this........

how many "ACTUAL REGISTERED RACERS" would allow this rule change.

[Dust]

Do'z SCORE have a WEB devision of C3?:)

[GATRELL]

F.A.I.(For anyones information)-As most of this stuff is duplicate discussions of things that were discussed earlier this year on RaceDezert-I figure that I should get those that don't know up to speed. Starting in mid January, I have attempted to contact via phone or E-Mail quite a few current class 3 racers, those that have raced in the last 10-15 years or interested parties that have tracked me down. I have had 5-6 phone conversations with Savage regarding any rule changes and in a nut shell comes down to submitting a rule change request with signed vote. I keep dropping the ball on getting the last part done(yeah I know a few of you have been hearing that for too long now). My long winded point is that we need to submit the rule change request, wether it passes amongst ourselves or not. If the current group doesn't want to make any changes, it won't kill the class, it will just remain a small class like a few others. Let's face it, SCORE, BITD, MDR, etc will always take a entry fee(ie SCORES "international classes") and maybe as mentioned in a earlier post, we can just bring back Class 14 from the dead instead.

[Brokenbronco]

Please excuse my ignorance, but why was class 3 originaly started?

[retroblazer]

man has this post gone on for a while. and talk about a close call. if this were a horse race, we would all be on our feet.

and the thing is, everyone is going overboard on this. talking about rear suspensions, changing to something other than OEM type suspensions, and so on.

it seems though, the only thing that has been brought up in the past as far as rule change goes, is allowing coil-overs up front on leaf sprung front end cars. that is all that was proposed. rules are changed with time -IN ALL CLASSES!! that is why new rule books are always coming out to replace the old rule books!! this rule change is for front coil-overs ONLY. if in 10 years people in this class want rear coil-overs on non-coil-over trucks, then that bridge will be crossed then. for now focus on the main issue people have been asking for - allowing non-coil-over trucks to run coil-overs. give raffo what he has wanted for a while. i see no reason other than fear in the competition to not give them that. my next pole is this........

how many "ACTUAL REGISTERED RACERS" would allow this rule change.

Ah yes, a sane man among us. The alternatives were suggested because I think they will add more competitive entries to the class. However, I'm happy to revert back to the subject at hand.

[jonnyslick]

i dunno ... i'm personally thinking that going to Savage or SCORE with proposed rule changes for Class 3 might set in motion the demise of Class 3. if the powers that be think that the racers aren't happy with the class or if they think that people are wanting to leave the class then it's not too big of a jump to think that the class could get squashed as well.

just something to consider.

[BajaBronco13]

Did anyone notice we are dead even on the voting on the proposed suspension rule change? Half and half. Interesting I think.

[GATRELL]

Did anyone notice we are dead even on the voting on the proposed suspension rule change? Half and half. Interesting I think.

Interesting yes but like what was mentioned earlier-how many voters actually are racing the class or intend to run yet this year????????????????

[Kreg Donahoe]

Hello Kurt. I enjoyed seeing your Bronco at some of the races. I am envious of you racing back in the heyday of the sport. The sport is growing again but it seems different. Fewer people work on their own rigs and experiment with new ideas to the extent they did 20 years ago it seems. I to am surprised no Chevy guys have tried a IFS Blazer. It has to be as easy to build as a Toyota FJ, plus you are wider and can have 600hp if you want. The H2 and H3 guys are making the GM IFS stuff work somehow and faster than most current class 3s but they do have the wheelbase advantage. I think trying to bring back the old guys is a lost cause. Most have moved on to new endeavors or just plain trying to relax and rightfully so. Most of the interest I have seen is from rock crawler guys in racing the short wheelbase stuff. From the surge of Jeepspeed lately I would say the majority couldn't care less if everybody is running the same brand as long as the competition is good. Nobody has steadily campaigned a newer big bronco for years but that is what a lot of arguments are based on for rules changes, seems a little odd. Wish we had the time to show that something else could be made to work. Kreg is in the process of showing it now. Anyway enough ramblings from me, It is good to hear from you Kurt and have another link to some history of the sport. I suggested to Cam that he start a History section to the site to collect old photos, stories and whatever. I still rummage for old magazines at my folks house to gather info on the sport.

Ken

PS- Cam maybe you can acknowledge Kurt is a past Champ under his title like you did to us.


Ken, Its no doubt in my mind that our little FJ is compettitive with your truck and Raffo's truck. We just needed a base line to run against. We built the truck in 3 weeks so we didnt go too crazy with it.
There are plenty of new trucks that could be very competitive in Class 3. I personally think Class 3 should be Class 8 rulles with 108 wheelbase and 4wd... Thats it.

[Grimm]

What would you propose those of us that are building to current class 3 rules do....put our project on hold until we figure out what suspension we can run up front? Personally, I'd be pissed if i spent a ton of money on a truck just to have the rules changed right after we finally have it ready to race. That would be great. But since we are running coil overs up front i guess it wouldn't affect us that much. We're just here to have fun.

[Stephen]

If you're building a bronco, nothing proposed will affect your buildup. If you're working on a front leaf vehicle, you should get involved with the process so that it's over faster and you can get on with your buildup.

[3amigo]

The rule change to coil overs would not change my build much either. It is really easy to unbolt the t-bars and add a coil spring to my shocks. Either way I'm coming so save a spot for me!

[3amigo]

06 rule book, C3:

Suspension must retain the original design & concept (A-Arm, MacPherson Strut, I-Beam etc.) & all primary spring systems must retain the original concept ( Leaf, Torsion Bar, Coil, etc.) that was delivered on the year chassis that is in use.

Hence this lil'discussion...


That clears it up. Thanks.

[kkspeedracer]

to calm the waters and get more entries and since coilovers are the current choice in almost every class that has a choice...how about just making one short sweet rule change ? Springs open front and rear reguardless of year or manufacture set-up. i really think mr. savage would go for that. but the real question is, are there really going to be more entries or are all these rantings just that ??

[Stephen]

I'm OK with open front and rear (for whatever that's worth). The real limiting factor in wheel travel is driveline angles anyway. The only thing keeping the rear ends of most vehicles from being linked now is the expense of 1/4 elliptics and the fact that the level of competition has not demanded it. The leaves work pretty well but I'd just as soon build one with coilovers in the rear.

Will all this really attract more entries? Hard to say but if it makes it easier for some to stay or even makes it more attractive for a couple to enter, we've gained overall. And we're not doing any harm to the class as it sits already.

[GATRELL]

We now have a completed proposed rule change form that I will have Savage look over Tuesday if he is in. Very simple in wording, has current rule description in regards to spring type and proposed request. If he has no problems with it, should be in business. Everyone that wants to vote will be able to vote yeah or ney, so no one will be left out, no matter how they want to vote. The only other thing I need to check with him on is if he wants each vote(and signature) sent to him directly or compiled and sent all together-stay tuned................

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

We now have a completed proposed rule change form that I will have Savage look over Tuesday if he is in. Very simple in wording, has current rule description in regards to spring type and proposed request. If he has no problems with it, should be in business. Everyone that wants to vote will be able to vote yeah or ney, so no one will be left out, no matter how they want to vote. The only other thing I need to check with him on is if he wants each vote(and signature) sent to him directly or compiled and sent all together-stay tuned................

Who's "we". 50% on this forum voted "no". We all voted and expressed our opinions openly. Let's see the proposal "openly". Thanks.

[Blanco]

Who's "we". 50% on this forum voted "no". We all voted and expressed our opinions openly. Let's see the proposal "openly". Thanks.

Yeah, that is a good point, If we all agreed then that would be great so we could either change or not change..

If we can do it Via C3R then its gotta be a poll or what ever without any discussion about it..

Savage aint gonna wanna see the BS...

I'm assuming he'd want a signed & confirmed document proving who is who..

Because on line , alot of us can vote that dont even race yet or ever? :cool:

[retroblazer]

So, who qualifies to give an opinion? How do you fairly sort out who should be eligible to vote? Does some wannabe ex sportsman who raced ten years ago count? Personally, I think SCORE should take the idea, and evaluate its merits alone. Savage has the technical understanding to decide whether or not the change is in the best interest of the class. Or, remove all Bronco owners and let those who are left decide.

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

So, who qualifies to give an opinion? How do you fairly sort out who should be eligible to vote? Does some wannabe ex sportsman who raced ten years ago count? Personally, I think SCORE should take the idea, and evaluate its merits alone. Savage has the technical understanding to decide whether or not the change is in the best interest of the class. Or, remove all Bronco owners and let those who are left decide.

Chris, this sounds an aweful lot like an opinion that is coming from someone whom didn't get the pole to go the way they wanted. I'm guessing that if the pole was 80% plus for the change, you'd be printing it and sending it to Savage as is. I don't care all that much either way, I'll be out there racing!.....but if it is put to a vote.....well you know my vote and why (stated previously). If they do, maybe suggest proving that you have a current SCORE license in order to vote....wait, that wouldnt work because then, you or anyone else could recruit other classes to vote. Hmmm, I guess there's no fair way to do it........OR, have a vote on who gets to vote!:rolleyes: Maybe, you have to be a current class 3 racer or you have to be able to prove to Savage that you are building a class 3!

[GATRELL]

Ok, deep breath everyone. The deal with this proposal is try and help increase interest and entries in the class. As mentioned before, the amendment is very straightfoward, short and to the point. The only thing I wanted to do first was see if Savage was ok with the wording. There is no sense in all of us approving the thing if he doesn't like something on it. If he gives it a green light(or a revised version), I have already checked with "Blanco" on getting the amendment posted here so that everyone can down load it themselves. If needed, it also can be faxed.
As far as voting results, at this time I'm not sure if Savage will want them faxed/mailed/E-mailed to him directly or sent as a whole. Either way, EVERYONES vote will be cast, whether for or against. Prove it you say? Once everything is totaled, all it would take is one phone call to Bill to see if your name/vote is there.
Who gets to vote? Think everyone that has a interest. Don't think someone that never had a "3", has a "3" nor plans on ever running a "3" should even care about voting but that can't be controlled.
Hope that clears up some of the questions/confusion for at least a minute or two........

[GATRELL]

Forgot to mention one other thing. Racing against ten, twenty, even thirty other "3"s(remember the old Mints & Parker's kkspeedracer?) is a whole lot better than against two or three or even against yourself. Its has to be the only class that has the ability to have have that many different manufactures and vintages that covers a fourty year span. Trust me, its a really cool sight....

[Grimm]

Not that I really know, but i don't think that this rule change will bring many more racers to class 3 that arn't already interested in it. I think the factor that limits its potential is the wheelbase, not the springs.
my opinion

[retroblazer]

Not that I really know, but i don't think that this rule change will bring many more racers to class 3 that arn't already interested in it. I think the factor that limits its potential is the wheelbase, not the springs.
my opinion

It makes a difference if you run a Blazer or you want to race an earlier Jeep, both of which have readily available cheap cores. Also, any newer truck that has torsion bars.

[roach]

ok, so how about this.........

you may not be a current class 3 racer, "BUT AT THE LEAST" you must posses a current Score membership to participate in the vote.

i am for a formal approach to savage, i have a Score membership and i vote for the change......................"YES - allow coil-overs"

who else on here has a membership and is for the change?????? names please!!

[GATRELL]

Being a SCORE member won't work. You can't expect individuals that are building a car for the future (Baja 1000, next years etc) or others that run other organizations to spend 75 bucks to get in on this. One vote, by car owner. Realistically there is not more than a handful of current owners-Moss, Koval, Skilton, myself and a # of Bronco guys(sorry,don't have all of your names handy) that have raced in the last say ten years. I'm not sure how many others out there even care anymore or still have their "3" s. Let's try and have a "gentlemens" aggreement that you either need to have a current car or plan on actually racing a SCORE event in the next year or so vote.
Just my two cents for the umpteenth time....

[pigracing]

So this "score member only vote" at this time is strictly pertaining solely to opening up any class 3 to run front coil-overs regardless of stock set-up, right?

[roach]

Being a SCORE member won't work. You can't expect individuals that are building a car for the future (Baja 1000, next years etc) or others that run other organizations to spend 75 bucks to get in on this. One vote, by car owner. Realistically there is not more than a handful of current owners-Moss, Koval, Skilton, myself and a # of Bronco guys(sorry,don't have all of your names handy) that have raced in the last say ten years. I'm not sure how many others out there even care anymore or still have their "3" s. Let's try and have a "gentlemens" aggreement that you either need to have a current car or plan on actually racing a SCORE event in the next year or so vote.
Just my two cents for the umpteenth time....


my point is........savage does not care who joe blow is, if you want to change the rules you need to show that you are a member of score and race. what is to say i go down to Home Depot and get 50 signatures in my favor and then fax them over to score tech, then tell him that all these people are planning to or are currently building class 3's?? wont work. the only way to change a current rule is to get current racers to vote in favor of. that is why i said a "score member only" vote to savage. why? becouse if you have a membership, you obviously race. i have a membership becouse i race. my truck has already been taged by score tech so i have proof that i have a project with intent to race.........in short, i dont think you can change a class rule by a public vote - it needs to be by current racers who have stake in the class.

but hey, for all i know, savage doesnt care who petitions for a change............not until one of us calls him.

[GATRELL]

Whoops-I posted earlier that I would get with Savage today-Can't. His rule answering days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. So it will be tomorrow..........

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

Whoops-I posted earlier that I would get with Savage today-Can't. His rule answering days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. So it will be tomorrow..........


Gatrell, Let's see the proposal.

[GATRELL]

Assuming that I got the attachment right-there's the draft that I'll go over with Bill. Nothing fancy but to the point.........:cool:

[GATRELL]

Oh yeah, let the howling and debating begin. And again. And again...........
PS-If anyone here is with/involved with BC Broncos, let me know. I promised a while back to let them know when we got around to this point-thanks.

[roach]

not sure if i am reading your proposal right, but it sounds like you are opening a can of worms if you do not specify that we are only looking to add coil-overs "TO THE FRONT ONLY" of vehicles that did not come equiped with coil springs.

it seems that your wording would also allow linked rear ends on coil-overs.

so am i looking at this wrong or is this what you are after????

[chupakabras]

not sure if i am reading your proposal right, but it sounds like you are opening a can of worms if you do not specify that we are only looking to add coil-overs "TO THE FRONT ONLY" of vehicles that did not come equiped with coil springs.

it seems that your wording would also allow linked rear ends on coil-overs.

so am i looking at this wrong or is this what you are after????

i'm with roach, .. :confused: . i vote for yes anyway, will like to have rear linked suspension, so, :D

[retroblazer]

If Cancino is for it, so am I.

[GATRELL]

Yes it is worded to allow coilover(or any spring type you like) in the rear. Just like the thread about 1/4 eliptics, it is just as easy to go coil. Wanna run leaf, fine, run leafs. But as someone who has raced with leaf rear, its no picnic. I think if you ask Moss, Raffo, Kovel, etc, they are reliable to a point. We used to replace bushings everyrace(needed or not to keep it tight) and generally rebuilt the springs minimum of once a year. No big deal if your spring company is around the corner but you ever priced shipping on four spring packs? Plus time to R&R? Another thing I just remembered, you go to a race, springs are just off a hair, too soft, maybe a little harsh. With leafs your dead in the water unless you want to take the time to +/- some leafs. With coils, you just spend a extra couple of minutes adjusting with a spanner(or hammer/punch if necessary)
Not trying to sell anyone on the whole deal, just commenting on a "been there before deal".

[pigracing]

http://firstrung.co.uk/dbimgs/iStock_can%20of%20worms.jpg

[retroblazer]

Yes it is worded to allow coilover(or any spring type you like) in the rear. Just like the thread about 1/4 eliptics, it is just as easy to go coil. Wanna run leaf, fine, run leafs. But as someone who has raced with leaf rear, its no picnic. I think if you ask Moss, Raffo, Kovel, etc, they are reliable to a point. We used to replace bushings everyrace(needed or not to keep it tight) and generally rebuilt the springs minimum of once a year. No big deal if your spring company is around the corner but you ever priced shipping on four spring packs? Plus time to R&R? Another thing I just remembered, you go to a race, springs are just off a hair, too soft, maybe a little harsh. With leafs your dead in the water unless you want to take the time to +/- some leafs. With coils, you just spend a extra couple of minutes adjusting with a spanner(or hammer/punch if necessary)
Not trying to sell anyone on the whole deal, just commenting on a "been there before deal".

I put on a brand new set of Deavers for the 500. We were thirty-five miles short of a finish. The left rear top leaf is busted. Both rear springs will have to be sent to Deaver. Deaver is more than fair with us racers, but it's a total crap shoot as to whether or not I can finish a race with the springs in one piece. Speaking of replacing bushings, it's another three hundred a pop to replace Delrin bushings. For those of you guys out there building trucks, nobody is trying to pull a fast one on you by changing rules. Most of us who race work on the edge of going broke. And I don't mean broke parts. So anything that helps reliability and is cost effective is a bonus. We have the choice to help make rules that work for us.

[GATRELL]

UPDATE-Talked with Savage earlier, discussed amendment, then faxed him a copy and called back to verify that he received it. Its under agreement that unless I hear back from him that he has no problems and its up to us to decide the amendments fate.(sorta sounds like something political, huh?)
We discussed how to get the votes to him, came down to us as a group collecting them or faxing directly. I'm all for faxing directly, takes me out of the collecting thing and no one can accuse anyone of throwing a yeah or nay vote out. Soooooo, lets give him until Friday at noon to get back with me, I'll post any updates if they develop by that time.
PS-I know it was brought up/discussed somewhere on this site about trackwidth. Just in case, Per Bill, "trackwidth is standardized in the automotive world as centerline of wheel to centerline of wheel, no matter what modifications are done, its still the final measurement as presented to race"

[retroblazer]

Who did he say that he'd accept input from?

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

UPDATE-Talked with Savage earlier, discussed amendment, then faxed him a copy and called back to verify that he received it. Its under agreement that unless I hear back from him that he has no problems and its up to us to decide the amendments fate.(sorta sounds like something political, huh?)
We discussed how to get the votes to him, came down to us as a group collecting them or faxing directly. I'm all for faxing directly, takes me out of the collecting thing and no one can accuse anyone of throwing a yeah or nay vote out. Soooooo, lets give him until Friday at noon to get back with me, I'll post any updates if they develop by that time.
PS-I know it was brought up/discussed somewhere on this site about trackwidth. Just in case, Per Bill, "trackwidth is standardized in the automotive world as centerline of wheel to centerline of wheel, no matter what modifications are done, its still the final measurement as presented to race"

Did he say what percentage is needed change the rules?
If he does this, how long will the voting be open for?
When will the rule change take affect?

I haven't bought my rear leafs yet, so if this goes through, I guess I'm going rear coilovers and 4-link!

[chupakabras]

it will depend, if we want a democracy, with majority will be ok, :D :D ,
i don't know what you think, but i think that all of us involved already on class 3 should be the ones who vote for a yes or no, don't you think?

[IronBenderII]

I've been on the fence with class 3 vs. class 8 for a while. If I could do the rear suspension how I want, I'd do class 3 for sure!

[chupakabras]

:the trucks look pretty with a 3 or 4 link suspension:D :D :D , just kidding, i believe that leaf springs are holding our class behind, somehow i think, i imagine the moss bros with a 4 link and 24" of wheel travel behind, haha, those class 5 better hold on thight because class 3 is coming fassstt, hahha, that will be cool,. :D :D

[IronBenderII]

I agree the leaf springs are holding the class back... some will say the linked rear will start turning them into little trophy trucks, make the class too expensive to build, etc.

a rear link suspension, in the long run, will be cheaper than leafs. Especially with how long the leaf springs are lasting and the cost of not finishing a race because of a break.

Another way it holds our class back is speed. We start so late and run so slow, if you have major breakage it's hard to make the checkpoints. If we were faster, maybe we would start sooner. And if we were faster we'd get a little extra time before checkpoints close. Look how many trophy trucks are down for extended periods of time but are still able to finish.

Many will complain about this, they want to keep the class pure. Maybe they should run sportsman?

Jack

[Blanco]

Lets say Savage see's the class to have 10 registered members in score..
Does this mean if he recieves 5 fax'es for it & nobody bothers to fax in no's that it will pass? :confused:

& will score send a letter to those few that dont hang out here so its completely fair & all SCORE class racers actually are informed & Vote?

I see the People who want this making sure to Fax in & the others, not thinking about it too much , if they even know about this.

I dont see SCORE doing this, but if they would send a voting form to each registered SCORE class 3 racer & then the racer returns it, that might be the most fair...:cool:

[Moss2]

Lets say Savage see's the class to have 10 registered members in score..
Does this mean if he recieves 5 fax'es for it & nobody bothers to fax in no's that it will pass? :confused:

& will score send a letter to those few that dont hang out here so its completely fair & all SCORE class racers actually are informed & Vote?

I see the People who want this making sure to Fax in & the others, not thinking about it too much , if they even know about this.

I dont see SCORE doing this, but if they would send a voting form to each registered SCORE class 3 racer & then the racer returns it, that might be the most fair...:cool:

Maybe to weed out some wannabe voters, they each can post a $2,000. bond to be put into the class purse at the 2008 Baja 1000 if they cannot enter a vehicle by that race.

[GATRELL]

To be honest, really didn't go over that in today's conversation. Have in the past though. I can discuss it with him tomorrow if you all think its necessary but the one thing I did stress to him that it had been discussed as a group and would be voted on as "Class 3 racers". Obviously this rule effects a few individuals that are current building vehicles or considering building one. As mentioned many, many times before, rear suspension is not that big a deal, if you don't want to run coil, fine your choice. It just gives everyone a choice. Same goes for the front.
Getting sidetracked there BUT AGAIN, this is our deal, SCORE(Sal, B.Savage, etc) could care less. As long as we show up with our entry fees, meet the rules and give no one a headache in the process, thats all they ask. I propose the following-1)If you are currently racing or have raced class 3 in the last 10 years-automatic vote. 2) If you currently building a "3" for the 1000 or first of next year, fine I think a vote is reasonable. 3)If for some strange reason you feel the uncontrollable need and urge to vote, please post your reason to let this group as a whole consider your plea. Sound good to everyone? Last, as a time table, what do you think of 7 days from this friday to vote, starting with this Friday 13th(got a love that huh?)..........

[Blanco]

What would count as any sort of gaurantee that the wanna be racers will actually race? :confused:

Maybe they should at least have a certified Cage by Savage....

other wise words are cheap.... ( No offense ment to any C3R Members )

But I could say I'm gonna race the '08 1K Yet that dont mean I ever will race at all..

Thats why I think it should at least be a race project that has been certed & maybe even only official SCORE members ..
Can a cage get a SCORE cert before you actually join SCORE? :confused:


FYI: I dont fall under either of the above mentioned. :cool:

[roach]

Can a cage get a SCORE cert before you actually join SCORE? :confused:


:


yes, and your car does not need to be completed. only thing being inspected is the main cage, so you can show up with the frame rails and the "main cage assy" and get tagged. that is what i did last year.

[Blanco]

yes, and your car does not need to be completed. only thing being inspected is the main cage, so you can show up with the frame rails and the "main cage assy" and get tagged. that is what i did last year.

Ok & that would show that your serious about racing...

Of course I dont expect all up & comming racers to run their cages over to B.S. & get a Cert just so they can vote on this..


I just realized what Savages intials are. http://bestsmileys.com/lol/5.gif

[chupakabras]

yes, and your car does not need to be completed. only thing being inspected is the main cage, so you can show up with the frame rails and the "main cage assy" and get tagged. that is what i did last year.

not just bring your truck, bring your ca$h too, :D

[GATRELL]

Just to check that everyones not running from ghosts, is there an'one out there that isn't actually involved with racing a "3" currently or wanting to in the near future, say by SCORES or BITD openers 08', THAT IS THE ACTUAL CAR OWNER, that wants or needs to vote. If so, please chime in and give a brief reason. I can think of only one or two possibilities or reasons why anyone would. BUHLER? BUHLER?

[retroblazer]

Maybe to weed out some wannabe voters, they each can post a $2,000. bond to be put into the class purse at the 2008 Baja 1000 if they cannot enter a vehicle by that race.


I like the way you're thinking.

[jeepspeed]

Being new to your forum what happen to our post of yesterday requesting V8's in 6 cyl Jeeps if you guys want coils in your V8's? Bob land is already out there with a V8 Cherokee that could be Class 3 legal.

[Blanco]

As I said in another poll roach started I think this might be best put in "The drivers meeting" Forum.

Its password access only for actual race teams.. :cool:
No non-racer input allowed so maybe you guys can get less http://bestsmileys.com/talking/1.gif from us non-racers..

Of course if my Bronco pass'es tech the I'm that much closer.. :cool:

[retroblazer]

Being new to your forum what happen to our post of yesterday requesting V8's in 6 cyl Jeeps if you guys want coils in your V8's? Bob land is already out there with a V8 Cherokee that could be Class 3 legal.

Love to have his input. By way, Jeeps would be able to have V-8s with this rule change. A CJ-8 would be set-up with coil-overs on all four corners an a V-8!

[roach]

Being new to your forum what happen to our post of yesterday requesting V8's in 6 cyl Jeeps if you guys want coils in your V8's? Bob land is already out there with a V8 Cherokee that could be Class 3 legal.

dont forget the actual rule here.................

it does not let us have coil-overs in the rear, it lets "YOU" have rear coil-overs in your cherokee.

obviously if you go V8 in your jeep, you are no longer jeepspeed legal, are you? so you would only do this for Score class 3, right? then at that point, why not just link your jeep like everyone else can??

[pigracing]

What would count as any sort of gaurantee that the wanna be racers will actually race? :confused:

Maybe they should at least have a certified Cage by Savage....

other wise words are cheap.... ( No offense ment to any C3R Members )

But I could say I'm gonna race the '08 1K Yet that dont mean I ever will race at all..

Thats why I think it should at least be a race project that has been certed & maybe even only official SCORE members ..
Can a cage get a SCORE cert before you actually join SCORE? :confused:


FYI: I dont fall under either of the above mentioned. :cool:


I like this idea. Seems like a fairest compromise for everyone.

[retroblazer]

dont forget the actual rule here.................

it does not let us have coil-overs in the rear, it lets "YOU" have rear coil-overs in your cherokee.

obviously if you go V8 in your jeep, you are no longer jeepspeed legal, are you? so you would only do this for Score class 3, right? then at that point, why not just link your jeep like everyone else can??

I wouldn't assume that he's working a Cherokee, I believe it's a Wrangler. Remember, it's Clive, he's not going to be racing in his own series. The way the rules read now, he's stuck with a six.

[roach]

thats not clive, is it??

clive is that you????

wish people would finish their profile so we know who is chiming in.

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

Originally Posted by Blanco
What would count as any sort of gaurantee that the wanna be racers will actually race? Maybe they should at least have a certified Cage by Savage....other wise words are cheap.... ( No offense ment to any C3R Members ) But I could say I'm gonna race the '08 1K Yet that dont mean I ever will race at all.. Thats why I think it should at least be a race project that has been certed & maybe even only official SCORE members .. Can a cage get a SCORE cert before you actually join SCORE? FYI: I dont fall under either of the above mentioned..

I like this idea. Seems like a fairest compromise for everyone.

"Fairest compromise"...ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I'm into my class 3 build for over $10,000, but since my cage isn't done and certified by Savage, I'm not worthy of a vote? What a joke!

A little closer to "Fair", might be to require a current SCORE license. Then, either give a period to get one before the vote, or, be able to send in an application with a check and an envelope stamped and addressed to SCORE, WITH your vote to Savage. He could count your vote and forwared your license application to score. (or just look at a copy of your current license that you would send in with your vote.)

I think this would be more "FAIR". I don't think that to many folks are going to kick down $75 for a vote that won't affect them. As far as others outside of class 3 trying to vote....well, I guess he could write a statement on the top that only class 3 racers or those building a class 3 can vote and only 1 vote per race truck .........and just use the honor sytem on this one. Hell, we could even request the vote be on a public forum (maybe here) and we can monitor the votes ourselves and chastise those that we know are full of crap!.

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

Being new to your forum what happen to our post of yesterday requesting V8's in 6 cyl Jeeps if you guys want coils in your V8's? Bob land is already out there with a V8 Cherokee that could be Class 3 legal.

....and on another note, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH JEEPSPEED! If WE are going to change the rules to benefit "US" that don't have coils from the factory, then "WE" should be changing the rules to benefit those that do have coils from the factory, but can't run a V8! .....and, how about those with a short wheel base? ...and those with a narrower track width? I would love to run rear coilovers, but if we do this, we should also be allowing anyone to run a V8, anyone to extend to 108" wheel base, anyone to widen to the max allowed (Blazer width?). I think it is BS to only change the rules that will benefit a certain group. The CURRENT rules are set to try to keep all vehicles close to factory offerings.

[Blanco]

....and on another note, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH JEEPSPEED! If WE are going to change the rules to benefit "US" that don't have coils from the factory, then "WE" should be changing the rules to benefit those that do have coils from the factory, but can't run a V8! .....and, how about those with a short wheel base? ...and those with a narrower track width? I would love to run rear coilovers, but if we do this, we should also be allowing anyone to run a V8, anyone to extend to 108" wheel base, anyone to widen to the max allowed (Blazer width?). I think it is BS to only change the rules that will benefit a certain group. The CURRENT rules are set to try to keep all vehicles close to factory offerings.

I must somewhat agree here..

this all started with the simple idea of allowing front coil spring replacement on front leaf springed rig's, & now where talking rear coils & V8 swaps....

where does it stop :confused:

& one last thing jerry, if you read what I said, I also said that maybe only official SCORE members should be able to Vote.

maybe even only official SCORE members ..

So you agree with me that maybe people who want to vote should actually join.

because joining in its self does splits you from many others that dont wanna fork out the membership fee to join.
In turn showing more of a commitment to potentially racing.. :cool:

[chupakabras]

I don't have anything agaist anybody, but, i see here to many good ideas, but well, everytime there is a race, we only see the same guys, MOSS, RAFFO, LEVIT, DONAHOE, OUR SELFS ,etc, etc, sorry if i miss someone, some of us from the last 8 years, some others new , right?, it seems to clear for me who are the ones that have the right to vote, for those "building" "wishing" "dreaming" on racing in a class 3, well, don't worry, if rules change, you may will spend a little extra money if you want, we have done that for a long time, and not all of us are gonna run and set our trucks to the limit, not all actual racers are on the limit already, so, if rules change, great, but one at a time, we are gonna end up mixing class 8 and class 3 and why not jeepspeed, so, we better start with something, :D

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

& one last thing jerry, if you read what I said, I also said that maybe only official SCORE members should be able to Vote.


Cam, you are taking your own quote out of context. Your above quote was not an "OR" statement. It was an "&" statement. Here is your exact quote...There is a big difference.

"Maybe they should at least have a certified Cage by Savage....other wise words are cheap.... ( No offense ment to any C3R Members )But I could say I'm gonna race the '08 1K Yet that dont mean I ever will race at all.. Thats why I think it should at least be a race project that has been certed & maybe even only official SCORE members ..
Can a cage get a SCORE cert before you actually join SCORE?"

Yes, I agree that voters should at least hold a Current SCORE license.....as I stated.

[Blanco]

:rolleyes: Ok you got me on the text.

But, now I explained what I ment.

I basically ment that not just anyone should be able to vote.

[retroblazer]

....and on another note, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH JEEPSPEED! If WE are going to change the rules to benefit "US" that don't have coils from the factory, then "WE" should be changing the rules to benefit those that do have coils from the factory, but can't run a V8! .....and, how about those with a short wheel base? ...and those with a narrower track width? I would love to run rear coilovers, but if we do this, we should also be allowing anyone to run a V8, anyone to extend to 108" wheel base, anyone to widen to the max allowed (Blazer width?). I think it is BS to only change the rules that will benefit a certain group. The CURRENT rules are set to try to keep all vehicles close to factory offerings.

Let us start we the notion of your idea of what "close to the factory offerings" means versus the reality of growing a large diversified base of competitive class 3's. The state of the aftermarket has advanced since the advent of our class rules. This class should reflect what the average guy is building and using from the aftermarket. We need to be relevent. We really If we are relevent to the aftermarket, we have a much better chance for their support. Look at drag racing. They have great contingency programs We don't need to make it any more difficult to build or maintain our race cars. If all you want to see is a single make of vehicle dominate, then leave the rules alone. Status quo has done little to build the class.

[RelentlessPursuitRacing]

Let us start we the notion of your idea of what "close to the factory offerings" means versus the reality of growing a large diversified base of competitive class 3's. The state of the aftermarket has advanced since the advent of our class rules. This class should reflect what the average guy is building and using from the aftermarket. We need to be relevent. We really If we are relevent to the aftermarket, we have a much better chance for their support. Look at drag racing. They have great contingency programs We don't need to make it any more difficult to build or maintain our race cars. If all you want to see is a single make of vehicle dominate, then leave the rules alone. Status quo has done little to build the class.

Chris, I agree with trying to "grow" the class, and I like the idea, but let's not just grow "certain" makes of the class, let's grow "ALL" the makes in the class. I'm ready to vote "yes" on the c/o's, but let's not stop there, let's go a MAX wheelbase, MAX width, and MAX motor, period! No matter what your racer came stock with. Why should we level out "certain" makes in the class by giving c/o's, but hold back other makes in the class by making them run their 4 or 6 cylinders or short or narrow wheel base? It's just not right.

[pigracing]

"Fairest compromise"...ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I'm into my class 3 build for over $10,000, but since my cage isn't done and certified by Savage, I'm not worthy of a vote? What a joke!


Don't think your the only one with a considerable amount of money in your rig. I know i've dumped enough into my project and i'm sure cam has as well but both of us were essentially cutting ourself out of the vote to be fair.

After cam mentioned his idea i just thought if your getting your cage tagged then your probably not too far off from getting out there and actually racing.

I suppose your right that it's doubtful that anyone would pay $75 just to vote and not race so i'm not against your idea - i just think this should be more limited to those that are actually racing or very near it.

[Blanco]

Chris, I agree with trying to "grow" the class, and I like the idea, but let's not just grow "certain" makes of the class, let's grow "ALL" the makes in the class. I'm ready to vote "yes" on the c/o's, but let's not stop there, let's go a MAX wheelbase, MAX width, and MAX motor, period! No matter what your racer came stock with. Why should we level out "certain" makes in the class by giving c/o's, but hold back other makes in the class by making them run their 4 or 6 cylinders or short or narrow wheel base? It's just not right.
I'm starting to think this could be the begining of the end.. :rolleyes:
If we change too much then it no longer a Class 3..
The Class 3 we know & love now, wont be the same & if we change the rules so much then we might as well race class 8 & kill off class 3 http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/m2c.gif
Whats attractive about class 3 is its closeness to the real everyday SUV's we all drive to & from work..

we start streching & widening & linking etc.... then you've lost its appeal to many like myself that oringinally followed the class because, it was just like my Bronco ( in my mind anyways )
Don't think your the only one with a considerable amount of money in your rig. I know i've dumped enough into my project and i'm sure cam has as well but both of us were essentially cutting ourself out of the vote to be fair.

After cam mentioned his idea i just thought if your getting your cage tagged then your probably not too far off from getting out there and actually racing.

I suppose your right that it's doubtful that anyone would pay $75 just to vote and not race so i'm not against your idea - i just think this should be more limited to those that are actually racing or very near it.
Well said. http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/7.gif

[GATRELL]

Two quick points
1)There is no way to make it a even playing field with the rules now or with the proposed rule change. The coilover theory just gets everybody a little closer and hopefully will save a little coin in the long run. It does not favor one brand or another. Yes, the full size Bronco has/had coils(but not coilovers) but pretty much everything else had leaves. This rule benefits Jeep, Chevrolets, Scout, and anything else you want to run. Even the stuff that came with torsions OEM.
2) If that many people with narrow, short, small displacement, etc want to race, fine drag everything out, we will reintroduce Class 14(pretty much a run what you brung, 4X4 only class. Everything pretty much open except the four wheel drive. Get enough entries, split the wheelbase up.
Question? Are the individuals that want wider, longer or bigger motors going to actually race? If you don't or plan on only running like the 1000, may I suggest sportsman?

[Tazz]

Just to check that everyones not running from ghosts, is there an'one out there that isn't actually involved with racing a "3" currently or wanting to in the near future, say by SCORES or BITD openers 08', THAT IS THE ACTUAL CAR OWNER, that wants or needs to vote. If so, please chime in and give a brief reason. I can think of only one or two possibilities or reasons why anyone would. BUHLER? BUHLER?

I guess this is as good a time as any to make a first post here. Though I have been a member since this board started. I've followed this thread since it started and have seen no reason to be part of hashing and rehashing of a bunch of web banter.

If Savage would return a call, so I could get an appointment to get my cage tagged it would already be done. As I have to haul the thing 500 miles to get it there, I would like to know it would be done when I get there.

With that said, if it takes putting up 2K or even 5K to have a vote just let me know where to send the money. I think it ought to take a deposit for everyone to vote. Make it refundable at the first race start you have in class 3 as long as it by the '08 1000. If you don't make it by then you loose the deposit.

If you want to make the qualifacations, as a registered score class 3 race driver in a past race fine by me, I'll qualify. If it reciepts for parts you want then I have about 50k worth of them I can send in. So get it done, and have a vote. I voted above when this poll first came out.

I guess if you want my opinion then, I'm fine with getting it settled. So I can either finish what I have or get a bunch of changes made in the next few weeks. I like the rules the way they are now and that is what my vote will be.

I'm also just fine with it, if I get to build a class 3 trophy truck :) and put '69 bronco glass on it. It would look sweet stretched to 108" wheel base and full track width. Linked front and rear coils all around. And probably be a lot more fun to drive.

send the invoice to dan@oldhorseracing.org for the deposit.

PS Don I'm going to try and make Primm as a good shake down run prior to Baja.

[retroblazer]

I'm starting to think this could be the begining of the end.. :rolleyes:
If we change too much then it no longer a Class 3..
The Class 3 we know & love now, wont be the same & if we change the rules so much then we might as well race class 8 & kill off class 3 http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/m2c.gif
Whats attractive about class 3 is its closeness to the real everyday SUV's we all drive to & from work..

we start streching & widening & linking etc.... then you've lost its appeal to many like myself that oringinally followed the class because, it was just like my Bronco ( in my mind anyways )

Well said. http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/7.gif

These changes enhance the basic nature of Class 3.It allows almost all the major brands to be competitive A small block powered Jeep is standard fare everywhere. Avance Adapters has flurrished for thirty plus years with growing demand.
None of this stuff changes the look of what is racing now. Do you know what motor is under a hood if you can't see it? The fab work is pretty simple on a straight axle truck. The rule changes just make it so much easier to prepare the suspension for racing on a larger base of vehicles.

[retroblazer]

I'm also just fine with it, if I get to build a class 3 trophy truck and put '69 bronco glass on it. It would look sweet stretched to 108" wheel base and full track width. Linked front and rear coils all around. And probably be a lot more fun to drive.


Yes, it would be fun to drive. And see.

[pigracing]

It's too bad everyone stuck arguing about rule changes when we could be arguing which race we all want to run together.
http://www.class3racing.com/showthread.php?t=19

This class needs exposure not rule changes.

[retroblazer]

It's too bad everyone stuck arguing about rule changes when we could be arguing which race we all want to run together.
http://www.class3racing.com/showthread.php?t=19

This class needs exposure not rule changes.

I'm running at the MDR night race on Aug. 11. I will have a writer from one of the newstand circulated magazines riding with me. You should all come out for your pictures if nothing else.

[jeepspeed]

Todd Gatrell....you can call Jeepspeed 714 538 7434

[Kreg Donahoe]

I voted no, at first I was going to vote yes but the more I thought about it the more this rule change started to make me think we will be building our trucks into a run-what-you-brung class....If you want to put a coil-over on the back of your Blazer or Bronco go run sportsman or get a new race truck with coils in the rear. Or better yet make your leaf springs work right. Springs break because of wrong mountings. I have raced 7s for years on Deaver springs and NEVER broke a SPRING that put me out of a race......Nor did I EVER need to do a RACE-TO-RACE prep on them. Maybe once every 3 races. Leafs are VERY cost effective if applied right.This is CLASS 3. Short wheel base 4wd. NOT THE PRE-RUNNER CLASS!!! Complaining that your truck has some disadvantage to the others in the class just means you failed to choose the right truck to build. The only rule change I would support that would let you run coil-springs in the rear of a leaf spring truck is to adopt the EXACT same rules as class 8 but 4wd and no more then 108 wheel base.

This would allow:
Any spring front or rear
Open track width
front suspension is OPEN

This is the CLASS 3 I use to race in the early 90's This Class 3 its possible to pull off a 3rd overall like Dave Ashley did in Baja.

Thats the feeling at Donahoe Racing.

[jeepspeed]

Gregg, we voted no also for all the same reasons. Been there done that with Class 3 $100,000 mini trophy truck! Hope to be racing with you at Baja 1000 with new 6 cyl Wrangler TJ Unlimited built to current rules....Clive

[Kreg Donahoe]

Gregg, we voted no also for all the same reasons. Been there done that with Class 3 $100,000 mini trophy truck! Hope to be racing with you at Baja 1000 with new 6 cyl Wrangler TJ Unlimited built to current rules....Clive

Clive....TJ??? What about a JK??? I thought it was going to be the newset and the baddest????

[jeepspeed]

JK does not fit rules. 2 door is 95" and 4 door is 116" WB.....TJ lwb is 103.4 +/- 2" = 105.4

[GATRELL]

I see that 46 individuals took part in the rule change poll. Why doesn't everyone that chimed in introduce yourself, which vehicle you plan on racing(and when/where) and a brief(no more than needed to get point across-line or two) on why you voted the way you did??????????? It may bring to light a primary reason for changing or not.

[Yikes]

I voted for the change early thinking it was for front suspension only, but have since changed my mind and relegated myself to an observer's position because I do not currently race and may not be able to until 2009. That being said, this is my opinion:

The purpose of any Class 3 ammendment should be to promote competition, as well as growth in the class. Rules that prevent the TT phenomenom, also keep the build cost down, which makes it possible for more enthusiasts to race. There will always be standout vehicles in the class, but everyone has to do research and make a decision to build a vehicle that they believe will bring them to the front given what's available today. Those that currently race have/had the same opportunity and may have to revisit those decisions to remain competitive.

Perhaps there are newer vehicles being produced that fit Class 3 rules and are less expensive to race. I don't believe rules should be changed because an individual is trying to wring the last drop out of their old technology. In what other form of racing can you use the same technology year after year and expect to be competitive? I think if an individual is racing just to race, they would be happy driving around the course in sportsman. Everyone else wants to win and there is a price associated with that.

I'll finish my thoughts later...gotta go!

[BajaBronco13]

Well said Brian aka Yikes. I voted (poll only) for change because I think it would be a good thing to have this class grow and have a more even playing field. And to also see how other vehicles outside of Broncos with ttb handle the change. Though my vote was for allowing coilovers on the front end only. I wouldn't want to see the rear end be open to four and three linking. Call me old school but I think the rear should stay with factory style set up.

I'm currently building a 86 Ford Bronco for class 3. The body is being removed this weekend to box the frame and work on the suspension. Slow and go project but I hope to finish it late next year.

CP

[roach]

I see that 46 individuals took part in the rule change poll. Why doesn't everyone that chimed in introduce yourself, which vehicle you plan on racing(and when/where) and a brief(no more than needed to get point across-line or two) on why you voted the way you did??????????? It may bring to light a primary reason for changing or not.

like i stated in an earlier post..................there are over 40 votes but none count inless you are "CURRENTLY" a class 3 racer - or "HAVE RACED CLASS 3 WITHIN THE LAST 2 YEARS". these are all opinions within this group only.

i talked with score tech today about some issues on my truck. i asked what the deal was about the new "proposed" rule change. as of right now it is a no-go becouse no one has submitted anything in writing. i asked who can write in and vote and he stated "only current class 3 racers or within the last 2 years qualify, and it has to be in writing, and it has to be a majority vote". last time i raced class 3 was 3 years ago, so i am out for now.

that means only:
moss, chupa's, chris, Donahoe, and who else???

it does not matter if you are in a current build with intentions for this years baja 1000. so the vote can come down to just 3 or 4 guys!!! imagine that................40 votes here, but it can come down to just 4 people.

[Blanco]

Part of why "The Drivers Meeting" forum was created. :cool:

[chupakabras]

my vote already is on favor, but, will like to have a meeting , in person meeting with the other guys, to discuse the thread, i think that meeting could be held at the 1000, so, thats what i think.:)

[Grimm]

I still don't see why everyone thinks that by changing the rules it is going bring a dozen more competitors into the class? If someone does not have at LEAST 20-30 grand and some determination to race, rule changes or not will not get them into racing. This is an expensive hobby, and I don't think that someone wanting to race is going to make or break their decision to race class 3 based on the fact that they can save a few hundred dollars on front suspension a year. Pick a truck that has a decent platform to START a build from and go from there There have to be at least half a dozen future racers building trucks on this forum as we speak including myself. Like i've said before, give it a year and the current field numbers will double from what i've scene on this board.

[Tazz]

i asked who can write in and vote and he stated "only current class 3 racers or within the last 2 years qualify, and it has to be in writing, and it has to be a majority vote".

that means only:
moss, chupa's, chris, Donahoe, and who else???

it does not matter if you are in a current build with intentions for this years baja 1000. so the vote can come down to just 3 or 4 guys!!! imagine that................40 votes here, but it can come down to just 4 people.

You left out Chuck Atkinson and Scott Barnes from last years Baja 1000. If two years means the 2005 Baja 1000 which I assume it would, then you need to add Phil Moulton to the list also. Depending on the time when this vote happens I'll be racing Primm so that would include me.

[Blanco]

You left out Chuck Atkinson and Scott Barnes

& dont forget Cervantez. :cool:

[lr3racer]

GERARDO.BARRAGAN in the orange RANGE ROVER

[jkrell]

i would like to see a rule platform that makes it possible to have an equally competitive car built across all chassis manufacturers. Generalized rules as to wheel travel, wheel base, track width, and engine displacement applying to all vehicles. Isn't this more or less how Dakar vehicles are limited? They don't argue over coilovers they just set easily measurable limits. I think everything that is being said is complicating the class. Why not make it simple. 15" front, 20" rear. 108" wheelbase for all. track width? 351 and less displacement. No frame modifications. Done.

jon

[roach]

i would like to see a rule platform that makes it possible to have an equally competitive car built across all chassis manufacturers. Generalized rules as to wheel travel, wheel base, track width, and engine displacement applying to all vehicles. Isn't this more or less how Dakar vehicles are limited? They don't argue over coilovers they just set easily measurable limits. I think everything that is being said is complicating the class. Why not make it simple. 15" front, 20" rear. 108" wheelbase for all. track width? 351 and less displacement. No frame modifications. Done.

jon


sounds great, you just described a spec class, like Pro-Truck, i mean 5-1600, or was that 7s, no, maybe stock mini, no - stock full, or maybe i am thinking of class 9, or was it 1/2 1600? oh wait, thats right, just like Dakar. $200,000 limited vehicles. i know, i build them.

simple? - do you know hard it is to get 20" rear wheel travel out of a driveshaft that is probably just a little over 30" long? max limit on the U-Joints is about 26 degrees. so since this is an equal playing field on your new rules, does this mean that i can go and get an old bronco and stretch the heck out of it? oh wait, no frame mods - although i am allowed 108" no matter what? you think people are complaining now, wait and see what would happen then!!

not baggin' on your idea, i think your idea is somewhat OK, but trying to get "an equal playing field" with different manufactures' makes and models just wont go too well.

this thread has lasted the longest of all, the poll results keep going back and fourth. all in all though, it seems like the guys who are actually racing, dont mind giving coil-overs to the non-coil guys UP FRONT ONLY! and if you go back and read all the arguments, no one has a LEGITIMATE argument against, other than to say "go and buy a car that already has coil on it!", or " keep the integrity of the class as history has it". well, look around at all the class. rules change all the time. ALL THE TIME!!! sometimes in your favor, sometimes not. congratulations to some, sorry to the rest.

chris raffo, for example, just wants them for ease of maintenace reasons. not so he can get 20" front travel and go smoke everyone from this class, his truck will still be a live axle up front. big deal. give them to him.

[BajaBronco13]

I'm selling my class 3 project and buying a trophy kart, lol.

CP

[chupakabras]

I'm selling my class 3 project and buying a trophy kart, lol.

CP

i'm too want to sell my trophy truck project that i have in my mind to keep racing on class 3, hahaha:D:D:D

[4x4dudester]

I just went through this whole thread. What ever happened???? Or did I miss it?

[retroblazer]

I just went through this whole thread. What ever happened???? Or did I miss it?

Nope you didn't miss anything. Status quo prevails. Agents of change of continue to conspire.

[Moss2]

Nope you didn't miss anything. Status quo prevails. Agents of change of continue to conspire.

I thought it was the 'clown brigade'??? Conspiracy is so easy when you have to do absolutely nothing to achieve it.

[4x4dudester]

So when is something going to happen?

[Blanco]

Being the vote was so close what would you expect to see happen? :rolleyes:
The majority of the class has to agree before even bring it to them for cosideration.

[Stephen]

I think he meant to say: agents of change continue to conspire.

When will it happen? As soon as possible for all concerned but how to make it happen is the question.
I think the one guy racing isn't lobbying for the rule change so 100% of the competitors are against any change. It's not looking good...

[BajaBronco13]

I think the Class 3 Cup counsel members should be the ones that vote on the change and bring it to Score's attention.

Chris

[Blanco]

how to make it happen is the question.

Uhmmmm...... We know how.
Its just do we want the change?
& unfortunitly when one thing gets changed lots of other guys will start to ralley to change other things.

Like maybe we should allow for rear linked suspension, like the Rover is allowed to run.. :rolleyes:

We know how to make it happen, its just that the majority of the class has to agree on the change. :rolleyes:

[chuck]

I voted no. I say leave the rules alone but if we can change the suspension to make the field level surly we can split the class by wheel base to level the field for the short wheel bases. The 15" diff in wheel base is a bigger handcap than leaf springs. IMO

[peteh]

so according to the rules a blazer can run coilovers and leafsprings..i mean couldnt you just run coilovers and have some really wimpy leaf pack where its only purpose was to hold up the truck(up to ride height of course)? and the coilovers would be your "secondary suspension"
dont know how heavy thatd be but if you found a light enough pack seems like itd work.

[straightaxle]

Somewhere it says something like the primary springs are supposed to support the vehicle within 1" if the secondary springs are removed.

[wiley-moeracing]

WOW!!!! what the hell are you guys trying to do to the class???First I voted NO!, leave the rules as they are, simple and easy to understand and deal with.As for leaf springs, I raced them sucessfully and have not broken them and have only needed to replace bushings and they have lasted 2 plus seasons and ride very good and have been cost effective. If you want to go faster and have a better ride get a TT,8, 7, class1 etc.This is class 3, slow, rough and oldschool just what the average joe can get into.As far as trying to increase entry's, again you guys are missing it, its the cost of actually racing and not the vehicle its self that is keeping people from racing. look at jeepspeed, the vehicles are reasonable and the fees are some of the cheapest around and enjoy a good size entry. Also for you score snobs, a racer is a racer no matter where they choose to race, there are other racing organizations out there that are just as good as score, dirt is dirt.Look sorry this is so long, but I just spent hours reading this whole thread and my head hurts...just leave it alone and work on getting the fees to race cut down to increase entries, that would be the best bang for the buck! More next

[wiley-moeracing]

Sorry, one other mention if you goto www.jpmagazine.com you can see a article on our rig.. Thanks Tim (keep your head staight and vote no)

[Blanco]

Sorry, one other mention if you goto www.jpmagazine.com you can see a article on our rig.. Thanks Tim (keep your head staight and vote no)

Damnyou have one SEXY Jeep?!?!?! :confused:
http://images.jpmagazine.com/bree/154_0705_01_pl+ask_bree_three+may_2007.jpg
maybe a closer thread link is in order?

[retroblazer]

I thought it was the 'clown brigade'??? Conspiracy is so easy when you have to do absolutely nothing to achieve it.

The Clown Brigade was limited to those who don't actually race. You sir, are a Ring Master.

[Norra 1000]

Its time again to bring up the issue of coil over shocks again do to the recent suspension changes i and others have seen:confused:

[chuck]

Its time again to bring up the issue of coil over shocks again do to the recent suspension changes i and others have seen:confused:
What changes?

[chuck]

I bitch about the handicap of racing against the much longer wheel base SUVs. My business is EBs so I am stuck with the short wheelbase EB. But you guys arn't driving for GM or Jeep etc so you are not marriered to what you are driving so you guys that don't like leafs up front could swap to a Bronco or something else that has front coils. In fact you could buy a bronco for less than the coilovers. You could even go IFS if you wanted and even go to the boneyard and get a great engine like the moss' did:) The Moss' have proven the merits of the Bronco by kicking everyone's butt for years before they changed to coilovers so why change a rule? It would be easier and better to change racers. MHO

[Norra 1000]

Iam not trying to stir up trouble, My trucks suspension is set and iam happy with leaf springs and with good shocks i will do just fine, I saw other posts about some suspension changes and just wanted to see what people are thinking and see some thoughts:D

[jkrell]

I think the rule(s) should be changed so that any suv platform can be built legal (and competitive) in class 3.

[TimmyD]

I am probably the newest class 3 member and the newest class 3 racer.

Recently I bought a 1996 Bronco with 3 link suspension and entered it in the Mint 400. Imediately, I was told that my truck was illegal. Even with that being said I can honestly say that I saw more excitement that there was a new class three racer than the fact of my race truck being illegal.

Just as an outsider, we should collectivly weigh in if we want to grow the class we should consider a rule change where it may bring up the numbers in this class. My sinario is I will have to move to another class as I sit now. If this rule changes It does seem like it will keep it more competative and create some stiffer compitition by making the coilover change. At the same time this would probably bring some other classes back to the class 3 circut.

When I was enering my truck and I herd there were only 6 racers with the amount of racers that were at that race it blew my mind:eek:

One consideration: Maybe we can set up a racers vote to allow trucks like mine in the class on a year by year basis until we can evaluate if it makes sense or not. I would hate to have an unfair advantage over someone else becouse if i did happen to win I would here things like, "The only reason you won is because of your suspension". I want to win because I'm a competitor and not by breaking the rules.

For instance this last race I was past by the other two races within the first 15 miles. Of course they have more experiance but this allowed me to race and it brought up the class entries. I bet if I realy understood the rules initially I would have never had the honor of meeting you guys. Some of you may not care, but I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents.

P.S. I voted Yes:o

Timmy D #338

[kkspeedracer]

there was in class at one time, score class 14 that allowed any 4wd as long as the wheelbase was short. i don't remember but i believe it was under 104". it always had as many or more entries than class 3. a great place for chev powered jeeps to run. i wish they would bring it back and end all of the complaints about who is running what.

[kkspeedracer]

i run three link in the front and rear. you just have to go to quarter-eliptics in the rear. i believe your track and wheelbase are a greater advantage than the coils. as long as there is a class 3 i think everyone should go by the rules that have been around for years. if we start changing the limited class rules you are going to open a can of worms. i think a short wheel base unlimited class is what we need. might even attract some of the rock racing guys.

[steves118]

I look at the number of 3 racers going to races . it seems moss is the lone ranger 1/2 the time . i realize things are tough right now , but the fact is class 3 racers just dont show.something needs to happen to open the class to guys racing arena or rock racers to bring the count up. i race a class 1 car but i dont have the kind of money it takes to chase Score or BITD points so i am building my 69 bronco. the short WB sucks but i love the rig . i am looking at the rules to get the most out of my build i would love to run a 4 link in the rear , because the devers will cost more to maintain than coil overs and i will still olny have 14-15 in of travel with a stock frame. maybe 14 in the front . the center of gravity and the wheel base are true limitations as to how this will ride . By looking at the build thread it seems all of you do the majority of the work on your rigs so i dont see how some rule changes will put you on the side lines .How many class 3 entries at laughlin 1 the 250 2 the mint 2. how is any change going to affect 99.9% of us

[Blanco]

How many class 3 entries at laughlin 1 the 250 2 the mint 2.

Uhmmmm.... the MINT 400 had 6 entries this year, as I think it did last year as well.

[steves118]

1 race with more than 2 entries wow

[steves118]

as per the rules , Primary coil springs are limited to one coil per wheel & must be mounted according to stock concept. so how does king or fox coilovers run an eb retain stock concept ? there both coils but the mount does not resemble stock . the wheel base is not excede 108 +or -2 in it doesnt say you have to stay with any year just the make, so could you appily the rules for broncos to all broncos regardles of the year ? weather you guys will admit it or not the rules have been inturpited for the out come you wanted . ill bet i could build my bronco and get Savage to sign off on it using the rules that exist .some of you wont like it some will . surviving the elements and myself is a big dissadvantage .

[Grimm]

Class 3 is what it is. There are other classes that can accomodate builders if they want to run a 4 link in the rear and notch your frame and extend your wheelbase beyond what is acceptable, yada yada yada. If you guys don't like the rules than don't build a class 3 truck. Its that simple. There are a lot of people like myself on here that are building trucks, however slowly it may be, within the rules to get built and race ASAP. The rules do leave some room for interpretation. If you can get it by Savage, more power to ya. Personally, I'm building by the book and with what has already been established as acceptable. Changing the rules will not get anymore people to race class 3 than are already interested and willing to put up the $$$.

[chuck]

Class 3 is what it is. There are other classes that can accomodate builders if they want to run a 4 link in the rear and notch your frame and extend your wheelbase beyond what is acceptable, yada yada yada. If you guys don't like the rules than don't build a class 3 truck. Its that simple. There are a lot of people like myself on here that are building trucks, however slowly it may be, within the rules to get built and race ASAP. The rules do leave some room for interpretation. If you can get it by Savage, more power to ya. Personally, I'm building by the book and with what has already been established as acceptable. Changing the rules will not get anymore people to race class 3 than are already interested and willing to put up the $$$.
I agree, if we are going to let everyone run coils lets let everyone run 108" wheelbase also and big blocks also just to make it even and while we are at it lets make it O.K. to use anything that is procived to be an advantage that any of the others have stock. Or leave the rules alone and let the racers pick the foundation for their racer that has the fetures they think are best. By the way, if you want to run a legal 4 link I can make that happen.

[retroblazer]

Rules change- classes evolve. Class 11's run hot motors now. Class 1-2-1600 started with stock rear irs arms. Look at them today. Big bearing, lazer cut, welded interlocking plate or tube rear arms. We used to be limited to drum brakes, now 4 wh. disk. Pick any virtually any class and the rules change. Coil-over and link suspension are common place now. The price advantage to build and maintain coilover based suspension versus leaf springs is significant. Nothing really changes about the trucks. The Bronco at the Mint was a perfect example. It didn't look any different than any other ttb bronco. Look at what it would take to add super expensive, quarter ecliptic springs that require on going exchanges with the spring shop. Would it really matter if Pike's truck was running coil-overs instead of springs that cost around $1500 each and require a huge fabrication commitment? Class 8 figured this out a long time ago. Everybody runs coil-overs.

[chuck]

If you are looking to level the playing field why ask for coil overs for leaf spring racers. Why not just level the field and make the same limits for everyone? Eveyrone could run 108"x 66", coilovers all around, up to 460 ci, EFI, some weight limit and any other thing as long as everyone could use it.

[steves118]

exactly, if you read the rules , techinaly i could put my 69 body on on an 80 frame , the options were different to those 2 years, but the rules could easily be interpited so its legal . weather its leaf or coyle i cannot get more travel with out notching the frame so why does it matter how i get my 14 in of travel, i am going to follow the rule book and interperet the rules as i see them as i pointed out earlier most are running coyle overs in the front but the MOUNTING is nothing like stock ??? also look at the bump stops charged bump stops are not legal all of you have conventaly bent the rules and made them acceptable . by the looks at the car count there wont be any one there to protest any way and yes i would like to run a 4 link . HOW ???

[retroblazer]

About rule changes. If a rule change reduces the cost to race and makes more cars competitive, then I think you have to open minded enough to consider the change.

[retroblazer]

exactly, if you read the rules , techinaly i could put my 69 body on on an 80 frame , the options were different to those 2 years, but the rules could easily be interpited so its legal . weather its leaf or coyle i cannot get more travel with out notching the frame so why does it matter how i get my 14 in of travel, i am going to follow the rule book and interperet the rules as i see them as i pointed out earlier most are running coyle overs in the front but the MOUNTING is nothing like stock ??? also look at the bump stops charged bump stops are not legal all of you have conventaly bent the rules and made them acceptable . by the looks at the car count there wont be any one there to protest any way and yes i would like to run a 4 link . HOW ???

It used to be, up until the last revision of the rules that you could update or back date, but not now. So no, you can't put a 69 body on an 80 frame now.

[steves118]

OOPS, the point is if you look at the way the rules were intended, and then the way they get bent no matter what class your in things have to evolve to survive. if in my case the limiting factor for the rear is the frame ,does it realy matter how i get 14 in of travel, if you guys want to follow the rules ill bet each and every one has an infraction . if you are running hyd bump stops look at the rule again. if you have coyle over on an eb in the front look at the rules, (mounting) I think this is a great topic, and i dont want to see a limited class come uncorked , i believe the deciding factor should be does the allowing of rule changes create an un fair advantage . Then what allowances do you make to make the class inviting with out destroying it

[Norra 1000]

I know there were 6 class 3 race trucks at the mint but if there were a few suspension rule changes the class would grow, How cool would it be to have 10 or 15 class 3 racers at a event, When i started my Blazer build i knew what i was getting into and did research and iam going to make the best of the rules as i can, i would love to run coil overs, coil overs do not take as much service as leafs but i will run what the rules say and live with it, If some day there is a change then i will see how the Blazer is doing and go from there, but if you take a look at the rule book there has been small changes over time Like Raffo said every class goes threw changes

[chuck]

About rule changes. If a rule change reduces the cost to race and makes more cars competitive, then I think you have to open minded enough to consider the change.
Chris, this arguement isn't valid because leaf springs are around $300-$500, coil overs are around $2500 so the change would not make racing cheaper and coil overs need maintance also.
Why don't you change to a bronco? I'm not tring to give you a bad time, I really want to know. I think it would be easier to build a bronco than to get the rules changed and change a leaf spring front end to coil overs. You could buy the body for around a $1000 and 351w and c-6s are easy.

[retroblazer]

Another simple premise, the more cars we can make competitive and easy to build, the more guys will come out to race. Do you really want to race an all Bronco class? Chuck, we know coilovers don't cost $2,500 more than a set of standard shocks.

[Norra 1000]

There are not to many Chevy racers left in class 3 soon it will be called class3bronco.com

[TimmyD]

It's hard to think that this sport comes down to the actual cost to race. It actually seems to be quite the opposite. The most popular classes have the most expensive stuff. If this was the case wouldn't the race bugs rule the course?

[Yikes]

There are not to many Chevy racers left in class 3 soon it will be called class3bronco.com

Haha!! No kidding. Much like 1450 is the Ranger class. A rule change that would help diversify the class would be great.

Why not amend the rules to allow notching the frame. It could not be lengthened, but just as with the frame ends, the bottom could be modified. Between that and links, serious travel numbers could be realized, which would make this a very fast class. It is an open class.

I think the grim reality is this class is going to die if it doesn't change. Let's face it. The cool kids all want mushy suspension. Technology is ever changing and currently Class 3 is stagnant at best. When you old dogs are gone, who's going to continue the legacy that is this Class. There needs to be some forward thinking while considering change. There's a reason the class is small and if it's going to grow, everyone needs to be open to change.

[chuck]

Another simple premise, the more cars we can make competitive and easy to build, the more guys will come out to race. Do you really want to race an all Bronco class? Chuck, we know coilovers don't cost $2,500 more than a set of standard shocks.I didn't say 2500 more than std shocks. I was thinking I paid $1250 each for my shocks but I can't find pricing today so I will give you that that price may have been per pair and that is still double the price of leafs. Someone ask if I wanted this to be a bronco class. My reply is I don't care one way or the other what you guys drive. The idea of class 3 is to make the stock concept SUV into a racer and race it. It seems to me that the big bronco has the most stock concept advantages. So instead of changing a dodge,chev, jeep or whatever into a bronco why not just get a bronco? There is planty of broncos to use. If it is a brand pride thing then why would you want to put ford design stuff on your whatever anyway.

[chuck]

OOPS, the point is if you look at the way the rules were intended, and then the way they get bent no matter what class your in things have to evolve to survive. if in my case the limiting factor for the rear is the frame ,does it realy matter how i get 14 in of travel, if you guys want to follow the rules ill bet each and every one has an infraction . if you are running hyd bump stops look at the rule again. if you have coyle over on an eb in the front look at the rules, (mounting) I think this is a great topic, and i dont want to see a limited class come uncorked , i believe the deciding factor should be does the allowing of rule changes create an un fair advantage . Then what allowances do you make to make the class inviting with out destroying it
I finally got to a rule book. The book says "original concept" and "item with no restrictions are" "(D) mounting" that seems fairly clear. The next line "primary coil springs are limited to one coil per wheel" when I read this I thought they ment you could not have more than one coil mounted like 2 coils side by side, I didn't think they were talking about coils stacked on top of each other. Now that you bring it up I may have miss read this, I didn't check with score. CR10 says "number of shock absorbers and mounting methods are optional" and "mounting points may be redesigned" so I don't see what you are talking about hyd bump stops being a problem?

[chuck]

Rule CR48 allows for frame notching in the front. I think you might be right about the class dieing but I think it is because of the diff in wheelbase. Notice how many jeeps are in the class? There is more jeeps available than there are broncos, blazers and rams combined but none of them race, I think it is because the jeeps short wheel base is too much of a handicap to compete with the 108" limit. Jeep is only one, there is a lot of other short wheelbase SUVs out there that don't race. When the class was under 100" jeeps were there.
Haha!! No kidding. Much like 1450 is the Ranger class. A rule change that would help diversify the class would be great.

Why not amend the rules to allow notching the frame. It could not be lengthened, but just as with the frame ends, the bottom could be modified. Between that and links, serious travel numbers could be realized, which would make this a very fast class. It is an open class.

I think the grim reality is this class is going to die if it doesn't change. Let's face it. The cool kids all want mushy suspension. Technology is ever changing and currently Class 3 is stagnant at best. When you old dogs are gone, who's going to continue the legacy that is this Class. There needs to be some forward thinking while considering change. There's a reason the class is small and if it's going to grow, everyone needs to be open to change.

[Blanco]

I think the grim reality is this class is going to die if it doesn't change.

Why, are you guys so negative?
You guys posting stuff like this is gonna scare potential newbies from even bothering with this class.

& class 7's also run leafs & they seem fairly popular. http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/m2c.gif
Not to mention how open the rules for Class 8 are & their numbers have been very low for the past year as well.

I have noticed more stock class racers & their very limited.

[kkspeedracer]

i just looked at the rules on charged bump stops. seems to me they would fit under secondary suspension and/ or remote mounted shocks. i just browsed through, i might have missed a specific reference to them. what do you guys think ?

[steves118]

Primary coil springs are limited to one coil per wheel & must be mounted according to stock concept (Taken from the rule book) how does a king coil over in the front of an eb retain stock concept .

[steves118]

(Suspension bump stops can only be made of rubber, plastic,) urethane, etc. I guess you can read it how you want How does replacing thesingle coil spring on the front of an eb to a coil over retain stock concept, i do see conflicts in the rules so its easy to come to a conclusion to fit your wants.

Can some one tell me why does it matter how i get 14 in of travel weather it be springs coils or 3 , 4 link .14 in cant grow.and i am not looking to notch the frame

[kkspeedracer]

i guess you can look at it as a single coil mounted over the shock or a shock mounted inside the coil, it is still a coil as the primary suspension and it is still bolted to the axle and to the frame. as you said...depends on how you interpret it. going from a spring to a coil would be "stretching" it. it doesn't matter (other than the rules) how you get your travel but if we are changing things i would like that extra 17" of wheelbase !!

[retroblazer]

i guess you can look at it as a single coil mounted over the shock or a shock mounted inside the coil, it is still a coil as the primary suspension and it is still bolted to the axle and to the frame. as you said...depends on how you interpret it. going from a spring to a coil would be "stretching" it. it doesn't matter (other than the rules) how you get your travel but if we are changing things i would like that extra 17" of wheelbase !!

done. Coil-overs and wheel base for everyone

[kkspeedracer]

cool....my bronc is 91" wb and 72" tall....i'd like to show those specs to an indy car builder !!....especially when the only flat spot on the couse is on the trailer !! when you think about it i could park sideways on a trophy truck !!

[steves118]

I think there would be a way to write the rules as there would not leave room for interpitation or deviation. i dont know that the rules have as much to do with car count as other factors i do believe that you guys need to make a decission soon so it will give all of more reasons to bitch . simply take into concideration all the points that have been raised and the furture direction of the classs , look to see if there is a way to invite Rock racers and the arena guys without compromising your personal integrity or that of the class There will always be a love and passion for the aging broncos, rams and blazers.as well as the new generations of suv . Make a decission before people trying to participate loose interest in their builds . if we dont know what direction we can go we will do nothing

[kkspeedracer]

to get the rock guys in it would have to be wide open hence a whole new class. the problem with that is money rules...but like the old enduro bronco proves people will put a $100k into a stock/limited class also. i think score and bitd are both still hoping to attract factory teams and there has to be a place for them to run "semi" stock vehicles. the jeepspeed class shows it can be done. either they should run with us or we with them !! unfortunately i think if people really wanted to come out and race they would just get a rule book and build a car accordingly. i don't think people want to race limited classes anymore..it's actually easier to build unlimited vehicles and just weld in whatever parts you have laying around. i'm too old and used up to race much anymore but i'll morph my vehicle to fit whatever rules are out there at the time i come out to race. (even though it might be my own interpretation of them !!).

[kkspeedracer]

i don't think you could ever write rules that can't be bent. look at what they are doing to the constitution !!!
and as far as beating a dead horse...the bump stop rule is a general competition rule and i think every car in every class (except for the stock VW's) out there has air bumps so i think it is a nil point.

[steves118]

So whos job is it to finalize a decission ? do it so i can continue on with my build. i f i think there is going to be a rule change . i dont want to do somthing just to change it .or i guess i could do what i think and not waste my time trying to compily . and show up anyware and race sportsmen.i do good in my class 1 car so its not ego just a different platform to race

[TimmyD]

A few minor adjustment is all it would take. This class has tons of potential for growth.

[Grimm]

If you look over in the race team forum, there are 13 or 14 trucks that have raced with class 3 in the last few years. There are also a half dozen other trucks being built. So why, with all the currently built racers do we only get 3 or 4 to a race? These are guys that already have class 3 ready rigs and they still arn't making it to the races. Thats something to think about. I don't really care what the rules are, I just hope they don't change right when I get finished my build.

[steves118]

im an idiot, this thread has been going on 4 2 years .what a of waste of every bodys time if nothing has changed by now .
EVEN THE QUAKERS DRIVE CARS NOW