45 replies to this topic

[MSwiss]

What egregious violation of the pre-existing rules could have occurred under the COVID lock down to necessitate this rule change? The min wheel base was fine for years. As a chassis builder, do I now have to re-evaluate all of my prior builds? For what purpose?
And few people can accurately measure the center line from the front axle to the rear.
What a waste of energy and time.

 

If you missed it, please go back and read Tony's post #15. That explains it.

The racer running the 4-5/8" wheelbase was consciously running the car that long, and was hoping he wouldn't get busted on the wheels being centered in the wheel wells, which is a judgement call.

[Half Fast]

While we're at it, let's decide on a min and max weight with a tolerance of zero.

 

There already is a tolerance of zero on the minimum weight!

[CDavis7]

There was a min rule for wheelbase, just as there is a minimum weight. There's nothing to get busted for if one exceeds a minimum when there is no maximum limit.

But whatever. Chase people away just as we are hoping to return to racing.

IRRA has done a lot of great things. But I believe that you got this one wrong with an unnecessary rule change at a really bad time.

[MSwiss]

So you are saying we should of ignored/dropped the rule:

2d. The wheels shall be located in relation to the wheel arches in the body.

[CDavis7]

So you are saying we should of ignored/dropped the rule:

2d. The wheels shall be located in relation to the wheel arches in the body.

Nope. I didnt say that at all.

In fact the rules worked fine that way. A simple and quick visual check could determine if the wheels were located in relation to the wheel wells.

So just leave that rule alone.

[Jay Guard]

I still think the "nominal" concept is a bad idea and realistically uninforceable. Theoretically I could build a car with a 4-5/8" wheelbase and just cut the body wheel wells just a 1/16" larger front and rear. The wheels would appear centered in the very slightly enlarged wheel wells and since there is no actual tolerance on the wheelbase the tech inspector wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Even if he stood his ground and rejected the car there are going to be a lot of hurt feelings and we might just lose another racer. I mean just look at some of the controversy in this thread, guess how much worse it will be on race day at the tech table. I just don't see the downside to putting a tolerance (say 4.5" -0.00" +0.062") on the wheelbase and leaving the rule to have the wheels "centered" in the openings.

[Eddie Fleming]

I am for the 4.5" rule.

 

If you must set a tolerance to have a number I would say within .032.

 

On the other hand the Red Fox Charger and the O/S Ford are too short to center the wheels in the front and rear openings even on a 4.5" car. I would like for the rule to be (front wheel must be centered in the opening, and the rear opening can be cut no higher than the molded wheel opening line of the body). Or something like that.

[Matt Sheldon]

Parma has the only wheel openings that are actually positioned properly for retro Stock Car. If a rule states centering of wheelbase to wheelwells, then when using a VFC Charger, you are going to have a rule conflict as you would need to make the wheelbase shorte than 4.5" to do so. Most 4.50" Stock Cars need fudging from front to rear to get the right positioning with regards to covering the guide getting the fronts reasonable and not having the rears dragging inside the quarter panels.

 

I don't mind the 4.5" rule, but I agree with Jay that "nominal" still leaves grey areas.

[CDavis7]

Dont want to give his name. He has fixed them and will be ready for the Palooza.

He was building 4-5/8" wheelbase chassis and running with Charger bodies. The rear wheels were way out of place.

The last sentence in TonyP's post quote demonstrates that no rule change is necessary. Based on that description the legality of the car in question could already be determined under the pre-existing rule set

[Noose]

The rule for wheels in the body states:

 

2d. The wheels shall be located in relation to the wheel arches in the body.

 

It does not say centered. Most are always a tad off so the guide flag clears the body. This was the case even before the use of Red Fox guides.

 

The car in question resulting in this announcement had the rear wheels more in relation to the trunk (or boot for our European friends). I saw it personally.

 

I have mounted the VFC and Red Fox Chargers many times, with properly cut-out wheel wells, on 4.5 inch wheelbase cars and they were just fine.

 

As for bodies being off at tech, it is typically done to check thickness. It has become more of an issue as some think putting stickers on the hood to make thickness is OK. Some are playing games with the bodies to increase flexibility.

[CDavis7]

OK, I've said my peace. I understand why you're making the change, but a picture of just how out of place these wheels were in the body would be informative.

Thank you for listening to my crying.

[tonyp]

[CDavis7]

Thanks, Tony.

That's pretty extreme.

[blkdout76]

So let's be honest here, the builder of the chassis was only thinking outside the box and built a longer chassis that was, from what I heard turning some pretty damn fast times at PJ on all eight lanes.
 
So now because of that we had to have a new rule made because of his ingenuity? Nothing ever "lined up" right about Stock Car bodies anyway when you want to talk about "in relation to" once again, the pic shown above is still "in relation to" the wheel cut-outs.
 
Glad to hear Noose is finally getting on board with stickers on the hood thing; christ... that went on all last season.

[Noose]

Well, you heard wrong, Gary. I was there. Good times on two lanes. Not record setting.

There’s a lot more crap going that will stop, too.

[Jay Guard]

... There’s a lot more crap going that will stop, too.

 

 It sounds like some of the existing rules are going to be a bit more strictly enforced, kudos for that!  I hope it will put an end to the  "nearly transparent bodies" that were allowed at the Fall Brawl. I know when I looked down on some of the bodies I could practically tell what color lane it was on.

 

BTW...Still hate the "nominal" thing, I just don't see what's so difficult about a +/- tolerance.

[blkdout76]

Record setting? That SC record at PJ should have an asterisk next to it anyway as that was made with an illegal body 😉

[tonyp]

This is off topic, time to close it down.

[Bucky]

Tony, I disagree. These threads are more fun once they get off track and the squabbling picks up.

[tonyp]

It’s all fun and games until the looting starts.

[Matt Sheldon]

Crisis shopping.