22 replies to this topic

[usadar]

At THIS TOPIC by MG Brown, I have found a photo of iHobby Expo 2011, describing Parma exhibition of Mac replicas of Lola T160, Ti 22, and Ferrari 612.

This could be a good sign of growing popularity of Retro racing.

Is there some more information about these bodies?

As for Parma's T163, I have asked about its D3 legality, I have got some more information.

The real car of this body (T163) raced in St. Jovite and Watkins Glen, driven by Chuck Parsons, in1969.

The car was numbered 10 with Simoniz sponsorship.

From its photos, it has front and rear spoilers like the Parma's body, whose nose and rear looks longer than T160.

These pictures are in Brooklands Books' "Can-Am Racing 1966-1969" (p.124 & P.130).





Haruki

[911GT3]

Without starting another thread drift, I remember IRRA™ approved the new Parma bodies. Hopefully, the D3 Board can chime in with their decision.

[The Bugman]

Haruki-san;

Having lunch (at Imperial Burger) in between SCRRA races yesterday, there were three D3 board members with us, and their consensus (unofficial ya know) was that it might be legal soon in D3, but it is legal in SCRRA now!

[usadar]

Hi, Oscar,

Thanks a lot for your information.

I leave the matter of the Lola T163 issue to the D3 board 100%.
If the body is D3 legal, the T163 will become one of my choice.
If not, I will just forget about the T163 for the coming Check Point Cup.
I would use such bodies as Lola T160 and Ti22( True Scale, Electric Dreams, Out Sight, or maybe PARMA, if it is approved)

Basically speaking, I am satisfied with the present D3 regulations.
I prefer the 1-3/8 inch wide F-1s.
If there is a need for more clarification or additional explanation, or changes, minor or major, of the present regulations, it is all right with me as long as the D3 Board discuss & decide, then make it clear to the public.
The same is true about additional approved bodies, chassis materials and other parts and equipments.

IRRA is organized very well and I respect their retro racing activities.
If I have a chance to race in their program, I will build and race cars according to their regulations.

If I race at a SCRRA race, I will do the same thing.

When I race at the Check Point Cup, I will follow the D3 regulations

Now the Great Race is coming soon, I hope the D3 board will announce any changes of their regulations as soon as possible.

I am not against the idea of a single organization & set of rules governing Retro Racing.

If it happens, It wold be very nice.

Good Racing,

Haruki

[Ramcatlarry]

I saw them in the Parma booth and spoke to 'da Boss Mike McDowall. They are vintage molds and should be legal if submitted and approved. Any 'sidedams' on these shells are similar to the Ti22 cars and present on the original cars.

[TSR]

Haruki,
Other than for race procedures, it is likely that for the Checkpoint Cup, there will be no changes in the D3 regulations, and that no new bodies will be added to those included in the current listing, this so as not to throw a wrench in the work of racers who have been or are preparing for the event.

If the Parma Lola T163 is approved, it may be also likely limited in how much spoiler can be added to the back as the Board is currently reviewing a maximum car height as already practiced by IRRA.

The Parma "Lola T163" is not a vintage mold, it is an altered version of a vintage mold: it is simply the pattern of the M.A.C. T160 with an added 1/2" of spoiler on the back, added front canards and the side oil cooler removed. Adding another 1/2" to the back might just be pushing the ball too far, hence the discussed height limit. This might one and for all stop the current "escalation" in getting around the existing rules in search of a better mousetrap.

The limit currently being discussed might just be enough to run the body as it is with no addition of material.

Again, the Board will make the final decisions of any and all changes in plenty of time so that no one gets caught at the last minute. I am sure that by November 15th, everything will be set in stone.
Best regards,

[Tex]

Soooo.... in your opinion, the Parma Lola creates more downforce sans 1/2" spoiler than the Ti22's sans 1/2" spoilers? I ask that since only the Parma Lola is potentially going to have it's spoiler trimmed and not the Ti22's also(?).

[TSR]

Richard, no idea.
Parma obviously made the decision to produce a body that could circumvent certain rules about added spoilers. As far as I can see, all they did to it is to... build the spoiler right into it.
Which could be a nice benefit as it saves weight up there...

And what they did matters little. Their body looks very nice and is of the usual Parma excellent quality, the best as far as I see in all retro racing bodies available out there.

The D3 Board will consider the body and likely will approve it, but as I suggested, will likely set a maximum car height (for ALL the cars) so as to avoid a body technological escalation.
All D3 is interested is in making sure that retro racing does not degenerate in something that it was not supposed to be.
Every time that someone tries to push the envelope, an added line in the rules might be needed. It is the nature of the beast.

[usadar]

I saw them in the Parma booth and spoke to 'da Boss Mike McDowall. They are vintage molds and should be legal if submitted and approved. Any 'sidedams' on these shells are similar to the Ti22 cars and present on the original cars.

Larry,
Thanks a lot for your information. Looking forward to seeing Parma's new Mac replicas.

Haruki,
Other than for race procedures, it is likely that for the Checkpoint Cup, there will be no changes in the D3 regulations, and that no new bodies will be added to those included in the current listing, this so as not to throw a wrench in the work of racers who have been or are preparing for the event.

If the Parma Lola T163 is approved, it may be also likely limited in how much spoiler can be added to the back as the Board is currently reviewing a maximum car height as already practiced by IRRA.

The Parma "Lola T163" is not a vintage mold, it is an altered version of a vintage mold: it is simply the pattern of the M.A.C. T160 with an added 1/2" of spoiler on the back, added front canards and the side oil cooler removed. Adding another 1/2" to the back might just be pushing the ball too far, hence the discussed height limit. This might one and for all stop the current "escalation" in getting around the existing rules in search of a better mousetrap.

The limit currently being discussed might just be enough to run the body as it is with no addition of material.

Again, the Board will make the final decisions of any and all changes in plenty of time so that no one gets caught at the last minute. I am sure that by November 15th, everything will be set in stone.
Best regards,

Philippe,
I appreciate the D3 board is discussing my question about Parma's T163.
IMO, if its extended front and rear is not like those of the real car, just for creating more down-force for slot car racing, D3 should not approve that body.
Otherwise, D3 should approve all other aerodynamically enhanced slot bodies.
The real T163 driven by Chuck Parsons seems to me from the photos had extended front and rear, compared with the real T160, but I am not quite sure,
I leave this matter to the D3 board.

Good Racing,

Haruki

[JimF]

FWIW............

I have been testing the Parma Lola with various spoiler heights for some time. When I finally approved it for Nor Cal Retro, I did so with the caveat of a 1/4" limit to any add on spolier. This seems to be about equal in handling characteristics to the True Scale Ti-22 long. It does seem to cover the chassis better on longer frames b/c the Ti-22 long, has sort of a long nose but a short tail. For a more conventional 4" X 1" car, the Ti-22 seems to be a little better.

IAC.....I have had them in my box for some time but have only chosen to race it once so it does not appear to be any kind of a game changer but it is a nice addition for certain applications.

[TSR]

Issue resolved.

[Noose]

I found no difference with the Lola T163 with a 1/2 inch spoiler compared to the O/S Ti22, JK Ti22, or Kirby Ti22 BECAUSE all bodies were at the maximum allowed height of 1.375". Also, for the Lola it had to retain at least 1/16" of the grill in the front. When mounted to those requirements it had no advantage over any other body.

This was done on the same car, too.

[TSR]

Since it is the same old body with added stuff, it makes perfect sense and this is why D3 approved it after it was submitted.

[The Bugman]

Way to go, D3-BoD. You're definitely taking steps in the right direction.

[draggon]

I have driven all three of them. The Lola was decent, but had a tendency to wash out in the corners. The TI-22 has great downforce, and is a good all around body, easy handling and quite forgiving, With additional aero devices it is fantastic. However, the absollute best is the Ferrari, hands down. It has close to TI-22 down force with substantially reduced drag. I ran a group 12 with several bodies, and the low HP of group 12 accentuated the different bodies attributes. The Ferrari was the undisputed winner. It was number one qualifier and winner 90% of the time. Nothing else came close.

[Jim Webb]

A little help, please. The Ferrari 612, discussed here and shown on the IRRA approved bodies list as part #1142, shows up at Parma/PSE as 1142B, a Ferrari 312P. Are these the same bodies?

Thanks!
Jim

[Mopar Rob]

The A & B after the number at Parma is for the lexan thickness. I believe the B is .010"? I also believe Parma only has one Ferrari body so it should be the same? Not sure if I answered what you're asking?

[Noose]

Yes.

[Jim Webb]

Many thanks, Rob and Joe. Rob, the confusion was not over a and/or b, it was over 612 vs. 312. IRRA calls it a 612, Parma calls it a 312. In several articles on the 1:1 versions of these two cars, the 612 is referred to as the 312's bigger brother. The articles also mention the 612 was underfunded - the team has two motors, one fast and unreliable and the other slow and unreliable. In any case, even when the faster motor was behaving, the car didn't have the horses to keep up with the competition. (and the 712 was born?)

Blah blah blah. I just wanted to know if the 612 (part 1142 and nicely painted by Noose on the IRRA site) is what I'll get when when I ask Swiss to order it for me - even though Part 1142 shows up as a 312 - not a 612 - on Parma's site.

Jim

[Mopar Rob]

Jim:

It's a beautiful pull, I have one myself that I picked up at Rogers a couple weeks ago. I'm not sure if I'll ever use it, since there's probably better performing bodies. Then again I have a collection of clear bodies that I've picked up over the years because I thought they looked cool

[Ron Hershman]

I just wanted to know if the 612 (part 1142 and nicely painted by Noose on the IRRA site) is what I'll get when when I ask Swiss to order it for me - even though Part 1142 shows up as a 312 - not a 612 - on Parma's site.

You will get what Noose has painted, but clear. The body is really not representative of either a 312 or 612 Ferrari. The 312 had a "scoop" over the injector stacks and no air "scoops" in the doors. Not Parma's fault... they didn't carve it back in the day.

Here is what a 312 Ferrari looks like http://www.sportscar...files/312P.html

http://www.imca-slot...Ferrari312P.htm

The 612 should have injector stacks sticking up and out of the body to represent a 612.

[Jim Webb]

"You will get what Noose has painted, but clear."

Wait ... what? The $6.99 doesn't include a custom paint job by Noose? Sheesh!

Seriously, thanks for the clarification/confirmation. Thanks, too, for the additional information.

Jim

[Jim Webb]

Hi Rob:

"...there's probably better performing bodies"

Glenn Asher, several posts up, seems to have had some success with this body. I'm not much of a driver, so experimenting to get a tenth here or there keeps me (mostly) out of last place.