1441 replies to this topic

[Noose]

Faggetaboudit--

You will get an answer. I posed your question to the board because that is the way we work. You will have an answer tomorrow.

[Windyracer]

If you read a bit deeper you will find this rule/statement... The way the rules are, the "suspension" can be either attached to the axle or to the nose piece, not both. If the "A-arms" were attached to the axle and not to the nosepiece than they would have been legal except perhaps for an interpretation of whether they were representations of suspension, but since they are attached to both parts and are obviously intended as extra support rather than for scale realism, they are not allowed.

I'm still confused. I just re-read the Formula 1 General Specifications section and the Chassis section from the IRRA rules that I downloaded and printed last week, and I do not see the rule/ statement that you are refering to. Could you please tell me where it is?

Thanks,

[Rick]

Isn't this the place where someone chimes in with the "spirit" thang?

[Ron Hershman]

I'm still confused. I just re-read the Formula 1 General Specifications section and the Chassis section from the IRRA rules that I downloaded and printed last week, and I do not see the rule/ statement that you are refering to. Could you please tell me where it is?

Well, I am trying to find all the info, but go HERE.

Read posts one and two.

That pretty much sums up building a "Warmack" D3 type F1 car for IRRA competition.

[Rick]

In F1 General Specs®, it is very plain with zero grey area. No axle carrier is permitted outside of the 1-5/8" dimension. A pillow block type carrier outside of 1-5/8 is clearly in violation of this rule (rim shot)...

BUT depiction is like opinion, everyone has one and they all vary. So my faux suspension may differ from what you feel is legal. IMO, I think it is pretty plain as to what the intention of the chassis rules mean. ANY wire faux suspension wire attached to the axle carrier is in reality an extra brace and will add rigidity to the system.

Again IMO, Bill's axle carriers are not attached to the pans, are bent up a tad and only part of the guide tongue, but being the main support for the axle makes them taboo...

Oops, Malcom

[Ron Hershman]

Bill who???

[IRRA Retro Racing]

Question?
At what point on the chassis does the .050" clearance end? Gear side of axle bracket or motor side of axle bracket?

An answer to your question has been posted HERE.

[slotbaker]

I'm still confused.

Maybe what Windy Ken is alluding to is that all of the answers given in the multitude of posts are not being reflected in the rules as presented.

The rules should probably be updated as clarifications are given to questions.

If anyone is going to run an event, and use the rules as posted for that event, they must be complete. Otherwise you get to go over the same old discussions with every new reader of the rules.

You can't expect entrants to go searching for answers through hundreds of posts on the blog.

[Rick]

Taken directly from the Formula 1 seection of the IRRA Rule Book:

r.) All chassis parts, to include the guide flag, must be covered by the unmodified body with the following exceptions. The guide may be visible on the sides of the body when the guide is turned. The front axle tube may be visible. The rear axle tubes and front and rear axle supports may be visible within the body's axle cut-outs but cannot exceed the maximum chassis width at any point. A realistic suspension representation may be visible as allowed in paragraph k. above.

[Noose]

If anyone is going to run an event, and use the rules as posted for that event, they must be complete. Otherwise you get to go over the same old discussions with every new reader of the rules.

You can't expect entrants to go searching for answers through hundreds of posts on the blog.

We agree and answers to questions posed are usually for clarification purposes and are not new rules. We are very, very careful about that.

When the rules are updated, which is not often on purpose, they are posted not only on this blog but many others as well.

[Fast Freddie]

I don't know if this has been asked before or not, but here goes.

Is it legal to use older production brass nosepieces, i.e. a Parma Patriot (Box 15) nosepiece? Since production nose pieces (JK and Warmack) are being used in both standard and modified versions it would stand to reason that this should be OK. After all, aren't some chassis being built with older motor brackets? Tomato tomahto, potato patahto. What say the powers that be?

Thank you.

[Ron Hershman]

Yes, the Patriot nosepiece can be used in building chassis for IRRA racing.

[Fast Freddie]

Can other brass nose pieces also be used? I mean any other brass nose piece.

[Ron Hershman]

Yes, as long as it's brass.

[Krash63]

Hi,

I ran my first race in Retro East at Zeps.
I raced a Team Burrito chassis that worked great until I was a rider and walled.

But had a great time any way.

My question is: I'm building an F1 car. I took a Red Fox chassis and installed a rear mount like in the rules. Will this be a legal car?

Thanks,

[Noose]

Billy,

If you put a three-sided motor bracket in and it meets the clearance specs, it should be legal. Take a pic and send it to me or bring it to HVR Sat and let me see it, if you are coming.

[Krash63]

OK, Joe. I will bring it on Saturday.

[The Number of]

2009 Rules: Thanks to all who continue to ignore anglewinders.

[Noose]

Ah hem... read closer. The anglewinder class is being finalized.

[The Number of]

As obscure as that statement is, it could just as easily be 1/32 Retro Womp.

[JerseyJohn]

Joe, great job on the rules. Congrats to all involved.

[Noose]

As obscure as that statement is, it could just as easily be 1/32 Retro Womp.

Wow... now that could be cool. An anglewinder, too.

We are working on rules. Hang in there.

[GTPJoe]

Noose,

Remember what Jim Morrison said, "We want the world and we want it NOW!"

Nice job!!

[Noose]

Folks, please do not thank me alone. Thank the whole board. It was a joint labor of love.

[Larry Mattingly]

I'll start by saying that writing rules is not an easy job, and for the most part it is 'thankless'. You can never please all concerned.

Overall, I applaud the IRRA BoD.

From a personal viewpoint there are likes and dislikes...

I like the JK kit car class. I think it provides a perfect venue for those trying retro for the first time. If a handout motor rule is used, you can't make a more 'spec' class.

Not sure I understand the reasoning behind the GTC class rules. My guess is an attempt create a more economical class by restricting motors to Falcon's and TSR units?

NASCAR... Love the concept using 4.5" inline chassis, and .015" bodies. Can tolerate the motor restrictions. HATE the little tires, and cutting the bodies at the door line, rather than the 'cut' line.

Would have preferred the use of .850" minimum tires all around. Would have made the cars look better, and permitted racers to use worn NASCAR tires that no longer tech on other retro class cars, thus saving racers money. Also would have put the retro NASCAR class in line with the various FCR NASCAR groups, who spec .850" minimum tires.

Why allow trimming to the door line? We are not permitted to trim 'sacred-cow' Can-Am and F1 bodies past the cut lines.

I'm done venting. I'll live with it. Any NASCAR is better than no NASCAR...

LM