89 replies to this topic

[Phil Smith]

Why did you build off-set chassis for years if they didn't offer an advantage, Greg?

Of course they are an advantage. Why wouldn't they be?

[Cheater]

The judgement call involves a balancing act between ultra-simple chassis (think FCR) and unlimited complexity (think Lee Gilbert mid-'70s anglewinder).

The evidence is pretty strong that allowing builders to create and innovate without limitations decreases participation (and not just in model car racing). So I don't find your stated "benefit" compelling.

[Larry Mattingly]

Phil,

We never found them to be an 'advantage' when we raced them in the IRRA™ Stock Car class...

Cars with straight motors went as fast by placing more weight on the left side pan.

Can't speak as to why Greg built them... perhaps because they were creative, innovative, and fun?

LM

[Larry Mattingly]

The judgement call involves a balancing act between ultra-simple chassis (think FCR) and unlimited complexity (think Lee Gilbert mid-'70s anglewinder).

The evidence is pretty strong that allowing builders to create and innovate without limitations decreases participation (and not just in model car racing). So I don't find your stated "benefit" compelling.

Does a 'balance' between simplicity and complexity also come into play regarding the current designs being employed with IRRA™ Can-Am and F1 chassis?

I know... 'judgement' call.

LM

[Cheater]

Phil,

Apples and oranges, inline vs anglewinder...

And I like to experiment with oddball approaches, like fishing line guide flags and "bottomless" cans. LOL! Those chassis were so time-consuming to construct that it was one of the big reasons I quit playing with them.

And I never won a big race with one of mine, just small local races.

[MSwiss]

Who cares? It was two years ago.

Apparently there isn't a statute of limitations on second-guessing the IRRA™ board. LOL.

[Cheater]

Does a 'balance' between simplicity and complexity also come into play regarding the current designs being employed with IRRA™ Can-Am and F1 chassis?

The BoD defined the chassis design "envelope" and if racers stay within that envelope, we can look at it two ways:

Since the chassis are within the defined envelope, we allow such chassis to be raced.

Or we can be reactive and revise the envelope on short notice to disallow the offending chassis. I'd call that the NASCAR approach, changing the rules quickly when racers get too creative and/or achieve a clear competitive advantage.

My approach would be to watch the situation over a decent timeframe before considering whether the chassis design envelope needs to be revised or reduced.

And I still have not heard or seen concrete evidence to support an opinion that the BoD's judgement call on this issue was a mistake.

[Larry Mattingly]

Apparently there isn't a statute of limitations on second-guessing the IRRA™ board.

No, Mike...

The horse has left the barn regarding the offset cars.

Just questioning why the same logic doesn't apply today to Twistamon, Z-rail, and 16-rail chassis cars. Seemed to be a legitimate question...

But, we have received the answer: 'Judgement" call...

So be it... Race on.

LM

[Larry Mattingly]

The BoD defined the chassis design "envelope" and if racers stay within that envelope, we can look at it two ways:

Since the chassis are within the defined envelope, we allow such chassis to be raced.

Or we can be reactive and revise the envelope on short notice to disallow the offending chassis. I'd call that the NASCAR approach, changing the rules quickly when racers get too creative and/or achieve a clear competitive advantage.

My approach would be to watch the situation over a decent timeframe before considering whether the chassis design envelope needs to be revised or reduced.

And I still have not heard or seen concrete evidence to support an opinion that the BoD's judgement call on this issue was a mistake.

Whatever...

Your ball, your bat, your 'judgement'...

Amen.

LM

[jimht]

I knew this discussion would happen when I saw Larry's first post and he keeps promoting more complicated as a positive...

However, the bottom line in this is not just building, which is why the name of the organization includes "Racing" instead.

Approving chassis design concepts because they're possible (like the one under discussion) obviously leads to chassis that are so specialized that they can only be used on one track and if you haven't got one you're toast...

To quote Heinlein: Specialization is for insects.

The chassis design rules are supposed to promote ease of participation. Designs like this do not promote more participation in building or racing.

[Noose]

Bingo, Jim.

[MSwiss]

As far as complexity across the board, only allowing center mounted motors is something "concrete" that can be definitively ruled on.

Z-rails, Twistamon, Aeros are all subjective on how complex they are.

Manta Ray's Sano-podiuming Z-rail is actually quite simple and probably easier to build than say a "conventional" hinged car with a bite bar.

Who becomes the minister of complexity?

How could anyone scratchbuild to subjective rules?

[BillyBob]

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.

Boy, talking about thread drift...

Mr. Stewart just asked a SIMPLE question.

I guess the answer is NO???

[Phil Smith]

Phil, We never found them to be an 'advantage' when we raced them in the IRRA™ Stock Car class... Cars with straight motors went as fast by placing more weight on the left side pan. Can't speak as to why Greg built them... perhaps because they were creative, innovative, and fun? LM

Larry, it's not like you can only do one or the other. If adding weight to the left side makes the car faster, also moving the motor to the left side would make it even faster.

Phil, Apples and oranges, inline vs anglewinder... And I like to experiment with oddball approaches, like fishing line guide flags and "bottomless" cans. LOL! Those chassis were so time-consuming to construct that it was one of the big reasons I quit playing with them. And I never won a big race with one of mine, just small local races.

I'm not following you. What's inline vs anglewinder have to do with it, Greg?

An offset-inline isn't anywhere near as hard to build as an offset-anglewinder, especially with a purpose-built motor bracket, which we all know Rick would offer if there was a market for it.

If if the offset chassis offers no performance advantage, why ban it? If some enjoy building offset chassis, why deny them their fun?

And lastly, since the class is not very popular, why not allow offset chassis and see if it regains the popularity it had when offset chassis were legal. Not saying that the ban caused the decline in Retro Stock Car popularity, but that could very well be the case.

At this point, what have you got to lose?

[Phil Smith]

Who becomes the minister of complexity?

Well, I think we all know the answer to that.

[Noose]

Phil,

Where is it not popular? Heck, ours has grown.

[Larry Mattingly]

I knew this discussion would happen when I saw Larry's first post and he keeps promoting more complicated as a positive...

Au contrair, Jim... I'm in favor of simplicity. I think the FCR concept is better than sliced bread. Torsion Retro cars would be fine with me. Really. My question was the logic of banning one concept, while permitting other complex designs.

However, the bottom line in this is not just building, which is why the name of the organization includes "Racing" instead.

Approving chassis design concepts because they're possible (like the one under discussion) obviously leads to chassis that are so specialized that they can only be used on one track and if you haven't got one you're toast...

Already happening WITH the current rules...

To quote Heinlein: Specialization is for insects.

The chassis design rules are supposed to promote ease of participation. Designs like this do not promote more participation in building or racing.

Ahh... that was my point.

[MSwiss]

Well I think we all know the answer to that.

What does that mean?

[Larry Mattingly]

Well I think we all know the answer to that.

Now, that is funny... LOL.

[Larry Mattingly]

And lastly, since the class is not very popular, why not allow offset chassis and see if it regains the popularity it had when offset chassis' were legal. Not saying that the ban caused the decline in retro stock popularity, but that could very well be the case. At this point, what have you got to lose?

Actually, the Stock Car class draws between 16-20 entries in the Penn-Ohio Retro Series...

We race on both oval and road courses, and we are now starting to see 'special' oval chassis starting to appear in the series.

But, I agree. The offset chassis weren't hurting anything, and folks enjoyed building and playing with them. I thought this was what it was all about?

LM

[MSwiss]

... and folks enjoyed building and playing with them.

How many guys actually built an offset chassis?

[Rick]

Using the above logic, should they not ban fancy concours paint schemes? They require a lot of complex masking, multiple colors and extra time?

[MSwiss]

How many guys actually built an offset chassis?

The only ones I ever recall seeing were built by Rick B, Tony P, and Matt Bruce.

[Larry Mattingly]

How many guys actually built an offset chassis?

No clue how this is relevant to the discussion...

But, off the top of my head: Rick B., Tony P., Matt Bruce, Mark Greene, the late Frank Elvasky, Brian McPherson... Maybe more?

LM

[Larry Mattingly]

Geez, Mike, now you are answering your own questions... LOL.

LM