1441 replies to this topic

[MSwiss]

The main advantage of Ron's is I can get them fairly easily.

[Hworth08]

Keith's pics from the 8/24 races at BP show a sidewinder with a TSR motor.

Just trying to head off a controversy when somebody shows up with a motor mounted 1/10 of 1 degree off parallel.

Bill,

I looked at Keith's report from the August 24th race. You may have a point. I've never used gears of that diameter or .812" tires on an anglewinder so can't comment.

Keith's report is HERE.

Edit: I can't isolate the report but the anglewinders are slides 41 to 58.

[Pappy]

Not to change the subject but, in the JK Spec rules it says Falcon 7 motors only. On the new IRRA tech sheet it says Falcon 7/D3.

Just wanted to point that out so there is no confusion at a race.

[gascarnut]

Keith's pics from the 8/24 races at BP show a sidewinder with a TSR motor.

The sidewinders shown in those pictures belong to the D3 Retro NASCAR class.

Completely different rules in a completely different series.

[tonyp]

Without cutting the motor can and magnets, with .790" tires it is impossible anyway.

[MSwiss]

I prefer it's just JK motors, especially if he is putting up prizes.

[Cheater]

Mike,

I am sure the tech sheet error is just a typo and that Noose will fix it as soon as he can.

I do know that in all our discussions, the JK Spec class was only to use Falcon 7 motors.

[Noose]

It has been fixed and the version that is downloaded from the thread should be the right one as well as the one on the IRRA Website.

 IRRATechSheet2008_2009.pdf   43.88KB   22 downloads

[Phil Irvin]

Maybe the chassis would clear .050" but the gear wouldn't. It does look like an after the race picture but most don't want the gear below the chassis...

Phil

[Hworth08]

That would depend on the rear tire diameter.

Brings up the question of whether less motor angle is worth the taller tires.

[911GT3]

How are dimensional specifications created by the IRRA Board?

It seems that the actual measurement of certain parts (wheel, tires, bodies etc.) are not the same as the dimensions on the package. I can see this as a very minor issue for F1 and Cam-Am because the racers are expected to be more experienced at building cars.

It is my understanding is that Flexi-GT and JK-Spec is for beginners. Most beginners rely on the hobby shop owner or a friend to help them get started in slot car racing. If the new slot car racer looks for a part and the package claims a certain dimension that meets the IRRA rules, they would assume it is legal. When the car is teched, the new racer finds out this part is not legal.

[Marty Stanley]

911GT3,

Excellent question. Matter of fact, I'm gonna sit right here to see how that is answered. It's been my argument all along that we do not need to have this situation. Of course, that is simply my opinion. I see you too have an opinion.

[Noose]

How are dimensional specifications created by the IRRA Board?

Most of the spec items have minimums and what is sold over the counter is actually larger. For example, rear tires typically come in .820" diameter. Allowing for wear, the min spec was set at .812". Front tires are pretty much the same thing. They come larger and get trimmed down. Odds are that if someone ran right off the shelf items such as these they would pass tech with no problem for these items.

Other areas were originally benchmarked by the various series running back in October, 2007.

[Ron Hershman]

Eric.

Can you be more specific as to the parts you are talking about?

While tires have dimensions/diameters on the packaging, please be more specific when it comes to bodies, etc.

[911GT3]

Thank you Ron and Noose. At this point, my main concern is with front wheels and tires. Specifically, Flexi-GT front wheels and tires. I have two sets from two different manubacturers that claim 5/8" diameter, however both sets are smaller than 5/8" diameter. This apears to be the accepted manufacturing standard but by the letter of the rules, these wheels are not legal.

[Pappy]

Eric,

In case you didn't notice I didn't even tech the front tires on the Flexi GTs. I can tell if they are close and if they are a few thousandths smaller I'd let you race anyway because it is not a speed advantage.

It's like the JK Spec chassis, it's a few thousandths too wide but I don't see any advantage so I let it pass.

I guess maybe I'm just too nice of a guy.

[Larry Mattingly]

'Nice guy'...

Once a Tech Nazi, always a Tech Nazi...

LM

[Noose]

The IRRA has no control over a manufacturer's quality control. The fact the package stated 5/8" and if they weren't, it would prompt me as a buyer to contact them. PM me with details.

[JerseyJohn]

In case you didn't notice I didn't even tech the front tires on the Flexi GTs.

A practical approach, Butch...

[Marty Stanley]

A practical approach, Butch...

Jersey John,

I think it is. While I've never met Pappy, I have read all of his posts here and also have heard that is one quite likable person.

I sure do hope that the IRRA board will think about this and apply this logic as well. I really do not think it is the racer's responsibility to buy something, then find out it is a few thousandths smaller than advertised and can't race because of it. At least not in the Flexi-GT class where this might happen.

Of course when you make your own tires, you are responsible for that.

If a racer buys something because that is what is said to be a requirement for a class from a manufacturer, and it is NOT legal, then I would say to hold the racer accountable, IRRA should also have a list of approved parts, similar to the list of bodies that are approved. Or just don't worry about it. If they look like 5/8" instead of 1/2", then it should be just fine.

All that needs to be done is put up a photo of a Flexi GT car on the IRRA website, similar to what appears to be a JK Spec car with a listing of where you can get all the parts. If a certain mfg has a deficiency in their product, it should not appear on this page. Just my 2¢ of commentary.

Nice job on tech, Pappy!

[Noose]

Marty,

The example given was a sound judgment on Butch's part for their local event. Examples have been provided where a package was marked as the correct size and when the item, in this case front tires, was measured, they were not correct. On the other hand someone could buy something that is the right size and in tuning reduce the size so that it is not correct. This is often the case with rear tires. Someone buys a set at .820", trims them to almost the minimum, runs them in a lot during practice and then cannot pass the tire spec.

The example on the IRRA Website was not a JK Spec car. It happens to be Warmack chassis made by tony P (for the GT Coupe Class) and was used for the example of who makes parts. The same manufacturers would be listed if it was a Flexi Car, with the exception, of course, of the frame.

[Cheater]

IRRA should also have a list of approved parts, similar to the list of bodies that are approved.

Marty, IRRA specifically does not wish to get into the business of approving parts. That approach has not worked at all well for other slot sanctioning bodies.

Our approach is, as much as possible, to define the rules via dimensions, weights, and materials. This way, manufacturers, both new and old, have an "envelope" within which to operate.

And, as Noose said, if a manufacturer labels front wheels as 5/8" inch in diameter and they're really 0.600", then the problem lies with that manufacturer, not with the IRRA rules.

If they look like 5/8" instead of 1/2", then it should be just fine.

The USRA faced this issue a few years back and IIRC, changed the spec from 5/8" (0.625") minimum diameter to 0.600". That being said, I haven't heard of any retro racer being turned away from tech at a retro race anywhere due to slightly-undersize front wheels.

[Ron Hershman]

The 5/8" O-ring fronts that are out there... some are 5/8" and some are not. Parma for example has been selling 5/8" fronts that are not and have not been exactly .625" for years now. In their case, it's more of a reference than the actual size. A quick trip to your local hardware store for some slightly larger O-rings will solve the problem. In this case, it's a problem caused by the manufacturers and not IRRA.

The IRRA does not "approve" components such as fronts. IRRA states the dimensions allowed and it's up to the racers/raceways to find/use the correct parts.

I subscribe to the "Butch" theory of teching in some cases. When I tech things like fronts for example, if I find them to be undersized a few thousandths, I will let that slide for the day, but will also inform the racer it needs to be corrected before the next race. Same goes for bodies. Look for no leeway when it comes to clearance, width, or motors from me. Some things, such as 5/8" fronts that are .025" undersized in diameter can be allowed for an event as it does not offer a performance advantage for that one event.

But if a car came through the tech line with 1/2" fronts, I would not let that slide. There is a big difference between .025" in diameter and .125" in diameter.

[Cheater]

Two things to keep in mind...

The most important factor is retro racing is to have FUN; the only "prizes" awarded in IRRA retro racing are bragging rights. And there is no points championship.

If someone can't have fun because a few racers are allowed to run with front wheels slightly below the specified 5/8" diameter, I don't think the main problem is with IRRA or with whatever manufacturers sell nominal 5/8" fronts that actually measure .under that figure.

Second, while the tech table mindset in other racing series may be to bounce racers for the smallest rules infractions, in retro racing most of us are NOT trying to find a reason to exclude a racer from participating.

In fact, just the opposite. We're trying to find reasons to let him race. We know that the experienced racers who have a decent chance of making the podium by and large show up with legal cars (Cicconi excepted... LOL!!). And that the racers who have problems complying with all the little details of the rules are almost always not the racers who are contenders for a win or a podium spot.

It's called common sense (which as we all know isn't very common these days).

IMO those who insist that they can't have fun racing retro because some other racer was allowed to run, for example, a front wheel a few thousandths under the mandated size are making winning too important. And when winning becomes too important, problems always occur. The goal is to have fun, win or lose.

If racers cannot have fun unless they win, my opinion is that those racers ought to find another hobby to occupy their leisure time.

[Cheater]

I have been reminded that a few of the retro groups using IRRA rules do have points series and prizes, so my comments above are most accurate for our SERRA series running IRRA rules.

I'll say it again: winning can become too important and if a racer cannot have fun unless he wins, slot racing is probably not the best hobby for him to pursue.