1441 replies to this topic

[DOCinCanton]

Thats the thing. He hardly ever races, but puts up a big stink about the rules. He might have raced at the last venture of GRRR to Melbourne in Stock cars.

[Bill from NH]

But he's building up his post count here.

 

Someone send Bob the Car Model Team Russkit F1 build article from '77. That car is/was legal.

[Gator Bob]

Thats the thing. He hardly ever races, but puts up a big stink about the rules. He might have raced at the last venture of GRRR to Melbourne in Stock cars.

 

This is true.

 

I'm only going to be racing LTO Stock Cars at tracks within 100 miles until my Pro Slots are all burned up.

 

I am not buying into or buying any FK motors. Even if the price was 90 cents, that's the way it is.

My Can-Am/Coupe cars are parked, the PD motors for them are not competitive and nether is my driving ability to be in the A Main every race.

 

I never wanted an F1, I like fenders... The only reason to build an F1/Indy is to support the 500 race that you and Tony are putting on. Thus the rule questions.

 

When I build some thing which might not be all that much, I build it the best way possible way I can.

 

So... is the fact of asking a question to the BoD on how to build the best possible car... "putting up a stink"... then I guess it is. 

You can look at it any way you want to.

[Gator Bob]

Bob, I take your two comments above personally insulting. Concerning tech inspectors: Marty, Tony and Grant have been teching cars in GRRR for 4 years in a very consistant manner. We have not had any issues, with the rules or their application. Then you come along. Maybe it would be best for you to stay home on May 24.

 

You got thin skin.

 

Let me explain... The ' tilted, put another quarter in' was to Ray's post.

Mike told me to ask you what's legal so I did. 

 

If I speak to or ask the BoD questions, make comments or make suggestions to them (or other people) you get personally insulted. How does that happen? 

 

Show me where it says that Marty, Tony or Grant are inconsistent or incompetent tech inspectors. I was talking business experience, not slot cars, not about Doc.

 

If you don't want me to race in the 500 I'm OK with that.

You will need to be more clear and concise like "Don't show up at my race Bob"...  'maybe it would be best' although it sounds nice and polite, like talking to a coworker or my wife but not amongst us boys.

[Gator Bob]

Anytime you want to sit down and write a better set That covers all the nonsense points you bring up feel free to do it.  Ill be glad to proof them If I live long enough for you to finish them covering every possible point that could ever be possibly brought up. 

 

The point is it's not my rule book, if what was pointed out make sense leave it, if it is nonsense take it out.

If adding detail such as A-arms is impossible, unexplainable and no one ever did it then why is it even in there?

 

I guess I'm proofreading yours.

[DOCinCanton]

In reviewing the rules on body availbility, are the body manufacturers reviewed on the availibilty of their bodies via the normal distribution system?

 

Case in point:  I have not been able to get O/S bodies for some time now. A shortage at the distributors is effecting what is at the local slot car shops and, in turn, effects my Retro racing program, as well as, my flexi MySeries program.

 

I apologize if this matter is a "can of worms."

[stemmy]

Never had any problems with ERI and Outisight bodies.

 

I don't know why you would be having this problem but I would suggest trying other body manufacturers. Parma makes nice bodies.

[MSwiss]

In reviewing the rules on body availbility, are the body manufacturers reviewed on the availibilty of their bodies via the normal distribution system? 

 

No, we don't.

Like Blair posted, use something available.

IMO there isn't any one body from any one body company that's performance can't be matched by a competing company that does ship product regularly.

[Cheater]

Never had any problems with ERI and Outisight bodies.

Blair,

FWI ERI printed a statement a few months back in the company newsletter that is sent to their raceway customers that there was a supply problem with some O/S bodies. And another distributor verbally indicated the same thing to me.

So Doc's issue is not unknown in the trade, as they say.

[kvanpelt]

When something is good and in demand...

 

You must stock up!

[Gator Bob]

In reviewing the rules on body availbility, are the body manufacturers reviewed on the availibilty of their bodies via the normal distribution system?

 

Case in point:  I have not been able to get O/S bodies for some time now. A shortage at the distributors is effecting what is at the local slot car shops and, in turn, effects my Retro racing program, as well as, my flexi MySeries program.

 

I apologize if this matter is a "can of worms".

 

Doc,

 

Ron sells direct on eBay or maybe your dealer could order direct. 

 

When something is good and in demand...

 

You must stock up!

 

And... that's the point where it may become obsolete.

[DOCinCanton]

Bob, I poised my question to the BoD, not you. Stay out of this conversation.

[Gator Bob]

Question for the BoD.
 
Is there any consideration to allow the use of the 4002-BB in the Stock Car class?

[MSwiss]

No.

[Gator Bob]

Mike,

Thanks for the quick reply <sarc on> and taking the time to explain why this is not a good idea to build up the class and support series racers by having a place to run the costly but near obsolete PD motor.
 
Question for the BoD:

Does IRRA^® have a preference to be a one-motor series across all classes?
 
Note: The board will probably consider this a challenge to their authority, I consider it healthy debate.

[Noose]

Bob, no we don't.

[slotbaker]

Hi all,

 

Not sure if this has been discussed before or not. I did a quick search, but couldn't find if it, if it has.

 

A query has been raised down here regarding Can-Am Specs & Rules, C. Chassis - 3i.

 

So, a query for the BoD.

 

"3i. Wire or tubing rails must connect the front

and rear sections of the chassis. Using metal

strip for this purpose is not permitted. A rail is

defined as that which connects the motor

bracket to the front of the chassis."

 

Is there any right/wrong way to "connect" the rails to the front and rear sections?

 

For example, can the rails be connected at either or both ends via a hinge?

I know the norm is for them to be soldered, but is it mandatory for them to be soldered?

 

Edit: Also, is there a minimum dia that the rails can be?

 

[Noose]

Some rails need to be soldered, both front and rear.

 

No min diameter for the rails.

[slotbaker]

[tonyp]

Basically there has to be one rail each side soldered solid to the bracket and nosepiece.

 

A good way to "kind of check" is to imagine everything removed from the chassis less the two "main" rails. At this point will the center section support itself and could it be run that way.

[usadar]

I have found the following close about the front body reinforcement for Can-Am Plus:

 

"Body reinforcing material may be fitted under the

body and attached with clear tape and/or

staples. No reinforcing material may be visible

from the top of the body except as illustrated

here."

 

Is this close is just for diaplane-like front body reinforcement?

Is it legal to put clear body armor around pin-holes of the sides of body from outside?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Harki

[Noose]

Is this close is just for diaplane-like front body reinforcement?

 

No diaplanes allowed but you can reinforce the front as noted but it can't be seen from above.

Is it legal to put clear body armor around pin-holes of the sides of body from outside?

 

Yes, you can.

 

 

[usadar]

Is this close is just for diaplane-like front body reinforcement?

No diaplanes allowed but you can reinforce the front as noted but it can't be seen from above.

Is it legal to put clear body armor around pin-holes of the sides of body from outside?
 
Yes, you can.

Thanks a lot, Joe-san.
 
Haruki

[Matt Bruce]

Being the Retro Hawk motor seems to be THE motor of choice nowadays, and is legal in all classes, how about throwing the Puppy Dog a bone and allowing it to be legal in the Stock car class? Better brakes for one and give us another avenue to use them and mess around perhaps. I would say for Coupes too, just to allow it, not that anyone would run one. But if it isn't a Coupe handout race then what would be the harm?

[JerseyJohn]

Being the Retro Hawk motor seems to be THE motor of choice nowadays, and is legal in all classes, how about throwing the Puppy Dog a bone and allowing it to be legal in the Stock car class? Better brakes for one and give us another avenue to use them and mess around perhaps. I would say for Coupes too, just to allow it, not that anyone would run one. But if it isn't a Coupe handout race then what would be the harm?

I have 4 of my best looking for use Matt ... A tier 2 option isnt a bad Idea .. I like the stock car ....