DRAFT Updated Retro Regulations (incl RETRO PRO)

[SlotBaker]

The history behind the change was that originally the only wheels available were the Alpha hubs and cars were built to 3.125" as per the regulations at the time. Further down the track JK hubs became available and these were wider than the Alpha hubs which meant that some cars were now too wide when shod with JK hubs (this was the case where the construction involved an axle tube carrying the bearings out to the limit for a 3.125" build with Alpha tires). Rather than forcing drivers (some who may not have the requisite skill) to modify their cars it was a matter of pragmatism to increase the rear track width to 3.189" (81mm) to accommodate JK hubs.

Going forward I personally feel that we should reel it back in to 3.125" - being the same width as the chassis - I have been looking carefully at chassis and note that most are now carrying the bearings in the U bracket and the axle tube has by and large been dispensed with and so reducing the rear track to 3.125" is not an issue as it means reducing the amount of spacers only.

I agree.
I don't believe the width should not have changed in the first place.
When the wider JK hubs came on the scene, there is no reason why they could not have been narrowed (on either side) to comply with the regs. It is also not difficult to narrow existing chassis over the bearings. So new chassis do not have to be built.

[Mark Fox]

Here are the updated DRAFT regulations to date.

Darryl raised the issue of rear track width - 81mm (3.089") or 3.125" - any thoughts on this - please read my and Darryl's comments before you jump in on this - thanks.

One other issue that was raised by Darryl is the min diameter of front wheels for CanAm/Coupes. As it stands now at 0.750" it is a very tight fit under many approved bodies and an impossible fit under some others. We were discussing this at the recent HSC round of racing when Jame's produced some JK fronts of 0.680" diameter which would be perfect as far as fitting goes. The use of these wheels would lower the centre of mass of the front axle by 0.035" of course but I don't think that it would be an advantage of any significance over an existing car set up with the currently legal size of 0.750". Sooooo - the question is: -

"is there any opinion either for or against allowing a change to the min diameter of the fronts on CanAm and Coupes to be reduced to say 0.675"?

In the meantime have a look at these and let the comments and suggestions flow freely.

1-Retro Draft as Posted V.2 - P1 (1).jpg (250.92 KiB) Viewed 16434 times

2-Retro Draft as Posted V.2 - P2.jpg (244.12 KiB) Viewed 16434 times

3-Retro Draft as Posted V.2 - P3.jpg (153.98 KiB) Viewed 16434 times

4-Retro Draft as Posted V.2 - P4.jpg (198.4 KiB) Viewed 16434 times

[dtslot]

Hi all, Good work Mark, I would like to see the can-am ,coupe return to the 3.125 overall width, but what does every one else think?
Also the can-am fronts being 0.675'' min I think is a good idea, no a great idea, got my vote!
Hey James, do you have anymore of those 0.680'' fronts?
thanks Darryl.

[Mark Fox]

Thanks Darryl,

In fact those tasty fronts from HSC are about 0.695" in diameter but they are perfect for fitting under the bods we have.

On the Retro Pro side of things I have started to design my first one but we will need some bods for these ASAP to go forward.

Checking on the SCRRA race results for these they all use the Porsche 917-30 body (as the TI22 is dominant in CanAm) but I don't know who makes these or where they are obtained from.

Hopefully we get a little more feedback on the Draft Regs but in my mind they are very close to what is required.

I still have a little 'wordsmithing' to clean up a little of the language and we will need to agree on a body list etc (should be straight forward).

[neiljb]

Does the slow down in posting mean we are agreed?

I do have a couple of comments

- I think the minimum weight for the body will make tech time a little fussy. Do we submit the car 'undressed' weigh the body, fit the body and then weigh the complete car. It's not a maker or breaker. Just a bit of a pain. 100g overall, great, weigh the car once.
- i would like to see a minimum period of rules stability. Eg no changes for 24 months

On the question of bodies. My suggestion would be to run whatever is approved in the US. The less changes overseas drivers have to make, the more likely they will turn up.

Mark made the suggestion of a rules committee, I suggest a committee of one - Fox! !

[SlotBaker]

The rules look ok and workable.

It doesn't really matter too much what rules we have, as long as we all respect and abide by them.

I hope tech. at each race will prove that to be the case.

[brady]

Yeah Mark,go with the smaller fronts.Its a good idea. .On the subject of width,it really doesnt matter that much as long as its the same for everybody.BRAD

[stoo23]

Gee,.. I wonder How the Yanks and Japs manage to fit those Huge Fronts under the Same bodies we use,.. yet apparently,.. We Can't !!??

I am Not keen on the New Windscreen Rule either.

Is it somehow Too difficult to 'mask' the windscreen area on a Can Am body, yet easy to 'mask' on a Coupe ??
I'm not sure I understand the reasons behind the suggested change.

[Mark Fox]

Thanks to you all who have posted comments and suggestions.

I will now address your comments as follows: -

- I think the minimum weight for the body will make tech time a little fussy. Do we submit the car 'undressed' weigh the body, fit the body and then weigh the complete car. It's not a maker or breaker. Just a bit of a pain. 100g overall, great, weigh the car once.

The weight rule is just to make it easier at tech.

Previous rules said that: -
"All approved Can-Am bodies are listed in the “Approved Body Lists” section. All bodies must be representative of pre-1970 cars. Note: It is requested, in keeping with the spirit of retro racing, that bodies not be any less than .007” thick on the sides. Any body found to be flimsy or a detriment to marshaling will need to be corrected by the racer.Tape or body armor may be used to achieve the desired side thickness."

The issue is that it is difficult to measure the thickness of the sides and also the thickness will in all likelihood vary at points in any event. The body would also need to be removed to make the measurement. This rule has not been enforced and there has been a few bodies running around which lamentably fail the rule requirements.

A min weight for the body is easy to measure and the scrutineer would need to have the body off the car to check this. I also believe that to adequately ensure that the car is legal the chassis would need to be viewed with the body off in any event.

As to who takes the body off etc will need to be covered by a series of Procedural Rules as distinct from the Technical Rules we are discussing here.

On the question of bodies. My suggestion would be to run whatever is approved in the US. The less changes overseas drivers have to make, the more likely they will turn up.

Totally agree on this however there are two main bodies in the US - SCRRA and IRRA who have different body lists. I suggest that we allow bodies from either list. After all does it really matter when everybody is going to run a TI22 anyway?

Mark made the suggestion of a rules committee, I suggest a committee of one - Fox!

Fantastic idea - totally agree

Gee,.. I wonder How the Yanks and Japs manage to fit those Huge Fronts under the Same bodies we use,.. yet apparently,.. We Can't !!??

That's easy - they don't as they all run TI22s.

However; after giving the matter some thought and fielding feed-back; I think we should stick to the 0.750" ruling for the following reasons: -
- there has not been much enthusiasm for the idea
- some racers will feel disadvantaged if their cars have the larger wheels
- the existing Chassis Kits available have provision for the 0.750" wheels

I am Not keen on the New Windscreen Rule either.
Is it somehow Too difficult to 'mask' the windscreen area on a Can-Am body, yet easy to 'mask' on a Coupe ??
I'm not sure I understand the reasons behind the suggested change.

I don't think anything has changed here - all I have done is clarify what is currently covered by the existing rules and what is happening in practice.

The current rules state: -
"To further clarify this regulation, all bodies must be fully opaque on all sides except for those areas deemed to be windows. Windows may be tinted."

Thus the rule states that the body needs to be opaque (will not transmit light) except for windows - its hair splitting I know but this does not say that the windows need be clear! The rule then goes further by saying that the windows may be tinted i.e. more transparent than opaque - again this is not saying that the windows must be clear - just that they don't need to be opaque!

As many Can-Am cars are presented with the windows opaque (here and the US) all I have done is clarify the situation - don't really think that it's a performance issue either way.

Regarding the Coupes - they are not mentioned in the current rules - they need the windows clear or tinted so that the little, 3D and minimum 3 coloured driver can see where he is going.

The rules look ok and workable.
It doesn't really matter too much what rules we have, as long as we all respect and abide by them.

I hope tech. at each race will prove that to be the case.

I could not agree more,

I think we are pretty much there if I'm not mistaken and I will soon post a link to a PDF file that you may download.

Going forward we will need to: -

(1) Agree a body list - hands up for a combined SCRRA and IRRA list.
(2) Develop a set of Procedural Rules to cover how the racing is to be run and the required behavior of drivers etc.

I will start drafting these soon.

Please keep the comment coming.

[dtslot]

Hand is up, for the combined body list,and am happy with clarifications and points on tires etc .Good work Mark, nice and simple
Darryl

[SlotBaker]

Hand is up for the combined body list.

As far as point #2, good idea as to how each class could be run, but track owner should have final say in the behaviour of drivers and marshals.
Really, nothing should need to be written about behaviour, if we are all there to have fun, and demonstrate common decency to each other.
But, I suppose, there will always be one dickhead that needs it written.

[neiljb]

Vote for combined list
Vote for a no dickhead rule!
Sorry to be fussy about the body weight rule. But here goes.
If there is logic behind Can am minimum body weight, why not for F1?
Thanks for your work Mark.
Neil

[Mark Fox]

Hand is up for the combined body list.

Hand is up, for the combined body list,and am happy with clarifications and points on tires etc .

Vote for combined list

Thanks gentlemen - I think that this is the go - the only exception I would suggest is that we still NOT allow bodies that have a moulded interior/cockpits (if they are included on either list UNLESS they have the moulded interior/cockpit removed and replaced with the separate interior set-up) as per CA-4a (also applying to other classes).

Really, nothing should need to be written about behaviour, if we are all there to have fun, and demonstrate common decency to each other.
But, I suppose, there will always be one dickhead that needs it written.

That goes without saying as you say.

However the type of procedural rules I was referring to would be required for a National or International race (such as; but not exclusively; the proposed World Retro Race at Raceworld nin 2017).
These rules would cover area's such as qualifying and how the qualifying results are to be used to format the races etc.
I believe that these areas need to be set out very clearly. When racers have incurred expense in travel, accommodation and equipment etc the procedural side of things needs to be addressed and stated prior to the event - to set the environment under which the event is going to be run.
It is critical that racers do not feel that they have been disenfranchised due to some lack of care in setting out how the event is to proceed.

Races held at any track for any reason obviously can be run as the track owner sees fit. However for a race or series denoted along the lines of say "NSW" series, or "World" series we need a consistent set of rules and a consistent framework for running the event.

The reason that I initially set about going over the Retro rules was a discussion with Wayne who was keen to get together a set of rules that were consistent with what we are dong with no grey areas and also incorporating a Retro-Pro class for the upcoming 2017 retro Worlds at Raceworld.
I have done this in discussion with interested parties both verbally and here on this forum.
Wayne is happy with the outcome so far and now these are the rules that will be applied at Raceworld going forward (and hopefully at other Retro events) once I get final sign-off from Wayne.

[brady]

Hello Mark.In the original regs on the Aussie Retro Site point 5 says the entire front tyre patch must contact the track.Does this mean the front tyers have to contact the tech block during scrutineering?If so are we still useing this rule?I need enlightenment here.Would it also apply to the pro class?Sorry if I missed something.Regards BRAD.

[SlotBaker]

I think the checks are meant to be done with the guide clear, so that the car is resting on all 4 wheels. ie, test block needs cut out to clear the guide.

Brad, it's good to see someone looking back at the original regs.