[Racer Duck]

In the March 2008 issue of Circle Track there begins Part 1 of a series labeled "The Crate Debate". Having been affected by the issue of "to crate or not" in our local Super Late Model series, I admit I am biased. There are many salient points made by the author (Ron Fisher) and I am going to try to present them in as unbiased fashion as I can. His opening paragraph pretty much sums up the feelings among the various people involved in short track racing, so let me quote it here:

"Mention the word crate motor at any racetrack in any town around the country and you will get one of two opinions. Either they're the best thing since sliced bread or they will be the final nail in the coffin of short track racing. In the motorsports world, crate engines are the topic, a political hot potato that is the equivalent of healthcare, Iraq and social security all rolled into one."

Mr. Fisher goes on for the remainder of 3 pages in the magazine laying out point after point with accompanying descriptions. I'll remain true to his points, but will naturally use fewer words to cover each point (after all, I'm not getting paid by the word, or even by the article .. in fact, I'm doing this "gratis", so I have no reason to sugar coat, pull punches, nor take any company's line!)

COST SAVIOR

You should be familiar with the "crate" story. The crates, aka sealed motors, were and are designed to save racers and sanctioning bodies time and money. The idea is the racer buys the motor from a manufacturer (GM, Ford and Chrysler all have crate motors for sale), puts it in his/her race car and goes racing. The benefit to the racer is a relatively inexpensive ($5000) race motor pumping out 420 hp that is bulletproof. The idea is to reduce the cost of racing - other than regular fluid changes and small tuning adjustments, there's nothing to do to the engine. When it reaches the recommended rebuild point, you simply send it to one of the many factory authorized rebuild facilities who go thru it and replace worn parts then return the motor to it's original specifications, for about half of the cost of a replacement.. One of the benefits of crate motors is they all produce approximately the same horsepower, so there's not a power advantage to a racer with deep pockets.

Tracks and sanctioning bodies benefit also because the "sealed engines" are theoretically impossible to modify by racers and/or engine builders because they are assembled with special bolts and utilize specific sealing techniques. So inspections take very little time, leaving the inspectors more time for scrutiny elsewhere (just what racers want: inspectors with more time to crawl all over their race car!)

PROBLEM

As more and more tracks and sanctioning bodies began allowing/switching to crate motors, the creative competitors became more creative. In 2000 rumors abounded that you could buy cheater bolts on the internet. Then with that piece of news, many of the more creative began modifying their sealed engines! Because the cheater bolts appear identical to the factory bolts, the average inspector will not be able to tell the difference. Suddenly crate motors began appearing with 10-15 more hp than those coming from the manufacturers.

PROBLEM COMPOUNDED

Since some tech inspectors rely on the seal bolts to prove an engine is legal, when it's not, the cost that was taken out of the motor has crept back in. Consider this: Racer A is running a cheated up motor that turns 500 more RPM and makes 20 more hp and at the local tracks he's tearing up the competition. Before too long Racer B and Racer C are gonna go get some of that extra power. And they'll spend $15,000 for their "legal" crate motor. With little chance of being caught, it's a chance worth taking.

HOW BIG IS THE PROBLEM?

It's hard to say, but it's obvious the racers are doing things to the engines that were never envisioned by the designers and manufacturers: from simple valve spring swaps to exotic ported heads. And nobody knows how many cheated up crate motors are out there, though everyone "knows" they exist. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have no way to control the situation - once it leaves the factory, they loose control. Now they are offering tech workshops on how to tech a crate motor.

It's up to the tracks and sanctioning bodies to police their rules, whether their motors are sealed or not. But "legislating" tough rules does nothing without enforcement, tough enforcement! Take a look at these rules from the Fastrak Racing Series (one of the toughest penalties out there today.) The penalties for cheating a crate motor include:

1. Competitor will be barred for the balance of the season
2. Loss of all points and any monies due
3. Illegal parts will be confiscated and destroyed by the Fastrak sanctioning body
4. Competitor will be fined $1000
5. Competitor cannot compete in any Fastrak event
6. Competitor may return the following year if the fine has been paid in full
7. Second offense - Competitor will be barred for life
8. Barred means car, competitor and car owner.

With rules such as these and willing enforcement, there's little reason for a racer to cheat. However, it's long been held in racing circles that "the racer's job is to cheat, and the track/sanctioning body's job is to catch them."

THE DEBATE

The debate centers on how it will affect the industry long term. Cheating is a side issue, and not really the central focus.

Those for the crate make the argument that crate racing offers a low-cost alternative that brings people back and gets new people into the sport. The proponents of crate motors claim it's not meant to displace all forms of racing. Why would it when GM, Ford and Chrysler manufacture a large number of performance parts used by engine builders at all levels of racing?

Those against the crate argue that it poses a threat to the foundation of the motorsports industry. The fundamental theory they use to support their argument is: assume 60% of the motorsports industry is made up of companies that relate to engines and engine building; if crate motors replace built motors at the local track level, that 60% goes away and a significant portion of the industry is now controlled by a single entity, the manufacturers.

So the question being posed is: "What effect will crate racing have on the motorsports industry?"

Mr Fisher claims to have an answer to the question as well as a "solution that will allow each side to achieve its goals while maintaining the common good for the industry." That is the subject of Part 2 of his series scheduled to appear in the April issue.



FYI: GM recently announced a new crate motor that will deliver 525 hp for a price under $10,000. This strikes squarely at the Super Late Model classes and other high powered, normally aspirated classes.

[LSC9901]

A very interesting post. I can see that no matter what side of the issue you are on, you are right. Each side will vehemently defend their point of view. As for it being the job of the race team to cheat ... I'm not sure I buy into that theory. Pushing the envelope I can deal with but cheating is cheating. At least at the lower levels of racing I agree 100% with the crate engine because it keeps the cost down, therefore making it far more inviting to more potential race teams.

In the big leagues it may not be a bad idea since it seems like an easy area to cheat within. I have no problem with teams tweaking the cars in other areas. If you can make an adjustment that works for you that is fine ... as long as it is legal.

This could turn into a great discussion.

[Racer Duck]

Thanks. Of course I'm right....but I'll pass for now on explaining why.

The cost issue is the primary factor driving the crate motor controversy. No matter what people say, there's other costs above and beyond the cost of the crate motor that come into play when the decision is made to convert. Each and every one of those costs require careful evaluation as well as understanding the trade-offs that come with running a crate engined race car. Most people only see this as a motor cost issue, but it's actually much, much more than that.

Hopefully you are right and this thread will spark a good debate .. that's why I created it. I would like to hear from those on both sides of the issue. And I believe this is a good place to have that discussion.

[Quality88]

Interestin.... very interestin. I see both sides... I'll have to ponder this before postin. I'll be back.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Quality88

Interestin.... very interestin. I see both sides... I'll have to ponder this before postin. I'll be back.

We'll be waiting for ya, Q.

Note: that's Q's way of saying he doesn't have anything to say.

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Note: that's Q's way of saying he doesn't have anything to say.

Damn... I've been figured out

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Quality88

Damn... I've been figured out

.... by everyone !!

[Quality88]

I will have to say it would be good for single car teams in the big leagues that don't have a Hendrick, Gibbs Motorshop at their disposal. It could help cut costs for them for purchasin engines from those organizations.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Quality88

I will have to say it would be good for single car teams in the big leagues that don't have a Hendrick, Gibbs Motorshop at their disposal. It could help cut costs for them for purchasin engines from those organizations.

Sorry Q, that won't work. you're comparing a $5K wet sump motor cranking out 420 hp at 6500-7000 rpm against a $50K dry sump motor cranking out 750-800 hp at 9000 rpm. that's kinda like putting the Kentucky Wildcats up against the Indianapolis Colts .. ya know going in who's gonna win, the only question is by how much.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Sorry Q, that won't work. you're comparing a $5K wet sump motor cranking out 420 hp at 6500-7000 rpm against a $50K dry sump motor cranking out 750-800 hp at 9000 rpm. that's kinda like putting the Kentucky Wildcats up against the Indianapolis Colts .. ya know going in who's gonna win, the only question is by how much.

Unless I am missing something here I believe the point would be that all teams would use the crate engine, thereby saving money for everyone (not that multi car teams need it). More importantly single car teams might increase because of decreased cost and even competition within the engine departments.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Unless I am missing something here I believe the point would be that all teams would use the crate engine, thereby saving money for everyone (not that multi car teams need it). More importantly single car teams might increase because of decreased cost and even competition within the engine departments.

Sorry, I missed that point. I was on the point that the current needs of Cup, NWS and CTS are above what is currently available, engine-wise, from manufacturers.

So, you're saying that the goodness of all teams in NASCAR using a crate engine designed and built by manufacturers outweighs the loss of jobs and support industries currently in place and that technological advancement should come from the manufacturers, not the race teams?

You see, there's costs inherent in making decisions of this sort and these costs need to be fully evaluated before the decision is made.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Sorry, I missed that point. I was on the point that the current needs of Cup, NWS and CTS are above what is currently available, engine-wise, from manufacturers.

So, you're saying that the goodness of all teams in NASCAR using a crate engine designed and built by manufacturers outweighs the loss of jobs and support industries currently in place and that technological advancement should come from the manufacturers, not the race teams?

You see, there's costs inherent in making decisions of this sort and these costs need to be fully evaluated before the decision is made.

See ... now that is what brings about great discussion. Looking at it from that point of view I'm not sure. It is a real double edged sword. I would ask you this in return. Is the sport getting too expensive/overpriced ? If your answer is yes and my answer to your question is yes then there needs to be some common ground somewhere ... doncha think ???

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

See ... now that is what brings about great discussion. Looking at it from that point of view I'm not sure. It is a real double edged sword. I would ask you this in return. Is the sport getting too expensive/overpriced ? If your answer is yes and my answer to your question is yes then there needs to be some common ground somewhere ... doncha think ???

Is the sport getting too expensive/overpriced? My answer is another question: to whom?

If you mean to the participants, my answer is "No" because there are people who are still willing to put up the money needed to field a team, even if the team isn't a Top 10 contender. Now, that doesn't mean that just anybody who wants to race can. Just like in IRL or F1 or any other premier series. That word, premier, indicates this isn't an easy level to crack much less to reach a level of success in and that it won't come easy, cheap nor without considerable work. If you go back and look, it wasn't so many years ago when there weren't enough competitors to fill a 43 car field in every race and there were fewer races in a season - we don't have that situation now.

On the other end of the scale, in the "Bomber" and other "entry level" classes, whether the engine comes from a junkyard or an engine shop, as long as it meets the rules it's legal. Competitors are allowed to race with whatever choice they make .. as long as it meets the rules.

There will always be underfunded teams no matter what the level of competition, but that doesn't mean the level of competition needs to make concessions so that the underfunded have "a more equal" chance. As long as it doesn't exclude them by making them pay an exorbitant "membership fee" then they should be free to compete as long as they use legal equipment. Remember the Jamaican Bobsled Team?

But, if you mean to the fans, my answer is "Yes". When the cost of attending a premier race approaches a mortgage payment, it's too much! I realize there's many people who need to make money from such an event, but to rely on the fan for all or most of that money will only make attendance more and more expensive for the fewer and fewer who will attend. It is better to set the fan's ticket price to a much lower place, say around movie ticket prices, then make up the difference by charging the vendors a portion of their proceeds.

Also, what would be wrong with a track, Lowes for example, getting a small percent of the monies spent in the area for food, lodging & tourism that it brings because of it's events and using those monies to improve the facilities as well as supplement the purses? Not a tax, but advertising: fans new to the area will try eateries and other entertainment "endorsed" by the track and/or their "stars"...in many cases long term relationships will be developed (I still remember a restaurant my high school's athletic teams regularly ate at when we traveled to a particular town to compete; and I stop in whenever I'm in the area if only for a cup of coffee.)

I think that's where the "common ground" needs to be, not in how much an engine costs or how much a participant is willing to spend to compete. There has always been the underdog who's triumphed. And there always will be as long as the underdog is allowed to compete. And there will always be folks who want to fund the underdog's efforts and who will root for the underdog. But that doesn't mean that every underdog will get a chance to compete, just those "lucky" enough to be in the right place at the right time.

True equality doesn't work in competitions. Every competitor is looking for an edge, some thing that favors him/her over the others, or at least that's the hope. If none exists, then one will be manufactured whether thru improved training, genetics, strategies or materials/designs used in equipment. It's human nature and no amount of equality will prevent it.

Now back to the issue at hand: is there a way crate motors can be used to benefit both the competitors and fans while not destroying a major portion of the industries currently supporting local/national racing?

Probably, but not in all series .. nor even in most.

[Quality88]

I love it when a discussion gets goin good

RD, LSC got more of where I was goin with it.

[Racer Duck]

Thanks Q.

Here's a brief history of my encounter with the "crate motor rule"...

We had just finished a horrible season, 3 blown engines in the latest 3 races. With one race left in the season we had no money to start building nor to buy another engine .. not even an old worn out one.

The first order of business was to determine what parts needed to be replaced due to damage or wear. And that was pretty easy: just about everything inside the 3 motors was damaged - there was very little that could be salvaged, although we were pretty sure one of the crankshafts, though needing some cleanup, and checking for straightness, might be usable (it turned out it was .. that saved $800). So we bought a block, a good after market block ($2000), and a set of pistons and rods ($1800) and took them to our machinist for prepping. Another several hundred dollars for incidentals (bearings, gaskets, etc.) and we were on our way to having a good "bottom end".

Meanwhile we had to fix the heads and intake manifolds (we had 2 sets, each matched & each damaged when the engines blew.) The valves were titanium and cost $100 each. For 4 heads that was 32 valves .. we decided to take a different route - cheaper, just as strong, but a bit heavier: stainless steel. It might affect our top end by reducing the rpm by as much as a hundred, but we felt we would be alright. And we decided to further decrease the cost by only fixing one set of heads initially, our original ones, the ones we had always made good power with. Luckily all the valve springs were still good. So, the valves and keepers and new seals came to $1500.

About that time the racing series started making rule changes to reduce the cost of racing for us, the racers. The primary rule change was the changeover to crate motors. The argument that we didn't have to spend $10K+ for a race motor was a good one .. trouble is we already had close to $6000 in parts plus another $1000 in machine work invested and all we had was a pile of parts, nothing had been put together. Somehow it didn't compute that it was gonna be cheaper for us to spend another $5000 so we could race.

"Well, sell that new engine" was the advice we were given. "To who?" we asked. "There's nobody within a thousand miles running a 9:1 motor!" "Well, part it out." AND LOOSE SEVERAL THOUSAND $$$ IN THE PROCESS. "Well, it'll be cheaper in the long run if you do." But what are we supposed to do for money in the mean time? We have all our cash tied up in this new motor, no place to race it, we can't afford to buy a crate motor, and by the time we can, half the season will be over.

We felt betrayed because no one ever asked us our opinion of the rule before it was implemented, though they claimed to have talked to "several racers" (you'd think since we finished in the top10 in points they would have given us some warning!) And we weren't the only ones that felt that way. Between the no warning rule changes and the arrogance of the series owner towards the teams, we decided to sit out the season, finish our motor and maybe race a few races in the Southeast (where our motor was still legal.) Turns out we weren't the only ones .. almost half of the cars in the series were parked, many for the same reason: too much invested in the current engine to just change with no warning.

The cost of the motor is just one part of the problem. Here's some more costs:

• the entire remote oiling system was now illegal and unuseable (we'd just purchased a replacement oil tank and new steel braided lines. ($600)
• the crate motor sits higher in the car because the oil pan is deeper: we'd have to rework the exhaust system to clear internal frame and cage bracing, we'd have to clearance other parts of the car plus make sure drive shaft angles were still within tolerance.
• the front suspension geometry would have to be modified to handle the higher roll center
• the air box had to be modified (shortened) because of the increased engine height and the body (hood) checked to ensure it still conformed to the ABC templates.
• the car completely re-setup weight-wise to handle the increased weight of the engine and the higher roll center presented by the engine
• different gear sets for the rear end since the crate motor only turns 6500 rpm instead of the 8000+ rpm our 9:1 turned.
• extra practice time on the track to "dial in" the handling and train the driver to use the lower revving engine.

This was in a Super Late Model series, a touring series that raced 2 times a month on 4 different tracks from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile. Most teams were made up of families and friends .. pay was pit passes and meals. No "professional" drivers, i.e., all of the drivers had "day jobs" to pay the bills. Still, it was considered one of the premier SLM series in the nation, until it was sold and the new owner started making changes...

The point I'm making is I believe there's a place for crate motors, but too many people are trying to force fit something (crate motors) that isn't right for the place they're trying to put it. It is a good choice for local series, but not touring series. That ASA and a couple others have made it work in their Late Model program is great. But they are not Super Late Models - not any more. The same thing is happening in the dirt ranks. People are trying to "level" the playing field in DSLM just as they're trying to do in the asphalt series. And what they don't realize is by doing so, they're killing the series. The "Super" series are just that. They got that name because they have higher horsepower, higher speed, more advanced and better machines and drivers. In making it less expensive to race, they're also eliminating the reason many of these people are there: finding new ways to make that car go faster and faster.

Yes we spend lots of money to race in the "Super" series. But, we have it to spend .. some of us have a lot to spend. And I, for one, don't care how much the other guy spends: he can spend more than me or less. But if he spends $20K and I beat him and only spend $10k, I've accomplished something. And I don't care if someone doesn't have the bucks to compete in my Super series; I don't have the bucks to compete in the Sprint Cup either. I'm not lobbying for them to bring the cost down to my level, so why should my series be bringing its costs down to an inferior level? I'm happy being able to compete at my level. One size does not fit all!