Visit The Dirt Forum for More Information

Author Topic:   Imca Rules
old racer
Member
posted November 15, 2002 08:36 PM
Rumors floating in my circle are no roller cams, BERT/BRINN style transmissions, allowing engine side panels.

Greggie

JasonBrock
unregistered
posted November 16, 2002 12:12 AM           
I hope it all is voted in!!!


JasonBrock
unregistered
posted November 16, 2002 12:14 AM           
When and where will the rules be posted??


tilley88
Member
posted November 16, 2002 12:37 AM
www.imca.com , of coarse!


old racer
Member
posted November 16, 2002 08:51 AM
How about one more rumor for ya all. I heard a very recent rumor of aftermarket lowers. Obviously because the Chevelle is getting tough to find.

Just my opinion here...I think it is crazy to ban roller cams. The tire is already a perfect equalizer. If they add to the engine rules it is one more thing that they must actually tech. The claim takes care of that. And, it is more money if someone already has a roller set up to switch it out.

Here is an idea for the IMCA folks...Stick with the VERY SIMPLE, motor claim. Just make it a bit more realistic. Think like a $ 500 and exchange or even a $ 1500.00 outright claim. Current rules are unrealistic and cause tracks (like the one I race at) to go UMP. IMCA is a much better idea but they need to catch up with the year 2003. THE MOTOR CLAIM IS NOT FOR ANY ONE BUT SOMEONE STUCK IN THE 1970's. If then?

Again, just my opinion. Don't hate me cause I'm right

[This message has been edited by Wauge28 (edited November 16, 2002).]

Pickles
Member
posted November 16, 2002 05:35 PM
When I communicated with IMCA (2 years ago)I was told that engines are built to a multiple of the claim. Example; $500 x 8 = $4,000 engines. And if they raised the claim people would still build engines to the same multiple. Example; $1,000 x 8 = $8,000 engines. Right or wrong that was the reasoning I was given for not raising the claim.


Wauge28
Member
posted November 16, 2002 09:53 PM
HHHmmmm. Either I aint so smart, or that is cr@p! Maybe I don't understand but that makes no sense to me???


racer17j
Member
posted November 17, 2002 09:37 AM
this may sound stupid but what if they lowered the claim make it so a guy that works 9-5 and doesn't have 50,000 worth of sponsors can afford to do so. most of those guys are racing week to week that would need to claim a motor anyway and it would be kind of hard to round up 500 durring the season.


Wauge28
Member
posted November 17, 2002 12:15 PM
HHaaa haa haaa. LOL.

Wait, you were kidding...right?

outlawstock17
Member
posted November 17, 2002 02:38 PM
17j, if you can afford to race, you can afford the $500 claim. you won't make any friends though.........


racer17j
Member
posted November 18, 2002 10:21 PM
i don't knop alot of people that can afford to race but they do anyway it's ez to buy parts on a credit card but it takes cash to claim


CUSTOMPERFORMANCE
Member
posted November 18, 2002 10:30 PM
What happened to some of the other oppinions about the imca rules that seem to have disappeared?


Pickles
Member
posted November 19, 2002 10:54 AM
Not all of the fun is had on the track. One of the things I like about IMCA is the any engine aspect. You are free to experiment with Buick, Pontiac, V6, Slant 6, or whatever. Gives you something to do in the off season.


dirtbuster
Member
posted November 19, 2002 12:17 PM
I think raising the claim is a good idea but it will never happen. Wauge hit the nail on the head when he said the claim rule is for someone stuck in the 70's. I feel it should be minimum 1000$ if not 1000 AND exchange. I dont think anybody sets out to build a motor purposely based on a multiple of the claim so raising the claim is not going to automatically increase the cost of motors...unless you get yours solely through claiming others.


As I try to avoid IMCA events most of this doesnt affect me much.. but many tracks try to follow some of IMCA rules on things such as the lower a frames etc. So It will be interesting to see what happens .