Jump to content




Photo

New IRRAź chassis main rail construction regulations


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 IRRAź Retro Racing

IRRAź Retro Racing

    Official Spokesman

  • IRRA National Director
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 March 2017 - 03:28 PM

Subsequent to the IRRA® chassis main rail construction clarification thread HERE, the IRRA® BoD is adding these restrictions to the IRRA® rules regarding chassis mail rail construction:
 
A legal IRRA® chassis must have a minimum number of main rails per side depending on main rail wire/tubing size used:

For .055" wire/tubing or larger, the minimum is one main rail per side
For .047" wire/tubing, the minimum is two main rails per side
For .039" wire/tubing, the minimum is three main rails per side
For .020"-.032" wire/tubing, the minimum is five mail rails per side

The smallest diameter wire/tubing in a mixed size combination rail determines the minimum number of rails required. A chassis may have more than the minimum number of main rails determined by the wire/tubing size used.

 

Edit: Rail count may reduce from mandated minimum number from front of motor to chassis front.

The axle tubes, if present, are considered part of the motor bracket.

 
As a reminder, a chassis' main rails connect the nosepiece (which carries the hole for the guide flag) to the three-sided motor bracket and supports the chassis.
 
(Posted for the IRRA® BoD by Mike Swiss)


  • Cheater, Half Fast, JerseyJohn and 11 others like this

IRRA® Board of Directors: Mike McMasters, Joe Neumeister, Tony Przybylowicz, Mike Swiss, Greg Wells





#2 The Number of

The Number of

    Checkered Flag in Hand

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 March 2017 - 04:16 PM

Thank you all for taking the time to work this out. 

 

Bill


  • Cheater, tonyp and kvanpelt like this
Bill Fulmer

The lack of any credible evidence is proof the conspiracy is working!

#3 Cap Henry

Cap Henry

    CHR Cars

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,480 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, OH

Posted 10 March 2017 - 04:21 PM

Good job, guys. Eliminated a potential judgement call for a tech director.


  • Cheater, tonyp and The Number of like this

Team PSC
Parma PSE
CHR Cars
JDR-Joe Dirt Racing


#4 Rick Moore

Rick Moore

    CMF3

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:07 PM

Oh no…

 

The picture of my 1237-Cc3 chassis here is typical of ALL seven of my current 0.032” wire framed chassis I have been using AND racing of late. There is only a single main rail on the chassis running from the rear assembly to the guide tongue mount, and it contains NINE 0.032” wires…

 

The two laterally located “buttress rails” DO NOT attach to the chassis rear assembly, so the four wires in each of them DO NOT count as “main rails”…

 

SO, if my math is correct, for a single centrally located main rail, the rule mandates a minimum of “five main rails per side” for 0.020 – 0.032” wire, or TEN pieces of 0.032” wire comprising that main rail (10 / 2 = 5)…

 

IF, this is the case, then the NINE 0.032” wire main rails all my 0.032” wire chassis (1237-Cc3, 1237-Cb3, 1238-Cc3, 1239-Cc3, 1240-Cc3, 1241-Cc3, and 1245-Cc3) currently have, giving only FOUR-AND-A-HALF wires per side (9 / 2 = 4.5), have just been made ILLEGAL per the new main rail regulation…

 

Please confirm, so I can decide if I really want to bother building any more of these… or any at all…

 

Respectfully, but regretfully,

 

Rick / CMF3

 

1237-Cc3-01ae.jpg

 

1237-Cc3-02ae.jpg



#5 MSwiss

MSwiss

    Grand Champion Poster

  • Advertiser
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,424 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:40 PM

Sorry, Rick.

 

But the Retro racing slot car populous demanded we come up with a concrete rule to prevent "cheater" main rails being installed on the new R-Geo Razzo(?) chassis.

 

Apologies that your totally unique chassis was affected by this.

 

Believe me, it was unintentional.

 

The IRRA® BOD will discuss.


Mike Swiss
 
IRRA® Components Committee Chairman
Five-time USRA National Champion (two G7, one G27, two G7 Senior)
Two-time G7 World Champion (1988, 1990)
Eight-time G7 King track single lap world record holder (pointless era - LOL) 
17B West Ogden AveWestmont, IL 60559, ( 708) 203-8003
mikeswiss86@hotmail.com (also my PayPal address) 
Note: Send all USPS packages and mail to: 5858 Chase Ave., Downers Grove, IL 60516
Make checks out to Chicagoland Woodworking, Inc.


#6 Half Fast

Half Fast

    Keeper Of Odd Knowledge

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC, Long Island

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:00 PM

Wouldn't an .047" connecting rail placed atop and between the parallel rails from the motor bracket joined to the Y-shaped rails which lead to the nose piece, make Rick's chassis legal?

 

Just thinkin'.


Bill Botjer

Faster then, wiser now


#7 usadar

usadar

    Checkered Flag in Hand

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo; Japan

Posted 11 March 2017 - 05:29 AM

Chassis question from Haruki

Although our Kamo-DIO construction has been approved legal in the above thread, I would like to make it sure it is still legal under the new main-rail ruling.

For your information, the main rails are .062" diameter.

IMG_2462.JPG

Thanks in advance,

Haruki


  • Jencar17 and CDavis7 like this
Haruki Kan
Retro Tokyo
Retro Tokyo
Retro Tokyo on Facebook
 
Where do we go from here: chaos or community?

#8 Matt Sheldon

Matt Sheldon

    Duffy HMI Executive

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Platteville, CO

Posted 11 March 2017 - 09:12 AM

In the case of a Z-rail, one of the the rails needs to be .055" and the others could be smaller? I guess what I am trying to clarify is that if one of the "main rails" needs to be the same size at the nose as it is at the motor bracket.

 

As the rule reads right now, I could make one of the rails in the Z configuration .055" and the other two .047". Or as in the Kamo-DIO above, could the 1" looking tie in piece that connects the two "main rails" be smaller than .055" if the two rails coming from the motor bracket "main rails" are larger than .055"?


Matt Sheldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


#9 gotboostedvr6

gotboostedvr6

    Checkered Flag in Hand

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: 19-July 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mt. Laurel

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:45 AM

I hope Rick's considerable chassis building efforts are not in vain due to a rule change. 


  • Joe Mig and RodneyZ like this
Thomas Jefferson: "Paper is poverty. It is only the ghost of money, and not money itself."
-David Parrotta

#10 Eddie Fleming

Eddie Fleming

    Race Leader

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 647 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, GA

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:11 AM

Thank you to the IRRA board for your efforts to clarify and make reasonable rules. It is a shame that Ricks and Haruki's chassis come into question, but in this situation it will be hard to not step on someones toes.

 

To the board Keep up the good work

 

Thank you,

 

Eddie Fleming 


  • Half Fast likes this
Eddie Fleming

#11 JerseyJohn

JerseyJohn

    Posting Leader

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,778 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern NJ

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:23 AM

The rule states " As a reminder, a chassis' main rails connect the nosepiece (which carries the hole for the guide flag) to the three-sided motor bracket and supports the chassis.

 

It does not say continuous. So i believe a Z rail, Kamo and Eddies are legal and meet the intent of the rule.


  • usadar likes this
JJ TRADE MARK BANNER copy.jpg

John Chas Molnar

"Certified Newark Wise Guy since 1984" (retired)
"Certified Tony P Chassis God since 2007"
" Internationally Know Slot Car Racing Celebrity "
https://www.facebook...yjohncreations/
Email me
 


#12 old & gray

old & gray

    On The Lead Lap

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:30 AM

In the case of a Z-rail, one of the the rails needs to be .055" and the others could be smaller? I guess what I am trying to clarify is that if one of the "main rails" needs to be the same size at the nose as it is at the motor bracket.

 

As the rule reads right now, I could make one of the rails in the Z configuration .055" and the other two .047". Or as in the Kamo-DIO above, could the 1" looking tie in piece that connects the two "main rails" be smaller than .055" if the two rails coming from the motor bracket "main rails" are larger than .055"?

 

I am not a member of the IRRA board. I have NO official standing. This is my (and only my) reading of the above addition to the rules.

 

Matt – a Z-rail frame is a single rail (per side) frame the Z-rail would need to conform along its length to this additional rule. I.e. If there is a portion of the rail which is .047" then it would need to meet the two-rail standard. A strict interpretation of the rule would require the .055" portions to also be doubled.

 

Philosophical statement – The Retro movement has taken the direction of requiring a “scratchbuilt” chassis reminiscant of the late 1960s. There is a limited effort to stuff the genie of development back into the bottle (no center hinge, hinges in only one direction, no EDM chassis kits).

 

As time has progressed builders have expanded the envelope both in carving at the edges of the restrictions and in new innovations. As new innovation and designs come forward the IRRA has created rules to address these changes. The rules by the nature of slot racing can’t be rigid or you will end with a spec design and no innovation. As this addition is written some designs are caught in the “was legal last week, but not today” trap. Rick Moore’s chassis,’ possibly the Kamo chassis (I can argue both ways), and a Tony P car from years ago which now would be considered a “no rail” design. Trying to write a rule which closes a hole is a difficult job.

 

I am not sure how the board went about making this rule. I am sure they tried to consider all the designs which could or are built, and I am very certain they are not trying to legislate existing cars out of competition. I commend them for their efforts and the work they do.


  • Eddie Fleming likes this
Bob Schlain

#13 Eddie Fleming

Eddie Fleming

    Race Leader

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 647 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, GA

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:42 AM

Chassis question from Haruki

Although our Kamo-DIO construction has been approved legal in the above thread, I would like to make it sure it is still legal under the new main-rail ruling.

For your information, the main rails are .062" diameter.

attachicon.gifIMG_2462.JPG

Thanks in advance,

Haruki

 

This one would be easy to make legal if it is not now. Just put another small length of .062" on top of the single wire going into the nose of the chassis. Two wire rails nose to motor bracket. Done.


Eddie Fleming

#14 Matt Sheldon

Matt Sheldon

    Duffy HMI Executive

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Platteville, CO

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:44 AM

The rule states " As a reminder, a chassis' main rails connect the nosepiece (which carries the hole for the guide flag) to the three-sided motor bracket and supports the chassis.

 

It does not say continuous. So i believe a Z rail, Kamo and Eddies are legal and meet the intent of the rule.

 

John - I understand it does not say continuous, what I am trying to clarify is that you still can manipulate the rule with different size wire. I guess at the end of the day it would be up to the tech director on what would support the chassis.

 

 

I am not a member of the IRRA board. I have NO official standing. This is my (and only my) reading of the above addition to the rules.

 

Matt – a Z rail frame is a single rail (per side) frame the z rail would need to conform along its length to this additional rule. I.e. If there is a portion of the rail which is .047 then it would need to meet the 2 rail standard. A strict interpretation of the rule would require the .055 portions to also be doubled.

 

Philosophical statement – The retro movement has taken the direction of requiring a “scratch built” chassis reminiscant of the late 1960’s. There is a limited effort to stuff the genie of development back into the bottle (no center hinge, hinges in only one direction, no edm chassis kits). As time has progressed builders have expanded the envelope both in carving at the edges of the restrictions and in new innovations. As new innovation and designs come forward the IRRA has created rules to address these changes. The rules by the nature of slot racing can’t be rigid or you will end with a spec design and no innovation. As this addition is written some designs are caught in the “was legal last week, but not today” trap. Rick Moore’s chassis’, possibly the Kamo chassis (I can argue both ways), and a Tony P car from years ago which now would be considered a “no rail” design. Trying to write a rule which closes a hole is a difficult job. I am not sure how the board went about making this rule. I am sure they tried to consider all the designs which could or are built, and I am very certain they are not trying to legislate existing cars out of competition. I commend them for their efforts and the work they do.

 

Bob - All my Z-rails are built with three or more wires soldered together to form the Z like rail. 

 

I have no issues with how the rules are written. There have to be guidelines and the balance between structure and creativity is the objective. Never fun when the intent is to make lemonade and we end up with a molotov cocktail.


  • Cheater likes this

Matt Sheldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


#15 Noose

Noose

    Grand Champion Poster

  • Advertiser
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,745 posts
  • Joined: 08-November 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denville, NJ

Posted 11 March 2017 - 03:00 PM

Guys I would just relax. There was no intention at all of making previously legal frames illegal.

It will be restated so racers as well as tech inspectors can understand it.


  • tonyp, The Number of, usadar and 1 other like this

Joe "Noose" Neumeister
Sometimes known as a serial despoiler of the clear purity of virgin Lexan bodies. Lexan is my canvas!
Noose Custom Painting - Since 1967
Chairman - IRRA® Body Committee - Roving IRRA® Tech Dude - "EVIL BUCKS Painter"

"Team Evil Bucks" Racer - 2016 Caribbean Retro Overall Champion
The only thing bad about Retro is admitting that you remember doing it originally.


#16 Mike Patterson

Mike Patterson

    Village Luddite™

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,873 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zanesville, OH

Posted 11 March 2017 - 09:40 PM

But the Retro racing slot car populous demanded we come up with a concrete rule to prevent "cheater" main rails being installed on the new R-Geo Razzo(?) chassis.

 

Could someone please direct me to some photos of the above-mentioned chassis?

 

And they can't be on Facebook.


We all need to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.


#17 MSwiss

MSwiss

    Grand Champion Poster

  • Advertiser
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,424 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 March 2017 - 09:50 PM

This THREAD/.
 
Post #1.

Mike Swiss
 
IRRA® Components Committee Chairman
Five-time USRA National Champion (two G7, one G27, two G7 Senior)
Two-time G7 World Champion (1988, 1990)
Eight-time G7 King track single lap world record holder (pointless era - LOL) 
17B West Ogden AveWestmont, IL 60559, ( 708) 203-8003
mikeswiss86@hotmail.com (also my PayPal address) 
Note: Send all USPS packages and mail to: 5858 Chase Ave., Downers Grove, IL 60516
Make checks out to Chicagoland Woodworking, Inc.


#18 Mike Patterson

Mike Patterson

    Village Luddite™

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,873 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zanesville, OH

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:00 PM

Thanks, Mike. I saw that, and wondered what/whose chassis it was.


We all need to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.


#19 Guillermo Suar

Guillermo Suar

    On The Lead Lap

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mount Vernon, IN

Posted 12 March 2017 - 10:50 AM

Wouldn't be just easy to say that chassis that already passed tech in any of the premier events are grandfathered?


Because light travels faster than sound, some people appear to be bright until we hear them speaking.

#20 Dominator

Dominator

    Checkered Flag in Hand

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,820 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2017 - 11:06 AM

Not a bad idea except scratchbuilts can be copied and how could we identify when it was built.
A motor is only as fast as the chassis it's in.
 
Dominic Luongo
 
NERR photos from 2012-April 2016
 
NERR photos from 2016 to now

#21 Eddie Fleming

Eddie Fleming

    Race Leader

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 647 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, GA

Posted 12 March 2017 - 11:15 AM

Wouldn't be just easy to say that chassis that already passed tech in any of the premier events are grandfathered?

Got me to
thinking ( often not a good thing) 
 
The easy thing would be to just say that chassis is not legal and cannot be made legal with anything less than cutting up the parts and using them to build a legal chassis. Then you don't need all these additional specification to be checked in tech.
  • Tim Neja likes this
Eddie Fleming

#22 MSwiss

MSwiss

    Grand Champion Poster

  • Advertiser
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,424 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2017 - 01:58 PM

Eddie,
 
Yes, the IRRA® has spent an incredible amount of time on this.
 
Before this chassis came out, and presented the first time, both here, and on FB, clearly illegal, the main rail situation was self governing.
 
There was no point in running flimsy main rails, as the car wouldn't perform.
 
The amount of time spent, trying to figure how to make it legal, as a Z-rail, was justifiable, IMO.
 
The amount of time spent, to prevent the cheater rails, Bill F., presented, in the below thread, has been absolutely insane.
 
Legal chassis?
 
Especially as you alluded to, Eddie, in your post #11, in that thread, the car Bill F was not of sound construction.
 
So what we have, is the five-member BoD, spending lots of time, including me, during my heaviest party season, and more importantly, Mike McMasters, before the biggest Retro race of the year, to prevent a car from entering, that no one, who thought they might hit something, would want to race, anyway. :wacko2: :wacko2: :wacko2:

Mike Swiss
 
IRRA® Components Committee Chairman
Five-time USRA National Champion (two G7, one G27, two G7 Senior)
Two-time G7 World Champion (1988, 1990)
Eight-time G7 King track single lap world record holder (pointless era - LOL) 
17B West Ogden AveWestmont, IL 60559, ( 708) 203-8003
mikeswiss86@hotmail.com (also my PayPal address) 
Note: Send all USPS packages and mail to: 5858 Chase Ave., Downers Grove, IL 60516
Make checks out to Chicagoland Woodworking, Inc.


#23 Cap Henry

Cap Henry

    CHR Cars

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,480 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, OH

Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:17 PM

Eddie, I understand your point, but the point of all these specifications is to know what is considered a legal chassis.

Even of the days of the pre approved kits, it was the builders responsibility to build a legal car. Nothing has changed here. Just a non traditional kit that has caused some refining of rules.

Team PSC
Parma PSE
CHR Cars
JDR-Joe Dirt Racing


#24 Rick Moore

Rick Moore

    CMF3

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa

Posted 13 March 2017 - 08:26 AM

Gentlemen,

 

I didn’t have the time Friday evening before going into work at the hospital to fully address the impact of the regulation change here. Now that it is Monday morning, and my “work week” is over, please allow me the opportunity to do so.

 

First off, thanks guys for your time, considerations, and effort for what is largely a thankless job with real lousy pay. More often than not the attempts at modifying regulations is a case of closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out… it’s just a question of how long the dang door was open, how many bovines escaped, and which ones you can keep fenced in…

 

I very much appreciate the definition of the chassis front. Makes things a whole lot clearer.

 

As a sidebar, you may want to give some consideration as to whether the “motor bracket” also includes the rear axle tube (when used), as there will be cases when some of the main rail wires attach to the rear axle tube directly but not directly to the motor bracket. Thanks in advance.

 

The whole “spirit” for scratchbuilt chassis classes has to somehow include a balance somewhere compatible to the crazed die-hard builders and the less fanatical kit assemblers. The importance of kits and manufactured chassis sections/components to the hobby is significant, as the bulk of builders will fall into this area of construction. At the same time, while keeping in the “spirit”, these kits and components have to be regulated to some extent so as not to allow the creation of a manufactured “brass flexi” class of chassis, as exampled by rules that govern the size of some chassis components.

 

I have built a lot of all-wire chassis over the years, and have gained a lot of experience now using the smaller 0.039” and 0.032” wire to construct them. Lateral loading on the chassis frame, much less vertical loading, when under running conditions becomes a matter of greater consideration as the wire being used gets smaller. One of the ways I’ve learned to address this is by using shorter spans within any given component structure for smaller wire. Another method is to use angled structures that create a stronger component. This is a large reason why you’ll notice many of my chassis have triangulated framing structures, and largely deviate from running parallel with the chassis centerline. In this way I’ve been able to build 0.039” and 0.032” wire framed chassis with minimal numbers of adjacent wires within any single structural component.

 

And thus we come to my conundrum with the stated change in the rules stated at the beginning of this thread. I started designing and building all 0.039” and 0.032” wire chassis back in early 2013, so there been a few chassis in that time. The requirement of 3x minimum per side for 0.039” wire and 5x minimum per side for 0.032” wire will in effect make thirteen of my last sixteen CanAm class designs/chassis illegal:

 

0.039”: 1229-Ca2; 1229-Cb2; 1229-Cc2; 1229-Cd2; 1233-Cc2

 

0.032”: 1229-Cc3; 1233-Cc3; 1237-Cc3; 1237-Cb3; 1238-Cc3; 1239-Cc3; 1240-Cc3; 1241-Cc3

 

Besides the example pictured in my first post in this thread, here are two more examples using the 1229’s. These are “iso-guide” chassis (actually they are “iso-guide/z-rails/FAX-rails”…), where the rail/s connecting the motor bracket to the guide mount is a separate component from the rails attaching to the chassis front wings and the front axle uprights. The forward structure of the “main rail” in the case of the 1229’s can be seen as a “Y” just forward of the mid-section static brass pans. In the first picture, the 0.039” wire framed 1229-Cb2, this is comprised of two wires per side converging into five wires forward to the guide mount. In the second picture, the 0.032” wire framed 1229-Cc3, this is comprised of three wires per side converging into seven wires.

 

1229-Cb2-01aae.jpg

 

1229-Cc301aae.jpg

 

 

Just as I would have been neglect in not thanking the BOD for their efforts in this regard, I would also have been neglect in not presenting my concerns in this matter. If it were one, or two, or three chassis… In this case the large number of chassis involved for me, when considering the designing, structural layouts, build sequencing, construction, testing and tuning, and in many cases racing, represent a significant investment in not just money, but also a heck of a lot of time… I might add effort as well, but the enjoyment I derive building these weird wire contraptions balances that out nicely.

 

It would have been much easier for me to say nothing, and just assume my chassis are so migraine-inducing no one could figure them out anyway, so they just might still get through tech, but…

 

That said, and probably as the case may be too much said, all my chassis have been constructed to meet full compliance within the rules, in wordage and in “spirit”. Inevitably when rules are adapted and applied there is always the possibility of some “collateral damage”…

 

Hopefully now the BOD, and many reading this, will have a better appreciation for the magnitude of my concern.

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick / CMF3


  • Tex, Wizard Of Iz, JHMerriman and 1 other like this

#25 IRRAź Retro Racing

IRRAź Retro Racing

    Official Spokesman

  • IRRA National Director
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:24 PM

First post in this thread has been edited to add further clarification.


IRRA® Board of Directors: Mike McMasters, Joe Neumeister, Tony Przybylowicz, Mike Swiss, Greg Wells


#26 Rick Moore

Rick Moore

    CMF3

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa

Posted 15 March 2017 - 05:40 PM

Okay. Got it. The addenda change things quite a bit. The rear axle tube being considered a part of the motor bracket is a needed clarification. The allowed decrease in the number of wires per side for the main rail forward of the “front of motor” should allow for design and structural variations in this regard. It puts my chassis back on the track, and Haruki’s too. I measured a bunch of RH’s in and out of cars, and, from what I can tell, that would mean the “Rail count may reduce…” starting about 0.99 inch (25.15 mm) forward of the motor bracket face.
 
Hopefully this will still accomplish the desired outcome for the kit, or any kits and parts, that had come into question. I’ll leave that discussion for those more familiar with that particular matter. Good luck.
 
Thanks a lot guys. I’m sure this was about as enjoyable as a stick in the eye. Now I can get back to starting that next chassis that’s been on hold…
 
Have fun!
 
Rick / CMF3


  • Wizard Of Iz and usadar like this

#27 MSwiss

MSwiss

    Grand Champion Poster

  • Advertiser
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,424 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2017 - 12:11 PM

The addenda change things quite a bit. 

 

It puts my chassis back on the track, and Haruki’s too. 
 

 

Yes.

 

It definitely puts the Kamo style, back in business, and I'll take your word, on yours.

 

The point of this was just to prevent some extremely thin/minimal, faux main rails on the Razzo, as Bill F posted.

 

Having to install substantial "railage," albeit, at least only to the front of the motor, and still have to connect said railage, albeit, minimally, somehow to the front, should convince builders it makes more sense to just make the proper Z-rail connections, with the "real" rails, making the chassis more structurally sound in the process.


  • tonyp and usadar like this

Mike Swiss
 
IRRA® Components Committee Chairman
Five-time USRA National Champion (two G7, one G27, two G7 Senior)
Two-time G7 World Champion (1988, 1990)
Eight-time G7 King track single lap world record holder (pointless era - LOL) 
17B West Ogden AveWestmont, IL 60559, ( 708) 203-8003
mikeswiss86@hotmail.com (also my PayPal address) 
Note: Send all USPS packages and mail to: 5858 Chase Ave., Downers Grove, IL 60516
Make checks out to Chicagoland Woodworking, Inc.






Electric Dreams Online Shop