The State of the UTV Desert Racing Class

[NIKAL]

Joey d you said you would need every driver support that's easy just like BITD you have membership/ utvra membership to race BITD event. Well to race UTVWC you also have to have driver association membership just saying. If you build it they will come hell you and mad media already built it.

Starting a Membership Organization is not the answer and will not work. BITD is not going to turn away an entry fee, because you don't belong to an 3rd party Org. Not going to happen! What your proposing is almost Union like and that does not work. Class Coalitions have been tried before and their is a reason you don't hear or know about them. They did not work.

Right now what you have is a single class Rep, who is also the Tech guy and rule maker, and he also races and is tied to a manufacture. IMO this is to much for one person have control of and has been questioned as being a conflict of interest. Plus this one person is also effecting possible rules with another series (Score) that they are not technically involved with.

Lets not reinvent the wheel, lets just tweak the current process and make sure that all participants in the class have a say, and that any future decisions are brought forth to the class and not decided by one person.

IMO I think the best thing to do is to let the race series take over the Tech, let them know besides safety what things you need inspected. Then request that the Race Promoter allows you to have a Rep system that would give the Race Promoters direct communication with the class. It also allows the teams to have a contact for all things related to the class. The Rep's look and review any possible future rule changes, which ultimately are voted on by all BITD & Score class 1900 members. You could even have an open ballet vote so everyone gets to see everyone's vote, so there is no questionable conspiracies.

 

[baja specialist]

Definitely some very good points here. As someone that is having a new car built I am all for the ideas of bringing the cost down. I have been talking to Mike over at Jimco for weeks now about the time savings of having him make a whole chassis built to spec VS basically free handing it. Just to give you an idea, it took less time
(and I mean man hours) to build a new Trophy Truck chassis then it did to build our new UTV chassis. And as far as material cost we saved about 30' of tubing and that about it. If we could have a spec chassis that was drawn out on cad, CNC bent and notched it would save tuns of time and that =money.

Some of the other points I will disagree on are mainly the tire size. Tire size is what will eat these cars alive. I have been doing a lot of testing with are our new program. I have found these cars to be very fragile when pushed at a fast pace. In 400 miles of testing I have broken two axles, two differentials, one transmission case and three belts. I think a lot of my problems have been bigger tires and better suspension. Those two combos are allowing me to push the car harder and harder every time we go out. Just ask any guy that has been around Trophy trucks very long. When they started letting them run bigger tires they started braking the drive train very quickly and had to beef up all of the parts in order to handle the torque load. Bigger tires = more money = less entry's.

My opinion would be, make changes that will bring the cost down not up. This class is awesome because it has so much competition. Lets not change that in favor for more $ and faster times.

 

[NIKAL]

Wyane the reason you saw the 6100 Spec TT chassis built so quick vs the UTV chassis is that 100's of hours of CAD design and jigs have already been spent on that chassis. So when they build a truck chassis its literately a CAD file sent to the tube guys and when the material shows up at Jimco, the tubes are already laser notched and bent, so its like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. In your case, yours is the first UTV Jimco has built and they are as you said, building it free hand. No files, no jigs, just bending & fabing the old school way. And yes this is very costly per hour as I'm sure you know.

When it comes to making a Spec lower frame, I think the idea is not to spec the whole chassis out, but to basically have a aftermarket lower frame rail, with front & rear suspension bulk heads and engine mounts all built to the factory model specs. So if you were building a 2 seat RZR then you would get a lower frame that matches the factory specs and then you or whoever your fab guy is would build the rest of your chassis off of those lower rails. If you needed a 4 seat RZR chassis you would buy the 4 seat lower frame with bulk heads, and engine mounts. Same with Can Am, Arctic Cat and so on. Each one would be built to match the manufactures chassis, just built with better material and you would not need to buy a New UTV (Polaris, Can Am or Arctic Cat) in order to get the frame.

You said you have been testing bigger tires? What size have you been testing? You can only run a 30 inch tire per the current rules, and the XP1000 comes with either the 29 or 30 inch tire. So stock they come with the same size tire as you would be racing on. Also just because you increased the tire size rule, does not mean you have to run that that size, it just a max size allowed. Just like right now you could run a 28 inch tire if so chose too.

And yes like any change there would be a learning curve, but I think Adam @ Airdam Clutches on the other hot topic thread mentioned, he thought a larger tire could be a big plus for the class as a whole. I would rather see the money saved in areas like engines and in being able to buy a crate or drivetrain package instead of having to buy a complete turn key car from your local dealer, just to tear it apart and use 25% of what you bought.

 

[the stripping shop]

Starting a Membership Organization is not the answer and will not work. BITD is not going to turn away an entry fee, because you don't belong to an 3rd party Org. Not going to happen! What your proposing is almost Union like and that does not work. Class Coalitions have been tried before and their is a reason you don't hear or know about them. They did not work.

Right now what you have is a single class Rep, who is also the Tech guy and rule maker, and he also races and is tied to a manufacture. IMO this is to much for one person have control of and has been questioned as being a conflict of interest. Plus this one person is also effecting possible rules with another series (Score) that they are not technically involved with.

Lets not reinvent the wheel, lets just tweak the current process and make sure that all participants in the class have a say, and that any future decisions are brought forth to the class and not decided by one person.

IMO I think the best thing to do is to let the race series take over the Tech, let them know besides safety what things you need inspected. Then request that the Race Promoter allows you to have a Rep system that would give the Race Promoters direct communication with the class. It also allows the teams to have a contact for all things related to the class. The Rep's look and review any possible future rule changes, which ultimately are voted on by all BITD & Score class 1900 members. You could even have an open ballet vote so everyone gets to see everyone's vote, so there is no questionable conspiracies.

UTVRA is a third party because you pay BITD for there membership then you pay UTVRA there membership for the last 9 years.
Everything you listed in last paragraph is what BITD is doing with UTVRA except they passed tech to UTVRA too. Who do you think rep the UTV right now answer is UTVRA.Has anyone called BITD to see if they will tech UTV seen what answer you would get from casey. With out a group/panel/association/membership of the whole class BITD will only continue to use UTVRA as class rep.

 

[a.p.s.]

That's where the problem is the trophy trucks don't have to have the trophy truck Rep class 1 class 10 class 2400 class whatever they don't have to have their own class representative to talk to Casey they give directory best in the desert there a best of the desert class if best in the desert does not want us to have our own class then we do have to have it through a third party I don't believe it should continue to be UT VRA

 

[Doug8765]

Just make em trophy rhinos all in bro run what Ya brung as long it has a cvt


Sent from my iPhone using My finger

 

[Doug8765]

This is desert racing a mans sport !! Not a dog show !!!sign the I will not sue papers and race


Sent from my iPhone using My finger

 

[a.p.s.]

Let run em.

 

[SimsMotorsports]

Very good points, but there are a few points mentioned that i don't agree with.

1st is that having a spec chassis/lower frame rail built and then assembled would most likely cost you more than buying a used Xp1000 with low miles and building it. Go ahead and start looking at the cost of each item you will need. I tried it and realized it got way more expensive. Everything i took off my race car i was able to sell and recoup some of my money.

2nd is that you most certainly don't have to have the most amazing machine out there to win and for me this is by far cheaper than a class 10 setup. Mine still runs stock dash, floor board, i run 1 Gps and its a small 5" screen, I fabbed my own cage, firewall, panels ect..... You have the ability to spend 75k+ on a car that will work just as good as mine. I just saw Johnny sell his race winning capable Xp1000 for 35K, where can you find a used winning 10 car for that?

 

[Bajaxp]

Mr Simms is correct. You end up using WAY more of the stock car than you think, unless you just want to spend money. All OEM's...eg Ford, GM, Honda, Yamaha, BRP, etc make double the profit margin on parts versus what they make on a complete vehicle. It isn't a Polaris thing it is an EVERY OEM thing. This means that front diff would cost you X on the car and 2x if you bought it as a part. 100% of the people that have doubted me and tried to build a car with parts, have come back and said I was right and they wish they would have just purchased a complete vehicle and started from there.

I think if the cars were built as 'race cars with a few OEM parts,' versus an 'OEM car with a few race parts' the OEM's would immediately lose interest and bail. Actually I know they would. I am 99.9% sure that they have no interest in selling crate engines to builders, the aftermarket or engine guys. Their business is selling a chit ton of vehicles to dealers and if they create another channel for parts it would undermine their dealer network. Lesson: don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I have a ton of respect for Wayne and I consider him my friend, but I have to disagree with him regarding tire size. He is correct in stating that in some cases the weight and inertia can kill components. But as someone stated it doesn't mean you HAVE to run the bigger O.D. tires. It just means that it is there if you want to use it or to test with it. For example a 33 inch Yok Super Digger actually weighs less than a 30" BFG KM2. Would it be cool to see how they work...yes. Do you have to run them? No. Are 42 inch tires dominating in Trophy Trucks? No, are they legal...yes.

I laughed at the silly thread about motor cheaters, because I know first hand that an extra 10% more power isn't going to move you up the finishing order 10%. IMO, what is holding our class back speed wise...tire O.D. and weight. If you call 'Bull Chit' then ask yourself why can a top 2/1600 with an 82 hp 1600cc Fat motor, wax I mean WAX a UTV. I am not talking the BITD class 2000's but SCORE and SNORE 2/1600's. It is tire O.D., weight and...(driver).

I agree that we need a five person UTV 'association' that is elected by it's peers to make and interpret the rules. Then have BITD tech the cars and enforce the rules. My 2 pesos.

 

[JoeyD23]

I think if Polaris had come out with the turbo first several people on this board would be singing a different tune, including JoeyD. I guess that goes without saying....

I also 100% agree with JoeyD that the UTV class is unique and turning them in something unrecognizable would be a shame.

You are 100% wrong. My argument would have still be the same. See while many of you may think my decisions are Solely based on financial influence you may actually realize one day that I do what I do because I actually give a shit about this sport and its future. I'm not in this UTV game for immediate benefit, I am in it for the long haul. The Turbo whether it was made by Polaris or Yamaha in my opinion was not good for the current pro UTV class and I stand by that argument. However it's mute at this point. Too little too late.

I hate to have to remind everyone, I have a can am turbo and 2 other can Ams. I'm not against them or anything close to that.

 

[baja specialist]

Very good points, but there are a few points mentioned that i don't agree with.

1st is that having a spec chassis/lower frame rail built and then assembled would most likely cost you more than buying a used Xp1000 with low miles and building it. Go ahead and start looking at the cost of each item you will need. I tried it and realized it got way more expensive. Everything i took off my race car i was able to sell and recoup some of my money.

2nd is that you most certainly don't have to have the most amazing machine out there to win and for me this is by far cheaper than a class 10 setup. Mine still runs stock dash, floor board, i run 1 Gps and its a small 5" screen, I fabbed my own cage, firewall, panels ect..... You have the ability to spend 75k+ on a car that will work just as good as mine. I just saw Johnny sell his race winning capable Xp1000 for 35K, where can you find a used winning 10 car for that?

I agree with you. The great part about this class is there are cars like yours where you fabricated and built everything yourself. And you are not only able to compete but win against big budget teams. I have said it before it's not about how trick your car is, it's about how long can you leave the throttle on.

 

[Elite RaceWorks]

Wasn't going to say anything. But I am working on aftermarket frames for the xp1000. It will be 4130 and utilize all factory mounting points.


Elite RaceWorks
Off-road and fabrication specialist.
602-616-0971

 

[iambigd]

You are 100% wrong. My argument would have still be the same. See while many of you may think my decisions are Solely based on financial influence you may actually realize one day that I do what I do because I actually give a shit about this sport and its future. I'm not in this UTV game for immediate benefit, I am in it for the long haul. The Turbo whether it was made by Polaris or Yamaha in my opinion was not good for the current pro UTV class and I stand by that argument. However it's mute at this point. Too little too late.

I hate to have to remind everyone, I have a can am turbo and 2 other can Ams. I'm not against them or anything close to that.

I can appreciate that and thumbs up for standing by what you believe in. I wasnt just saying you, I only pointed you out because you are vocal on the subject. I know you don't know me however I have been involved in the SxS scene for years and watching can-am actually push these to the next level on several occasions then see Polaris answer has been awesome. I'm glad they turboed and I look forward to Polaris's turbo.

 

[baja specialist]

Matt, you have some great points about the tire size. My only concern would be the CVT belt drive. My race tire and wheel package I think is pretty light at 42 lbs for a DOT rated 8 ply 30" tire. And I'm still fighting durability issues and I think it would only get worse with a taller tire. but it would be interesting to find out if we were allowed to. like you said just because you can run it doesn't mean you Have to.

 

[JoeyD23]

I'm just going to be blunt here. To eliminate the factory UTV platform in place for a full tube frame and chassis would be the worst and dumbest thing any race org could ever do.

 

[badassmav]

Amen. First the frame goes, then the fenders. The manufacturers would be sure to follow.

Also, one would think that class representation is not needed for a class as strong as the 1900 class is, but, based on the extreme differences in opinion here, it would probably serve us well to have a panel of qualified and respected "enthusiasts" that could speak on our behalf. Unfortunately, many of the people mentioned as a prospective rep, also have some level of investment in the class, which is a serious conflict of interest.

 

[a.p.s.]

True but having someone like Joey and then some other racers as long as it is not one, that's have conecting to the factories would help keep their interest in mind. Might be a good deal. The conflict would be when the rules are favoring the deep pockets and factory supported teams and not the masses of Racers that come to race.

 

[badassmav]

Another observation: It seems more often than not that the Can-am guys are more vocal than the Polaris guys in regards to complaining about the stronger manufacturers' advantage at any given time. Perhaps that is because every time BRP steps it up a notch, it is usually short-lived, and it is only a matter of time until Polaris "exponentially" ups the ante. Anyone not seeing that pattern has not been watching very closely. I expect this "turbo" advantage issue will be old news by years end.
The current state of our class surely deserves another look. Perhaps, a "power to weight" ratio rule could be a simple solution to avoid future disputes as to the type of technology (horsepower-wise), and to what extent, it is allowed to race in our class. Albeit, it is a handicap to the manufacturer who worked hard to offer the most powerful package, it levels the playing field amongst the drivers, with out turning the class into a "spec" class . And, it eliminates the possibility of an aftermarket manufacturer monopolizing on, and perhaps manipulating our class. Let's face it, the bottom line for the manufacturer is sales volume, and product recognition. Both of which they would still maintain. This one simple Change (well, maybe not as easy as it sounds) would ensure that the entry level team could race wheel to wheel with the veterans, no matter what brand they choose to race ( talent and experience not withstanding). After all, a car weighing in at 1800 lbs. with 110 h.p. enjoys a descent ratio of 16 pounds for every horsepower the engine makes (a stock XP 1000 2-seater is around 12.5:1), while a car like the Monster Mav that weighed in excess of 2,350 lbs. with 101 bhp, suffered with a ratio of 23 lbs, for every horsepower it produced. A 31% power-weight disadvantage. Yeah, we made it work, and it was our choice to overeat, but it is a combination we designed and built upon, knowing the parameters going into it. The jest of it is, given these numbers, one can see the usefulness in implementing a power to weight formula that levels the playing field, at virtually no substantial cost to any one entity. If nobody is running pumped up motors as they all claim, there shouldn't t be too much resistance to the change. Hmmm...........

 

[george.felix]

If you put people with honor and integrity in the positions then that will win the day over any special interest that might come up. I trust Joey and Bill in that regard. For example, the decision regarding Can Am turbo.......A committee would never allow that to happen the way it did. These are the guys who need to have the foresight to think into the future not just what sounds good today.

It seems to me if Casey is on board there's no reason not to do this. As it stands there's a committee of 1 anyway so just expand it. It's a start.