First time USACer at the indoors

[Mlewis]

I just wanted to give my take on USAC as the final Colmbus race was my first USAC event.  First off, the indoor series rules!  I walked away from my first indoor race asking why we even build tracks out side.  We loved the style of racing there.  I must qualify that I am a assistant RD in region 6 QMA.  We have been somewhat isolated from the USAC and QMA drama over the last few years.  I went to the indoor excited to try the USAC side out.  I like many things that you guys have changed.  Some things I don't like.  But I'm not being critical it's only personal preference stuff.

I think the greatest thing about USAC is that it has created competition for QMA and forced them to improve there program.  Hopefully both organizations will continue to compete and they can offer great products for us, the racer.

My only concern is for those of us that will do crossover racing, I hope the two organizations will keep the rules somewhat close so that the racers can bounce back and forth without too much confusion.  One simple example was we qualified our Sr. Honda 3rd fast but didn't have our tail cone on.  That sent us to the back of the last main.  I am not in any way blaming the officials at the track or the those that made the rule.  It is one of those things that QMA Has it's reasons for not requiring them and USAC has it's reasons for wanting them on.  The only thing I have a problem with is the lack of a system for crossover racers to catch on to those rules.  If you are a member of a club most clubs do a good job of educating members of new rules but like in my case I live in central Texas and am now a member of Albuquerque which is over 800 miles away.  So I am rightfully so, somewhat distanced from my new USAC home club so I probably won't get to many of the club meetings and I will miss out on most trackside discussions.

Please don't take this as me complaining, I have no sour feelings being sent to the back (it did sting a little) but the right call was made.  I would just like to see the rules aligned to some degree and where they can't maybe we need some sort of "USAC or QMA racing rules for dummies list".  Any thoughts?  Or should I just spend more time curled up with the rule book.

Thanks to the Buckeye club for putting on the indoor series each year and to Dale Hall for the support he has lent.  Hopefully whoever takes his place can fill those shoes.  It appears to be a huge job.

Thanks,
Mike Lewis
Full time QMAer
Part time USACer

[Swartz]

Your point is well taken, I'm sure. Almost everyone who races has suffered the trials and tribulation of differing rules from track to track and sanctioning body to sanctioning body. But, to be fair, where on the QMA website would a USAC member be allowed to ask this question?

[sfreitas20]

Hey Mike, I couldn't agree with you more!  The rules should be very close so that it is easy for people to run both series.  Hopefully you have contacted Rusty, Tom and Rich over at QMA about this as well, especially since they seem to be dead set against making an Animal platform with the same rules as the USAC Animal platform which has already been out for over a full season of racing! 

Just so you are ready, they will tell you that they want them to be the same and that they worked hard to get Briggs to offer to replace all the heads in USAC with new ones to match the QMA specs they are planning to go with, which is a true statement.  However Briggs also offered to do the milling and decking for QMA to match the USAC specs.  One of these is obviously much easier to do right now since there is already one group with engines already in service.

[Mlewis]

Scott,

I think most QMA handlers want the milling and decking.  If the animal rules are different between the two series and QMA dosn't allow it than when we bring a inferior/ slower motor to compete against USAC engines.  And QMA will eliminate USAC animals from racing with us because they will all be milled.  This will cut down on competition at QMA tracks.  Our loss I guess.

I still haven't digested or convinced myself that whatever the offer from Briggs to replace the USAC heads is the way for anyone to go.  I find it hard to believe USAC will be willing to inconvenience their members at QMA's request.

I have heard some rumblings that "we need to keep this a box stock platform.". I think it is a mistake to assume the "box stock" idea is a good direction.  In the 90's it was assumed we could buy a $375 Honda engine, cut the tank off and go racing.  History has proven that that is a myth.  Our Hondas are actually $800+.  It has been said that a handler should be able to buy a $650 Animal and go racing.  Sounds like 15 years ago to me.  I think we should accept that the Animal will be a +/- $1,000 engine that is better controlled by the manufacture. 

I know several of us are putting in our two cents, hopefully we can get the right results here in the beginning of this new chapter of qm racing. 

As for how can a USAC guy voice his opinion on the QMA forum, well geeze, that kind of embarising on QMA's part.  I understand some guys got inaproperate but I always thought they should apoint some moderators like most forums do and block the bad stuff.  I feel you on that one.

Mike Lewis

[Mlewis]

On another note I don't ever see QMA & USAC holding hands and agreeing on everything but wouldn't it be cool one day for the rules to align enough so that we could bring the A main champs from both groups together at the end of the year and do a champions race.

That idea might be somewhat premature but worth throwing out there for the future.

[Swartz]

You could run the USAC series and QMA grands now. Not feeling the love from QMA about it but.....
Not trying to be negative and I really did like running the AA but it always makes me scratch my head when they talk about engines. Gonna scrap the honda because the manufacturing process is changing but gotta keep the decos that have been out of production for 50 years. Something about that does not make sense. It would make sense to go to a "bluprint" standard for all engines to even things up. Easier to tech too.

[sfreitas20]

I find it hard to believe USAC will be willing to inconvenience their members at QMA's request.

They won't and shouldn't.  If Briggs wasn't offering to do the milling and decking for QMA then I might be willing to agree that USAC should consider the offer to keep the engines consistent.  Since that offer is on the table no need for USAC to do that.  QMA has it in their control to make the engines consistent.  They will argue that the first couple hundred are already boxed up without the milling done, but that solution is simple...the engine builder does the work on those.

[sfreitas20]

I think most QMA handlers want the milling and decking.  If the animal rules are different between the two series and QMA dosn't allow it than when we bring a inferior/ slower motor to compete against USAC engines.  And QMA will eliminate USAC animals from racing with us because they will all be milled.  This will cut down on competition at QMA tracks.  Our loss I guess.

Also on this, I get that you and most other handlers want it, but have you called Rusty and told him you want it?  If not, you should do that.  He needs to hear it from as many members as possible.