1441 replies to this topic

[Noose]

Hey Russ... ya think?

[MSwiss]

Phil,

"...all hinged movements must be oriented in only one direction."
Orientation is in reference to the hinge installation, not the produced movement. Movements is a (plural) noun.

Feel free to use that in the "Dallas Phil Remix".

[Phil Smith]

Phil,
"all hinged movements must be oriented in only one direction"
Orientation is in reference to the hinge installation,not the produced movement.
Feel free to use that in the "Dallas Phil Remix".

Well Mike, I hate to spoil all the fun you're having at my expense, but I think you're dead wrong. The rule would read:

"all hinges must be oriented in only one direction" if what you say is true. Not:

"all hinged movements must be oriented in only one direction"

Noose, clarification please.

PS: I'd love for you to be right Mike (and I think Russ would too). I just don't think you are.

[MSwiss]

Hinged movements is a (plural)noun.

[Phil Smith]

Man, I don't know. It seems to me the rule addresses the movement created by the hinge, not the hinge itself.

[Noose]

Dr. Webster (since you don't like Dr. Phil), no clarification needed. A hinge is attached so stuff moves in the intended direction. Hinges are used so they all move in the intended direction. The use of the word hinges was used in the plural sense since these points of attachments are usually in multiples. The orientation of said hinges must all be the same.

Now. this will be our last statement on this Phil. Frankly, it's been beat to death enough. The rule is not going to be changed.

So what's next on your hit list? God I hope it's with ISRA or the USRA.

[Rick]

Noose, I hate Dr. Phil. That was cold!

Tight hinges produce "hinge rotation" only movement. By default, sloppy hinges are going to produce movement other than rotational. I just don't see how the inherent multi directional movement of sloppy hinges doesn't create a huge contradiction in the current rules.

It seems to me: The IRRA says sloppy hinges are legal. But because of the single direction movement rule, no car that has sloppy hinges should pass tech - if the car is teched properly. No cars! EVER!

It floors me that the IRRA ignores this discrepancy in the rules. Noose is the only member that's bothered to even address it, and I can't say that even Joe seems too interested.

Why is this? And why does this obvious discrepancy in the rules need to exist in the first place? Why not just rewrite one of the rules so it's in step with the other? I just don't get it.

This is an easy one, The hinges may be oriented in one plane, not two. Sloppy hinges are still oriented in that single plane therefore legal reguardless of sloppiness at the hinge point. Problem solved.move on to next debate. LOL

Phil use the loose wire in the bigger hole. But if the tech director takes the car and pulls the hinge to its limit, you may be over max width and deemed illegal to race the car. You are filling the hole in with the dirt from the next hole and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on...................

[Rick]

If you want to use the full 1/2" height spoiler, you can't run the rear of the body at the maximum permitted 1-3/4" rear height.

If you want to run the rear of the body at the legal maximum height, you can't run a full-height spoiler, i.e. the spoiler can only be 3/8" in height.

What's contradictive about that?

Rules state maximum rear body height 1-3/8" high, and over total body height 1-3/4" high, inclusive of the spoiler.

In body B: spoilers are permitted to a maximum of 1/2". Making total when adding min body height and max spoiler hieght, should read 1-7/8" but says 1-3/4"

I have never seen a written rule that gives with the left hand and taketh away with the right for the same body. Just seems odd to me. But that explains why almost every spoiler at the R4 had to be trimmed 1/8", as most racers used the two figures as min and max.

[Cheater]

Rick,

Yeah, it may be a little different than the way most rules are written, but it was not determined haphazardly or arbitrarily.

I wasn't paying full attention to the debate when it was going on, but IIRC Noose mounted and measured every body IRRA allows. There were reasons why the spoiler rule ended up this way. And only after mucho discussion between the IRRA board members and other experienced racers.

[Noose]

Correct, I did mount and measure almost all of them. The rule was intended to be separate measurements.

[Rick]

The pictures I view from the eastern series ALL show a full 1/2 spoiler on them.

ANDDDDDddddddddd the IRRA has the sharpest racers and most creative racers (minds) a board could ask for. THAT is why I find some of the rules so surprisingly, redundant, confusing, and contradictive. You guys have been there.

There is something that does not meet the eye working here...

Second thought, I appreciate all the hard work in determining the rule(s) but you know that racers will use the maximum and minimum number in every case. With all this R&D being done, why then did it not just state a 3/8" maximum spoiler height? Would have made things much easier and lot less scissor useage...

And besides is so much fun to stroke ole Noose from time to time...

[MSwiss]

What's so confusing about this? Not all IRRA legal bodies are 1-3/8" tall.

I'm looking at one of Ray's Ferrari 612s. It's only about 1-3/16" tall so even with a 1/2" spoiler, it's no where near the max.

The intent was to keep 3/4" spoilers off of the lower-cut bodies (which would be allowed if the rule was written just as a total height).

[Rick]

That's real easy with a 1/2 " max spoiler rule. You are not making it make any more sense. But nice try...

PS: Both dimensions are self-policing, you guys out-thought yourselves on this one.

[MSwiss]

The intent was to encourage a variety of bodies.

Without a max overall height to go along with a max spoiler height, everyone would just
run the tallest body they could along with the 1/2" spoiler.

[Pappy]

It was written this way because spoilers are optional not mandatory. Run a higher body and a lower spoiler or run a lower body and a higher spoiler. But you can't run both. Or run no spoiler at all like some do.

[Rick]

The intent was to encourage a variety of bodies.

Without a max overall height to go along with a max spoiler height, everyone would just
run the tallest body they could along with the 1/2" spoiler.

That proved to be very successful from the field at the R4, LMAO. Count the Ti22s... Count the others.

Game on!

[Phil Smith]

Dr. Webster (since you don't like Dr. Phil), no clarification needed. A hinge is attached so stuff moves in the intended direction. Hinges are used so they all move in the intended direction. The use of the word hinges was used in the plural sense since these points of attachments are usually in multiples. The orientation of said hinges must all be the same.

Now. this will be our last statement on this Phil. Frankly, it's been beat to death enough. The rule is not going to be changed.

Noose, thank you for the response. I don't understand it (I must be the biggest retard ever!), but thank you anyway. Oh, and I really wasn't trying to get any particular rule changed, I was just hoping the two hinge rules that seem to contradict each would be resolved. Turns out the problem all along is I'm F'ing retarded!

You know, someone could have pointed that out earlier and saved me all of this embarrassment.

So what's next on your hit list? God I hope it's with ISRA or the USRA.

I think I'll stick to harassing the IRRA. You guys are more tolerant of retards like me.

[Phil Smith]

This is an easy one, The hinges may be oriented in one plane, not two. Sloppy hinges are still oriented in that single plane therefore legal reguardless of sloppiness at the hinge point. Problem solved.move on to next debate. LOL

Well, that's how you and Mike read it, Rick. The word "movement" is what's throwing me. Vague is in vogue it seems, so clear answers are not going to be offered. Bad news for a retard like me!

Phil use the loose wire in the bigger hole. But if the tech director takes the car and pulls the hinge to its limit, you may be over max width and deemed illegal to race the car.

I already thought about that. You just have to make sure your pans are not wider than 3 1/8" in their most extended state.

You are filling the hole in with the dirt from the next hole and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on...

LOL! I'm good at that, aren't I...

[Rick]

Phil,

Bro, there are so many better holes in the system than a sloppy hinge, if you just look...

[Noose]

Rick,

At the R4 the biggest offense at tech was rear clearance as guys tried to run a larger spur gear with the minimum tires. As far the bodies were concerned, I can only think of one was that sent back for the Can-Am for excessive body height. A couple of guys were a hair over in the spoiler height. As for the TI22s being dominant... hmm... perhaps but a Ferrari won the Can-Am.

I do recall having to fail someone at tech though for stapling a spoiler on his F1.

The bottom line is the rules are what they are. We are not just going to randomly change them on a whim. If guys want to spend hours finding every possible loophole, that's wonderful. I think I would rather spend the time racing, painting and building... oh yeah... and having some fun.

[Rick]

It's not important any longer...

[Phil Smith]

Bro, there are so many better holes in the system than a sloppy hinge, if you just look...

Rick, I wasn't trying to exploit loop holes. No one seems to understand that I'm truly just trying to understand the rules. I have no ulterior motives. Frankly, everyone getting pissed at me for simply trying to understand - what to me - are conflicting rules, is a bit unfair, and a bit frustrating for me.

I still don't see how you can have sloppy hinges AND adhere to the hinge MOVEMENT rule. All chassis with sloppy hinges should be illegal. And no one seems to be able/willing to explain this in plain, simple terms that even an idiot like me can understand.

But it's no big deal. Time to move on to something else. Now about those body height rules...

PS: I've raced a lot of different classes over the years and NEVER had a disagreement with the rules, or a problem understanding the rules. I've never had a car that didn't pass tech. So don't think carping about the rules is a habit of mine. Believe it or not, until Retro, I was a "rules-friendly" person.

[Prof. Fate]

Hi,

Phil, we went through this same discussion in the early NCC/USRA days over the meaning of the single hinge in Group 15 frames.

And everyone is right, including you.

With floppies, most people just don't build well enough to have zero fore/aft movement. With plumbers, even with TIGHT hinges, there will be some side to side and up and down movement through flex at the hinge itself, and most people cannot built tight enough to have no movement.

Even better, and I think this was my complaint, ALL chassis move around in four dimensions even if they have NO hinges. All flex, have movement, fore and aft, side to side, cross frame and, of course, through time.

Some defined it as "hinge points". But if we rigidly see it as any movement, all frames are illegal less they were reinforced, somehow, with carbon fiber to be totally rigid!

Fate

[team burrito]

Some defined it as "hinge points". But if we rigidly see it as any movement, all frames are illegal less they were reinforced, somehow, with carbon fiber to be totally rigid!

Use duct tape, it's easier.

[Noose]

Click... make that 1,002 uses for it!