Hi Guys
Thanks Stoo for your photos about the bodies
Now that the rules debate is on i would like to know what
"shaker tubes" are thanks
And one last thing is about the pin tubing for the bodies i am sure James would of pulled them up at his track
Maybe if anyone is running them as Mark has suggested I would say it might be at Luddenham as it is a bit more relaxed
but I will be paying a lot more attention now.
Happy Racing Guys
Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
Re: Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
Shaker tubes are loose fitting pin tubes on a chassis.
When the body is fitted to the chassis with pins, the tubes can move (shake), providing movement to the body.
Check out the scratchbuilt F1 chassis in this post.
The same thing can be done with flexi chassis, by drilling out the body clip holes larger than the pin tube OD, and fitting the shaker tubes into each of the 4 holes.
Hope that makes sense...
When the body is fitted to the chassis with pins, the tubes can move (shake), providing movement to the body.
Check out the scratchbuilt F1 chassis in this post.
The same thing can be done with flexi chassis, by drilling out the body clip holes larger than the pin tube OD, and fitting the shaker tubes into each of the 4 holes.
Hope that makes sense...
Steve King
Re: Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
Don't need to know what they are - they are evil and will bring you down.
Regards - Mark 
"Do Less with More Focus"
"Do Less with More Focus"
Re: Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
You know, the More I think about this, (Rules and the Strictness of their Intention and application), the More I am thinking it deserves a 'Thread' of it's own (in a similar vein to the 'Driver's have your say' thread),...
AND
The MORE I believe that Richard, should be allowed to Keep the 'Points' he Should have Earned for his Excellent Drive the Other night.
Firstly, let's consider the current 'Situation', as initially discovered by myself some time ago and so aptly also pointed out by Mark's recent 'post' and "Considered" with the Racer's Attitude in Mind.
When I first purchased a GT-1 chassis, (from James at HSC), it was to go racing at "Raceworld", as for many years I was unable to attend Any of the SRC events, as I invariably Worked on the nights they were held.
Being a somewhat complete Newbie to almost ANY kind of 'Flexi' racing and perhaps foolishly believing that one Purchased a car and (In Effect), ran it 'As Is' out of the Box, (apart from the standard kind of Tuning possibilities, like making sure it was Flat & Square etc.
I was (at the time) also Unaware of things like Guide Strengtheners, a fact I soon became Painfully aware of and 'Fitted' after the Inevitable Hard 'Hit' into the 'Deadman' at Wayne's King track.
It was Not until I had the opportunity to perhaps Race in GT-1 at HSC that I even looked at the HSC Rules, prior to purchasing another GT-1 chassis that I brought up and discussed a couple of the points pointed out by Mark's 'post' regarding the "No modifications to the Chassis" rule and wanted to check with James about the situation with Both the Guide strengtheners AND Pin Tubes and as pointed out by Mark, I too was met with information, suggesting that a guide strengthener was OK and Legal, (mind you, at the time I don't think Pin tubes were, but would seemingly have become so of more recent times).
Having had some similar discussions over some Strangely Included AND 'Interpreted' Rules especially in the 'Scale Racing' world and even HSC's Retro rules, I remarked that it perhaps made it Difficult to KNOW what one could or could Not do, (as a New Inexperienced Racer), by simply Reading the Rules and remarked that perhaps Many of the currently running cars, Could (by the strict application of the Rules), be classified as 'Illegally Modified' !!
BUT,.. with the ever present thought and consideration of the difficulty in getting and maintaining Entry Numbers and people Having FUN, this is I believe the Actual 'Point' of this seeming 'Debate' and situation and is and Should be Interpreted and reviewed with the consideration of:-
Whether the Person had 'Modified' the car for the Purpose of Gaining an advantage !!
It IS, with this simple thought/consideration 'in mind', that I would have to suggest Once again, that Richard, Should be Allowed to Keep the Points he Should have been awarded for His Fine drive/performance on the Night in Question !!
I say this, mainly with consideration to Richard's general Attitude towards His racing (which has also been alluded to by almost everyone involved in the event and who have 'posted' comments in this thread),.. That HE, Does have the Right Attitude and Was in No way Trying to or Intending to 'Gain an Unfair Advantage' and was merely a case of (as suggested by himself), the ONLY Tyres he had in his Box 'On the Night' !!
I am unsure whether anyone actually 'Offered' Richard a set of Wide Softer tyres or Not, (perhaps Richard can chime and confirm either way), but as suggested in Any event his decision to run His car Anyway and Not get any Points, Shows that he was there to Race, Merely for FUN and was Not in any way attempting to 'Cheat' !!
With consideration to these damned Rules, it also makes me wonder just How many Other cars 'On the Night' were running / entered with (if viewed and interpreted Strictly according to the Written HSC Rules), Illegally !!??
In effect being fitted with either Guide strengtheners and/or Pin Tubes etc.
How 'Completely Legal was the car belonging to Whoever it was that 'Pointed-out' Richard's Narrow tyres !!??
The Rules are (in theory) designed to 'Define' what can and cannot be done, NOT to be Interpreted in a fashion that 'IMPLIES' a set of parameters that aren't actually Written or defined as such.
If a set of parameters or Modifications ARE what the General Racer IS allowed to do, (through common practice), then it Should, as Fox and others have suggested,.. be 'Defined' as such Within the rules, so as to Make it Clear and NOT be some 'Grey Area' of supposedly Implied and intrinsically 'Understood' legality.
I think it also worth mentioning the actual Tyre Width rule, as the 'Suggestion' of Reading the Rules keeps being bandied about.
I and Many others here have been racing Slot Cars on and off for Many, Many years, in Many different classes and styles of Cars and NEVER, EVER has there been ANY class or Set of Rules that EVER precluded Anyone from 'Adjusting' the MINIMUM Width of the Rear Tyres !!!
May I suggest that the Main reason Many of us were Unaware of the Rule, is merely that we 'Glossed-Over' the Specific 'Rear Tyres' Section, as We (Collectively), and obviously incorrectly, Did NOT Expect there to even BE a rule concerning what has In ALL My Experience merely been considered and regarded as an Alowable 'Tuning Parameter' and NEVER previously being a Rule !!
Whilst I obviously Have to agree that this Fact IS written in the HSC GT-1 Rules, it IS (as can be seen by checking EVERY Other Class), the ONLY Class where this Rule is even written or Implied !!
AND as suggested above, is also the ONLY time I have EVER seen a rule like this Written in Any Rule Set for ANY class in Any race I have ever entered,.. it IS VERY MUCH an ODDITY and EXCEPTION to the NORM' as such and is In my View (and I would venture also of many others) a rather Strange and arguably 'Questionable' rule and seriously makes me Wonder Why it was Ever 'Written-In' and Instigated in the first place.
What Was the 'Point' to it's Inclusion in the Rules and What was it Trying to Preclude/achieve ??
I mention/question this, as currently (and for some time), there has been a similar Problem with the Retro CanAm Rules regarding Overall Width of the Rear Wheel/Axle assembly.
The Rules (when Retro's were first begun) and that can be Confirmed by a number of current and Past racers, were Adopted/Copied from the Then Current IRRA/D3 rules as run in the USA and defined Quite SIMPLY that the overall Width of the Chassis/Wheel/Axles, could Not Exceed 3.125" (apart from Pin Head/Body Mountings etc.
Unfortunately and Due completely And ONLY because Way back when the class was First getting going, a small Number of chassis (and I DO mean a Small Number,,.. 3 perhaps 4), were built to the Maximum Rear Width with the Use of the Then Commonly available Alpha Rear Tyres/Rims.
Seemingly, all good, as with the Use of the aforementioned Alpha Rims, these cars Were Legal,.. BUT,.. when those same cars were fitted with the Ever so Slightly Wider JK Rims, they Exceeded the 3.125" allowable Maximum !!
Now,.. in consideration of the (Not Done to 'Gain and Unfair Advantage') concept alluded to above, these cars were allowed to Run,... BUT,.. Bugger me, a Modification to the Rules was included ONLY on and In the HSC Retro Rules, specifying a Maximum Rear Width of 81mm !! and here we Now have a 'Definition' Problem.
As this Rule was Included to Allow the Very Few Cars that were made Many years ago to be 'Legal',.. something that in reality was Never really Needed, as WE all knew of the 'Situation' AND understood the Problem and may I suggest NO ONE Would have EVER even Thought of Protesting those cars or Prevented them from Racing.
(It is also interesting to Note that as far as I am aware, NONE of those chassis are currently being Run by Anyone and haven't for Some years).
This IS I believe a Problem, as it Confuses the Previously 'Patently CLEAR' understanding and application of the Rules and 'Suggests' that Someone could and can build a NEW Car that Has a Rear Wheel/Axle Width of 81mm.
As can be Clearly seen and read in the Clearly defined and unanimously Agreed to Retro Rules; http://forum.ascra.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1254 such a Car, would Not be Legal in Any Event AND would (May I suggest), be 'Protestable' if Entered, even at HSC, due to WHY that Damn confusing Rule was included in the First Place !!!!
It should also be 'Noted' that BOTH Mark and Myself have made it Patently clear to ALL racers from back then and to James that WE would Happily 'Modify' those cars So as to Meet With and be Legal under the Correct and as Applied Rules that have Always Been in Place Both Here and Overseas for Retro CanAm,.. yet,.. this Confusion Still 'Hangs Around and was Even Questioned and Suggested by Someone
(The Very Same Builder of these 'Pesky' Wide Cars), 
himself when the Question of Maximim Width came up Prior to My Scrutineering of the Cars at the recent SSME Enduro !!
May I also suggest that I took a Leniant (and I believe appropriate), approach on this matter when Scrutineering the cars on the day.
So, in closing, ans as alluded to by Mark and as Often seriously discussed by Himself and I over the years when considering the rules of some of the classes we have decided to enter, (especially in More recent times), the rules should Accurately 'Define' what is Allowed within the Scope of the class and accurately 'Reflect' what is accepted as legal for the Race and Series etc.
Not be Loosely applied to Some aspects, Ignored completely in Some areas (Due to some Implied Legality or theoretical 'Common Practice') or Strictly Applied arbitrarily, in Some Particular Areas !!
If there is NO consistency then it IS rather difficult, to ' Cherry-Pick' one's way through the rules to fully Understand the Legality of Ones car.
On a number of occasions over the years, Newcomers have attended various races, with certain aspects of their cars that May perhaps Not have completely complied with the rules.
In the Mind Set of having Fun and Inclusion of New racers, the Best method (I believe), is to Allow them to Race, but with a Mention and help and description of the aspects of the car that don't meet the rules, as it IS about Inclusion And FUN and (as stated initially), the interpretation of the Rules needs consideration as to whether the person Knew of or clearly understood the rules and whether they were Intentionally attempting to Cheat or Gain an advantage etc.
My apologies for the Lengthy 'post' and 'Rave',.. but the Whole thing has Kind of Annoyed me and the More I thought about it, the More I believed something should be said, especially after consideration of and to re-enforce the thoughts and opinions made with Mark's 'post' etc.
This Whole thing we Do,.. is about and FOR FUN I believe and I cannot Help but feel, Some of that Same FUN, was Impacted upon and particularly reduced for Richard on the Night by the Strict 'Application' of a Very Odd part of a Very Odd and arguably poorly Written and Very 'Loosely' Applied set of rules.
Please Note I do NOT wish to OFFEND anyone,.. these are Simply MY Thoughts and Beliefs,..
Cheers
AND
The MORE I believe that Richard, should be allowed to Keep the 'Points' he Should have Earned for his Excellent Drive the Other night.
Firstly, let's consider the current 'Situation', as initially discovered by myself some time ago and so aptly also pointed out by Mark's recent 'post' and "Considered" with the Racer's Attitude in Mind.
When I first purchased a GT-1 chassis, (from James at HSC), it was to go racing at "Raceworld", as for many years I was unable to attend Any of the SRC events, as I invariably Worked on the nights they were held.
Being a somewhat complete Newbie to almost ANY kind of 'Flexi' racing and perhaps foolishly believing that one Purchased a car and (In Effect), ran it 'As Is' out of the Box, (apart from the standard kind of Tuning possibilities, like making sure it was Flat & Square etc.
I was (at the time) also Unaware of things like Guide Strengtheners, a fact I soon became Painfully aware of and 'Fitted' after the Inevitable Hard 'Hit' into the 'Deadman' at Wayne's King track.
It was Not until I had the opportunity to perhaps Race in GT-1 at HSC that I even looked at the HSC Rules, prior to purchasing another GT-1 chassis that I brought up and discussed a couple of the points pointed out by Mark's 'post' regarding the "No modifications to the Chassis" rule and wanted to check with James about the situation with Both the Guide strengtheners AND Pin Tubes and as pointed out by Mark, I too was met with information, suggesting that a guide strengthener was OK and Legal, (mind you, at the time I don't think Pin tubes were, but would seemingly have become so of more recent times).
Having had some similar discussions over some Strangely Included AND 'Interpreted' Rules especially in the 'Scale Racing' world and even HSC's Retro rules, I remarked that it perhaps made it Difficult to KNOW what one could or could Not do, (as a New Inexperienced Racer), by simply Reading the Rules and remarked that perhaps Many of the currently running cars, Could (by the strict application of the Rules), be classified as 'Illegally Modified' !!
BUT,.. with the ever present thought and consideration of the difficulty in getting and maintaining Entry Numbers and people Having FUN, this is I believe the Actual 'Point' of this seeming 'Debate' and situation and is and Should be Interpreted and reviewed with the consideration of:-
Whether the Person had 'Modified' the car for the Purpose of Gaining an advantage !!
It IS, with this simple thought/consideration 'in mind', that I would have to suggest Once again, that Richard, Should be Allowed to Keep the Points he Should have been awarded for His Fine drive/performance on the Night in Question !!
I say this, mainly with consideration to Richard's general Attitude towards His racing (which has also been alluded to by almost everyone involved in the event and who have 'posted' comments in this thread),.. That HE, Does have the Right Attitude and Was in No way Trying to or Intending to 'Gain an Unfair Advantage' and was merely a case of (as suggested by himself), the ONLY Tyres he had in his Box 'On the Night' !!
I am unsure whether anyone actually 'Offered' Richard a set of Wide Softer tyres or Not, (perhaps Richard can chime and confirm either way), but as suggested in Any event his decision to run His car Anyway and Not get any Points, Shows that he was there to Race, Merely for FUN and was Not in any way attempting to 'Cheat' !!
With consideration to these damned Rules, it also makes me wonder just How many Other cars 'On the Night' were running / entered with (if viewed and interpreted Strictly according to the Written HSC Rules), Illegally !!??
In effect being fitted with either Guide strengtheners and/or Pin Tubes etc.
How 'Completely Legal was the car belonging to Whoever it was that 'Pointed-out' Richard's Narrow tyres !!??
The Rules are (in theory) designed to 'Define' what can and cannot be done, NOT to be Interpreted in a fashion that 'IMPLIES' a set of parameters that aren't actually Written or defined as such.
If a set of parameters or Modifications ARE what the General Racer IS allowed to do, (through common practice), then it Should, as Fox and others have suggested,.. be 'Defined' as such Within the rules, so as to Make it Clear and NOT be some 'Grey Area' of supposedly Implied and intrinsically 'Understood' legality.
I think it also worth mentioning the actual Tyre Width rule, as the 'Suggestion' of Reading the Rules keeps being bandied about.
I and Many others here have been racing Slot Cars on and off for Many, Many years, in Many different classes and styles of Cars and NEVER, EVER has there been ANY class or Set of Rules that EVER precluded Anyone from 'Adjusting' the MINIMUM Width of the Rear Tyres !!!
May I suggest that the Main reason Many of us were Unaware of the Rule, is merely that we 'Glossed-Over' the Specific 'Rear Tyres' Section, as We (Collectively), and obviously incorrectly, Did NOT Expect there to even BE a rule concerning what has In ALL My Experience merely been considered and regarded as an Alowable 'Tuning Parameter' and NEVER previously being a Rule !!
Whilst I obviously Have to agree that this Fact IS written in the HSC GT-1 Rules, it IS (as can be seen by checking EVERY Other Class), the ONLY Class where this Rule is even written or Implied !!
AND as suggested above, is also the ONLY time I have EVER seen a rule like this Written in Any Rule Set for ANY class in Any race I have ever entered,.. it IS VERY MUCH an ODDITY and EXCEPTION to the NORM' as such and is In my View (and I would venture also of many others) a rather Strange and arguably 'Questionable' rule and seriously makes me Wonder Why it was Ever 'Written-In' and Instigated in the first place.
What Was the 'Point' to it's Inclusion in the Rules and What was it Trying to Preclude/achieve ??
I mention/question this, as currently (and for some time), there has been a similar Problem with the Retro CanAm Rules regarding Overall Width of the Rear Wheel/Axle assembly.
The Rules (when Retro's were first begun) and that can be Confirmed by a number of current and Past racers, were Adopted/Copied from the Then Current IRRA/D3 rules as run in the USA and defined Quite SIMPLY that the overall Width of the Chassis/Wheel/Axles, could Not Exceed 3.125" (apart from Pin Head/Body Mountings etc.
Unfortunately and Due completely And ONLY because Way back when the class was First getting going, a small Number of chassis (and I DO mean a Small Number,,.. 3 perhaps 4), were built to the Maximum Rear Width with the Use of the Then Commonly available Alpha Rear Tyres/Rims.
Seemingly, all good, as with the Use of the aforementioned Alpha Rims, these cars Were Legal,.. BUT,.. when those same cars were fitted with the Ever so Slightly Wider JK Rims, they Exceeded the 3.125" allowable Maximum !!
Now,.. in consideration of the (Not Done to 'Gain and Unfair Advantage') concept alluded to above, these cars were allowed to Run,... BUT,.. Bugger me, a Modification to the Rules was included ONLY on and In the HSC Retro Rules, specifying a Maximum Rear Width of 81mm !! and here we Now have a 'Definition' Problem.
As this Rule was Included to Allow the Very Few Cars that were made Many years ago to be 'Legal',.. something that in reality was Never really Needed, as WE all knew of the 'Situation' AND understood the Problem and may I suggest NO ONE Would have EVER even Thought of Protesting those cars or Prevented them from Racing.
(It is also interesting to Note that as far as I am aware, NONE of those chassis are currently being Run by Anyone and haven't for Some years).
This IS I believe a Problem, as it Confuses the Previously 'Patently CLEAR' understanding and application of the Rules and 'Suggests' that Someone could and can build a NEW Car that Has a Rear Wheel/Axle Width of 81mm.
As can be Clearly seen and read in the Clearly defined and unanimously Agreed to Retro Rules; http://forum.ascra.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1254 such a Car, would Not be Legal in Any Event AND would (May I suggest), be 'Protestable' if Entered, even at HSC, due to WHY that Damn confusing Rule was included in the First Place !!!!
It should also be 'Noted' that BOTH Mark and Myself have made it Patently clear to ALL racers from back then and to James that WE would Happily 'Modify' those cars So as to Meet With and be Legal under the Correct and as Applied Rules that have Always Been in Place Both Here and Overseas for Retro CanAm,.. yet,.. this Confusion Still 'Hangs Around and was Even Questioned and Suggested by Someone
(The Very Same Builder of these 'Pesky' Wide Cars), himself when the Question of Maximim Width came up Prior to My Scrutineering of the Cars at the recent SSME Enduro !!May I also suggest that I took a Leniant (and I believe appropriate), approach on this matter when Scrutineering the cars on the day.
So, in closing, ans as alluded to by Mark and as Often seriously discussed by Himself and I over the years when considering the rules of some of the classes we have decided to enter, (especially in More recent times), the rules should Accurately 'Define' what is Allowed within the Scope of the class and accurately 'Reflect' what is accepted as legal for the Race and Series etc.
Not be Loosely applied to Some aspects, Ignored completely in Some areas (Due to some Implied Legality or theoretical 'Common Practice') or Strictly Applied arbitrarily, in Some Particular Areas !!
If there is NO consistency then it IS rather difficult, to ' Cherry-Pick' one's way through the rules to fully Understand the Legality of Ones car.
On a number of occasions over the years, Newcomers have attended various races, with certain aspects of their cars that May perhaps Not have completely complied with the rules.
In the Mind Set of having Fun and Inclusion of New racers, the Best method (I believe), is to Allow them to Race, but with a Mention and help and description of the aspects of the car that don't meet the rules, as it IS about Inclusion And FUN and (as stated initially), the interpretation of the Rules needs consideration as to whether the person Knew of or clearly understood the rules and whether they were Intentionally attempting to Cheat or Gain an advantage etc.
My apologies for the Lengthy 'post' and 'Rave',.. but the Whole thing has Kind of Annoyed me and the More I thought about it, the More I believed something should be said, especially after consideration of and to re-enforce the thoughts and opinions made with Mark's 'post' etc.
This Whole thing we Do,.. is about and FOR FUN I believe and I cannot Help but feel, Some of that Same FUN, was Impacted upon and particularly reduced for Richard on the Night by the Strict 'Application' of a Very Odd part of a Very Odd and arguably poorly Written and Very 'Loosely' Applied set of rules.
Please Note I do NOT wish to OFFEND anyone,.. these are Simply MY Thoughts and Beliefs,..
Cheers
Re: Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
Totally AGREE Stoo.Let me simplify my rant.How do we change it if we want it changed.I mean give him the points absolutly.I also see nothing wrong with braces etc.Hey,if you can strengthen your arse, why not your you know what.From my memory of racing In't 32 at area 3 you can buy tires this narrow any how.Floating pintubes dont mean much because most blokes are taping their chassis anyhow.As long as the motors havent been tampered with Scrutineers discretion is the way to go with a drivers meeting before hand possibly.Just an idea.Regards Brad.
-
Greg Erskine
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 5:20 pm
- Location: Sydney/Australia
Re: Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
Hi guys,
My understanding is the SRC series adopted James's existing GP1 rules. I don't really know why, but I assume it was for convenience.
I would guess, James's GP1 rules were written for his club racing and other state and National events and were intended as a cheap, base entry class. I can see the logic of only using off the shelf tires that James keeps in stock. Just buy them and stick them on.
I can't see a problem someone developing THE "SRC" GP1 rules, you just can't expect to force them on other GP1 events.
BTW: There were 3 new guys at James's last GP1 race and they were fast. IMHO good enough to soon win races! Hopefully we can interest them in future SRC GP1 events (if the cars remain compatible).
regards
Greg
My understanding is the SRC series adopted James's existing GP1 rules. I don't really know why, but I assume it was for convenience.
I would guess, James's GP1 rules were written for his club racing and other state and National events and were intended as a cheap, base entry class. I can see the logic of only using off the shelf tires that James keeps in stock. Just buy them and stick them on.
I can't see a problem someone developing THE "SRC" GP1 rules, you just can't expect to force them on other GP1 events.
BTW: There were 3 new guys at James's last GP1 race and they were fast. IMHO good enough to soon win races! Hopefully we can interest them in future SRC GP1 events (if the cars remain compatible).
regards
Greg
Re: Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
Greg, the SRC was instigated by HSC, so it was logical that the HSC regs be used.
Steve King
-
Greg Erskine
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 5:20 pm
- Location: Sydney/Australia
Re: Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
Thanks Steve, makes a bit more sense knowing that. Looks like my ignorance is showing....stage right.... 
Re: Race Report. SRC Round 7 SSME
Wow Stoo,
Maybe that should have been a serial or at least 2 chapters - it was like a Guardian 'Long Read' but you covered the ground well .
Now I will attempt to summarize what I believe has been the main consensus here: -
1 Rules are meant to followed regardless of whether we agree with them or not- however the Rules should be constructed such so as to have no ambiguity. On this basis I don't believe Richard should get the points as the Rule was clear and there was no ambiguity whatsoever. As I stated Darryl had NO room to NOT disqualify Richard. There is no provision for anybody (a) NOT meeting the Rules requirements on the basis that they were not seeking an advantage or (b) that there was no advantage in fact provided by their non-compliance. In this matter (a) is impossible to determine and (b) will often be a moot point.
2 Track owners have an exclusive right to have and enforce any Rule Set they want with no correspondence entered into. As Gregg points out it will need a process of negotiation if changes are required. On this basis who is going to canvass and/or negotiate any Rule changes? There is no Racer Body such as an Association or elected Rule Committee as per years gone by (many years in fact) to do this and we know that if you have 2 slot car racers you will have a minimum of 3 opinions on any given issue it seems.
3 Read the Rules and follow them – if there is any ambiguity or confusion ask the questions required to clarify the situation.
4 The Rules need to be changed if; as the case is in the HSC mandated GT1 Rules; there is a common disregard to certain elements that are routinely ignored as in my previously mention Chassis Rules transgressions regarding guide tongue braces and pin tubes – they are either legal under the Rules or not (they are NOT as per the current Rule Set) . Theoretically under the current situation I believe that Brad would be able to challenge all GT1 participants who use guide tongue braces or pin-tubes and they would have to be disqualified if the letter of the Rule – NO CHASSIS MODIFICATIONS – were to be upheld. Obviously Brad would be unlikely to do this as he would then be racing by himself 
.
I will take it upon myself to talk to James regarding the GT1 Rules on the chassis modification front and discuss the tyre width issue and report back.
Cheers
Maybe that should have been a serial or at least 2 chapters - it was like a Guardian 'Long Read'
but you covered the ground well .Now I will attempt to summarize what I believe has been the main consensus here: -
1 Rules are meant to followed regardless of whether we agree with them or not- however the Rules should be constructed such so as to have no ambiguity. On this basis I don't believe Richard should get the points as the Rule was clear and there was no ambiguity whatsoever. As I stated Darryl had NO room to NOT disqualify Richard. There is no provision for anybody (a) NOT meeting the Rules requirements on the basis that they were not seeking an advantage or (b) that there was no advantage in fact provided by their non-compliance. In this matter (a) is impossible to determine and (b) will often be a moot point.
2 Track owners have an exclusive right to have and enforce any Rule Set they want with no correspondence entered into. As Gregg points out it will need a process of negotiation if changes are required. On this basis who is going to canvass and/or negotiate any Rule changes? There is no Racer Body such as an Association or elected Rule Committee as per years gone by (many years in fact) to do this and we know that if you have 2 slot car racers you will have a minimum of 3 opinions on any given issue it seems.
3 Read the Rules and follow them – if there is any ambiguity or confusion ask the questions required to clarify the situation.
4 The Rules need to be changed if; as the case is in the HSC mandated GT1 Rules; there is a common disregard to certain elements that are routinely ignored as in my previously mention Chassis Rules transgressions regarding guide tongue braces and pin tubes – they are either legal under the Rules or not (they are NOT as per the current Rule Set)
. Theoretically under the current situation I believe that Brad would be able to challenge all GT1 participants who use guide tongue braces or pin-tubes and they would have to be disqualified if the letter of the Rule – NO CHASSIS MODIFICATIONS – were to be upheld. Obviously Brad would be unlikely to do this as he would then be racing by himself .I will take it upon myself to talk to James regarding the GT1 Rules on the chassis modification front and discuss the tyre width issue and report back.
Cheers
Regards - Mark
"Do Less with More Focus"
"Do Less with More Focus"