A Brave New World?
Saint Patrick’s Day: If you are Irish, it is cause to celebrate your heritage. If you’re prone to tip a few, it’s a good excuse to get hammered. Myself, too old to enjoy barley pop in excess anymore, and with nary a drop of Irish blood coursing through my veins, I marked the occasion by driving 50 miles up I-94 to St. Cloud, Minnesota’s Kelly Inn. There, I attended a somewhat historic informational meeting hosted by the WISSOTA Board of Directors.
The Board invited chassis and engine builders to an open forum meeting to discuss myriad issues, ranging from the benign to the profound. Topics discussed were things as simple as typographical errors in the rulebook, or as visionary as the “future of racing” in our area. I say historic in that I’m not sure how often, if ever, a racing organization has offered such unfettered access by the “private sector” to the inner workings of the sanctioning body. A large contingent of very important contributors to our sport, the builders, had a face-to-face opportunity to relay thoughts, ideas, complaints and concerns directly to the Board.
I was one of maybe 15 or 20 people in the room who had also attended WISSOTA’s annual promoters meeting at the same hotel back in November. Along with WISSOTA President Terry Voeltz and most of the Board of Directors, drivers representatives from five of WISSOTA’s racing divisions were once again on hand, along with representatives from about a half-dozen race tracks. But the group for the St. Patty’s Day talks included a group of nearly 30 chassis builders and engine builders. The two gatherings, the one in November and the one in March, were both strikingly similar and amazingly different.
They were similar in that for both meetings, the attendees shared the same passion and the same worries. In some cases, we even had the same discussions!
For instance, back in November, it appeared that we talked for hours on the Street Stock/Midwest Modified/Super Stock motor issue. How close are they? Can we move toward a common engine? SHOULD we move toward a common engine? Some of the exact same points and concerns were brought by up the builder group at Saturday’s meeting.
We also discussed the new muffler rule. We argued about whether we should spec a particular muffler. We talked about how the decibel readings can and will vary for the same car at different tracks - so a car that meets the new 95 decibel standard at Kopellah Speedway’s WISSOTA season opener (shameless plug), may not meet the limit at another track. In essence, the drivers will never be able to relax on this issue. Frankly, they are in the same boat as the promoters … we are under attack from neighbors who do not share our same passion.
Enjoying our pastime in the present era will require us to add one more thing to the list of concerns - noise suppression. It’s here, and it’s not going away. WISSOTA Modified driver rep Dave Cain even thought of one more thing to add to the list - muffler safety - and suggested adding a tether rule. One has to admit, our tracks aren’t always as smooth as we’d like them to be, and a muffler flying into the grandstands is a sight no one wants to see.
As I mentioned, this meeting was with the Board of Directors, not the promoters, so no rules could be changed as a result of the discussions. Some suggestions will likely be presented to the Promoters next fall, but for 2007 the muffler rule is already set…no particular brand of muffler is specified - only the decibel limit, at 95 dB 100 feet from the car. So for this summer, the onus rests squarely on the shoulders of the drivers and their engine builders to keep the cars quiet and appease the neighbors.
Another topic that was repeated from November was whether to allow Berts and Brinns in the Midwest Modified, and just like last November, no clear consensus was reached.
I listened once again to a debate on the weight rule for Super Stocks. With many Super Stocks now carrying upwards of 400 pounds of lead in order to meet the minimum weight specification, there was discussion on how competition, costs and safety would be affected by changing the rule. Similar to the Midwest Modified transmission issue, no clear-cut, easy answer was produced.
I said the two meetings differed as well. Last November, General Motors was on hand to inform the promoters about its crate engine program. As you might expect, a multi-national corporation is able to put on an impressive presentation, highlighting the benefits of its program. And as you might also expect, the local engine builders aren’t nearly as impressed by the idea! However, since the program stirred such interest among the promoters and drivers, the Board of Directors was asked to look into the prospect.
As most of you know, General Motors has given WISSOTA two of its 602 sealed engines - one to test in a Midwest Modified and a second to test in a Super Stock. WISSOTA is currently seeking volunteer drivers to run the motors this summer and collect data. And while testing will be done and data collected, the Board members reiterated numerous times, this is both a “research” project and a “response” project; they are prudently gathering more information at the behest of the promoters. For those of you that aren’t aware, the GM crate motor program consists of a sealed engine, purported to eliminate cheated-up engines, level the playing field in terms of cubic dollars and, in turn, lower the cost of competition. The retail price for the 602 is about $3,200. The Board of Directors wants to know if these engines are compatible with or equivalent to our current Midwest Modified and Super Stock engines.
Some people in the room had first-hand experience with the GM crate motors. Others formed opinions based on what they had heard from compatriots in other parts of the country or by studying the spec sheets and researching the engines independently. What did I learn? More fascinating stuff.
The local builders, essentially by consensus, stated they build higher quality engines. Quite frankly, I believe them. Last November, GM told the promoters its crate engine was very reliable and durable. They also advised that it cannot exceed 5800 RPM. Granted, I’m an idiot, but even I know that the reason a Nextel Cup engine can turn over 9000 RPM is, in part, because they use high quality parts assembled to exacting standards. GM told us, “If you get these things over six grand, you’re going to have a problem.” When I hear stories of our Supers hitting over 7000 RPM, (or even 7500!), I don’t think many teams are going to be impressed with a power plant that tops out at 5800. Therefore, I think the local builders can say with confidence that in fact they do build a higher quality engine and, therefore, they can justify the higher prices.
Another point made was one of cost versus value. One engine builder stated he has a “base” engine available for well under $4,000, but he can also build a “better” engine for a shade over $5,000. Now, the $5,000 engine isn’t necessarily any faster than the less expensive one, and it’s certainly still within the rules mandated by WISSOTA, but it simply uses more expensive - and more durable - components. Is a cheaper engine that has to be freshened twice as often really cheaper? A majority of the engine builders in the room agreed that their goal was to give their customers a solid, tight motor in the spring that will comfortably last the driver through the summer and be returned for routine maintenance after the fall specials.
Another negative item the local builders were able to point out: since it’s a GM sealed motor, any repairs must be made using GM parts and at GM prices. So something as routine as running over a nerf bar that pokes a hole in the oil pan will require a “certified” repair, using what one of them described as a $500 GM pan. Yet the builders were hard pressed to come up with a local supplier who charged a price even approaching that figure for an oil pan.
Talk of the crate engine kind of melded with and evolved into the third and final portion of the meeting, which centered around what the future held for our sport, what we should be trying to accomplish and in which direction we should steer the sport.
One idea suggested by an engine builder was that the builders might be able to get together and spec their own engine. They would agree to use certain parts and charge a certain price. I liked that idea. In fact, while driving home, pondering that concept consumed nearly all 50 miles.
Think of that concept for a while and allow it to run wild a bit: what if the engine builders formed a “builder’s council” with the intent of building a “spec motor” to combat the crate motor? (WISSOTA already has a spec motor for the Modifieds, but this new engine would be for the Street Stocks, Super Stocks and Midwest Modifieds, so may I be so bold to suggest the term “entry-spec” or “e-spec” motor?)
I remembered that one builder commented that some components of the GM crate motor were illegal according to current WISSOTA rules, and if he were allowed to use some of the same parts, he could get better performance out of his motors. So, let’s say we give this “builders council” free reign over the entire automotive engine parts supply and WISSOTA suggests a specific HP and a specified, reasonable price. The builders could then agree on how to best accomplish that goal, with a forward vision of what parts will likely be available far into the future.
Giving builders open access to all current parts would also solve the scarcity problem. There are some critical components to the current motor that haven’t been in production for years, and the junkyards are getting picked clean. As the supply dwindles, costs will certainly rise. By opening up the market to all current production pieces, the builders won’t be artificially handcuffed by supply issues, which would allow them to source the components needed for a reliable and powerful spec engine far into the future.
Since it would be designed to be compatible with the current power plant, phase-in should be a cinch. Now, these wouldn’t be “sealed” engines, and cheaters could still port the heads and do other expensive tricks, so the tech shed is still going to be used. But how is the concept for a brave new world?! Suddenly it would be commonplace for all to know exactly how much a driver has invested in his motor. And as soon as it’s known which drivers are winning with the “e-spec” motor, proving the validity of the concept, how effective might that be in containing costs?
One driver present emphatically admitted that “We can be our own worst enemies.” He gave the example of the fancy haulers parked pitside. Sure, they are nice, but how many drivers really need them? There were suggestions that similar thoughts might be taking place under the hood, where drivers might demand a more expensive motor when they don’t really need one to win. Personally, I think the “e-spec” motor idea has a ton of merit and I hope both WISSOTA and the engine builders pursue the concept vigorously.
Another means of cost containment - with respect to engine costs - was presented by a chassis builder who stated tires were critical. Many of this builder’s Modifieds compete on the USRA/USMTS circuit. For those of you who don’t know, USMTS is basically an open motor series and I’ve even heard stories of NASCAR Craftsman Truck and Nextel Cup series engines under the hoods of some of those Modifieds. But relative success (multiple top 10s and a feature win) has been realized on that circuit by a car using a WISSOTA spec engine. How can one of our engines compete against those 9000+ RPM monsters? According to one builder, the great equalizer is the tire. USMTS specifies a hard compound tire with stiffer, shorter sidewalls, the American Racer G60. This low-profile, smaller diameter tire minimizes the forward bite those big expensive motors need to be effective. Mandating a “550 horsepower” tire puts the less powerful engine closer to equal footing with the big dogs. The hard compound tends to last longer as well, further reducing the racer’s expenses.
When all the ideas are strung together, it’s really very exciting to ponder the possible outcomes. If all of these ideas came to fruition - builders openly cooperating to provide a durable, reasonably priced engine and selling those engines to drivers who are convinced that the engine is stout enough and fast enough to compete with anyone without enhancements; and mandating tires that minimize the benefits of a more expensive engine – then this humble group of Midwestern race nuts may provide a glimpse of what indeed might be a very bright future!
Now comes the hard part - putting all those ideas and concepts into motion, proving their worth and making them a reality.
I opened my comments by referring to the meeting as “somewhat historic.” Time will tell, but based on what happens next, maybe it will indeed prove to be the genesis of a brave new racing world, a truly and profoundly historic gathering. Hang on, it should be a fun ride!
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it…at least until I change my mind.
