It seems karting hasn't been that interesting, so the pots have been stirred. A lot has been posted about the rule changes and the leadership from AKRA, so rather than getting lost in the many redundant threads, I started a new one.
Weeks ago, AKRA announced they were not changing their rule book. I view this as a marketing tactic to show stability within the program, and they are very proud to make that announcement. That's until the news that NKA decided to allow porting, and everything within AKRA started to unravel.
Don starts the thread with the "rumor" of the change and all the cost of making those changes, which comes across as fearmongering because if there is anything racers don't like to hear, it's how a rule change is getting into their wallets. However, some expressed support for the billet rod, and some claimed there are AKRA engines running the CL-4, and rod failure is not a big issue.
There are two experiences with the stock connecting rods: those with a lot of rod failure and those without. AKRA is addressing the allowance of the billet rod as a racer or engine builder's choice. Some claim the cast rod will still have an advantage since it weighs less, which contradicts the fearmongering posts about rod failures being a non-negotiable consequence of allowing the CL4. It's not like EC and ARC can't make a lighter billet rod for the stock classes. We will have rods made soon after the rules are published, and I'm sure ARC will, too.
AKRA vs. NKA
Many things are said about how we can get on the same page and make the rules the same. I'm going to explain why they more than likely will never happen.
First, they are competitors. I believe someone mentioned this in one of the posts, which is a fact. As it was said, some places have started using the CL-4 in their AKRA engines illegally but are getting away with it.. or maybe not. Most tracks allow you to claim both engines, and it's easy to get mixed up when tech has multiple engines in multiple classes all night long. NKA's move is to allow something AKRA did years ago, which should be good news as it would make the engine rules closer to the same. Now, at least, the AKRA would be legal in NKA, even if NKA is not legal in AKRA. Some would argue, including AKRA, that the differences in camshafts aren't going to make a difference, which would have meant more people would build ARKA engines than NKA engines because it's legal for both, kinda like IKF and WKA with the flatheads.
Rather than just allowing the camshaft, AKRA is going to allow the billet rod, so everyone will have a billet rod in their engine. The scapegoat is the racer or engine builder's desire to use a billet rod. In other words, we gave you what you want at your own expense, so don't blame us. But the truth is it gives AKRA the perceived advantage. Therefore, that's what is going to be built.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot, especially if they adopt the retainer weight or other rules from NKA. NKA will be legal for AKRA, but AKRA won't be legal for NKA. More NKA engines will be built if the engine builders and racers stick with the cast rod. It's a catch 22.
Secondly, the rules can be viewed as intellectual property. I'm not sure about the specifics of how the laws are written and are clear, and I'm not sure the organization fully understands them, but the threat of a possible lawsuit prevents the rules from being the same.
Box Stock Project tried a similar tactic when we first advertised the Tillotson 196R as the Tillotson 196 box stock engine. Box Stock Project sent us a threatening email because we used the term box stock. They claimed they had copyright protection and wanted us to pay to have the AKRA reprinted and remove box stock from our advertising. We ignored it at first, but when they were persistent about it, we asked for their Copyright ID, which made it clear they don't have a claim over box stock and that it must be a box stock project since box stock is a commonly used term and it must have all three words to be protected. We explained and told them to stop harassing us. Bill at ARKA was carbon copied in those emails.
Whether the organization have legal grounds or not its not going to stop them from threating it and its not a risk either one is willing to take. These organizations sell insurance, and more track using their rules should be using their insurance, so if other organizations start using their rules to sell their insurance, it could be a possible legal problem.
AKRA's Leadership and (Irr)responsibility
Before Don at AKRA decided to allow the CL-4 cams and billet rods, he posted a preemptive defensive thread about himself and AKRA because he was already getting beat up over his thread on the rumor of NKA allowing porting and if AKRA allowed it would force them into allowing a billet rod. It almost makes it seem like this was the strategy if NKA ever allowed porting.
I think the post did more harm than good for those who take the time to read it.
Don claims that AKRA was the leader in making changes to the rules that would be "necessary" to keep a fair playing field, only for the other organization to make the same rule change. It sounds like AKRA keeps moving the goalpost the moment everyone tries to get on the same page.
For example, AKRA allowed porting first, and if you go back to read what was being said, some don't believe there would be much, if any, difference that would impact performance or the outcome of a race. You can argue it was an unnecessary rule change that cost the racer more money. Allegedly, the JT-158 head was a stealth-ported head sent to be made at the factory. Later, when we made the Tillotson JT-207, the head was equal to or slightly better but ultimately more consistent. Again, going back to this forum, many people suggested going to a spec head. Don's response was it was looked into and would cost 20k to do so, but that didn't stop Dynocams from making the JT-158, EC from making the JT-207, or Gage/Stout from making a spec head specifically for AKRA, which isn't even legal for this class. Today, the JT-158 and the Tillotson's head are the preferred heads. Had they not made the porting rules, you would be spending less for those heads today.
It's not the only rule change they allowed that cost the racer money. If AKRA will boast about being the leader and originator of the rules, they have to be responsible for the costly changes, too. Most of the changes were to make the engines faster so that blueprinting would make a greater difference between a stock engine and a blueprinted engine.
Exhaust Head—If you want to kill the power and rpm of these engines, spec a small-diameter pipe. The rule was changed because it didn't sound good. For those who don't like the short weenie pipes, you would take the current big headers with a smaller inside diameter.
Valve Springs—Not a single factory spring is used in these engines. The spring was designed so a camshaft could be made to make more power and for the engines to turn more rpms.
Camshafts - Camshafts have been further developing as the rules have changed.
Lightweight Retainers and Lifters—Every single retainer and lifter is machined and not comparable to known stock parts, which start with BSP bringing them in that way and claiming they were factory pieces. Again, this allows the engines to turn more rpms. If it were not for this rule, we probably wouldn't have a CL-4 camshaft. If NKA is copying AKRA, then AKRA is to blame.
Billet Rod—Nothing stops ARC or us from making a rod to spec for this class. Engine builders say it's a no-brainer to go with a billet rod, especially if it weighs the same as the cast rod.
These problems resulted from AKRA, as the leader of clone rules, not standing their ground and using a more formal approval process. Importers are not required to submit new versions of parts. For example, the rule on the head is it must be a JT head. As Don said, the early rules left grey areas that could be exploited, which is why the TG-1 is the only other head allowed. EC, Speed Karts, and Dynocams sought a better clone head. The problem wasn't that the head made less power. It was less reliable. But that hasn't stopped us or the other importers from trying to find any advantage we can. The rule organization knows this is how the game is played, and it could have been a lot easier to fix had they made each importer submit their engines and parts when a noticeable change was made, particularly to the cylinder heads and carburetors, which are identifiable by numbers or letters. The same is true for lightweight lifters and retainers, which are measurable and can be checked against known stock parts.
Regardless of what "cheating" took place in the beginning, the engines are faster today than they were when the clone started and would have remained that way if key parts of the rules hadn't changed.
Tillotson Block and PK-1B Carburetor.
We are the only ones that had to submit our parts for approval. We had to do this because Tillotson put their logo on the parts. If we had designed the JT-207 without a logo and the PK-1B as a Ruixing carburetor, then those parts would have entered the competition none the wiser.
That didn't stop rumors about the PK-1B after it was approved and in the rulebook. Rumors were spread that we had "special" carburetor bodies made, and we're selling them to specific builders to give them advantages. If we were going to that trouble, we wouldn't have made it a Tillotson but a Ruixing because Tillotson only had two models that could be checked against. The Ruixing has numberless versions, which would have been impossible to check. Just so everyone knows, it's not off the table because "it came from the factory that way."
The truth is these carburetors were not manufactured until the rulebook was published, and it takes much longer for a rulebook to be printed than it does to publish them digitally online. We had over 2000 PK-1B carburetors manufactured, but it took about six months to build because these are not your mass-produced carburetors built on an assembly line for power equipment engines. Since we missed most of the year, we air-shipped only one or two cases, limiting how many we could sell to each engine builder who wanted them. The rest were to be sea freight and would arrive at the start of the next year.
At that time, AKRA told us the carburetor would not be legal for the next year because of these rumors. So, my Dad met with Bill and Don to talk about it. They agreed to allow the carburetor to be legal until September or when they had tech tools made(costing the tech man money and more time in the tech barn), and we were going to make a revised version of the PK-1C. That fell apart very quickly. Don told people the carburetor wouldn't be legal because there was no supply. I called him out on it when he said it on Facebook, and he told me that's not true and for him to put in the order himself. We also had racers telling us he wasn't allowing the carburetor in his area after we sold the carburetors to those racers. So, he LIED to us, and we decided not to go through the BS again and didn't make a new carburetor.
In the meantime, NKA picked up the Tillotson 196R and had Tillotson make the 196RS, which included the PK-1B and the new Tillotson block. Technically, these parts are still legal as the Tillotson 196R/RS are in the NKA rule book as legal engines. However, the rules are not clear, so tracks have to make their own interpretation and enforcement of those rules.
Interestingly, the first two responses to the CL-4 and Billet rod approval were to legalize the Tillotson block. The block was deemed an unfair advantage that would cost the racers money. If that's not the kettle calling the pot black, I don't know what it is. Even Don had to say there was no advantage with the Tillotson block, which is unsurprising for someone who lies habitually. In Don's rant about loyalty, you see his loyalty is to AKRA, Box Stock Project, and Dover Power, and he is protecting their businesses by not allowing Tillotson Products in the class.
The organizations like to tell you they have the best interest of the racers, so I tried a little democracy, taking the conversation to the racers so they can participate and voice their opinion. The conversation gets high jacked by Dave Klaus, the former Briggs Motorsports Director when he was still working as director. They say an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Dave made the case that the Tillotson block would be obsolete compared to the other clone blocks and that they would improve performance and ring seal without data or evidence. The truth is Briggs doesn't want Tillotson in the karting market because the clone pushed Briggs out of the dirt market. We had been working on an engine that would enter the 4-cycle sprint market, and anything Briggs could do to prevent that, they would. For AKRA, that gave them a reason not to allow the Tillotson block, except Don now says there is no advantage, which means it's only prejudice.
Understandably, there was resistance from the other importers since Tillotson could take over the market because not much was done to prevent unfair advantages, head of the month, cherry-picking, and inconsistency. We worked with Tillotson with the goal of putting an end to the unnecessary rule changes without creating a new class. The Tillotson could slowly integrate so karting could return to a single manufacturer class like the Briggs, Yamaha, Mac, and all the other successful eras of karting.
The block would have been strong enough to be used in Stock Appearing, Super Stock, Limited Modifieds, and Open Modified classes and be strong enough to run both sprint and dirt oval, which means the block was just a $100 throwaway block but a block that could have been reused and repurposed. Clone blocks are being thrown away in the box stock class. If the billet rod is a rule change to protect the racer's investment, what excuse is there to not have the Tillotson block legal? It's to protect the other importers. The Tillotson 196 could have been the engine that unified all of the 4-cycle karting for the dirt and sprint. We're always thinking bigger.
Tillotson was prepared to and did begin offering their products to the other importers. However, it was clear from their rejection and prevention that they didn't want Tillotson in the market. Now, they've missed out on all our improvements to karting in the modified classes and aftermarket. The irony was allowing the billet rod when we're the only importer making billet rods. As much as I like the idea, this will put more people in the rod business. The clone rods have already been knocked off in China, and it will only be a matter of time before the other importers have their brand of inexpensive billet rods. AKRA is not only killing karting but may also kill off ARC by putting more companies in business to make their most popular rods. After all, why stop with one rod?
Why Not Briggs LO206?
Many people believe it's time to switch to Briggs because the rule changes have gotten out of hand. Briggs has a stable structure because it makes the sole engine and the sole rulebook.
I don't believe the LO206 as an engine is the answer, but the structure of their class is. I believe in the next few years, you'll see the other importers move to their own engines and rules to avoid the problems with AKRA, NKA, and WKA. They will use the latest rule changes as an opportunity to create their own class which the Ducar 212 has done since it was first imported.
Briggs has had too many supply change issues and can barely keep up with the growth of their sprint market. Many years ago, Dave told us they don't care about the dirt market, and today, it wouldn't be a good choice to weaken their supply chains to take the risk against the clone on the dirt. Tillotson's 4-cycle sprint class is growing, and if Briggs falters, it will open the door for Tillotson to become a more prominent engine on the sprint. An investment group, KSP Captial Partners, also owns Briggs. Briggs Motorsports could be liquidated at any time if it doesn't seem profitable to keep or if it's more profitable to sell. It's unstable from the business side of things.
Karting for the Future
The future of karting will more than likely be a spec clone of some kind that is like the LO206 with a single manufacturer and single rule set. The low cost and popularity will always give it an advantage over the Briggs Animal/LO206; Briggs uses a clone on its power equipment. Tillotson has shown that it can hold its own. By showing that it is possible and that the overall acceptance has been positive, the other importers are more willing to take the risk of making their own engines. It will also be the only way 4-cycle karting continues.
I don't mean it with any malice, but most of those running AKRA are in their twilight years. As Don said, many were trying to take techs away from AKRA after Bill passed assuming it would disappear. Van Gilder didn't keep it going for the dirt; it kept going and was renamed for Road Racing.
Keeping AKRA alive is vanity. If something happens to Don, who keeps AKRA dirt racing going? If Don really cares, then he will quit continuing the strife between the two major rule organizations and join NKA so he can use his remaining years to establish NKA at his tracks, train techs and put karting under one rule set and one organization. So when he gets too old or passes, AKRA falls apart and moves on to NKA or WKA anyways but with a heavier load to bear.
I can go on and on but that's my .02.
Weeks ago, AKRA announced they were not changing their rule book. I view this as a marketing tactic to show stability within the program, and they are very proud to make that announcement. That's until the news that NKA decided to allow porting, and everything within AKRA started to unravel.
Don starts the thread with the "rumor" of the change and all the cost of making those changes, which comes across as fearmongering because if there is anything racers don't like to hear, it's how a rule change is getting into their wallets. However, some expressed support for the billet rod, and some claimed there are AKRA engines running the CL-4, and rod failure is not a big issue.
There are two experiences with the stock connecting rods: those with a lot of rod failure and those without. AKRA is addressing the allowance of the billet rod as a racer or engine builder's choice. Some claim the cast rod will still have an advantage since it weighs less, which contradicts the fearmongering posts about rod failures being a non-negotiable consequence of allowing the CL4. It's not like EC and ARC can't make a lighter billet rod for the stock classes. We will have rods made soon after the rules are published, and I'm sure ARC will, too.
AKRA vs. NKA
Many things are said about how we can get on the same page and make the rules the same. I'm going to explain why they more than likely will never happen.
First, they are competitors. I believe someone mentioned this in one of the posts, which is a fact. As it was said, some places have started using the CL-4 in their AKRA engines illegally but are getting away with it.. or maybe not. Most tracks allow you to claim both engines, and it's easy to get mixed up when tech has multiple engines in multiple classes all night long. NKA's move is to allow something AKRA did years ago, which should be good news as it would make the engine rules closer to the same. Now, at least, the AKRA would be legal in NKA, even if NKA is not legal in AKRA. Some would argue, including AKRA, that the differences in camshafts aren't going to make a difference, which would have meant more people would build ARKA engines than NKA engines because it's legal for both, kinda like IKF and WKA with the flatheads.
Rather than just allowing the camshaft, AKRA is going to allow the billet rod, so everyone will have a billet rod in their engine. The scapegoat is the racer or engine builder's desire to use a billet rod. In other words, we gave you what you want at your own expense, so don't blame us. But the truth is it gives AKRA the perceived advantage. Therefore, that's what is going to be built.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot, especially if they adopt the retainer weight or other rules from NKA. NKA will be legal for AKRA, but AKRA won't be legal for NKA. More NKA engines will be built if the engine builders and racers stick with the cast rod. It's a catch 22.
Secondly, the rules can be viewed as intellectual property. I'm not sure about the specifics of how the laws are written and are clear, and I'm not sure the organization fully understands them, but the threat of a possible lawsuit prevents the rules from being the same.
Box Stock Project tried a similar tactic when we first advertised the Tillotson 196R as the Tillotson 196 box stock engine. Box Stock Project sent us a threatening email because we used the term box stock. They claimed they had copyright protection and wanted us to pay to have the AKRA reprinted and remove box stock from our advertising. We ignored it at first, but when they were persistent about it, we asked for their Copyright ID, which made it clear they don't have a claim over box stock and that it must be a box stock project since box stock is a commonly used term and it must have all three words to be protected. We explained and told them to stop harassing us. Bill at ARKA was carbon copied in those emails.
Whether the organization have legal grounds or not its not going to stop them from threating it and its not a risk either one is willing to take. These organizations sell insurance, and more track using their rules should be using their insurance, so if other organizations start using their rules to sell their insurance, it could be a possible legal problem.
AKRA's Leadership and (Irr)responsibility
Before Don at AKRA decided to allow the CL-4 cams and billet rods, he posted a preemptive defensive thread about himself and AKRA because he was already getting beat up over his thread on the rumor of NKA allowing porting and if AKRA allowed it would force them into allowing a billet rod. It almost makes it seem like this was the strategy if NKA ever allowed porting.
I think the post did more harm than good for those who take the time to read it.
Don claims that AKRA was the leader in making changes to the rules that would be "necessary" to keep a fair playing field, only for the other organization to make the same rule change. It sounds like AKRA keeps moving the goalpost the moment everyone tries to get on the same page.
For example, AKRA allowed porting first, and if you go back to read what was being said, some don't believe there would be much, if any, difference that would impact performance or the outcome of a race. You can argue it was an unnecessary rule change that cost the racer more money. Allegedly, the JT-158 head was a stealth-ported head sent to be made at the factory. Later, when we made the Tillotson JT-207, the head was equal to or slightly better but ultimately more consistent. Again, going back to this forum, many people suggested going to a spec head. Don's response was it was looked into and would cost 20k to do so, but that didn't stop Dynocams from making the JT-158, EC from making the JT-207, or Gage/Stout from making a spec head specifically for AKRA, which isn't even legal for this class. Today, the JT-158 and the Tillotson's head are the preferred heads. Had they not made the porting rules, you would be spending less for those heads today.
It's not the only rule change they allowed that cost the racer money. If AKRA will boast about being the leader and originator of the rules, they have to be responsible for the costly changes, too. Most of the changes were to make the engines faster so that blueprinting would make a greater difference between a stock engine and a blueprinted engine.
Exhaust Head—If you want to kill the power and rpm of these engines, spec a small-diameter pipe. The rule was changed because it didn't sound good. For those who don't like the short weenie pipes, you would take the current big headers with a smaller inside diameter.
Valve Springs—Not a single factory spring is used in these engines. The spring was designed so a camshaft could be made to make more power and for the engines to turn more rpms.
Camshafts - Camshafts have been further developing as the rules have changed.
Lightweight Retainers and Lifters—Every single retainer and lifter is machined and not comparable to known stock parts, which start with BSP bringing them in that way and claiming they were factory pieces. Again, this allows the engines to turn more rpms. If it were not for this rule, we probably wouldn't have a CL-4 camshaft. If NKA is copying AKRA, then AKRA is to blame.
Billet Rod—Nothing stops ARC or us from making a rod to spec for this class. Engine builders say it's a no-brainer to go with a billet rod, especially if it weighs the same as the cast rod.
These problems resulted from AKRA, as the leader of clone rules, not standing their ground and using a more formal approval process. Importers are not required to submit new versions of parts. For example, the rule on the head is it must be a JT head. As Don said, the early rules left grey areas that could be exploited, which is why the TG-1 is the only other head allowed. EC, Speed Karts, and Dynocams sought a better clone head. The problem wasn't that the head made less power. It was less reliable. But that hasn't stopped us or the other importers from trying to find any advantage we can. The rule organization knows this is how the game is played, and it could have been a lot easier to fix had they made each importer submit their engines and parts when a noticeable change was made, particularly to the cylinder heads and carburetors, which are identifiable by numbers or letters. The same is true for lightweight lifters and retainers, which are measurable and can be checked against known stock parts.
Regardless of what "cheating" took place in the beginning, the engines are faster today than they were when the clone started and would have remained that way if key parts of the rules hadn't changed.
Tillotson Block and PK-1B Carburetor.
We are the only ones that had to submit our parts for approval. We had to do this because Tillotson put their logo on the parts. If we had designed the JT-207 without a logo and the PK-1B as a Ruixing carburetor, then those parts would have entered the competition none the wiser.
That didn't stop rumors about the PK-1B after it was approved and in the rulebook. Rumors were spread that we had "special" carburetor bodies made, and we're selling them to specific builders to give them advantages. If we were going to that trouble, we wouldn't have made it a Tillotson but a Ruixing because Tillotson only had two models that could be checked against. The Ruixing has numberless versions, which would have been impossible to check. Just so everyone knows, it's not off the table because "it came from the factory that way."
The truth is these carburetors were not manufactured until the rulebook was published, and it takes much longer for a rulebook to be printed than it does to publish them digitally online. We had over 2000 PK-1B carburetors manufactured, but it took about six months to build because these are not your mass-produced carburetors built on an assembly line for power equipment engines. Since we missed most of the year, we air-shipped only one or two cases, limiting how many we could sell to each engine builder who wanted them. The rest were to be sea freight and would arrive at the start of the next year.
At that time, AKRA told us the carburetor would not be legal for the next year because of these rumors. So, my Dad met with Bill and Don to talk about it. They agreed to allow the carburetor to be legal until September or when they had tech tools made(costing the tech man money and more time in the tech barn), and we were going to make a revised version of the PK-1C. That fell apart very quickly. Don told people the carburetor wouldn't be legal because there was no supply. I called him out on it when he said it on Facebook, and he told me that's not true and for him to put in the order himself. We also had racers telling us he wasn't allowing the carburetor in his area after we sold the carburetors to those racers. So, he LIED to us, and we decided not to go through the BS again and didn't make a new carburetor.
In the meantime, NKA picked up the Tillotson 196R and had Tillotson make the 196RS, which included the PK-1B and the new Tillotson block. Technically, these parts are still legal as the Tillotson 196R/RS are in the NKA rule book as legal engines. However, the rules are not clear, so tracks have to make their own interpretation and enforcement of those rules.
Interestingly, the first two responses to the CL-4 and Billet rod approval were to legalize the Tillotson block. The block was deemed an unfair advantage that would cost the racers money. If that's not the kettle calling the pot black, I don't know what it is. Even Don had to say there was no advantage with the Tillotson block, which is unsurprising for someone who lies habitually. In Don's rant about loyalty, you see his loyalty is to AKRA, Box Stock Project, and Dover Power, and he is protecting their businesses by not allowing Tillotson Products in the class.
The organizations like to tell you they have the best interest of the racers, so I tried a little democracy, taking the conversation to the racers so they can participate and voice their opinion. The conversation gets high jacked by Dave Klaus, the former Briggs Motorsports Director when he was still working as director. They say an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Dave made the case that the Tillotson block would be obsolete compared to the other clone blocks and that they would improve performance and ring seal without data or evidence. The truth is Briggs doesn't want Tillotson in the karting market because the clone pushed Briggs out of the dirt market. We had been working on an engine that would enter the 4-cycle sprint market, and anything Briggs could do to prevent that, they would. For AKRA, that gave them a reason not to allow the Tillotson block, except Don now says there is no advantage, which means it's only prejudice.
Understandably, there was resistance from the other importers since Tillotson could take over the market because not much was done to prevent unfair advantages, head of the month, cherry-picking, and inconsistency. We worked with Tillotson with the goal of putting an end to the unnecessary rule changes without creating a new class. The Tillotson could slowly integrate so karting could return to a single manufacturer class like the Briggs, Yamaha, Mac, and all the other successful eras of karting.
The block would have been strong enough to be used in Stock Appearing, Super Stock, Limited Modifieds, and Open Modified classes and be strong enough to run both sprint and dirt oval, which means the block was just a $100 throwaway block but a block that could have been reused and repurposed. Clone blocks are being thrown away in the box stock class. If the billet rod is a rule change to protect the racer's investment, what excuse is there to not have the Tillotson block legal? It's to protect the other importers. The Tillotson 196 could have been the engine that unified all of the 4-cycle karting for the dirt and sprint. We're always thinking bigger.
Tillotson was prepared to and did begin offering their products to the other importers. However, it was clear from their rejection and prevention that they didn't want Tillotson in the market. Now, they've missed out on all our improvements to karting in the modified classes and aftermarket. The irony was allowing the billet rod when we're the only importer making billet rods. As much as I like the idea, this will put more people in the rod business. The clone rods have already been knocked off in China, and it will only be a matter of time before the other importers have their brand of inexpensive billet rods. AKRA is not only killing karting but may also kill off ARC by putting more companies in business to make their most popular rods. After all, why stop with one rod?
Why Not Briggs LO206?
Many people believe it's time to switch to Briggs because the rule changes have gotten out of hand. Briggs has a stable structure because it makes the sole engine and the sole rulebook.
I don't believe the LO206 as an engine is the answer, but the structure of their class is. I believe in the next few years, you'll see the other importers move to their own engines and rules to avoid the problems with AKRA, NKA, and WKA. They will use the latest rule changes as an opportunity to create their own class which the Ducar 212 has done since it was first imported.
Briggs has had too many supply change issues and can barely keep up with the growth of their sprint market. Many years ago, Dave told us they don't care about the dirt market, and today, it wouldn't be a good choice to weaken their supply chains to take the risk against the clone on the dirt. Tillotson's 4-cycle sprint class is growing, and if Briggs falters, it will open the door for Tillotson to become a more prominent engine on the sprint. An investment group, KSP Captial Partners, also owns Briggs. Briggs Motorsports could be liquidated at any time if it doesn't seem profitable to keep or if it's more profitable to sell. It's unstable from the business side of things.
Karting for the Future
The future of karting will more than likely be a spec clone of some kind that is like the LO206 with a single manufacturer and single rule set. The low cost and popularity will always give it an advantage over the Briggs Animal/LO206; Briggs uses a clone on its power equipment. Tillotson has shown that it can hold its own. By showing that it is possible and that the overall acceptance has been positive, the other importers are more willing to take the risk of making their own engines. It will also be the only way 4-cycle karting continues.
I don't mean it with any malice, but most of those running AKRA are in their twilight years. As Don said, many were trying to take techs away from AKRA after Bill passed assuming it would disappear. Van Gilder didn't keep it going for the dirt; it kept going and was renamed for Road Racing.
Keeping AKRA alive is vanity. If something happens to Don, who keeps AKRA dirt racing going? If Don really cares, then he will quit continuing the strife between the two major rule organizations and join NKA so he can use his remaining years to establish NKA at his tracks, train techs and put karting under one rule set and one organization. So when he gets too old or passes, AKRA falls apart and moves on to NKA or WKA anyways but with a heavier load to bear.
I can go on and on but that's my .02.
