The current engine specification list is attached.

I tried attaching the following .PDF file, but it was too big. you will have to click on the link to view.

Tech Inspection Document (http://www.hyperracing.com/Assets/files/tech_department/600_engine/U6SA%20600%20Sprint%20Rules%20Technical%20Inspecti on.pdf)

Thank You Brian. I changed it to make it clear.

Mike,

Sorry to be picky but I think other people could have interpreted it the same way and just wanted you to know.

Who is the current "Director" and how was he/she appointed?

I am the current director. Each year at the meeting, a closed ballot vote will be held to determine who the director is, unless no one wants to challenge the current director. At this years meeting, no one else wanted the position, so I am assuming the duties for another season.
This whole process along with the duties of the director are outlined in the by-laws posted above.
The directors vote has no more power than anyone else's vote in the association.
Hope this answers your question.

Regarding the power of each vote. How does the voting take place when a new rule is proposed.Who actually gets to vote. Is it just the track and the track reps or do the venders and the director also get a vote? DB

All and only U6SA members can vote. Members consist of track owner or promoter, track rep from each track, and one person from each business represented. I have a list of business that are currently on the list, I will post them in a bit. The director is a current member of the U6SA, so my (the director) vote takes away the vote from Hyper Racing as a business.

Please read the by-laws to fully understand how the whole thing works.

Thanks Mike, I have read the By-laws and there are some things that do not make sense to me. How do allowing the buisnesses/vendors to have a vote help the tracks or car owners? They are in buisness to make money (and there is nothing wrong with that) off of the racers. Why would you allow them to decide what direction the sport goes? I can see inviting those buisnesses to the meetings and letting them give their point of view on the issues but for them to vote does not make sense to me. As it stands now the buisness vote carries more weight than the rep vote. Here is how. If the tracks car owners votes on an issue one way and the Rep brings that one vote to the meeting and one buisness votes the other way the one persons vote just negated 30 to 40 owners votes. If the buisnesses do get a vote let them elect a Rep then all of the buisnesses have just one vote just like the tracks and owners. I know that there can only be the same amount of buisness votes as tracks but the way it is now gives them to much power to overide the majority. Thanks for reading. DB

Excellent point DB

it would be nice to know who voted for what that way when we pick a new track rep. we would know if they are voting for what the owners and drivers are looking for also we would know which speed shops are for us or looking after their needs

from my perspective as a owner and being at the meeting as a guest i can tell you the businesses that were represented at that meeting were as concerned about costs and competition as anyone. I will give you an example. All and I do mean all the chassis manufactuers on hand were in favor of the tire rule. The tracks and the drivers reps voted it down. And i could be wrong but there were more tracks and Driver reps at the meeting than business reps. Of coarse the business have to make money but to think that the business reps are going to only vote in favor of what is profitable for them is not accurate. These guys want the division to flourish that's how they will raise their profit margins not by introducing rules that hurt car counts. The more people they keep in the division the more parts,motors,cars they will sell. I think the association is doing exactly what it was created to do.............Wayne Lesher

Can anyone explain (from an engineering viewpoint) why the RCI Mini Sprint Fuel cell was not also approved as an option to a full bladder system? What crash/impact specifications were calculated to determine that a bladder was the only system that would give sufficient protection vs the $325 fuel cell that is approved and being used by the midwest Micro sprint organizations? Thanks http://www.minisprintfuelcell.com/index.html

It wasn't really chosen from an engineering standpoint. It was likely chosen because area big sprints use 'bladders' in all their tanks. Therefore, what is good for them, is good for us. I don't disagree with this thinking at all. I think the burden is on those that disagree to prove that these other cells are up to the task.

No disrespect is intended to anyone here...just some thoughts.

If all the big sprint guys jump off a bridge, should we do it too??? Where is the proof that the 'big sprint guys' put any research into bladders? Maybe they just voted to put them in because money is truly no object for them, so why not? Maybe Saldana sold them on the idea so they could sell product, and now we bought it too. The 'big sprint guys' aren't allowed to run electronic fuel injection either, should we put that rule in as well?

The economy got to our sport this year, with car counts being down everywhere. So the association decides to mandate bladders, and then words it so that the less expensive bladders are pretty much ruled out, forcing people into 800-1000 dollar purchases. Please forgive me guys if I fail to see how that is in 'the best interest of the sport' as several people have noted. Again, all for new safety features, but how about affordable ones that actually work being included as well, instead of excluded.

On a seperate note, Mike it seems as though some people feel a little left out of the meeting process based on their posts, perhaps if the meeting minutes were posted or if copies were made available for the racers, people would feel more involved in the process....not sure, just an idea?

i don't feel that anyone will argue that the bladder was a snap decision, done without much research into solutions to bladders. Don't get me wrong, there was some work done, just not what was probably necessary. i voted against them at the end of last year, just prior to the organization of U6SA. the majority felt they were worthy, and majority rules. here and in our lives somewhat...

I also think with the economy the way it is and the mandated bladder rule (yes there was prior warning) but people could have been waiting until they "have more money" to purchase 1 and guess now they are not going to be able to afford the 800-1000. So instead of letting the car counts dwindle even more then this past season why not let them run the RCI cell with the tail shell that is proven to work. JMO

See my post on the main board regarding the tanks and why the rule was written the way it was.

DB: Regarding the businesses, I understand your concern. Our thought when we originally wrote the by-laws was two fold:
-Try to put a structure to the meeting that took place the year before the by-laws were written. At that meeting, all the business in the association were there. At that first meeting, before the by-laws, the most educated and experienced people needed to be there, so that was the manufacturers, since they are typically the ones who are most knowledgeable.
-I personally feel, as Wayne stated, the manufacturers and businesses are the ones that thrive on car counts, we need as many possible cars racing and we need them to be racing for the whole season, that is how we survive. It is my job to make sure my customers spend their money in the right places and don't blow their whole wad their first year racing, then quit racing because they went broke. I have seen it happen many times. We need people to enjoy the sport and stay in it for a long time. As Wayne stated I voted against the bladder rule and voted for the tire rule. We need to control costs, and the business understand that better than anyone.

I hope this satisfies your question. If you still feel strongly the other way, write a suggested by-law change, get all the tracks and reps to vote your way, and it will change.

Regarding the idea of having minutes taken, and who voted what way, I agree. What I need now is a volunteer to do this task. I simply can not direct the meeting and do the minutes, then find time after to type them all up. Please contact me if you are the type of person who is organized, a good typist, and articulate.

I think we should vote on changing the by-laws next meeting to mandate that this be done at every meeting.

So the bladder is not a definate yet?

At the risk of being the black sheep I just want to get this straight. The director of the U6SA is the one we have to buy the bladder from for $995. Sounds like myself and others as owner drivers and sponsors are getting the short end of the stick. I'm just a dumb hillbilly but that sounds a little wrong good buisness but wrong. No offense Mike but it seems like your just padding your wallet and taking advantage of the fact.

You don't have to buy from Hyper. Buy from Saldana, fuel safe, or whomever you like. Hyper has offered a solution to the large tank that we have all become used to running. I don't understand why people keep throwing this kind of stuff in fabricators faces.

Mike owns one of, if not the most cutting edge micro chasis/componet company. The reason he does so well is because he is a racer, and is involved in the sport. Don't hate just because he developed arguably the best bladder/tank alternative for the best price...

Greg,
I voted against the bladder rule so how am I trying to pad my wallet? I also voted for the tire rule, to save everyone money, but it did not pass. Also you can buy the tail tank from whoever you want, it does not have to be me.

I love you guys :)

You guys aren't seeing this from my point of view a new rule comes into effect thats gonna cost a grand give or take a few bucks. Thats kind of a hard pill to swallow I'm racing week to week I don't have any big sponsors giving me money I bust my ass for everything I have. I started looking at micros and found HYPER so I'm thinking ok this guy is good there in the area so thats a plus everybody there was more than willing to help out I'm thinkin this is as good as it gets. Then I see your the director that got me thinking ok he helps make the rules and hes got a brand new fuel forward tank design. To me thats a no brainer your a business man your in business to make money thats the name of the game. You don't have to vote no when you have the power of persuasion you can vote however you want and still go home and sleep at night knowing you voted against even though you talked everybody else into voting yes. If thats what happened your the only one that knows but when you look at it from my and others point of views thats what it looks like. I just have trouble understanding how a piece of plastic and rubber is any safer than a steel or aluminum fuel cell mounted between the frame rails. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything and just let it go scraped up the money and just did it now I'm just pissin people off and thats not me that wasn't the plan.

Greg, you really need to ask questions before shooting because you are making a fool of yourself.

Just the facts :

The 600cc racing costs were getting totally out of control. The rev boxes were blowing up many motors.
Carillo Rods were being used, Fly cut cranks had entered the scene and people were starting to spend $7-10K on their motors.

Enough people wanted "change". Multiple "600cc Summits" were held in Atlantic City discussing the various issues. Mike graciously allowed the original "US6A" meeting to be held in his shop.

I am quite sure Mike would gladly hand over the reigns of the US6A to anyone who would volunteer. It is one of those cases where everyone bitches, and yet no one wants to actually do any of the work required. Mike stepped up when no one else would !

Trip Kone, originally helped spear head the meeting back in 2007.

At the original 2007 meeting many things were decided upon. Apart from engine rules, safety was important. Some people had the impression that the tracks were mandating the bladders in 2009. A vote was taken and it passed.

Last years 2008 meeting, the same bladder rule was reviewed, and enough people wanted it to stay. ( Every track had a representative at the meeting)

Mike and Hyper Racing do tremendous things to help in the Micro Community and for you to come on here accusing him of making self serving rules is absolutely ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I was personally at the meeting where this rule was voted on. In fact I was in a position to have a vote also. If I remember correctly Mike not only voted "against the bladder rule" he pretty much abstain from the conversation. So to point fingers at Mike as the cause of this rule would not only be wrong but all together ridiculous.

ok for everyone starting to bitch about the bladder rule with approx. 6 weeks to go before the launch of the 09 season. look the 09 rules where posted on this thread 9-24-08 and it has given everyone nearly 6 months to comeup with a bladder fuel cell system. at an average $ of $800 for a new one and i seen used ones for $400.00- $650.00 this could have been accomplished by the start of racing season in late march 09 say for example if you put back $30.00 each week (average race entry & pit fee) since the rules posted date you would have enough money to buy it by the start of the 09 season. i had a fellow racer tell me that he couldnt afford the $30.00 a week i ask him then how does he expect to race anyway then? it's a safety thing and the tracks agreed to inforce it...with that said i'm sure there will be tracks that don't, so there still will be a place for racers to run without a bladder. good luck be safe

Actually mack, everyone has known about the bladder since august/september of '07

I don't know Mike Dicely from Adam, but do know he's a decent guy. Take the financial concern away, would you run with or without a bladder if money wasn't a concern? Let's add the fuel pump relay to the discussion. If your honest, any and all practical safety requirements are a good thing.

Thank you for your support. I do understand where Greg is coming from and I am sure there are others who are thinking along the same lines. I knew that leading the U6SA, things like this would come up. No external circumstance will determine or define my inner peace. It does not bother me. We are all guilty of wrongly passing judgement of others, I do not expect to be exempt.
All members of the U6SA are intelligent self thinking individuals who, although they may ask my opinion on certain topics, will make their own decision based on what they believe to be truth. I do not have the influential power to make people vote a certain way, if I did, you would see me in Obama's house!

I can see both points. Bladders are great for safety. If you get something to puncture that plastic tank, It is going through the bladder as well. Mike turning a buck on it, Good for him. He and his company are good for the sport. Mandating bladders in the rules? O.K., Tracks that accept the rules should make sure you follow ALL the US6A rules is my problem.

I was at the original rules meeting in the fall of 2007. The bladder rule was suggested by another racer who doesn't run a Hyper and was voted on by all the people there. Mike's (1) vote did not decide the rule.

My recollection is that Mike voted against it anyway.

Where did the spec sheet go? How do I know if my junk yard engine is legal?

It sounds to me like there is plenty of room for "conflict of protecting their own business intrest " being Board members and business/vendors and voting . It's like a click . Sounds like a Pyrmid scheme . I don't see how this system is in the intrest of the Racer or Sponser of a Car . All those racer votes at a given track = one vote , which can be negated by the ownr /promoter/ business/vender ? A good example is ECU's . Only a couple of shops are allowed to program and set limits in Stock boxes and all other Boxes are illeagel . If that isn't a scam , what the hell is a scam ? Same thing with the MFI issue as an example . Seems to me we are using the racer as a pawn for personal gain . Maybe this series started out to monitor and make it fair but I think you went too far left . Maybe thats why all tracks arn't coming on-board . I think you need to do some tweeking but how could you go about it ? You couldn't thats how .

You can view people as selfish and not caring about the success of the class, or you can view people as generally good and looking out for the betterment of the class. Choose the later and your perspective will change.

The only time a box might need to be flashed is if one is using carbs on an 06 and up R6, that applies to maybe two people, that is hardly a scam. And it is only one shop that can reprogram boxes, and his one vote did not make the decision on the rule.

I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

You have to flash an ecu to run carbs on a suzuki also.

I don't know Mike Dicely from Adam, but do know he's a decent guy. Take the financial concern away, would you run with or without a bladder if money wasn't a concern? Let's add the fuel pump relay to the discussion. If your honest, any and all practical safety requirements are a good thing.Personally I'm for anything that helps keep people from getting into a really bad situation which has happened a couple times with fires this year. I certainly wouldn't put blame on Mike for being behind forcing us to spent money on bladders but I do think a rule should be in place using a fuel pump relay to shut of the pump with the engine off!!

I think you are missing the point here Mike . Many people running Carbs need to be reflashed on differant motors . It is the simplest way since the ECU is only used for spark . Otherwise you wouldn't need the ECU except for the rev limitor . There are plenty of simple ECU's that are user friendly .That you can read and reprogram for spark and rev limits . Very inexpensive also . You sound like their are only 2 people running carbs . Their are lots of people all over the U.S. running Carbs . ( not maybe 2 people ) as you put it . The bottom line is these people can't enjoy the compitetion in PA. because they didn't get their box reflashed in PA. I ask you how is this not selfish as you put it ? What would sound more plesant ? Talking about chickens ? , thats funny . The US dosn't restrict you of selling anything or out rule you do they ? I mean u6sa business people not you as an individual per say . FYI chickens can cross the road without being questioned as to their motives it's called freedom . So dream on about your chickens , ha ha . I dream of freedom of choice for the betterment of the class . Thanks for your imput .

I agree the U6SA is not perfect, I agree the rules are not perfect. I do think that the rev limit needs to be enforced, I do not see a way to do that without having the few carbs guys have their rev boxes reflashed, at least the way the rules are written now. We can make the argument that we should allow other ignitions to be used. But just keep in mind that we will be raising the price of racing by a lot. We can get more HP out of these engines with a Motec ignition coupled with a ton of R&D. Very expensive.

There are not many carb guys running U6SA tracks, maybe I am wrong, less than 7?

Write up a rule change and submit it, argue your points, it just might go through. Maybe limit it to just one or two simple ignition systems to keep the high dollar stuff out of it.

And yes the US government restricts me in many ways, most of which come out of my paycheck! Then I can not afford to feed my chickens. Thanks for your input as well.

Well Mike , Deep down I feel u6sa is trying to do the right thing and be fair . I just think It went a little too far doing so . Carb . people might be one of those issues . As well as ECU 's. Here again I'm not talking about other Ignition systems per say . I am talking about timing curves . Using the crank and cam sensors as a referance to fire the stock coils . You can use a simple box to do this . It would be nice to have a simple read/write ECU that an individual can use to optmize their timing . There are plenty inexpensive units out there today in use . This doesn't take anything away from the vendors . people still should to go on a dyno to verify what they did . I'm not intrested in intensifying the spark or shortening coil life with stock coils . Just pre-dyno work when setting up a fuel system and trouble shooting at the track . The way it is now our hands are tied . If we have a problem , we have to come to you guys because we can't rule out our electronics being a problem . We might not be ready to go on a dyno but we have to do it . It's not always convient to travel a long way to see you guys . It also cost money in many ways . Only to find there is nothing wrong with the ECU . I talk to people all over the country ( like you ) and they have expressed this to me many times . I don't have any voting rights . We race in PA . We do comply with u6sa rules . I am on a race team and don't belong to u6sa because I am not driving . So I don't have any authority . I do know carbs are coming back . I build them and I see the present rule about ECU's as not so helpful . It also only applys to the Eastern Sea Board . The rest of the country is more open to differant ECU's . I just think this is one of those issues that didn't get considered much because not that many people run carbs . In this area . I hope I made my point clearer . I am not looking for Motec or any box to intensifys spark . Just looking to smooth out the idle without TPS . or any of the other sensors needed for EFI . and time the motor correctly for methenol and verify the timing at the races . Something a racer/mechanic can understand . and help keep their cost down at the same time . In the intrest of being fairer to carb. guys this is something you could be helpful with along with your many other projects , ha ha . Then maybe I would take up a collection for food for your Chickens. If it's not against u6sa rules .

It is not Mike's responsibility to write rule change proposals for everyone. Why don't you take some initiative and write a rule proposal and submit it for a vote, as Mike already suggested. If you run at a track that uses the U6SA rules then that track has a rep. Talk to the rep and give them your rule change proposal so they can submit it. Or just submit the proposal yourself. Everyone is always quick to come on the message board and bash Mike saying that he votes selfishly and whatever. I have been to the meetings, he does everything he can to try and help the sport grow. Stop asking him to do everything for you and write the proposal.

Seems like everyone is quick to point out things that are wrong but never actually want to act on anything themselves. They would rather just come on a message board and complain about every little thing they see wrong rather then actually do something about it. They want everyone else to do it for them.

Thanks z-lite11 , you might have missrd the part of my post that said I don't race so I don't belong to u6sa . Does this mean i can still make a rule proposal or a change ? I don't think I was bashing Mike all . I am trying to do something about a rule change . I might not understand how the process is handled , since I don't belong to u6sa . Not to beat a dead horse but here is another example about the ECU point I was trying to make . See if you understand this . U6sa has an RPM limit . We were running a certain RPM . OK? Now we are getting ready to run Lanco shootout . So we have to run a certain RPM to be legal . We had to send our box out because their are only a couple that can change the box . It cost $40.00 to do that plus shipping and time . Not alot of money , just inconvience . If we had a programmable box ,we could have done that ourselves in 2 minutes . Thats an example of my point . It's not a complaint . Maybe I didn't express it correctly but it's not a complaint . I don't want anyone to do anything for me . I don't know the process . Yes everyone is quick to critisize , Is the glass half empty or is it half full ? Depends on how you look at it .

Uncle, it doesn't matter if you are physically racing a car or not. If you own a car or are helping a car that runs at a U6SA track then you are part of the U6SA. I do understand your point as to running carbs and not having control over the ECU.

The proper procedure to propose a rule change is this. A proposed change must be submitted to the director (Mike Dicely) in written form (email) at least two weeks before the annual meeting (meeting is September 28). A proposed change must be submitted by a member of the U6SA.

Ok, I understand you saying that you are not a voting member of the U6SA. However, if you race at a track that follows the U6SA rules then that track has two reps, a driver rep and a track rep. I suggest putting your rule proposal in writing and giving it to either your tracks driver rep or track rep. They can then submit the proposal to the director so it can be voted on.

Again, if you own a car or are helping a car that runs at a U6SA track then you are part of the U6SA. You are just not a voting member. What I mean by that is, you are not a voting member at the annual meeting. You still have a voice through your track rep and track driver rep.

Here is a link to a list of all the current U6SA track and their reps... http://www.microracing.com/forum/showthread.php?1705-U6SA-Members-Tracks-Businesses-Representatives

Actually , you have been helpful . Thanks . I will try to draft something up . If I find we have a u6sa track and not just one following their rules . No one up here ever Identified themself as a rep . that I know of . I'm not blaming anyone for anything . I just don't think there was much thought put into the Carb . guys issues . Back in the day Mike D. and his Dad were innovators along with many others . I had a Liquid cooled , Supercharged , Fuel Injected , Cushman with a full circle Billet Crank . That I built . The Ducaties were King in the A class . They could cut off the tranny and made an in and out boxes for them . All Pioneers in their own right . Now we have rules , ha ha . Craig Desantis had a twin cyl. 250 4stroke susuki , what a sweet sounding mill . That was a rev'en SOB . Too bad we can't do things like that anymore . I guess I liked it better back then but times change . They call it progress ??? I call it politics . ha ha .