How will the new "game changer cars" affect the current cars and class?

[acme]

We have been shopping for a new ride and class as we sold Big Red and wanted to downsize. I hate to admit it but I am impressed with the golf carts and we are looking at the class again. Since we only race a few times a year and not chase points etc... we are looking at a few used cars that are competitive. I get the fact that technology is progressing and rapidly changing, but don't necessarily like the idea of having to build a new car every two years to keep up with the Jones's.

Q: Where will all the belt driven non turbo cars be in say BITD/SCORE when the new Gearbox-Turbo stuff is out and the well funded teams have stuff that is the next level?

It seems the rules are constantly evolving without regard to the competitors or budget. The governing bodies in the UTV class don't seem to have a handle on the rules and the manufacturers don't care as they just want to sell units, and the rules seems to chase and adjust to the sponsors which is a vicious circle. In other classes the rules are established and a decent 5 year old (or older) class 10, 16, 5 open or 12 car with mild updates can be competitive today. Not so much with a UTV.

So what happens when all these new fangled "Turbo" & "Gearbox": "GAME CHANGER" cars come out that will make the older stuff obsolete or create a disparity in being competitive? Where will all the current belt driven cars going to be or is this really a disposable car class for the few, the wealthy, the factory backed? Further, with all the changes in motors and gearboxes etc... Who and how is tech going to happen as the equipment, knowledge and personnel needed to monitor and enforce rules seems MIA???

Toss in the comments/conversation I have seen RE "Bigger Tires". One comment that keeps coming up is: "with a 33 we'll really see what these cars can do against other classes...". Don't you guys just race against other UTV's? Why worry about the comparison with other classes?? Seems like every thread or race recap involves belt and axle-cv issues and now you want to add a larger tire that will impact that even more? I get the factory sponsored and money guys won't be as impacted, but IMO the privateer on a budget will be forced into a corner. With current equipment larger tires will equal higher racing costs; and a higher racing cost will equal less entries and the need for constant upgrades will inhibit the growth of the class... Unless of course money is no object and you have the loot and or support to build a next gen gearbox/turbo car, and a new one 2 years after that.

Not tossing rocks or trying to start shiat: just curious as a party honestly considering the class. Having raced 16, 11, 9, 12, 10 and TL: I have seen rule changes for special interests muck up a lot of classes for a long time and alienate racers. Yes, it eventually vetted itself out but in the mean time it hurt the class. And in this case: It's a new model year and sponsor that instigates the change, not competition and again; they just care about unit sales.

Just looking for input on where you racers see the class, rules and belt cars in the next few years vs the new turbo and gearbox cars? Maybe one suggestion is a rules freeze for 5 years regardless of the manufacturers aka sponsors direction?

Thanks for the input!

 

[the stripping shop]

2016 class will be split N/A 1000cc all Polaris unless Yamaha steps up and turbo 1000cc can am vs Polaris if they have one. So it depends if Polaris has a turbo car and if Yamaha comes out with a sport model.

 

[Brian B]

The only thing that sucks about pro utv racing is the need to build a new car every two years to keep up with the technology/industry.

 

[JoeyD23]

We have been shopping for a new ride and class as we sold Big Red and wanted to downsize. I hate to admit it but I am impressed with the golf carts and we are looking at the class again. Since we only race a few times a year and not chase points etc... we are looking at a few used cars that are competitive. I get the fact that technology is progressing and rapidly changing, but don't necessarily like the idea of having to build a new car every two years to keep up with the Jones's.

Q: Where will all the belt driven non turbo cars be in say BITD/SCORE when the new Gearbox-Turbo stuff is out and the well funded teams have stuff that is the next level?

It seems the rules are constantly evolving without regard to the competitors or budget. The governing bodies in the UTV class don't seem to have a handle on the rules and the manufacturers don't care as they just want to sell units, and the rules seems to chase and adjust to the sponsors which is a vicious circle. In other classes the rules are established and a decent 5 year old (or older) class 10, 16, 5 open or 12 car with mild updates can be competitive today. Not so much with a UTV.

So what happens when all these new fangled "Turbo" & "Gearbox": "GAME CHANGER" cars come out that will make the older stuff obsolete or create a disparity in being competitive? Where will all the current belt driven cars going to be or is this really a disposable car class for the few, the wealthy, the factory backed? Further, with all the changes in motors and gearboxes etc... Who and how is tech going to happen as the equipment, knowledge and personnel needed to monitor and enforce rules seems MIA???

Toss in the comments/conversation I have seen RE "Bigger Tires". One comment that keeps coming up is: "with a 33 we'll really see what these cars can do against other classes...". Don't you guys just race against other UTV's? Why worry about the comparison with other classes?? Seems like every thread or race recap involves belt and axle-cv issues and now you want to add a larger tire that will impact that even more? I get the factory sponsored and money guys won't be as impacted, but IMO the privateer on a budget will be forced into a corner. With current equipment larger tires will equal higher racing costs; and a higher racing cost will equal less entries and the need for constant upgrades will inhibit the growth of the class... Unless of course money is no object and you have the loot and or support to build a next gen gearbox/turbo car, and a new one 2 years after that.

Not tossing rocks or trying to start shiat: just curious as a party honestly considering the class. Having raced 16, 11, 9, 12, 10 and TL: I have seen rule changes for special interests muck up a lot of classes for a long time and alienate racers. Yes, it eventually vetted itself out but in the mean time it hurt the class. And in this case: It's a new model year and sponsor that instigates the change, not competition and again; they just care about unit sales.

Just looking for input on where you racers see the class, rules and belt cars in the next few years vs the new turbo and gearbox cars? Maybe one suggestion is a rules freeze for 5 years regardless of the manufacturers aka sponsors direction?

Thanks for the input!

Fantastic post.

The class continues to evolve with the improvements and development at the OEM level. Being that the UTV race classes are based on factory production platforms (unlike 11, 12, 16, 10, etc etc) the class will be forced to continue to adapt rules to the vehicles the OEMs provide. Its a vicious circle really. On one end its great, the machines are getting faster and stronger yet on the other end its getting harder and harder to keep up with those being supplied new factory units as part of sponsorship. Right now to remain competitive you have to build a new machine every other model year it seems and in some cases sooner.

The rules situation and class makeup is tough. Its no secret that the current method (at least in BITD where the bulk of the class races) is controlled primarily by Cory Sappington, a single person who not only techs, influences rule changes and implementations but is also a factory sponsored class racer. While we all know his heart is in the right place, from the outside looking in its a major conflict and and whether admitted too or not is influenced by his involvement as a racer. With that said, he has no control over what new machines are introduced, his job is to find the right place / class for them to be raced in.

The issues with gear box's, turbos, or anything else will need to be handled on a case by case basis as there is no way to predict what OEM will release what. Its part of what this class is. With that said, I feel like the argument I made last year in regards to the new Maverick turbo and where it should have been placed class wise could be followed for other innovative platform introductions. I felt that that at the time the Maverick turbo should have been placed into the unlimited class until other OEM's had introduced a forced induction model, thus keeping the then current Pro UTV class in tact. At the time, Can-Am, Arctic Cat, and Polaris all had 1000cc naturally aspirated machines. It was a fair fight. Then introduce the Turbo and while it may not have swayed a ton of advantage into Can-Am's favor it still challenged a then in place rule of the machines being naturally aspirated. My argument as well as others fell on deaf ears and the Turbo Maverick was placed into the Pro UTV class anyway. I was told by one source that Can-Am based their sponsorships on the premise that sponsored teams would have to race on their Turbo platform. Did that force Sappington's hand? Not sure any of us will ever know.

Had my suggestion been followed it would have set a precedent on how new machines are then included into the Pro class structure. Should Yamaha or Honda or whoever release a machine with a gear box or something larger than 1000cc mid-season, the machine would be placed into the unlimited class for the first season giving time for proper adaptation and to see what the other OEMs release in that same time frame. After that season it could then be voted on or decided that the machine should or shouldn't be included into the pro class. Some people say there should be a N/A and a forced induction break up in classes, but thats not a solid solution IMO today. All that does is break up the class structure and dilute what has been a formidable Pro UTV class that has grown faster than any other class in off-road racing. I want to preserve that growth and keep that playing field as close to fair as possible while also being realistic with the costs to not only build but campaign a race UTV at this level. I know many who state that they won't build another UTV and if everyone goes turbo they will find another class to race in because they don't want to keep playing this game of building a new UTV every year or other year. I am sure there are a lot who feel this way.

I'm not sure there is one singular correct way to prevent racers from being upset or pleasing everyone. Its almost impossible but there needs to be some sort of rule placed in that would better improve implementation of new platforms released by OEMs.

 

[jaggedx]

This is a good post if we can keep it on task and not going where other similar posts have gone.

The UTV class is quite unique in nature, This is due to the fact that these vehicles have and continue to evolve at such a fast pace. All the OEM's are battling for market share and thus continue to give the consumers slightly better products with every release to stay barely ahead of the competition. This is marketing strategy and it will continue. Don't think for a minute that these OEM's couldn't have created 150hp monster 5 years ago. But that just does not make any sense for them. I would bet that there is not a single reader here who is still driving their first UTV.

As for the racing aspect? Racing success is just an added bonus for a manufacturer. They support racing for many reasons. Enthusiasts follow racing and most subscribe to the very lifestyle that Polaris and other OEMs are promoting. It goes deeper than just numbers of units. OEM apparel for example is a huge multi Billion dollar a year segment, not to mention parts and accessories.

No other off road class has this kind of rapid development elements. For example a 1600 car today is very much like a 1600 car of ten years ago. This is why you don't have growth in these classes, It's stagnant. One of the unfortunate results of the rapid UTV development is the fact that a two year old car in no longer competitive.
I say unfortunate but at the same time this is what drives the class. I know if we were still racing the cars we raced
five years ago we would be bored and the class would not have seen this kind of growth.

I have said this before, racing is expensive and not everyone can go out and do it. I have never seen a new class of racing of any kind that does not evolve based on the amount of money that racers are willing to spend.

A perfect example is the King of the Hammers (Ultra 4) cars. This racing series began about the same time that UTV racing took hold. At that time you could race a clapped out Jeep with good seatbelts and be competitive at KOH. Today anything less than 100K custom purpose built vehicle wont even come close.

I am not certain what the ultimate answer is but I will say with some certainty " build it and they will race it"
I also believe that the Racers should have more input in the direction and development of the class.

BS JX

 

[JoeyD23]

^^this^^

Great post Bill

 

[State Farm 1953]

I own an old outdated PRO UTV race car and I love it (2012 XP9004) !!! I wasn't looking to spend $60,000 + on a used 10 or 1 car , or even a new UTV build, so I went with a used UTV. I am in the same boat as you are , not racing for any championship or complete series. I race when I can and as much as I can. My last race was Silverstate and I finished in 19th place. I had an hour and a half of down time because I ran out of talent and rolled the car half way through. If you take that out I would have been right at a top 10 finish out of 40 entries. To the best of my knowledge Perkins and I were the only 900's there. Perkins finished on the podium at the UTV World Championship with their 900 this year. I am not saying that a 900 can run on the podium with & 1000 or a turbo 1000 every race but if your looking to have fun at the races and have 40+ entries to race with I wouldn't be shy against buying any used UTV.

 

[acme]

I'm not sure there is one singular correct way to prevent racers from being upset or pleasing everyone. Its almost impossible but there needs to be some sort of rule placed in that would better improve implementation of new platforms released by OEMs.

It seems that popular opinion based on PM's etc... is that the cars are destined to be obsolete due to the major influence of the manufacturers.

Maybe you need 3 classes:1) Production Class A - belt driven, naturally aspirated, 1000cc limit with current production class rules. 2) Production Class B motor open 100CC limit - factory drive line type for the model, production class rules and finally: 3) Unlimited UTV, whatever you want but limit width/length all on the same 30" tire? Then freeze the rules for 3-4 years without special interest exceptions.
Try herding those cats across the current sanctioning bodies...

 

[acme]

No other off road class has this kind of rapid development elements. For example a 1600 car today is very much like a 1600 car of ten years ago. This is why you don't have growth in these classes, It's stagnant. One of the unfortunate results of the rapid UTV development is the fact that a two year old car in no longer competitive.
I say unfortunate but at the same time this is what drives the class. I know if we were still racing the cars we raced
five years ago we would be bored and the class would not have seen this kind of growth.

I have said this before, racing is expensive and not everyone can go out and do it. I have never seen a new class of racing of any kind that does not evolve based on the amount of money that racers are willing to spend.

Great post! A few thoughts to consider about the UTV class explosion:

1) People can identify with them as they have an identity with consumers.
2) Pretty easy to get into and not as intimidating to outsiders whereas a 16 car is...
3) You can finance the initial purchase and it seems quite a few do and build from there.
4) They are already out in peoples hands whereas a 16, 12, 10, or 9 car are not and there is readily available off the shelf parts to compliment an existing car.

A few thought on your post:

As for the other classes being stagnant: They require a race specific piece of hardware that has little other purpose and you cannot adapt your dune or play car to try racing. Judging from what I've seen at the races there are a lot of guys dipping their toe into UTV racing by modifying their cars and it seems almost like a bucket list thing.

Your statement about budgets is very true. However, this is the only class that seems to be okay with the idea that the cars are disposable after 2 years. And with the advent of new model years and the mfr's driving the racing technology with no rules to keep existing hardware competitive: it just seems like the bubble is destined to burst? Again not trying to pick a fight. But imagine with the explosion in class 10 cars over the last 3 years despite the lack of manufacturer support, marketing etc... What would happen if you needed to build a new car every other year to be competitive at $80-100k per pop?

I'm just curious as to what a gearbox or a 1200cc car would do to the class as the rules sit and the racers opinions are. It seems as a supported team, you are okay with it and the cost; but how about the privateer with a belt driven, naturally aspirated car he just finished building for the world championships?

I'm just trying to figure out if we want to go this direction for our desert racing program...

 

[NIKAL]

Maybe we need to go back and read this whole thread.

http://www.utvunderground.com/forum...e-state-of-the-utv-desert-racing-class.17315/

 

[the stripping shop]

freezing the rules wont work only a select few know what new utv is being released or developed so then you could have rules freeze to benefit 1 manufacter EX can am utvra sponsor. Ex 6100 trucks BITD had to change rules mid season for sourapas, so nobody could have an advantage over there program lol. You are correct on the class 10 huge growth but it has topped out nothing new same ecotech/v-tech and same trans no progression and no money to win so it will start to fade. The right way to do it would be to get sponsored racer together find out when release are and after last release make rules for the following year or year after and stick with it until new product is released.

 

[badassmav]

Along with Joey D., I was in the minority being adamantly opposed to allowing turbos to race in the pro 1900 class. I think it was and still is a mistake, until at which time the remaining 2 main manufacturers offered turbos in their cars, and the sanctioning bodies had the means in place to enforce the new technology. Make no mistake about it, Polaris will have a turbo soon, and it will one up the Maverick. They always do.
It's a double edged sword, the growing technologies, and when and how to implement said technology into a production class rule structure of any given sanctioning body. Race by race logistics and costs not with standing, one of the major costs of racing this class is the acquisition expenses. UTV's retain their value pretty good (within a couple of years of a model release), and when a rule twist like allowing turbos gets thrown in, most teams can't afford to buy new, or slightly used and start over. So why not allow a newer motor/drive train package to be used in an older model year vehicle? An upgrade that allows teams to remain competitive. As long as it is applied to the same model, I don't see anything but fairness and the desire to maintain team participation at work here. I can understand the inability of many of the teams to build anew, but if a team can't find 5-8k to upgrade their drive train package, they should re-evaluate their participation in racing, at least in this class. I think Lecrecia did a smart thing when she changed classes. She wisely made an assessment of her racing program, and instead of whining about things, she made a move that was in the best interest of her team, and her sponsors. It's my guess that she is happy that she did.
This one rule change would put to rest 75% of the bickering and whining that's been going on around here regarding turbo charged cars. More importantly, it will not be conducive to the deterioration of the class, and still allow the smaller teams to competitively race against the factory teams. This is still a class where at any given event, the majority of the entrants have a shot at winning, regardless of what Monster this or X that does. That's what makes it fun to watch and worth racing in. The moment the rulebook separates teams where only the well funded and/or factory backed teams can win, well, that is the moment that the spiraling begins.
Just my 22 oz's worth.

 

[acme]

^^^ Great post!

If turbos were/are an issue and it seems a consensus that the gearbox cars are coming:

Why not have a "Belt Driven, 1000CC, 30" Tire, Non Turbo (or allow updating to turbos) Production Class"?

Seems Turbos are an issue, I guarantee a gearbox will be an issue once the bugs are worked out. And with some wanting a 33" tire which you could/should redesign a whole car around as you can get a ton more travel with the same ground clearance on a 33 over a 30 (if CV angles permit) which all create a huge disparity in the competition. And the guy with a 6 mos old non turbo, belt driven, 30 tire designed, state of the art XP he just dumped $70K into: Might not be able to compete in 6-8 mos at the front where he is running now...

Sorry to bring this up as an outsider but we are really interested in the class. But with the free for all rules and us not interested in having to build a new car every model year to be competitive maybe it's not for us.

So when these "Game Changers" come out and a few guys build them (possibly with 33's if some get their way)and start running up front: How many of the current racers that built a new car in the last 1-2 years will be able to afford to build a new $60-100K car to just to keep up?

Thanks again for the comments, input and PM's: Very insightful!

 

[racer570]

I agree with Mav completely. The one rule change that can only help a class that will surely loose car count, is to allow older cars the ability to install the newer engine/trans combinations. That way, a team can choose to run what they have, or upgrade to a newer combination.

 

[NIKAL]

And with some wanting a 33" tire which you could/should redesign a whole car around as you can get a ton more travel with the same ground clearance on a 33 over a 30 (if CV angles permit) which all create a huge disparity in the competition.

So when these "Game Changers" come out and a few guys build them (possibly with 33's if some get their way)and start running up front: How many of the current racers that built a new car in the last 1-2 years will be able to afford to build a new $60-100K car to just to keep up?

Thanks again for the comments, input and PM's: Very insightful!

ACME I know for some the concept of allowing up to a 33" tire is a big deal, and for others its not. I think the reason the tire size needs to be increased is the fact that the UTV's are going faster, running on the same courses with vehicles running up to 42 inch tires. The holes and ruts are so big that many who were against the concept of increasing the tire size are now looking more favorable at it. They are tired of dragging & beating their cars threw the ruts and damaging the chassis & lower a-arms. Right now the UTV class runs the smallest tire in all the 4 wheel vehicle classes. Even class 11 can run up to a 31 inch tire. Class 9, 5/16 & 16 all run 33 inch tires. 33 inches seems to be the standard in a limited class vehicle.

Some have talked about what you mentioned, about having to build a new car for the bigger tire. For a UTV this is not exactly the case as your locked into stock pivot points and you cant really alter the center line of the spindle in relation to the lower arm, as you have an axle and CV joint going threw the middle. Example; look at a Jimco or any class 10 car lower arm. The spindle snout is in plain with the lower arm. A UTV the hub or snout is center line between the two upper & lower a-arms. This reduces front suspension ground clearance.

Will you have to look at building some components bigger to support a larger tire? Sure, maybe? But in many cases I dont think so as the 33 inch tire is not going to greatly increase un-sprung weight compared to what many are doing now. How many class 10 cars were altered, scrapped or built new to accommodate the new BFG 35 tire? None that I know of. From what I know only a gear change was made, and I have heard some have yet to to that too.

Also some are already bending this rule as many have learned that you can make a 30 inch tire 31 inches by running a narrower wheel. Also I know of several who are running 32 inch tires on their play & prerun UTV's with no issues. A handful that just ran on Matlocks Baja group trip this last weekend were running 32's.

I think the future of this class will see a tire size increase, but just because the tire size is increased, does not mean you have to run the MAX tire size allowed. How many TT's have stuck with 39's and not gone to 42's? How many class 10 cars that made the jump from 33's to 35' have complained about the cost to do so, and how many who have stuck with 33's are crying that the other guys has the advantage? I have not heard of anyone.

I personally think engines are a bigger issue then tire size. I think in the Pro Production class the engines need to have a compression rule to keep from building exotic big dollar engines on race gas. This will not only keep engine costs down, but it will keep longevity of the engine and make using anything more then premium pump gas a waste of money. The class is called Pro Production, so keep the engines in line with a production engine and this will keep the cost down. If you want to run exotic High HP, High dollar, High maintenance, Higher fuel costs, then run in the Unlimited UTV class. This would also help grow the Unlimited class.

 

[BiggJim]

^^^ Great post!

If turbos were/are an issue and it seems a consensus that the gearbox cars are coming:

Why not have a "Belt Driven, 1000CC, 30" Tire, Non Turbo (or allow updating to turbos) Production Class"?

Seems Turbos are an issue, I guarantee a gearbox will be an issue once the bugs are worked out. And with some wanting a 33" tire which you could/should redesign a whole car around as you can get a ton more travel with the same ground clearance on a 33 over a 30 (if CV angles permit) which all create a huge disparity in the competition. And the guy with a 6 mos old non turbo, belt driven, 30 tire designed, state of the art XP he just dumped $70K into: Might not be able to compete in 6-8 mos at the front where he is running now...

Sorry to bring this up as an outsider but we are really interested in the class. But with the free for all rules and us not interested in having to build a new car every model year to be competitive maybe it's not for us.

So when these "Game Changers" come out and a few guys build them (possibly with 33's if some get their way)and start running up front: How many of the current racers that built a new car in the last 1-2 years will be able to afford to build a new $60-100K car to just to keep up?

Thanks again for the comments, input and PM's: Very insightful!

You keep touching on "Game Changer"....what gives you the idea that a turbo is a game changer? Can-Am re-leased a Turbo and it hasnt changed any game... Honda's Gearbox is a game changer? Its still in a farm truck platform. I dont see anyone thing any manufacture doing as a game changer. All these small changes are adaptable....and as someone else already mentioned....a XP900 took a podium spot at the UTVWC....so I have yet to see anything change any game.

 

[acme]

^^ Valid points Nikal!

Again we are looking at this from a considering getting into it perspective. The comparison with class 10 and the jump between a 33 and 35" tire is a little different than a 30-33. Especially given the fact the driveline in a competitive 10 already has 934 CV's and a drivetrain that is capable of handling the additional loads. The suspension geometry can be dealt with to an extent and will be overcome with a heavy budget and if the rules allow. Most car builders build a car and package around the tire size including clearance and travel at full compression. Yes, you can toss 33's on a UTV but as with all forms of racing: unless regulated someone will redesign the mousetrap to accommodate the new allowances and then you have a disparity in the cars.

Now take a privteer with a current, competitive XP built in the last year that say ran up front at the worlds on 30's (I know of one). Guy has say $60-70K tied up in it and now he is behind HP wise due to a turbo. Next model year say a 1200CC Turbo comes out with 30 HP more and a gearbox and say bigger CV's that can handle the load in those bigger driveline parts from the factory. His less than a year old car is now possibly outdated and worth considerably less as a race car. Then let them have 33's and have guys with budgets build them. What happens to all those 30" tired belt driven 1000cc naturally aspirated cars? In class 10 you can change whatever you want to be competitive but ironically it's usually a small update from a H pattern to a sequential as the allowances in the class don't offer revolutionary changes like belt to gearbox or 800-900-1000cc to 100cc turbo to ???

As a person looking in with interest: It seems a lot of folks are concerned with how fast the UTV's are compared to other classes and the tire argument always trends the way of: If we had a bigger tire, we'd really give the class x cars a run..."? I get it from an ego perspective but they are not racing other classes... As a perspective racer I am just trying to figure out how a guy who just dumped $60-80K on a new car last year or in the last 6 mos sees this vetting out? The new stuff is coming so either it's considered now or just as with all the other developments, it will slide in and the greater the difference the less cars you'll see racing.

If budgets and time were not a concern for everyone, then who care? But the UTV class supposedly can be raced competitively on a realistic budget (at least 300 posts have said that)... So why not limit the rules to allow current cars to be competitive over the next 3-4 years when these new vehicles come out? Give the guys with greater resources a class if they choose and give the guys with existing hardware the ability to race against like cars without additional expense.

I also believe in Santa, less government and the right to bear arms so maybe I don't belong in the UTV class. I just want to know where the field is going before we decide get into it...

BIG JIM

With all due respect: The cars and rules are changing due to chasing the manufacturers and as they increase performance with no regard to classes or rules; the bar will be raised and it seems with no regard to the cars racing. As an outsider: If the rules were the rules and not following the mfr's direction then the racers could allow or disallow certain things to allow the cars to remain competitive. In this case the rules are adapting to the manufacturers so there is no end in sight as they keep trying to capture market share.

What happens if/when someone releases a 1200CC turbo? What happens when they give 4 teams those cars? Evolution drives the market but unless I misunderstand this isn't prototype racing and the beauty and growth of the class has been in the fact that the cars are all comparable and the relative expense has been less than other classes of racing. If it continues evolving to chase the mfr's and they have no regard except sales and marketing then the class is not for us.

Oddly if you compare UTV's to GP bikes they at least build the bikes to hit a class format they race in and if someone builds a rotary xyz that pushes that format, the sanctioning bodies exclude that from the existing class formats to level the field or build a class if the need is there. Would they allow a 625CC in the 500CC class or forced induction because mfr XYZ came up with it.

The bottom line is the manufacturers do not care about the racing side as that is marketing. They build what will sell and give it to those that can help sell it. If the community cannot create standards for the racing side then IMHO it seems destined to fail. Like I said: I just wanted input and the more I hear the less the growth and competitiveness seems sustainable based on comments.

Thanks again for the input

 

[warlock]

A Game Changer like a Honda Hoover craft UTV . Now theres a problem. lol

 

[NIKAL]

ACME, I agree with you, but the reason & fact that the UTV class is the fastest growing class is because of the manufactures are involved and support it. TT's are the most popular, most expensive class, yet dollar for dollar the UTV class is better financially and shows better revenue. TT's have a few big name sponsors, but that it. UTV's are the only class with big name sponsors and manufactures support from several manufactures. But because of this they are always going to want their latest and greatest off the show room floor product on the track. And when every year they release some new improved part or a model re-design or even a whole new machine, this is what will also hurt this class.

I've said it before the bubble will burst on this class sooner then later. The biggest question is how does the class survive after the burst, if or when Polaris pulls out as they have nothing to prove, or get a new Board of Directors who feel they can spend their marketing money more wisely somewhere else. Then what? This class is riding the "Right Now" wave and better start looking at the future if they want to have longevity. This is why I have also been very outspoken about other manufactures getting involved, having other manufactures win and at the same time make it where you dont have to buy $20K vehicles off a show room floor, only to rip them apart and use 20% of what you paid for.

The 1600 class, 12 & 10 are around for a reason. Yes they dont have any financial benefits to racing in them like the UTV class does right now. But the class & rules are stable and are the same across the board for all series. Like mentioned before a 8-10 year old car can race competitively and with a few updates can win. We all can admit right now this is not the case in the UTV class right now. And as long as the manufactures are running the show, they will not be.

 

[racer570]

Nikal, not trying to be argumentive, but I have to disagree with you on why this class is growing. It is not the manufacturers that have built this class up, but rather it is a comfortable platform that the newer racers are used to, and feel that they are able to build and compete in. Remember that the sxs market has exploded over the last few years compared to other motorsports markets. Most of the racers have never seen a dime from polaris/can am and really don't expect to. What BITD needs to decide, is if this is polaris's/can am's class, or BITD's.