142 replies to this topic

[DE38]

Great.

[Eddie Fleming]

In my opinion...

 

The bodies that most of us get off the wall at the raceway are not the problem. If they fail by a thousandth, it's no problem. 

 

The ones I have a problem with is when a racer connects with a manufacturer and presto they have bodies that don't come close to the spirit of the rule.

 

Then we have to have some spec number for pass or fail when the truth is these people know when they are cheating. Of course, without the spec rule some manufacturer will make his bodies just a little thinner so they will be the lightest and the next guy will go a step further. 

 

So what are you going to do? Are you going to be part of the problem?

[Danny Zona]

I truly want to race a Stock Car with no windshield.

I'm not being a smart@ss.

I really do.

[Racer36]

The bodies that most of us get off the wall at the raceway are not the problem. If they fail by a thousandth, it's no problem. 

 

The ones I have a problem with is when a racer connects with a manufacturer and presto they have bodies that don't come close to the spirit of the rule.

 

Then we have to have some spec number for pass or fail when the truth is these people know when they are cheating. Of course, without the spec rule some manufacturer will make his bodies just a little thinner so they will be the lightest and the next guy will go a step further. 

 

So what are you going to do? Are you going to be part of the problem?

 

Absolutely agree, Eddie. The vast majority of bodies, Stock Cars especially, that a racer would buy off the wall are fine. I know of one particular batch of Stock Car bodies that a well-known raceway requested from a manufacturer that were pulled out of .010" material deliberately. These got out into circulation and have been a problem since. These are the ones that need to be rooted out.

[Danny Zona]

I remember reading about a big ordeal about Stock Car bodies at a Port Jeff race.

[kustomfab1]

Just my .02….

In my experience, this sort of rule is subjective and not easy to police or enforce. Long-reach calipers can and will have a bit of deflection in them, especially when you are talking about .001" difference. Inevitably, you are going to have frustration all over the board. Fast guys will be accused of a cheated-up body, whether they have one or not. Many guys will grow frustrated feeling like they are racing against bodies like this, as evident by posts in this thread.

The solution? I think it’s actually quite easy. We race a flexi=type class locally that uses a JK body that is similar to what we use in Retro SC. They are .010" and you have to do some work to get them to stiffen up, as to not suck the body up in the tires. I think it is incredibly easy to go too far with thin bodies and it be a detriment to yourself… either getting ripped up or sucked up in the tires.

I would suggest not having a thickness rule and letting guys gamble on whether they will make it a full race or not. I personally have zero desire to run a .007" Stock Car body . I think this applies to all the classes and would certainly stop some of these real and or perceived issues.

[Matt Bruce]

You always need a tolerance, but there are bodies out there that are clearly thin at the roof, where it means the most. If people never would have messed around, we wouldn't need to measure. It's just a tool to help measure the thickness accurately, whats the problem?

 

In all honesty, do you think someone would get tossed for a thousandth? No, this is to keep everyone honest especially the manufacturers. Is it .015" minus .001"? That's fine, but I'm not looking at those bodies. You guys need to stop worrying about motors and start realizing the bodies are the problem.

[kustomfab1]

I get all of that for sure, and I don’t disagree about bodies being more of an issue than motors. My thought is that if you allowed/stocked .010" bodies on the shelves of the raceways, you wouldn’t have to worry about any of it? It would simplify things a lot in my opinion and get rid of a lot of heartache for everyone.

 

Curious to see what R-Geo comes up with regardless!

[NJ Racer]

It is and has been the manufacturers/producers (not all) issue for years selling thin Lexan bodies and they need to face the consequence of having their out-of-spec approved body officially dropped by IRRA®. They have been identified, so just do it. 

[gotboostedvr6]

I'm sure thin bodies weigh less. Couldnt there just be a minimum body weight?

Kicking a traveling racer from tech because body manufacturers are playing loose with the rules is kinda terrible.

[Gil Aubin]

If there is no minimum body thickness, and manufacturers are free to produce any thickness they want, does this issue go away? 

 

Asking for a friend.

[MSwiss]

No, it becomes racers yelling at marshals who don't have the soft hands like myself. LOL.

 

Chances of the IRRA eliminating the body thickness rule... very, very low.

 

Probably a better chance of us allowing a miniature hologram projector on the car.

[Samiam]

It is and has been the manufacturers/producers (not all) issue for years selling thin Lexan bodies and they need to face the consequence of having their out-of-spec approved body officially dropped by IRRA®. They have been identified, so just do it. 

 

There is no ''Law'' against making thin bodies. There is a rule against using it in an IRRA race.

 

This can be self-policed by corner marshals ''accidentally'' crushing the offending body when gently marshaling the car.

 

Let's be clear. The body maker knows he is using .010''. And the racer knows he's cheating by using it. Shame on the mess.

[MSwiss]

To be clear, the IRRA doesn't want marshals to be the arbitor of car legality.

[NJ Racer]

Sam,

Read my post again… if a previously-approved Stock Car body, for example, does not meet the current spec then it is removed from the list of approved bodies by IRRA. I did not suggest that the mfg. discontinue making and selling it, perhaps for use elsewhere.

[Samiam]

Ray,

 

A ''special batch'' apparently was pulled. These are not the approved bodies available to the masses. If the BoD wants to punish the culprit then that's their move. But these are not the production bodies that were submitted and approved. At least that is what I'm gleaning from this thread.

[NJ Racer]

What do you know about the "special batch"?

[Chubby]

You always need a tolerance, but there are bodies out there that are clearly thin at the roof, where it means the most. If people never would have messed around, we wouldn't need to measure. It's just a tool to help measure the thickness accurately, whats the problem?
 
In all honesty, do you think someone would get tossed for a thousandth? No, this is to keep everyone honest especially the manufacturers. Is it .015" minus .001"? That's fine, but I'm not looking at those bodies. You guys need to stop worrying about motors and start realizing the bodies are the problem.

How is it the best-looking man in slot cars is the only one to get it?

[Samiam]

What do you know about the "special batch"?

 

Only what I read here. I'll check Facebook and 'X' to fact-check it.

[MSwiss]

I agree with Matt concerning the roof thickness is the most important, however, since we are attaching the interior to the body, we would have to remove the interior in order to measure the roof thickness. Seems impractical to me.

 

Doc,

 

Since you posted this a few days ago, pointing out the less than ideal situation of teching your car with the interior not fully in place, I've some thought on getting around that.

 

This took me about five minutes to do with my 1/8" diameter plated wire, an old pair of $19 Harbor Freight calipers I modified 10+ years ago, to more easily measure BB fronts(the reason for that 1/4" wide brass piece) I was making and selling, and a mini torch.

 

Anyway, all one has to do to measure the roof is to punch a hole (or holes) in the interior with a common paper punch.

 

I didn't kill myself making custom ends.

 

I juat wanted to show a measuring device can be made fairly easily that doesn't require one to remove or untape one end of their interior. 

 

 

 

 

[slotcarone]

Great idea, Mike! Only a small hole in the interior required.

[Hot Slots]

.0135"
Is that body illegal?

[Eddie Fleming]

No, the new spec is .012" on the hood so I assume the roof would be the same and .008" on the sides all with no tape for added thickness.

[Jay Guard]

Brandon/Eddie:  .0135" is greater/thicker than .012" so using Eddie's assumption it would be legal.

[Danny Zona]

Brandon/Eddie:  .0135" is greater/thicker than .012" so using Eddie's assumption it would be legal.

 

Assumption is the key word since there is no roof rule.

I'm assuming a roof rule is in the works though.