Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

U.M.R.A-KING OF THE TQ MIDGETS

The board of directors have made there initial engine recommendations for the engine program to go into effect in 2017. Further test will be conducted and by May 30th all car owners will receive the complete package to be voted on. 650 cc engines are be tested to decide if weight will need to be changed. Voting procedure will be explained June 1st.
U.M.R.A. rules states 800lbs to be minimum weight for car and driver. Seat belts must be no older than 2 years old. These will be checked every year. Helmets require at least a snell 2005 rating. The new 2015 snell rating will be out later this year. Registration folders will be passed out at the track. Our first race is March 28th, at Brownstown Speedway. The fall nationals at Greensburg are the last weekend in September. Our schedule has a few modifications that will be addressed by March 28th. We are working on changing one date at Union County, but nothing has been finalized yet. Our July speed week events will be highlighted with the Dwenger Memorial at Greensburg.

Thanks
Terry Eaglin

who makes a 650cc motor?

I believe the motors Combs run are 650cc and that's what Terry is referring to.

I believe the motors Combs run are 650cc or close to it,and that's what Terry is referring to, as far as builder. I think those motors came from North Carolina.

The newer Kawasaki is a 636 stock.

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bad

I am pretty sure that the 636 kaw is no longer in production, so to get that number the racer will be required to do an expensive re bore and chrome along with a set of pistons about $1200.00. That would be 2mm overbore and they just might make a 3mm over that would get you closer to 650cc.

Honest Dad himself:6::6:


http://www.jepistons.com/Catalogs/Po...i/zx6r_07.aspx
http://www.jepistons.com/Catalogs/Po...saki/zx6r.aspx

Looks like a 3mm or 4mm overbore might be a tad big.

Terry, can you make a known list of all legal engines with UMRA / King?

I know at one time the UMRA rule book listen them. If they were pushrod, over head valve, etc.... the ruling listed how many cc's were allowed.

Thanks

I didn't see anything with the engine rules as they were, the newer 600's can hold their own against the Honda without trying to get them to the 700cc limit that was in the old rule book. If I'm reading this correctly my Suzuki will now be illegal? What a crock!

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bad

All you got to do is be able to get um over the hump.

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

Takes a lot of humpin! Bob

650cc just seems like an odd number to come up with considering no one manufactures them in a production bike. You have to go down from 750 or up from 600.

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Am I missing something? I don't see anything that says there's a new rule, just that 650's "will be tested". Granted, that's pretty vague and cryptic, but there's nothing that clearly states a 650 cc limit, or what type of engine configuration has to be 650.

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

"Pretty Vague" Jim? That's kind of an understatement, yeh, it leads you to think it won't happen right away, but I'm not sure I like the slant it makes me think it could be going! Just sayin! Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Yeah, the Missus doesn't call me Capt. Obvious for no apparent reason, Bob...:31:

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Ok,it says right at the beginning,"to be used in 2017",so NO,not something to be used right awayIt says 650 will be checked for possible weight changes.so,that would indicate that the 650 will be an option.Confusing part is what weight changes?Would think the weight of car and driver should be a set amount regardless what engine is being used.The 650 does seem interesting.If changes will have to be made(versus a stock engine)then that seems like a counter-productive move to try to come up with something more cost effective.If trying to find something competitive with the Honda,then voting end of may doesn't leave much time to see how they do on the track.I guess none of that matters if they're going to do away with the Honda.So whats the goal here?

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

The 1000cc motorcycle motor isn't any larger than the 600cc motor is externally so why not just go with 1000cc motors and spice things up a bit? Both motors are a lot smaller and lighter than the Honda 750. While 600 cc motors have large numbers of motors out there in the market place they also have 1000's of sidewinder racers that also want to buy these same motors. A 1000cc TQ would be a real Rocket Ship, and probably cheaper in the long run than a 600 motor with lots of mods done to it!!!:18::18:

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

DAD, I see no reason to further complicate the situation, there is nothing wrong with the rules we have now, basically a twin cam motor, at 700cc, and a single cam motor at 836cc, easy, simple, no voodoo, black and white, simple, has been for years, when the Crosley became obsolete, so to speak, the Honda became the engine of choice, and still is. Why penalize everyone, for the actions of a few, it wouldn't make any difference if it were marbles, someone would find a way to make their marbles better, that's just the way it is, right now we have a "BOX" so to speak, to work out of, or in, if you want to get testical, and there are a lot of things that enter into this than just "newer" engines, none of the new engine have any torque, they are all too short in the stroke department, so you have to wind the wind out of them, to get anywhere, then you start over doing the bearings in the rear end, so you have to go to ceramic bearings, at least in the nose, to keep it happy, going to a 1000cc engine doesn't change this one bit, other than everyone is scrambling trying to make adapters and exh and etc, to be able to use it. I've been researching this since about 2003, and I've found one engine that will fill the bill, it has the longest stroke of any 600cc bike motor, is still in production, and there are plenty of them out there, that's where you need to look, it doesn't require any aftermarket rods, pistons, cams, valves, and a lot of the stuff currently in use on the Honda can be used on it. Just thought I'd drop that in for discussion! :15:Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bob

You are right, "NO TORQUE" the Honda has been a good motor for the last 40 years or so. And simplicity is always an option to look for. How many seasons do racers get out of an 836 before they need a freshen up. If you destroy one what does it cost to put it back? Your little Yamaha sounds like a good choice, but you have been met with a lot of push back to get it recognized as a viable option. You are right the new motors just have to spin too tight to get over the hump and make any torque. The 600cc motors like it around 14 to 15 thousand the 1000cc motors work at around 12000 RPM's. Seems to me that a guy that could make a reduction box say 2 to 1 would help things out a lot. The new motors if left stock could last 4 or 5 seasons before replacement and provide lots of power. The 1000cc motors would provide Horsepower like a TQ has never seen before. Midgets at 350 horsepower would be 262 for a TQ. The 1000cc motors are approaching that number right now STOCK. Wouldn't it be nice if all you had to do when you blew a motor was to go on Ebay and buy another and did not have to depend on an engine builder to build you another one.

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

DAD, I don't see why that can't happen, they own race cars, they are mechanics too, aren't they, who would need an engine builder to swap some parts from one to another, buy a manual and learn something, you might have to use something other than your thumbs, and there is always the possibility something could be learned, man, would that hurt! I have talked to a lot of "builders" over the years, and if you ask the right questions, you'll soon see they can talk the talk, but not walk the walk, that's why a lot of guys aren't owners very long! Just sayin! Bob

I for one hope to never see a 1000cc in a TQ. Leave those for the Mini-Sprints.

DAD, 2-1 would be over the top, 20-25% would be plenty, problem is, not any/much room to make it happen, the best fix would be a R&P change, say maybe a 6 or 6.5-1 would get er done, I am waiting to order one, while I wait for my snow has all been sold! Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bob

I kinda of assumed you would be the guy to get er done. I am kinda of working on an Idea conglomerating the classes. These Ecotec's are neat, they have more than enough power stock to put on a good race. Motors are cheap and plentiful. Us cycle racers have to spend a whole lot more to buy an engine and we are competing against one another for the same motor. Race cars wear out, Yeh I know some may take 30 or so years to do that but they do wear out. When you stop to think about it TQ's Mini Sprints and now Ecotecs or Focus powered midgets are awfully close together. If and when we started racing together the better formula would win out. Right now today I would say Ecotec's are the best choice. But they have a hard time making a field because of the times more so than anything else.

I may be a Quack but I sure like looking down the road to another Midget division that combines all of these more affordable classes together.

We have raced Min Sprints with TQ's and we have raced Mini Sprints with Ecotecs>>>>>>and I can tell you there sure isn't much difference.

When you guys start looking at those $2000.00 600cc motors remember that the Junk yard down the road has a motor that will do the same thing for $300.00.:)

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

$300.00 to $500.00 is about what I pay for a good 600R, but I usually don't have to buy a complete motor, maybe a head, or pistons, and that's under a hundred, so it's also a cheap fix, biggest cost is the head gasket,but then over the years I've managed to learn how to fix things myself, but this engine has been really dependable, since 05, it's only been one head, and a couple of rods and pistons, and not counting last year, we haven't missed but a few races, but my driver has been awfully busy, so we run when he has time. Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bob

Unfortunately every racer is not an "Ole Robert". In fact the government can't wait to do away with them type folks altogether. Teach somebody to work with their hands heaven forbid (Guess that wouldn't be PC anymore either) come to think of it. We did chain drive because it was simple with a motor cycle motor. The money we save on engines would go nicely toward a rear end. Guys are basically taking these motors out of wrecks and putting them into race cars.

The neatest thing that I have seen in a long time was at Du Quoin> A guy kept his stock air box and throttle body but replaced his electronic injectors with Mechanical injectors. It worked great.

Times are changing faster now than it has in of your's or my lifetime. When we started Mini Sprints these little 4 valve auto motors did not even exist, now the car makers are thinking about even smaller motors and forced induction.. What is next????

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

DAD, I only use the engine it's self, I use a "modified by Bob" Hilborn injection, the same Dyna ignition that is used by Honda owners, the connection from the engine to the rear end is the same, only the adapter plate is different, and I make them in my shop, and due to my connections with manufactures, I am called upon to do some R&D, which a few years ago, cost a lot of good finishes, it was a good ignition, very simple, and could be reset trackside via a laptop, problem was it wouldn't turn over 10k, no matter what, so he flew in from Iowa to see for himself, and nothing he could do would help, so that did it in for that season, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Maybe my driver will be able to drive more this year, I'd sure like to make Brownstown in 3 wks! Bob

DAD, as far as the gear reduction goes, my 2nd cousin, Greg Lefler happens to be the owner of a large gear mfg co in ft Wayne, so that would be a non problem. And yes, he is Paul's son. Bob

Only problem was the rules that said direct connection to the crank. Danny warren a few years back wanted to be allowed to run a year reduction for his Kawasaki. That car was fast won every race it finished Jeremy's rookie year. Just couldn't keep cranks in it.

Danny had the same problem I sidestepped, I have 2, 700cc, 5 valve Yamaha motors, but the cranks are flat on each end, and don't exit the case, I didn't want to weld on them, which is I think is what Danny did, I was tempted to bore the crank, with the same taper as the Honda, and cut the splines on the piece that would be bolted into that bore, then I came across the 600's that didn't require any work there, so I had change in plan, besides, the 700 was only a 2 yr production run, and terribly hard to find. There is more about this story, but it does no good to go further with it. For the record, Wayne Harpring and I wrote that rule! Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bad

The no reduction rule worked well with 9000rpm motors with Heavy Duty crankshafts. With 15000rpm motors that rule is outdated. These new motorcycle motor take their power inboard on the crankshaft and not from the end as the older motors did. Doing it this way allows them to reduce the engine's rpm's to prevent them from blowing up clutches at these very high speeds. Kind of like saying you can run a gas turbine but it may not have a reduction box on it. Just won't work. Times change, engine designs change and I think that racers are going to have to change also.

Look around and take note on what is available to the racers, don't just look at motorcycle motors. Spend a few nights at the La Quinta Inns. Many engines are out there right now that have as much or more potential as the trusty old 750 Honda or for that matter the now outdated 636 Kawasaki.

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

DAD, the Honda drove the clutch like modern engines, not off the end as you are saying, but instead of a gear drive, they used a pair of chains to drive the clutch. Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bob

The newer motors use gears for reduction. The Kawasaki is around 1.7 to 1 on the primary side. Many of the cycle motors use a zero lash gear set up to help make them more efficient. Would 1.7 be about right? With just two gears for reduction all of a sudden the output is turning reverse of the motor>

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Dad, I know how the newer engines drive everything off the crank, we don't use that gear for anything, unless we're not dry sumping, then it could be used to drive the oil pump and water pump. Guess we're not on the same page. Bob

I actually like the idea of a 1000cc class. they make a snowmobile engine 3cyl 1000cc already dry sump and able to hook right to the crank since they don't have the trans to worry about. they are putting turbochargers and nitrous on these engines without touching insides, meaning could use stock and should last really good in a TQ

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Be careful what you wish for, bigger motor, bigger car, no longer a TQ, and where to run it, lots of problems, and few answers, what now, add another class/entity, I don't want to, what we have now, in my humble opinion, is as perfect as it gets, we have good standings in the racing world, we have good interest, and depends how capable you are, and willing to learn, a class of good racing that for the most part can be done on a budget, and without a lot of help, like I said in another post, I don't care if it's marbles, someone will find/buy/have made better marbles, it's just a fact of life, if you absolutely can't stand the thought of getting beat once in a while, find something else to do, and I'd bet it wouldn't be long before you got beat at that, it happens in everything! Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

DAD, the name of Greg's Company, is www.rushgears.com, I have my drawings almost done, to send to him for a quote, and also waiting on the new rules to be posted, lots of folks don't consider this a safety problem, but believe me, with these parts, travelling at these speeds, it isn't something I want to do halfast, some think a simple chain reduction would work, and it would, but where th hell ya gonna put it, do you want something like that between your feet, I don't, same with gears, even at a 20% reduction, you still have to find a SAFE place to put it. It's not quick and simple, as some would have you think. Too bad there aren't a lot of Model T Fords sitting in junk yards anymore, that's where the biggest part of home built quick changes came from, and we could use that same design for what we want to do! Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bob

Think it was Franklin with them old ford center sections>>>>They just cut holes in the back end and welded the quick change adapter on the back and they were in business. Them old 3/4" stroker Flat Heads had a tendency to twist them little axle shafts off however. They might also be a bit heavy for these new 305 sprinters. I remember it was about I could do to move one around when I was a kid.

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

I was referring to the planetary gears in the T transmission that were used by many for the in driveline quick change, it is also referred to as a sun gear, it has teeth on the inside, so if you put a drive gear inside, they all go the same direction, savy? Bob

Re: Umra-king of the tq midgets
 

Bob

One of them transmissions you shifted with your foot? We used sun gears in Quarter Midgets 6 to 1 reduction best I can remember but no planet gears>>>>I like your style kid!! Out of the box.:9: Then we could put a band around it and have reverse.

Honest Dad himself:6::6:

WOOHOO!!finally a truthful post that we can agree on.

Thanks Bob.