64 replies to this topic

[MSwiss]

Except for motors, here are the rules for the upcoming Sano Shootout. The allowed motors will be listed ASAP once I do a bit of testing on both tracks.
These are also the rules for anyone participating in Chicagoland Raceway's weekly Retro/D3 style races starting Saturday, Sept 8.

We will be using East Coast rules, with the following minor exceptions (with comments):
1) No minimum rear tire width. There will be a lot of laps turned the week of the Sano. I don't want to change conditions mid-event by cleaning and respraying, so racers will have the option to tune the width of their tires if the track tightens up.
2) No weight minimum in any of the classes. I doubt you'll want to run less than 110 grams anyway and it will prevent any controversy if lead get knocked off in a wreck.
3) Minimum tire width in all classes is .225 (the narrowest dimension allowed of either coast's rules). IMHO on cars that use front wheels that touch/act as outriggers, a little wider is better or at least OK.
4) Legal F1 bodies also allowed: Red Fox Ferrari, Red Fox Cooper with canards (AKA Lotus).
5) The Red Fox F1 chassis is specifically allowed as long as a three-sided motor bracket is installed. The pan installation uses side floppies in the back along a square stop arrangement in the front that could possibly be interpreted as a plumber. This arrangement will NOT be allowed in a racer-built chassis (also IMHO nothing advantagous anyway).
6) Please see page 10 for legal GT bodies (do NOT confuse with page 8, Flexi GT bodies). Also, the Red Fox Lola will be legal. At the moment, the Red Fox K version of the Porsche 917 is not.
7) All existing built chassis that can be documented in Slotblog will be allowed to run (AKA West Coast style pan chassis). This style of chassis will not be allowed to run in Chicagoland weekly races.
8) The body list will evolve as East coast rules dictate but new additions added after Sept 15 will not be legal for the Sano.
I think the above rules allow for either Coasts cars to be legal while also allowing maximum legality of affordable and commercially-available parts.

[gascarnut]

I think the above rules allow for either Coast's cars to be legal.

The East Coast guys have just added all kinds of restrictions to their frame construction rules that would effectively eliminate some of the West Coast non-hinged designs, so if you're referring to their latest rules, then I doubt that both Coasts' cars would be legal.

[MSwiss]

Dennis read my post before I did all my edits.

Dennis, I just PM'ed you on this.

[TSR]

Thanks, Mike, that helps to figure a few things out. Bad news for us on the Left Coast is that our F1 will be at a distinct disadvantage being narrower, but those are the breaks.
I will have D3 motor samples shipped to you in just a few days for your testing.

[MSwiss]

Any early readers of this post (before Aug 27, 5:30 PM Central time), please re-read the post as it was edited at least six or seven times after that that.

[MSwiss]

Phillipe,
Thanks for your understanding. My F1 desicion was based on two facts:
1) Affordable, commercially-available parts. While the Red Fox chassis does require some modification, it starts as a very affordable piece and a lot are out there. More importantly is the availability of $18-20 fabulously-painted and detailed bodies from Red Fox. I find them, while wider, still visually more desirable than a narrow one
with a one-color spray job and six-second applied Magic Marker numbers.
2) Neither coast will have to build new cars. I think the narrow cars will actually be faster with the skinnier bodies having less drag and being lighter. On a car that uses the front tires as outriggers instead of the chassis pan, IMHO the extra 1/4" of chassis width offers no perceivable advantage.
Mike, of course, or youself can still build wide cars which I'll be happy to let him or you sell
at the race, sans any C/R commission, to wide-car aficionados. Steube Wide Chassis F1 cars, #1 and #2 sound pretty valuable to me.
Looking forward to testing the motors.

[MSwiss]

I'm very excited to see how the West Coast D3 car will perform at the Sano event.

I think with a body style that offers little or no down-force, wider offers no advantage.
I just went out and ran 14 laps with our existing Retro F1 car. My best time was 5.61.
I then ran 8 subsequent laps with the body taken off and went 5.52.

[MSwiss]

Mike,
I've had the same results, F1s being faster without the body.

I'm stoked on the opportunity to be there for the Sano. The rules sound just fine to me. My F1 an 1/8th of an inch wider won't help my brain and finger do what they're supposed to. The JK-7 motor would be cool (hint, hint LOL).

On the slight chance you're convinced,wider is better,grafting on some 1/8" square brass bar on each side would be a semi-sano "quick fix" at the race. Maybe the footage of you doing it could make the collectors cut of
the scratchbuilding video.

[TSR]

Mike, I am confident that everything will work out fine. I am looking forward to coming just to meet old friends.

[Noose]

Mike,
Thanks for the rules posting! Really appreciate all you are doing for this.

[gascarnut]

Dennis read my post before I did all my edits.
Dennis, I just PM'ed you on this.

Thanks Mike, I got the PM.

I think this is going to be a great event and I'm happy that the rules are being so well discussed and established beforehand, it means we can concentrate on having fun the whole weekend of the event.

I agree that the 1/4" difference in the F1 frames may not be a big deal and is easily solved in any case, but when it comes to the Can-Am frames, I must admit I'm still at a loss to understand why any particular frame design should be outlawed, especially for this event.

It would be good to see whether the "West Coast pan chassis" can compete with the more conventional frames, so why outlaw them for reasons that are really only valid for the East Coast local series? And it's not just pan frames that don't pass the new East Coast rules, it's anything where the rails don't reach the front of the nosepiece, or that does not have rails at all.

I don't know whether Paul Sterrett will be attending, but if he was, who would like to volunteer to tell the originator of this whole form of racing that his cars are illegal? Not me, that's for sure...

[John Gorski]

Note about F1 East and West Coast chassis. I have had the opportunity to build both wide and narrow width F1 chassis and a good West Coast F1 will compete
fine with an East Coast F1 or Red Fox if they're both set-up right. You just need
thinner, lighter bodies out West.

[Tex]

OK, I decided to ask a question first instead of getting pi$$ed. I'd like to ask Noose if this chassis would be legal by the East Coast rules?

[Noose]

Looks OK to me. Tony, any comments?

[tonyp]

Yup.

[Tex]

And while I'm at it, why not push the envelope a little more. I know the rules are set. So let me be the first to ask for an ammendment. I figure all the management can do is say "No".

Would it be possible to allow the two Lotus 40s advertised at Electric Dreams( ELEB-029 & ELEB-030)? I know, they're made of PETG. Who, in their right mind, would want to field one of those? Also, how about the True Scale Products Lotus 40 (TSR7), Lola T70 (TSR6), and the Porsche 908 coupe (TSR9)?

[gascarnut]

Looks OK to me. Tony, any comments?

Please don't think I'm taking shots at what the East Coast guys want to do in their series; that's their prerogative, and not my intention. I just don't see why that level of restriction should be applied to a race where the prime objective is having fun and the secondary one is to compare what's happening in all the various D3 programs now up and running around the country.

This frame conforms to the spirit but not the letter of what is now in the new rules, so immediately there's an interpretation issue. The fact that Noose as the East Coast Tech Supremo and rules writer has to ask for a second opinion is indicative to me of the issue.

The way I read the rules, at least one rail on each side has to reach from the motor bracket to the FRONT of the nosepiece, which this one does not.

Now, in the spirit of getting clarity for the Shootout only (what happens in Jersey stays in Jersey, right? ) can we get a ruling on which of these three would be legal?

[Noose]

The nose piece to me is the section of the front. Tex's car has the rail right up into it. Of these, the only one I find questionable is the one in the middle. Can't tell if the rails go up front in the picture.

[Noose]

Would it be possible to allow the two Lotus 40s advertised at Electric Dreams (ELEB-029 & ELEB-030)? I know, they're made of PETG. Who, in their right mind, would want to field one of those? Also, how about the True Scale Products Lotus 40 (TSR7), Lola T70 (TSR6), and the Porsche 908 Coupe (TSR9)?

The True Scale Lotus 40 and the Electric Dreams versions are truly in the spirit for the Can-Am and we will be adding them to the East Coast list. I had just received the TS one and did one for Tony. JK also has a version with the only difference being that it has a molded-in driver. I just got a sample of it and it will probably also make the updated list we will be publishing for the East Coast.

For the coupes, the True Scale Porsche 908 is on our list. I haven't received the Lola T70 yet but I am sure based on the excellent details on the other True Scale bodies, we will be adding it on the list.

Mike Swiss: your call.

[tonyp]

Mike, I honestly do not care what the rules are for the Chicago race.

I really only care about our racing. Under our rules it is not legal now simply for the reason it is beyond the building skills of the people we have racing... It is too hard for the new guy with limited Dremel skills to do.

John builds 90% of the chassis out here. If I do not build a car like this, then he doesn't have to. Simple.

I suggested everything be legal for the Chicago race a few weeks ago. I assumed everything chassis-wise would be legal for Can-Am and the only issue the motors. It is already starting to sound like the USRA.

I don't understand why anyone gives a crap about our rules and needs to criticize them. We don't say a thing about the West Coast rules. Never have...

If we come to LA, we know what the rules are and will play by them.

[Tex]

Looks OK to me. Tony, any comments?

I'm gratified to hear that but, in my limited understanding of language beyond the realm of Texas, it doesn't seem to meet this specification (hence, why I asked the question):

"Center section must have at least one continuous rail on each side soldered to and extending from the motor bracket to the front of the nose piece."

My rails don't extend to the "front of the nose piece". Don't get me wrong, I don't want you to now say "Well, what do you want me to do, declare it illegal? OK, it's illegal!". And I'm not trying to bust your b@lls over this; I just didn't want to show up at Chicagoland and be declared illegal.

I apologize if I'm opening a Pandora's Box by asking this question. I'm not trying to foment dissention among the ranks, just give us all a best chance of showing up with legal chassis.