Yellow Bullet Forums banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I get a backhand car should be allowed in small tire stuff due to the stock suspension being just as good or better. But, how about 3/4 double frail rail chassis. Where should it stop. I have a true back half car with stock floors from back of seat forward and know what it weighs. I can only imagine what a 3/4 chassis that is stock just forward of firewall weighs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
I get a backhand car should be allowed in small tire stuff due to the stock suspension being just as good or better. But, how about 3/4 double frail rail chassis. Where should it stop. I have a true back half car with stock floors from back of seat forward and know what it weighs. I can only imagine what a 3/4 chassis that is stock just forward of firewall weighs
should be weight and tire size....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
should be weight and tire size....
I don't think straight up weight is doable right now. There are a ton of people who wouldn't race if weight was mandatory. A lot of people get in and go racing. On a true no prep people aren't coming in tin canned and doing well. You really have to add weight. I think a stricter back half rule would keep the 3/4 tube chassis carbon front to back cars out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Our AZ No Prep tire rules. 28x10.5 or smaller no full fiberglass unless OEM (Corvette). Fiberglass hoods door trunk ok. Working head and tail light. No decals on body. Not a fan of full tube chassis in class but its not a deal breaker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Enforcing weight is class racing.
If you are in a group where the only limitation is tire then boom. There's your rule, nothing else needed.
If it's supposed to be a small tire street car race then yes, tire size, stock suspension and frame rails should be the main rules and add any from there. I raced in Chicago KOTS, they have 3 groups of cars and rules to keep things in order, it works GREAT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Well a true backhalf should be able to run with the "stock suspension" cars. The full tube stuff should be limited to big tire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,483 Posts
At an actual no prep a consistent 4.80-5.00 car will go to a lot of finals.. Was pitted next to a guy with a new gen with 540" BBC with twin 94's and it was running 5.00's at 160 with one 4.88 at 175 when he got on the oh shit button at the 60'.. Lol He was pretty cool and since we were in a different class he wasn't tight lipped about what it was running..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Well a true backhalf should be able to run with the "stock suspension" cars. The full tube stuff should be limited to big tire.
If my leaf spring car vs your back half is all cool then why shouldn't your back half be able to run tube stuff? At a no prep stock style front suspension could actually be better than a strut with little travel.
I don't actually care but that's one argument that could be made
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
They can make up for the short travel with 300lbs over the tires and still be under 2500 with driver. My backhalf still has stock floors, 100% stock everything but rear suspension. Stock front subframe, doors etc. It is just a backhalf. My point was this backhalf stuff is just that a backhalf.
Who says u have to have no travel on a tube chassis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Strut front ends typically travel less than what you can get a lot of the stock style front suspension to do.
I see your point, just because you have a back half doesn't mean it's a full on race car. Around here we'll run small tire ladder bar cars with SS cars all the time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
My argument is only a true back half is not equivalent to a tube chassis. Maybe people's definition of a back half is just different. My definition is complete unaltered frame rails, stock sheet metal from rear of drivers seat forward, stock firewall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,014 Posts
I don't think anybody since 1999 or earlier has considered that a back half! LOL

Is it a true back half, I totally agree it is! But in todays world, firewall back and just a touch of frame past the spindle is a Back half car. I personally don't consider anything with Spindle mounts a Street car but it happens all the time. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
We havent had a small tire class that lets anyone run whatever is a long time and I would like to see it grow not shrink. I would say next year will be a stellar year for no prep and it will really evolve and start to bring in the big dogs with money. I know several x275, grudge, and serious bracket racers who are changing their stuff over to no prep.
Wveryone keeps saying the tire is the limiting factor so who cars.......they said that for years about x275 and now ultra and they are out of reach for ALOT of guys.
I am with you on what constitutes a backhalf now days and that is why I am posting. I understand when something is new you have to have rules that let everyone in to get the numbers but soon we have to start thinking about some simple rules without having 8 classes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,956 Posts
Well a true backhalf should be able to run with the "stock suspension" cars. The full tube stuff should be limited to big tire.
So, you would exclude some X275 legal cars from running small tire? My car is legal for X, has a modified factory rear frame rail, in the stock location, stock floorpans from the b pillar forward, stock firewall, and stock type suspension, but the rules allow moving the rear leaf springs. It is also a tube car though, with a "bolt in" Smith tubular front end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Your car would be legal. Smith race craft is considered a stock type replacement for the front frame. Rear frame rails and leaf spring location mean nothing In may argument. Basically from the rear of the door back is fair game. I know there areally a ton of smith racercaft haters in the small tired classes but I am not one of them. It bolts to the factory location so I can't argue. I would think any x275 car would be legal. Now it you take smith front and change shock location and angle etc. I would butch lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
This discussion is as bad as "What defines a street car?". People are always going to try and make the rules fit their car perfectly to where they are the fastest. The promoter makes the class rules and you will either put your car in a class that fits or you wont race lol. In turn promoters will modify the class rules over time to try and get the highest car count possible. I personally think it should be limited to tire size only. Either you're fast enough or you're not. This isn't suppose to be like class racing....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,298 Posts
Well a true backhalf should be able to run with the "stock suspension" cars. The full tube stuff should be limited to big tire.
agree^^^^^

recommendation:

stock firewall and floor back to "B" pillar or rear of cab for trucks

2x3 square tube back half or OEM frame (no chassis cars)

steel rear quarters and roof for cars and steel roof and bed sides for trucks (other then OEM glass or aluminum vehicles)

All the BS pro-mod top sportsman cars need to be put into another class--then they can decide if they want small or big tires themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,956 Posts
Do u think a 4 link has an advantage over a top of the line x275 rear suspension set up?
Actually, in my personal opinion, I would rather have my leaf spring setup on a no prep track than a 4 link.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top