1441 replies to this topic

[Mike Patterson]

Pappy,

I WOULD have a fully detailed 3D driver figure that could be seen through the clear opening. I can supply a picture if necessary. I'm just getting ready to do some painting, and would like an answer to this question simply for masking purposes.

Mike

[Noose]

Hi Mike,

Let's see if I can help you here. Let's start with a body that has no molded-in interior. The section that is not part of the window has to be completely cut out thus making the whole interior visible that way. This was done to not have just a hole for the driver's head to stick through.

On some of the bodies that have the molded-in driver, such as the Red Fox Honker, there would need to be something put across the bottom of the windscreen area to cover seeing the chassis, etc.

Does this help?

[Prof. Fate]

I WOULD have a fully detailed 3D driver figure that could be seen through the clear opening. I can supply a picture if necessary. I'm just getting ready to do some painting, and would like an answer to this question simply for masking purposes.

I would suspect that if you think about this, you might realize that this isn't in the spirit of the retro effort, unless you are talking about the driver being seen in a COUPE through a window.

Notice how elsewhere, one must cut out the wheel wells and have wheels, not a picture of a wheel behind the clear bit.

Fate

[Mike Patterson]

Noose, thank you for clearing that up. I'm not trying to cause waves, just seeking clarification. I'm sure I'll come up with some other gray area. .

[Dominator]

I understand in the Can-Am rules that the rear tires must be covered by the body. Now does this include the 1/2" wing that can be added and thus be considered covering the rear tires or was the rule intended to use the original body configuration before adding the wing?

[Tex]

Yes.





OK, enough of that. The BODY must cover all of the wheels.

[Mike Patterson]

I would still like to know if it's legal to attach the front axle uprights to the pans or nosepiece?

[Pappy]

We're still discussing it, Mike.

[Rick]

What matter where they are attached as long as you meet minimum wheel diameter and clearance? If it proves to be a distinct advantage everyone will be doing it next race... But I can't see how?

Second question, where else could you mount them? That's all that is up there for use, isn't it?

[Noose]

The BODY must cover all of the wheels.

And the tires, too. Heh, heh.

[tonyp]

Like this...

[Noose]

Thanks for the pics, Tony. As they say. they are worth more than a thousand words!

[tonyp]

No problem...

[Noose]

Just a note on the F1 and Tony and Ihave had this conversation. Per the IRRA F1 rules the front axle supports would not be deemed legal as they are wider than the chassis width. If they were a representation of scale suspension and were in accordance with the required clearance, then they would be legal.

[911GT3]

I can cite a few references in which the 917 raced prior to 1970. The 917-10 and 917-30 evolved after 1970 (Can-Am). Mark Donohue helped develop the 917-10s and 30s. However the 917 long and short tail were homologated for 1969 and raced at LeMans. None of the three cars finished that race; however, Vic Elford set the fastest lap of the of the 1969 LeMans in a Porsche 917.

Cars numbers 10, 12, and 14. Car 10 was driven by Woolfe and Linge Car 12 was driven by Elford and Attwood Car 14 was driven by Stommelen and Ahrens
The above information is from The Le Mans 24-Hours Race 1949-1973 by Christian Moity published by Chilton Book Company in 1975. pages 182 & 183.

From Fantastic Porsche by Peter Vann, page 143, "On March 12, 1969 Porsche's 'White Giant,' the 917 was unveiled." "In March 1969, production began, since 25 cars had been built for homologation." page 142. On page 75 of Porsche Racing by Laurence Meredith "When the 917 contingent arrived at Le Mans, 1969, the driver-operated aerofoils mounted on the tail caused controversy." Sutton Publishing Limited 2001.

Just thought I would throw in my two cents worth.

[gascarnut]

The 917 bodies that have been removed from the list are all 917K types from 1970 and 1971. The one 917 that remains on the list is from 1969. We are only talking coupe versions here, since all the Can-Am 917 versions came later than 1969.

[911GT3]

Yes, I agree. My point was a clarification that 917 coupes did race prior to 1970 and therefore should be legal other than for the reason that hobby shops and racers have already purchased these bodies.

Other than being a pain in the rear about the details, I am glad that the 917 coupe bodies are legal.

[Ron Hershman]

Here are the 917 Coupes that raced in 1969:
http://www.porsche91...toria1969_1.htm
and here: http://www.porsche91...toria1969_2.htm
This is what they looked like and raced in 1969.

The 1969 917 is a 1968 908 modified to fit the bigger 12 cylinder motor and lighter body work.

Here is what 1970 917s looked like, which where NEVER raced prior to the end of 1969: http://www.porsche91...toria1970_1.htm
and here: http://www.porsche91...toria1970_2.htm
and here: http://www.porsche91...toria1970_3.htm
and here: http://www.porsche91...toria1970_4.htm

This is the legal 1969 917 Porsche IRRA Retro GT Coupe slot car body:
http://www.electricd...7sh-p-4333.html

This is the 1970/71 917K Red Fox Porsche slot car body that being removed from the IRRA Retro GT Coupe class Approved Body List:
http://www.oldweirdh...nd_two/100_1129
As noted, racers WILL be allowed to use this body at the Retro Reunion Revival Race in the FLEXI class ONLY.

Are we clear yet???

[Mike Patterson]

I suppose this ruling also applies to the three JK 917s I bought, right? And while we're on the subject, what about JK's Ferrari 312? I notice there is a MAC 312 listed. Here's a photo of a JK 312:



It bears a remarkable resemblance to a photo of a 1969 312 at Laguna Seca that I saw in Road & Track. Would this body be legal?

[TSR]

Mike,

The 312P is a 1970 car, not a 1969 model.

[Tom Thumb Hobbies]

While I know better than most how much of a time-consuming and thankless job it is to serve on a rules committee (especially for slot racing) I think an important item has been overlooked by this group of dedicated people. I AM NOT trying to "stir the s&*^" here as many others (unfortunately) are already filling that role...

Has any consideration been given to the availability of the bodies on the "Approved Body List" ?

I may be hosting the IRRA Reunion race but I came into this retro racing concept later than most of you. I am still working on catching up on information and product sourcing in preparation. I can guarantee that there is no one any more excited or supportive than I for this entire concept.

My understanding is that the purpose of the IRRA is to offer a unified rule structure for large events in the hope that the "retro movement" can be grown from many small "club" type entities into a national organization that will help breathe some life back into the hobby we all love. Before I get zapped here... there is nothing wrong with club racing. Neither is there anything wrong with introducing this concept to the entire slot fraternity.

OK. How can we try to raise awareness and get racers excited about this without being able to supply needed/wanted supplies? After a glance at the body list and calls to several distributors I end up with O/S or JK bodies. Mention ED or Truescale and you get silence (sometimes followed by a chuckle). I know many of you own ED or Truescale bodies but what did you have to go through to get them? How many of your raceways can/do sell them? I order 25 to 30 at a time. Can these other companies supply that many? The ED and Truescale bodies are as nice or nicer than the others but it appears you almost need a secret decoder ring to buy them. If that is the case other bodies need to be added to the list that are easier to find for both racer and raceway. Most other rule sets include wording to the effect that product must be available from several distributors to be legal. While I am not suggesting that maybe the body criteria needs to be opened up a bit to include some bodies that are more available.

If not we may end up with an entire field of Ti22s and one or two "connected" people with the really cool bodies. (Sorry, Ron. )

[Pappy]

Mike,

You hit on one of the reasons the IRRA was started in the first place. Trying to get readily-accessible approved D3 bodies for much of the country was a problem. I wouldn't worry about stocking too many different brands, OS and JK have enough to satisfy most people.

[Noose]

I suppose this ruling also applies to the three JK 917s I bought, right?

As noted in my post, all of the 917s can run in the Flexi GT race for the Retro Reunion Revival Race.

[Cheater]

Mike,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. It certainly raises some issues that the IRRA board needs to discuss.

I don't believe any of us felt the IRRA rules would be perfect coming out of the box, but I do believe the experienced and committed parties involved in the IRRA board will continue to work together to resolve questions and issues as they arise.

Speaking for myself only, it would be useful if raceway owners would provide further detail concerning difficulties in acquiring retro bodies and other items over in the Industry forum. Most, if not all, of you should be permissioned to post in that forum. And if not, shoot me a PM.