43 replies to this topic

[Noose]

East Meets West and visa versa.

Over the last few months, Keith Tanaka, Paul Sterret, Tony P, myself and yes even Mike Steube have been working to fine tune the R&C Jail Door rules. They are finished and we have them here for you. There are no major changes. They are just reformatted and some clarity given in some areas. There are pics of the good and the evil too!

You may have also noticed that this post is in a new section here on SlotBlog dedicated to Jail Door activity. We thought it would be good to have a section just for them so thanks Cheater!

The rules do contain the approved bodies allowed. We will start a thread here when others are approved for use to keep you informed.

Enjoy!


See below for the latest rule set and also check the IRRA Website soon for them.

[Tex]

I know it's a small detail, BUT...

My one and only Jail Door chassis uses a period Dynamic guide, 1/8" post with screw-on braid. The rules say the drop arm MUST use a 7/32" tube to hold the guide flag. Maybe you could add the word "maximum" to that tubing dimension(?).

[Noose]

Ya'll want to be skinny ey? Seem OK to me. I'll let others chime in but I see no problem with that.

[Keith Tanaka]

Ya'll want to be skinny ey? Seem OK to me. I'll let others chime in but I see no problem with that.

Tex, I agree with Noose.

Keith

[SlotDragJoe]

Thanks for the rules Noose and the rest of the crew. Been looking for guidelines to go bye.

[Hworth08]

Hey Tex,

No problem using an 1/8th inch flag! Just solder a couple 1/8th by 3/16ths oilites inside 7/32nds tubing.

For some reason a few folks have used 1/8th inch flags.

[Mopar Rob]

OK where does one post questions about the legality of builds?

Someone posted that they thought these guide flag stops might be ileagal? I didn't see anyting in the specifically in the rules, but it does say 3/4"? But in the F1 rules it shows a picture of a chassis exactly doing the same thing? In addition many of the JD cars run at BP are built the same way. See Keith Tanaka's Photos for some other examples

Not looking for an imediate response just want to know someone is working on it.

 

 

 

[Duffy]

OK where does one post questions about the legality of builds?

All right, this is all MY fault.

A couple guys out here in Knee Jerk State are building JD frames, at least one of 'em off models I supplied, and there's been some discussion about this guide-stop thing. The most recent modification I was aware of--and if it''s been officially abridged, I missed any announcement to that effect-- was from the March '10 Rules, Sec. 3G, (line 5 in SC, line 7 in GP): "A single piece of B/B is allowed to bend out around guide to act as a stop as shown in the picture above."

Now, first, said picture appears only in the GP Rule, and that shows an upside-down U-shape crossing the drop arm with its ends extending down to limit guide travel--but that pic contradicts the one above it, showing a "Rabbit Ears" limiter of one rod per side.
In the Sports Car Rule, no photo accompanies the identical text.

With these specifics in mind and no current revisions superceding as far as I could tell, I mentioned to Rob earlier this evening that there might be a pertinent ruling he should be aware of; especially since he's building chassis for someone else here.

A quick perusal (I wasn't too careful, it wasn't my issue at the time) of the current D3 website gave me a different page from what I had downloaded & saved in March. This is what I had alerted Rob to. If there have been abridgments or consolidations of the rules, the current version will certainly be honored and I will store the most-current version in my computer.

My intent was to remind all involved to do their homework.

Duffy

[Noose]

If you read the rule in both the JD GP and Sports cars it states the one piece can be wrapped "around the drop arm / guide". When you look at the pics, they show this as a U type form soldered on top. Totally different from this. Rob's is OK by me and Keith Tanaka can chime in here, too.

As a side note, there is a rule clarification that will be posted tomorrow but it has nothing to do with this.

Nice job, Rob.

[Duffy]

If you read the rule in both the JD GP and Sports cars it states the one piece can be wrapped "around the drop arm / guide"

Did read the rules, still needed fine-tuning *per 03/10 and current, and per conflicting pix). Done now. Rule-writing's HARD. That's why I don't do it!

Rob's is OK by me and Keith Tanaka can chime in here too.

Good to know, once Keith et.al confirm - I just cut my "rabbit ears" off my GP car and patched the U-stop in, to suit! but this is pretty inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, ONCE it's been made clear for all.

Duffy

[Keith Tanaka]

If you read the rule in both the JD GP and Sports cars it states the one piece can be wrapped "around the drop arm / guide". When you look at the pics, they show this as a U type form soldered on top. Totally different from this. Rob's is OK by me and Keith Tanaka can chime in here too.

As a side note, they is a rule clarification that will be posted tomorrow but it has nothing to do with this.

Nice job Rob.

Noose, I agree with your post. If you look at most of the JD sports cars built by racers at BP, many of them have two rails (of the drop arm) extend forward on each side to act as a stop on each side of the guide flag.
The rule addresses a "single piece" of B/B (as shown in the rules) to be used strictly as a guide stop. We didn't want builders to go beyond the 3/4" max. drop arm width other than the single piece guide stop as shown in the rules. In other words, those chassis which use the existing drop arm rail(s) as a guide stop are ok as long as the drop arm width (except for the portion which acts as the guide stop) does not exceed the 3/4" max.
Of course the rule does not limit the number of drop arm rails used as a guide stop, but I see no reason to use more than two rails per each side as a guide stop. This racing class was never intended to be another creative design racing class.
It's interesting to note that the actual cars raced in 1966 did not have guide stops. Terry Schmid's F1 car which he used to win the final race of the series was the only car appearing in the 6 Rod and Custom race reports with a guide stop. He simply extended the outer rail of the drop arm on each side to act as the guide stop. It wasn't until the 2nd Car Model race of 1967 where the guide stops became common.


Keith

[Noose]

The Jail Door rules have been reviewed and there were some errors found and some clarifications needed. There are no major changes. We found some things were in one set and not the other, etc. The most important clarification is the wording regarding the proper spacing between rails in the JD Sports Car Rules. The changes are shown in RED.

Here are the latest versions. I am going to delete the ones shown above. Also, as a courtesy, these rules will also be posted on the IRRA Website in their own section so there is another quick place to get them. They are not official IRRA classes but they sure are retro!

 R&CJailDoorGrandPrixRules2010Rev-1-Final.pdf   467.86KB   282 downloads

 R&CJDSportsCarsRules2010-Rev-1FINAL.pdf   754.45KB   311 downloads

[Noose]

JD GP rules update:

The powers that be have agreed the front and rear track width for Jail Door GP cars is now officially 3.0 inches (vs the 2.75 inches that they were). I am sure anyone racing these little gems will see how much better they work at this width.

[Joe Mig]

Joe,
Can you please tell me if this rule stands in JD GP car as well ?
I would think so but i don't see it.
90 degree “L” brace shown at
left is not allowed. “L” brace
must be “perpendicular” as
shown in example above.


If so there are some illegal cars out there .

[slotcarone]

Joe I think it is illegal when it is at an angle like that.

[Duffy]

Well, part of the "Spirit" of JD relies on generating a style and type based on what was current practice, as documented in a kinda-limited way.

Just as the wording in the rules concerning guide stops was set aside in post #11 above, this query regarding bracket braces would seem to fall into what appears in the examples pictured (and in this I acknowledge Keith's statement that JD is independent of IRRA and D3, which implies that "If it ain't spelled out it ain't allowed" may be more relaxed here)--and there's a clear picture of perpendicular bracing in the GP rules and yes, NO TEXT regarding the limits.

What I'm wondering is, what's the difference, or what's the big deal. which boils down to: assuming a perpendicular brace is allowed, you're still dealing with a chassis limited to 1.33" width; meaning, you're transferring the bracket load over a pow'ful small horizontal span. --AND if you're limited to that cramped space, soldering the innermost rail to the sides of the bracket accomplishes about the same thing, dunnit? The "big deal" part applies to the non-perpendicular angle: by angling these braces, are you really stretching your forces out over enough area to show a result? You're just not gonna gain anything, when you're jamming rods together there at the back.

What amazes me is, we're carping about what miniscule bits are & aren't kosher in a car we're apparently already reluctant to accept from the start!

I mean, everybody's on equally-rough ground running their tippy cars at 2.75" width, so we increase to 3"--which'll make guys happier, right? Cool--

--'Cept, we still can't have any shakey panels in JD--well, what's the harm, it'll make 'em easier to drive and that's a good thing, okay by you? And listen, we'd go a lot better if we could have hypoid brackets. They look almost the same.

And--oh! I know! 1/16" rods side-by-side look almost like solid sheet, so why not allow sheet instead of stacked rails? --To make it more convenient for the builder, it'll encourage more scratchbuilding. Especially since sheet would make it easier to do shakey sidepans.

-Oh, and I hear there're these wider bodies available...all in the interest of "easier to drive," y'know.

I'm still trying to stack everything inside a Lotus 25. What do I know?

Duffy

[Joe Mig]

Just as the wording in the rules concerning guide stops was set aside in post #11 above, this query regarding bracket braces would seem to fall into what appears in the examples pictured (and in this I acknowledge Keith's statement that JD is independent of IRRA and D3, which implies that "If it ain't spelled out it ain't allowed" may be more relaxed here)--and there's a clear picture of perpendicular bracing in the GP rules and yes, NO TEXT regarding the limits.

What I'm wondering is, what's the difference, or what's the big deal. which boils down to: assuming a perpendicular brace is allowed, you're still dealing with a chassis limited to 1.33" width; meaning, you're transferring the bracket load over a pow'ful small horizontal span. --AND if you're limited to that cramped space, soldering the innermost rail to the sides of the bracket accomplishes about the same thing, dunnit? The "big deal" part applies to the non-perpendicular angle: by angling these braces, are you really stretching your forces out over enough area to show a result? You're just not gonna gain anything, when you're jamming rods together there at the back.

Duffy

Well when you build a car following the rules and the other guy that does not even build his car and has someone else build it then there is a problem.
If you look at the picture you could see it adds strength across the rails and if you add it next to the rails it just helps support the bracket.

[Noose]

Joe, I say it is not allowed. I will confer with Tony P and Keith but the same type of rule applies.

Now Duffy, how's that sausage stuffing coming?

[tonyp]

Not legal. The reason the brace has to be perpendicular is so people do not use the brace to strengthen, stiffen or brace the chassis by running it forward at a real shallow angle. Specing it at 90 degrees simply makes everything easier. remember the 4 people who wrote the rules based on the cars we love and wanted to keep the technology of the chassis at the 1966 level and allow no leeway for it to accelerate like retro and d3 has. Its all good. Don't look for any performance enhancing rules changes in the future or ever. but rest assured any loop holes will be closed and any technology not as we remember being used will be covered as stuff you can't do.

[slotcarone]

Not legal and really just a 5 minute fix to make it legal.

[Rick]

Everyone is retro should be forced to drive one of those for 3 minutes, every once in a while...

[slotcarone]

Rick the JD sports cars drive awesome and are actually very fun to drive. They can be pushed hard when they are working right. At the Port Jeff summer retro race I had Ed Sohl and John Gorski driving mine and they were having a blast seeing who could turn the fastest laps. I had to grab the controller to get the car back!!!! Too bad we weren't racing JD that day!!

[redbackspyder]

Why ? Should everyone be forced to hit themself over the head with a hammer ? YOU WILL BE FORCED TO RACE THESE MISERABLE PILES AND YOU WILL HAVE FUN

[Rick]

No Mill, so they can go back to their Retro car and say what a good car they have.

The hammer is Plan B.................

[Joe Mig]

JD GP rules update:

The powers that be have agreed the front and rear track width for Jail Door GP cars is now officially 3.0 inches (vs the 2.75 inches that they were). I am sure anyone racing these little gems will see how much better they work at this width.

So is this an oxymoron ?

remember the 4 people who wrote the rules based on the cars we love and wanted to keep the technology of the chassis at the 1966 level and allow no leeway for it to accelerate like retro and d3 has. Its all good. Don't look for any performance enhancing rules changes in the future or ever. but rest assured any loop holes will be closed and any technology not as we remember being used will be covered as stuff you can't do.

I'm just saying .....