76 replies to this topic

[Ron Hershman]

Greg,

They're gonna tell ya "that's the way the glorious inlines were run in '66-69".

[TSR]

Ron,
You have a problem with that? 8)

[jimht]

Besides, everyone knows alloy chassis with pillow blocks & no motor brackets were developed for WingThings & totally unheard of with inlines in the Sixties.
Not counting this, of course:
http://www.vsrnonlin...ic/67Cat_p2.jpg
Yup, corralling a herd of cats is best done after they're road kill, not that rules, racers or officials would be akin to a herd or road kill.

[TSR]

It is more challenging to design all the required functionality, and be constrained by the "period" construction/fabrication limitations, than to blindly copy the historical chassis templates, which didn't work that well at best.

No one has been doing anything like that so far, but now that you mention it, maybe there is some merit to it . . .
So if I get this well, the "limitation" of a motor bracket and a "solid, straight front axle" is hampering your creative genius up there in liberal territories?
Becoozz down here and seen the variety of designs in all the races so far, one no longer wonders why racing has been so much fun lately.
Of course, it all depends on the meaning of the word "fun". 8)

Oh well, never mind. May be a call to the Vitter? :mrgreen:

[Ron Hershman]

Ron,
You have a problem with that? 8)

Nope . . . no problem at all . . . just repeating what I have seen and read here time and time again. 8)

[TSR]

Good boy. 8)

[Ron Hershman]

Besides, everyone knows alloy chassis with pillow blocks & no motor brackets were developed for WingThings & totally unheard of with inlines in the Sixties.
Not counting this, of course:
http://www.vsrnonlin...ynamic/67Cat_pg

Hmmmmmmmmm, maybe a brass and wire built chassis with a "lightweight" aluminum one-piece aluminum rear motor bracket and uprights could be the hot ticket in La La Land??? Just like could have been built in the '60s. 8)

[TSR]

I agree, but this is not what DIII is all about.
Once you figure out why the raceway owner is really happy because there are more entries at every race, there will be no more questions.

Also, I must repeat again that no one is FORCED to race DIII, so if someone does not like the Retro Can-Am and F1 rules, that person has the option of racing in another DIII discipline such as the Retro NASCAR or Retro Pro, or not to race in DIII at all. 8)
It's a free country so far.

[jimht]

Good point, Bill.
Someone must have thought actually requiring a droparm would add the complexity of too many hinged movements.
And then those devilish scratchbuilders would certainly find a way to use another hinge to make the chassis handle better.

Greg, is there a difference between a herd of cats & a covey of scratchbuilders?

Ron, we'll see how far this all goes when the few wannabe players left in commercial Raceways realise the only way they can play is to build and they're not allowed to build without soldering.
You know it's always different on the left coast.
It's fun for some, but a little too focused to appeal to the masses. :twisted:

[TSR]

Good luck to you too, GK. So that you clearly understand, any discussion about DIII rules is futile because they will not change unless warranted. And right now, I do not think that the guy in charge wants to change anything, because it is working so far rather well. So it is YOUR option to either participate, or not.

. . . we'll see how far this all goes when the few wannabe players left in commercial Raceways realise the only way they can play is to build and they're not allowed to build without soldering.

No one said that you had to solder the bits together, what's wrong with glue? . . .
And drop arms are allowed if you fancy one.

[scooooter7]

My suggestion is to allow best possible execution of working chassis dynamics, within the constraint of the materials and fabrication techniques of "the day".

Low CG, required stiffness and chassis motion, and other modern performance dynamics, may be achieved using "old school" brass and piano wire, regardless of the development history of the feature. Motor bracket/no motor bracket: potato/potaato.

Would we be here today, if we just decided to copy everyone else, and the folks like Mr. Steube, et. al., didn't try to do things a bit differently?

By the way, not quite sure I understand your point about cats, rules, etc. . . .

Then we should also get rid of the .050 clearance rules, and maybe the non-allowance of exotic materials like unobtanium or whatever, and then we could put C cans in them and . . . and . . ., well you get it.

Like they keep telling us, the rules are the rules. If we want something else, then just race something else. The idea is to keep it simple and have fun while you're at it. What a novel idea!

[TSR]

Scoooter is one who has got the picture to a "T"! :clap:

[Cheater]

"Mr. France,

I really think you're going about this NASCAR rules thing all wrong. I mean, you still require such antiquated features like carburetors, for god's sake. And ABS, traction control, and computerized engine management systems are all still taboo, according to NASCAR rules. In case you haven't noticed, this is the 21st century, at least the last time I checked. Isn't it about time NASCAR made things easier for the drivers by bringing modern race car technology into the series? Don't you find it a little silly to be requiring equipment that is much less sophisicated than what is found on the cheapest production cars sold today?"

Think such a letter would get much consideration at NASCAR HQ in Daytona? I don't . . .

Not to pick on you, Greg, but I have to say that I am getting a little weary of everyone pecking away and carping at the parts of the Div III rule set they disagree with and/or don't like. The never-ending second-guessing of the DIII rules is sure getting tiresome to me, and I don't even race the silly things!

It's probably going to make some people unhappy when I say this, but if you can't stand the rules, don't race in the Div III series. If you insist that the rules are so bad and/or onerous, then stop bitching and start your own racing series with rules that you do like.

Of course, that's the historical course of slot racing: a significant percentage of slot racers seem absolutely incapable of compromising their desires for the greater good of a series or of the hobby itself. They seem bound and determined to fragment the small universe of competitive slot racers into smaller and small parts until no group can sustain its "customized" racing activities at any level.

The continual sniping at the Div III rules, and the refusal of many to swallow their egos, to submerge their personal perferences, and to get on the bandwagon in unqualified support of this series, only makes it that much harder for Div III racing to grow and prosper (though it is doing well in spite of the nay-sayers). The controversies that continue to swirl around the DIII rules like a bunch of gnats on a hot summer day mirror the kind of junk the USRA itself has had to endure for what seems like decades.

Thankfully, what Div III does have going for it is a hard-working Gang of Four (sorry, Dennis!) which seems to understand and accept that no rule set is EVER going to make everyone happy. And the widely-divergent and insistent stances about what is wrong with Div III illustrate again that giving everyone a vote on rule questions and changes is a recipe for disaster, if the current situation with the national USRA isn't evidence enough.

To all of you who find the Div III rules so terrible and so unfair, is it not possible for you to come to grips with the fact that the rules are not under your control or influence? Is it not possible for you to come to the understanding that Div III is one of the rare positive influences in 1/24 slot racing at the present time and that your cheerful and uncomplaining participation will very likely bring future benefits to you and to the hobby you enjoy?

A very wise man made this comment a few years ago, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." He was speaking quite literally but the sentiment has great application to the Div III arena.

[jimht]

Doc,
I want to see Rick's bottomless jig for gluing chassis together before I'll go for that one.

I said require droparms, Making them optional might have been a mistake. If the silly things were required, the creative juices would certainly flow nefariously.
The definition of a hinge is...? :twisted:

Wonder why there's so much discussion about a set of restrictive rules aimed at attracting racers that don't like rules? :wall:

[TSR]

So there!

[TSR]

Hi, Greg,
It will be a pleasure to see anyone from Up-North. Check with Al Chuck, Fred Hood, and Dave Larsen if there is any possibility of grouping your travel together to lower costs.
Whatever you need, please ask me and I will see what we can do to help.

The calendar until May has been posted already, please click HERE!

[TSR]

Wonder why there's so much discussion about a set of restrictive rules aimed at attracting racers that don't like rules?

I think that they might be all sado-masochists, I guess . . . :mrgreen:
That, or their wives beat them to a pulp and DIII feels so much better? 8)