1441 replies to this topic

[jimht]

No, the rules haven't changed, I just downloaded the IRRA rules...
transverse OR longitudinal, not both.
But I jumped in also to mention that the number of rule downloads is indicative of the participation...not so many, only 139!
Or maybe many of those who are participating just play without being too concerned with rules, especially irrelevant rules that aren't enforced because they don't matter...
A sloppy hinge is still a hinge, eh?

[Pappy]

Again I don't recall that. Do you have a link to this?

That's because you weren't in on making the rules, and no there is no link to it.

It seems to me if you spent as much time building a car as you do bitching about the rules you'd have a legal car built by now. You are really pissing a lot of people off.

[The Number of]

You are really pissing a lot of people off.

So he is succeding in what he is attempting to do here!

[Phil Smith]

That's because you weren't in on making the rules, and no there is no link to it.

It seems to me if you spent as much time building a car as you do bitching about the rules you'd have a legal car built by now. You are really pissing a lot of people off.

??? Well that was not my goal. I'm not sure what I did to accomplish that. I'm not bitching about the restrictions of the rules. I don't really care about that. I'm just saying the rules contradict themselves. There should be tight hinges (no slop allowed) and movement in only one direction, or loose hinges, with no movement restrictions. That's just common sense.

Either one is fine with me, so I don't see how you read me as bitching about anything, other than the contradiction in the rules, and I didn't really think I was bitching about that. I was just pointing it out.

I just ask what your sources were because I was curious. No need to go off on me just because you can't produce any. It's not a big deal to me. I don't know why it is to you.

[Phil Smith]

But I jumped in also to mention that the number of rule downloads is indicative of the participation...not so many, only 139!

That can't be right. I've downloaded them that many times myself.

Seriously, that just can't be right. I'm sure when the rules are discussed in a thread, many readers/posters probably check the rulebook. I do it all the time. I've probably looked at them 25-50 times myself... Geez... I just realized... I need help.

[slotbaker]

I have no recollection of that. Where did you read that?

Back in January;

Rob,
Loose enough to provide the intended motion, not loose enough to provide any other motion. How's that?

In this thread.

And that's the problem. It is subjective. That's why you and I have different understandings of what it is/should be. You may not agree with my interpretation, I don't agree with yours. Who's to say who's right when it's subjective?

The tech inspector.

It doesn't matter how well written the rules, regulations, laws are; there will always be some level of subjectivity. That's why we have courts, arbitration, and tech inspectors.
If you read the rules one way, and the techo reads them another, then you have the opportunity to put forward your case.
Likeways, the techo has the right to put their case forward. And so we resolve the matter, hopefully.

Why create an encyclopedia of rules, when the underlying "spirit" of retro is all that should be required.

Have fun, build cars, win a few, lose a few, have fun. It should be that simple.

[Cheater]

But I jumped in also to mention that the number of rule downloads is indicative of the participation... not so many, only 139!

The download counter gets reset every time we upload a revised version of the rules. Current version is dated 4/3/08, so the number of downloads counter shows the number since that date.

Also, Slotblog is not the only place where the IRRA rules are available. They are also on the Retro East website, for example.

So it's probably not really accurate to infer level of interest based on the IRRA rules download counter here at Slotblog.

[Phil Smith]

Back in January;

Rob,
Loose enough to provide the intended motion, not loose enough to provide any other motion. How's that?

In this thread.

Steve, that's D3. That has little/nothing to do with IRRA.

And that's the problem. It is subjective. That's why you and I have different understandings of what it is/should be. You may not agree with my interpretation, I don't agree with yours. Who's to say who's right when it's subjective?

The tech inspector.

It doesn't matter how well written the rules, regulations, laws are; there will always be some level of subjectivity. That's why we have courts, arbitration, and tech inspectors.
If you read the rules one way, and the techo reads them another, then you have the opportunity to put forward your case.
Likeways, the techo has the right to put their case forward. And so we resolve the matter, hopefully.

Why create an encyclopedia of rules, when the underlying "spirit" of retro is all that should be required.
Have fun, build cars, win a few, lose a few, have fun. It should be that simple.

Well I agree and disagree with you. Sometimes areas are inherently going to be "gray areas" that will be hard to precisely define. That I agree on. Apparently Lexan on the chassis falls into that category.

But rules that conflict with each other? I don't see any reason that scenario should exist.

But I guess judging from the lack of a response, the powers that be feel otherwise, so lets just drop it.

[Rick]

Told Ya!! LOL

Rules should be written to remove as many grey areas as possible and the writers have "been there, done that" enuf to do so.

Section F: Redundant. It's already listed as minimum clearance permitted and almost where.

Section H/General Rules: Minimum clearance .050" but it ends at the motor box. Beyond that is very grey.
a. Inherent to tech procedure and written rule. Will show you a rules conforming car
in MAY that will be deemed illegal by the powers to be, although meeting all specs.

Section I/ General Rules: Very finite, no grey area.

Contradictive rules:

1/2" spoiler permitted as maximum cord length... one bend only, sheesh

But body rules state 1-3/8" high body max and 1-3/4" maximum height inclusive of spoiler?? Making said spoiler 3/8" MAX, rule should be listed as 1-7/8" as maximum height inlcusive of spoiler, making the rules conform with one another.

Have fun...

[Noose]

Rick, this rule had two intended purposes. One to limit the spoiler height to a 1/2 inch period. The other to limit the height of the body to avoid severe raking.

And yes... it is about having fun.

[Noose]

So Dr. Phil (and others) would this help you to understand the intention of the hinge rule and its movement?

A hinge is something that controls rotation. Hinged movements are those produced by the rotation of a part around the hinge, not by the linear movement of that part within any clearance that might or might not be present in a sloppy hinge.

[slotbaker]

Steve, that's D3. That has little/nothing to do with IRRA.

D3... Correct.

"Little/nothing to do with IRRA" Hardly

IRRA developed from D3, and is broadening of the D3 regs to suit national (international?) events.

The basic fundamentals of IRRA are exactly the same as D3, and the basic cars are the same, with minor variances.

I'm sure the 'hinge' aspect of the regs are very related.

Yeah, lets just drop it. Too much time being wasted on the PC, and not in the work shop.

[Pappy]

Section F: Redundant. It's already listed as minimum clearance permitted and almost where.

I disagree, Rick. I was going to build a chassis with the main rails up higher and hang a pan below them. I would have still had a legal clearance but hanging the pans or anything else below the main rails is against the rules.

[Rick]

Rick, this rule had two intended purposes. One to limit the spoiler height to a 1/2 inch period. The other to limit the height of the body to avoid severe raking.

And yes... it is about having fun.

The rule is contradictory and redundant. 1/2 spoiler is a finite number and max rear body height with a 1/16 frontal lip solves the extreme raking problem. Since we are on the subject, cord length is exactly that, and what's the difference how many bends falls into the length? There is some tuning available with thinner spoilers with multi bends but that is against the rules.

And it's still fun, regardless of silly rules...

[Rick]

I disagree Rick. I was going to build a chassis with the main rails up higher and hang a pan below them. I would have still had a legal clearance but hanging the pans or anything else below the main rails is against the rules.

Butch,

Minimum means minimum, nothing more needs be required. What's the difference whatever is meeting that requirement, as long as it is met. So really we agree. If you build with a piece of brass at the lowest point, it would then become the main rail of you car, any wire above it would be for support or hinging or ?...

[The Number of]

Rick,

You may want to rethink any objections you have to the rules.Why? Because Butch is going to be teching your cars on May 17!

[Pablo]

And he's going to be wearing FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared Radar) goggles that are capable of spotting illegal hinge movements at a range of 50 meters.

[Rick]

LMAO Hinges will be his least of his worries...

[MarcusPHagen]

... hanging the pans or anything else below the main rails is against the rules.

I'm inclined to agree with Rick. What if someone built a "pan" chassis without any main rails? It's possible, and then the rule is irrelevant as well as redundant.

[The Number of]

... is irrelevant as well as redundant.

A perfect description of my driving abilities!

[Pappy]

And he's going to be wearing FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared Radar) goggles that are capable of spotting illegal hinge movements at a range of 50 meters.

Plus a rule book and Hershman.

But don't worry about it, Rick; I'll lend you a legal car.

[Noose]

... and what's the difference how many bends falls into the length? There is some tuning available with thinner spoilers with multi bends but that is against the rules.

Correct, it is against the rules because the rule as it was written was meant to be like it was when we ran these type of cars. This particular rule of 1 bend has been around since retro started.

[Rick]

When has two wrongs ever made a right?

[Noose]

There are not two wrongs. There are two different measurements. To the tech inspector they are what is written. FWIW I raced in the '60s during the heyday and the double bend (Gurney Flap) wasn't used until the '70s by Tony P.

[Rick]

Noose, make me work for em. Neither were shaker tubes, and your point is???