89 replies to this topic

[Postal]

LTO (left turn only) chassis.... are they still made today, and are they really relevant? You know, the chasis used for tri-ovals, ovals, NASCAR, where the motor was located to the far left rear of the chassis... I remember seeing them back in the '90s.

P.

[W. J. Dougherty]

To the best of my knowledge they are no longer being made... Most raceways only allow Flexi or FCR style chassis for this type of racing.

[Cap Henry]

A few were built for IRRA™ Stock Car, but the IRRA™ decided to go to strictly centered motors.

[Don Weaver]

... but the IRRA™ decided to go to strictly centered motors

... thus taking the building out of a builder's class.

Don Weaver

[Ron Hershman]

... thus taking the building out of a builder's class.

I didn't realize that a "straight motor" car didn't require any more or any less building than a LTO car does/did???

[tonyp]

LOL...

[Larry Mattingly]

The 'offset' style inline chassis really weren't any faster than the standard chassis that carries more weight bias on the left side pan.

Many builders have eliminated the right pan entirely from oval track cars...

The offset cars added some variety to to the oval cars. No worse than some of the odd-ball designs that some race in Can-Am...

LM

[Ron Hershman]

Many builders have eliminated the right pan entirely from oval track cars...

Oh... so it's still a "builder's" class???

[Rick]

Some find it fun to scratch the scab off...

[Larry Mattingly]

Oh... so it's still a "builder's" class???

Ahh... I don't believe I said that it WASN"T...

Sort of a moot point, as all Retro classes (except Flexi-GT) are 'builders' classses... No?

My point was there was no advantage in racing one... They were 'different', the same as Twistamon, Z-rail and other fad chassis... No one complains about them... Except PdL.

One of the reasons given for the ban was that 'offset' cars were never raced in the '60s. Were Twistamon and Z-rails?

LM

[Ron Hershman]

Ahh... I don't believe I said that it WASN"T...

Methinks you missed my "sarcasm" there Larry

But hey... anyone is free to use Z-rails and Twistomon rails in 4.5" Retro Stock Car. LOL.

[Larry Mattingly]

I got the sarcasm... LOL.

You and I are never going to agree on banning the offset cars, when in reality they didn't have any kind of a performance advantage. But, the rulz is the rulz...

BTW... One of my stockers uses a Twistamon chassis...

LM

[BillyBob]

Like this one? ??

[Cheater]

Hey, all you guys have to do is go HERE to know I dabbled in offset cars for several years.

From my perspective, they're a diversion, a dead-end direction, adding complication and consuming valuable time without bringing any real benefit, by the standards I personally measure such benefits. That's why I voted as I did...

YMMV.

[Mopar Rob]

Maybe R-Geo will have one after this weekend?

[Rick]

Hey, all you guys have to do is go HERE to know I dabbled in offset cars for several years.

From my perspective, they're a diversion, a dead-end direction, adding complication and consuming valuable time without bringing any real benefit, by the standards I personally measure such benefits. That's why I voted as I did...

YMMV.

...

[Larry Mattingly]

Hey, all you guys have to do is go HERE to know I dabbled in offset cars for several years.

From my perspective, they're a diversion, a dead-end direction, adding complication and consuming valuable time without bringing any real benefit, by the standards I personally measure such benefits. That's why I voted as I did...

YMMV.

Let me say up front that this is ancient history ... a dead issue.

However, I just have to comment on Greg's remark.,.

While I agree that the offset chassis offered no performance advantage, why would you ban it because it was 'time consuming' to build, and 'complicated'? Shouldn't that be the builders choice on how he wants to spend his time?

Twistamon, Z-rail, aero pans and 16-rail straight chassis are also 'complicated' and 'time consuming' to build, but no effort was made to ban them. And there is a perception to some that these designs are superior.

A bit of a contradiction in my eyes.

LM

[tonyp]

Who cares? It was two years ago.

[Larry Mattingly]

True that...

But, could not one say that a precident was set regarding the building of chassis that are 'time consuming' and 'complicated'?

LM

[Cheater]

While I agree that the offset chassis offered no performance advantage, why would you ban it because it was 'time consuming' to build, and 'complicated'? Shouldn't that be the builders choice on how he wants to spend his time?

Larry,

As an IRRA™ BoD member, one of the planks in my "platform" has been that simpler and less complicated rules increase participation. More choices and more complication always increase the time and money requirements for those who chose to explore or experiement in all allowed directions.

It's like selling tires. Never offer a potential tire buyer more than two or three tire choices for their car, because doing so confuses the buyer and makes it more difficult and troubling for many of them to make a selection.

While many worship at the altar of maximum choice, I see no evidence that taking that approach brings increased participation. And it should be clear to all by now that I consider that to be the primary objective for slot racing.

[MSwiss]

IIRC part of the reason on the BoD ruling was that the LTO chassis were using complicated brackets that were not commercially available.

Sort of the same reasoning why we got rid of the modified crown gears.

[Larry Mattingly]

As an IRRA™ BoD member, one of the planks in my "platform" has been that simpler and less complicated rules increase participation. More choices and more complication always increase the time and money requirements for those who chose to explore or experiement in all allowed directions.

It's like selling tires. Never offer a potential tire buyer more than two or three tire choices for their car, because doing so confuses the buyer and makes it more difficult and troubling for many of them to make a selection.

While many worship at the altar of maximum choice, I see no evidence that taking that approach brings increased participation. And it should be clear to all by now that I consider that to be the primary objective for slot racing.

Greg,

That is all well and fine... the same reason I had a limited menu at the concession stands at my race tracks...

I don't disagree with your analysis.

But, you are hedging on my question.

What about the complicated and time consuming chassis now being raced? Do they not also muddy the waters, and permit too many choices for the racers, thus increasing time and monetary expenditures?

You ban one chassis, but allow a myriad of time consuming to build, complicated chassis to race.

LM

[Larry Mattingly]

IIRC part of the reason on the BoD ruling was that the LTO chassis were using complicated brackets that were not commercially available.

Sort of the same reasoning why we got rid of the modified crown gears.

Mike

I would agree on requiring commercially available brackets. BTW... that is the first reasonable reason ever given for banning the offset cars. Thank you.

That said, would not a better path have been to require commercial brackets, rather than ban the entire concept?

If that would have been the case, I'm sure R-Geo would have created a bracket for those style chassis.

Lm

[Cheater]

What about the complicated and time consuming chassis now being raced? Do they not also muddy the waters, and permit too many choices for the racers, thus increasing time and monetary expenditures?

As rulesmakers, the IRRA™ defined an "envelope" for chassis construction within which we allow builders to create and innovate, as it seems obvious that this aspect of Retro is one of its major appeals for many racers and builders. You certainly could argue that the envelope was made too large, but it really boils down to a judgement call on the part of the BoD. If we had the hindsight of four and half years at the beginning, perhaps we'd have made the envelope smaller. And who knows, it might over time move in that direction.

You ban one chassis, but allow a myriad of time consuming to build, complicated chassis to race.

Please... I banned nothing. The five IRRA™ directors voted not to permit offset or LTO chassis. I've only stated the reasoning underlying my vote.

Again, it was a judgement call of the part of the BoD. And while you seem to decry that call, you also indicate that you "agree... offset chassis [offer] no performance advantage." If there's no performance advantage or other tangible benefit to IRRA™ racing, why do you feel offset/LTO chassis should have been permitted?

[Larry Mattingly]

As rulesmakers, the IRRA™ defined an "envelope" for chassis construction within which we allow builders to create and innovate, as it seems obvious that this aspect of Retro is one of its major appeals for many racers and builders. You certainly could argue that the envelope was made too large, but it really boils down to a judgement call on the part of the BoD. If we had the hindsight of four and half years at the beginning, perhaps we'd have made the envelope smaller. And who knows, it might over time move in that direction.

I can accept that logic...

Please... I banned nothing. The five IRRA™ directors voted not to permit offset or LTO chassis. I've only stated the reasoning underlying my vote.

The 'You' was in reference to the entire BoD... not one particular individual.

Again, it was a judgement call of the part of the BoD. And while you seem to decry that call, you also indicate that you "agree... offset chassis [offer] no performance advantage." If there's no performance advantage or other tangible benefit to IRRA™ racing, why do you feel offset/LTO chassis should have been permitted?

Please reread what you wrote in your first paragraph in this post... Allowing builders to create and innovate is a major appeal for many Retro racers and builders.

There is my answer... the offset chassis were innovative, creative and FUN for the racers.

The fact that offset chassis didn't offer a competitive advantage (apparently unlike some of the newer complicated chassis designs) further supports my questioning of the issue.

You asked...

I can accept it was a 'judgement' call. Hey, we all make mistakes...

LM