Australian Slot Car Racers Association

Stoo, the regs are probably due for an update aren't they???

I know this is F1 forum and all, but in the Can-Am the overall width being made wider to allow Troy's car to run , and tyre diameters on the F1, just to cite a couple.

If they have been amended, have they been posted anywhere?

Hi Steve,..Yes,..very possibly,...BUT,...

May I suggest that I am NOT going to 'Promote' the Extra Width allowable in CanAm, simply because someone Could Not accurately Measure and build a Car to suit the Rules and the available types of Tyres/Rims.

Apart from only 1 or Two cars,..None of which are Currently racing (apart from Troys car, Everyone Else's car is Legal !!!

I'm Quite Annoyed that this change was made arbitrarily and without any reference or consent from the 'collective' group of racers, especially as it is Troy and apart from the Occasional race and the Cross City rounds, we don't see Troy Plus it is ONLY the damn Wayne Bramble cars that are at fault.

My attitude, is 'Tough Titties', it was Already agreed those cars Could run and the Offers have been made to 'Fix' those cars by myself and others,..So!!??,....Should this have brought about a Rule change ????

Regarding the F1 Tyre size,..I am also somewhat doubtful of it's advantage, as cars with Larger rear tyres appear to be the cars that are Winning.

Anyway, I Will have a look and 'Amend' what is necessary here.

Cheers,

I agree with you about the CanAm widths.
No, it shouldn't bring a rule change, but we should be enforcing the rules.


Cars should be built with allowances for different width tyres, or narrow the tyres to suit the over-size chassis. Max width means max width, and doesn't matter how it's achieved.

So.. what width is allowable.

Aussie Retro rules may be found on the Hornsby Slot Car website, and are fairly up to date. With regards to the amendment on the rear width (now 81mm) for Canam: it was made to accommodate the new JK rims and has nothing to do with Troy!
James C.

James, what happens if another manufacturer brings out another rim with wider offset.
Would the rules get changed again?

I think it wrong to change rules to suit this sort of thing.

If new (and legal) components become available, cars should be made to suit the new parts and not change the rules. It is the car owner's responsibility to have their car legal to the relative rule set.

I am of the belief that Troy's car, in question here, was always wider even before the new JK rims.
The chassis was made too wide, but Troy was allowed to use it any way.

NB: I have Cut and Pasted this Next section from the "Retro September" post and have included it here for Due 'relevance' etc, (Stoo)

James with regard to the rules, there is a note in Can-Am , Chassis, paragraph 2 that probably should be removed to make it current, and unambiguous.

The line;
"Steel tongues cut from center sections of Flexi chassis, such as Parma Flexi 2 or 3, JK Cheetahs, etc., may be used until January 1, 2009, but cannot be cut off any farther back than 3/8” (9.53mm) behind the front axle and are limited to a maximum 1” (25.4mm) width. Other pieces of steel used for guide tongues are limited to a maximum 1” (25.4mm) total width and 1.50” (38.1mm) total length."
is no longer applicable seeing as Jan 2009 has long passed and chassis shouldn't be made using Flexi chassis parts.

Also, there are doc revisions cited that should be reviewed/removed as they are now incorrect, seeing as the rules have changed since that revision. eg "Rev: 081002a Page 1 of 3"

Is it possible to have the regs available as a pdf so they may be printed out?
For anyony interested in printing them, it is very difficult to do so from the HSC page the way it is currently formatted.

Also, following up on a discussion I had with Darryl, and I'm just curious about the differences between CanAm and F1, in how the chassis clearance is measured. I've not noticed this before now.

For the Can-Am, the rules read;
"7. Minimum Rear Chassis Clearance: 0.047” Piano wire (18g) or 1.19mm.
The entire motor bracket, rear chassis section, and gear must meet this clearance."

And for the F1, they read;
"2f. Minimum Clearance: 0.050” (measured under rear axle including gear), 0.040” under motor can at mounting bracket...)."

First up, why is Can-Am 0.047" and F1 0.050", then the F1 with the 0.050” down to 0.040” over a distance of about 1/2". If someone builds a car using those sizes, the front of the motor could be angled down nearly 0.040” lower leaving only 0.010”.
There may be some Smokey Yunick types out there who would want to exploit any loop hole.
Pretty dumb observation I know, but I don't see any specified clearance for the motor. Or is the motor considered as part of the chassis?

Just trying to help out here.

At the time the original rules were created, there were no JK tyres available at HSC. The spec was set based on a certain chassis width and the Piranha tyre. As far as I know, just about everyone is using JK tyres now, since I have taken over. I guess the discussion is renewed if a new rim becomes available, but for now 81mm is the standard. Troy gets the same treatment as everyone else in tech, and I would not consider passing a car over 81mm in any of my events.
Cheers,
James C.

Fair enough, but a lot of people were using Parma Tunas as well at the beginning, so the spec wasn't aimed at any particular tyre, and nor should it be, seeing as the tyre rules allow any commercially available black natural tyre on any size rim.

Still, I don't (and probably others) think that the rules should have been changed.

If somebody had to use the JK tires, they could have easily narrowed each of them that 1/32", or modify the chassis, or build another chassis.

Just sayin'.

Well, to be Honest,.. I Quite Simply Do NOT 'Get' the Whole Change of Width thing at ALL !!!

May I ask, Apart from the Chassis that were initially built by Wayne (He of Alpha Tyre Promotion and Usage) Bramble and in particular Troy's chassis, How Many Other Cars are Now Too Wide and do Not 'Pass Tech' under the Old and Original (read as used Everywhere else in the World) Retro Rules?

Somehow I very much Doubt that a JK with appropriate JK tyres and wheels fitted would be Too wide, and I certainly Haven't read of Any Problems/Concerns over on SlotBlog about this being a Problem on ANY 'Commercially Available Chassis', such as Warmack's or Slick7's.

When Mark and Myself got back into racing and building Chassis for the Retro class We were probably Still using Alpha Tyres initially and between us we built quite a few chassis NONE of Which ended up being Too Wide when eventually 'fitted' with the Agreed Wider JK's.

This has Not proven to be an 'issue' with ANY of My Chassis F1 or CanAm and in Fact as some may well have Noticed, I have been running a rear Width considerably Narrower than Most others,..to No 'Apparent' detriment to the cars 'Performance' !!

Why is it that Fox and Myself and I'd argue Others that have Also built their Own chassis have managed to build their cars with a rear End that 'Complies' with the Rules?

Apart from my more recent F1, None of My cars even use Spacers, Yet have been 'Within' the Desired Spec'.

As mentioned previously, When this theoretical problem became apparent, I Did Offer to 'Fix' the Offending Chassis,..thinking that it was actually Only Troy's chassis,..but Perhaps as suggested there May be More of the Earlier Wayne chassis that are Similarly Too Wide.

The line in the F1 rules concerning minimum height is also of some interest and to be honest, I have No Idea Where that one came from??!!??
,.. Is that perhaps an aspect of the 'Merging' of Both IRRA and D3 rules Steve ?

I would Have to suggest that as far as the Tyres we are getting for use these days if Anything, they seem Slightly Smaller in Diameter than previously,..as evidenced by My car Sometimes barely Passing Tech in the Rear Height !!
Somewhat Odd for a car that is Now quite a number of years Old, is built on a Jig, with Correct Retro 'Jig Wheels' and Correct Retro Motor/Axle bracket !!

I have actually had to Swap a Pair of recently purchased JK's, as even when Brand New they provided even Less clearance than the Used set I already had on the car !!

I guess in reality it is Not a Huge 'Issue', but would I guess have 'preferred to have kept the Rules the Same and perhaps like the Earlier 'technically Incorrect F1 cars of Wayne's, Simply been allowed to run as is or to have been 'Fixed',..it IS Now quite some Years since those cars were built and Hey,..Let's face it Just How often do we even See Troy, or in fact even Now race against Any of the Other incorrect Wayne cars?

May I also suggest one thing I Do actually find quite odd, when comparing the Original Retro CanAm rules and those published on the HSC site.

Example A; From the Original rules as posted on the 'Aussie Retro' site.

Aussie Retro
Can-Am Style Cars (Adapted from IRRA Regulations, 8.3.08)

General Specifications
1 Maximum Overall Chassis Width: 3.125” (79.38mm), measured across any part of the chassis, as well as across
the front and rear axles).
2 Maximum Body Width: 3.250” (82.55mm), measured at the front and rear wheel arches.


Example B; From the rules as posted on the 'HSC' site.

General Specifications
1 Maximum Overall Chassis Width: 3.19” (81 mm), measured across any part of the chassis, as well as across
the front and rear axles).
2 Maximum Body Width: 3.250” (82.55mm), measured at the front and rear wheel arches.

What has actually been Written and Suggested by the HSC rules, is Not just a change to the Allowable Width of the Rear Tyres as such, but a Definitive Change in the Maximum Width of the Chassis Overall !!!

Surely, that was NOT the 'Intent' of the change of Width rule and perhaps Should be re-worded IF in fact it is to be 'Retained' in the Rule Set.

Hmmmm... The clearance spec for the F1s on the Aussie Retro show the same as the HSC, so that probably explains where the HSC regs came from.
So, sorry James for raising that point with you.

Where did those funny numbers come from???
Buggered if I know. Maybe that's how the IRRA (USA) regs were written back then and we just blindly copied them.

The current IRRA clearance regs for both F1 & CanAm are both the same and read;

Minimum Rear Chassis Clearance: 0.050” (1.27mm).
The entire motor bracket, rear chassis section, and gear must meet this clearance.
The entire motor bracket, gear, and all parts of the chassis (including pans) aft of the motor
mounting face of the bracket must meet this clearance.

Minimum Front Chassis Clearance: 0.015” (0.38mm)
This will be measured at the most forward part of the chassis.
Clearance will be measured with front and rear tires sitting flat on the test block without the
guide.

So to make the Aussie Retro regs clearer and consistant, I believe we should amend our regs to similar wording, except that we normally allow 0.047" under the rear chassis and gear. Bugger all difference, but that's what most of our regs seem to be.

Any thoughts, comments from anyone on amending our Aussie Retro regs (for all classes) to:
......................
Minimum Rear Chassis Clearance: 0.047” (1.2mm).
The entire motor bracket, rear chassis section, and gear must meet this clearance.
The entire motor bracket, gear, and all parts of the chassis (including pans) aft of the motor
mounting face of the bracket must meet this clearance.

Minimum Front Chassis Clearance: 0.015” (0.38mm)
This will be measured at the most forward part of the chassis.
Clearance will be measured with front and rear tires sitting flat on the test block without the
guide.
No part of the motor is allowed to be lower than the lowest part of the chassis. (new addition to clarify motor clearance)
......................
or does anyone have any other suggestions?

WOW,

reads like a bit of a witch hunt for canam. HSC rules have been updated to make the point clear that chassis width is still 3.125

1 Maximum Overall Chassis Width: 3.125” (79.38 mm), measured across any part of the chassis.
-Rear width axle & Tyers 81mm.

I wasn't even aware that our rules (whether published or not) allowed for the extra width. I built my cars to 3.125 and am happy to leave them there. As for whether 30 thou extra per side makes much difference in performance, I doubt that I could tell. Certainly with the extra width of F1 cars, I need to run a rear tyre with more grip to get them working properly anyway.

I also think that steel can't be done away with altogether, as a steel guide tongue such as those from S7 are in use (even in the S7 kits)

with the small numbers we've been getting, I'd hate to turn anyone away from this fantastic class. some nights, turning one away would reduce the field size by 1/4!! I'll continue to build mine for 3.125 rear track regardless, cause that's where they work anyway.

There's a lot of new faces coming along now and the field size is slowly, but steadily increasing. Hell, I've only started retro this year, so I say I'm still a noob. How many of the regular racers are even going to care about this ? I know I don't. Troy's (and possibly others) cars are conforming to the current ruleset. good enough for me.

Now for F1. I believe that the smaller tyre diameter was introduced way back when, so that people could run cheaply, i.e. when tyres from your can-am hit .8125, stick them on your F1 and run them down to .790. I remember asking James whether this was the case as I wasn't keen to grind out motor brackets to bring my car(s) as close as possible to the minimum spec. From memory, he indicated that this was "probably" the case. There are now 7 or 8 of my F1 cars out there built all to this specification. I'd be gutted if this was changed, effectively making my cars obsolete overnight.

For the front half of the clearance "issue", my guess is that this was probably supposed to read .040 at the front of the motor. otherwise, these specs would have a car dragging the motor along the track. Although, if you are running a home made bracket or a JK non-hypoid, this may still be possible in the way the rule is written. While the IRRA rules (3J) talk about nothing protruding below the bottom of the chassis "plane", ours do not. however I'm sure that falls in the "spirit of intent" of our rules.

While rear clearance is set at .047(canam) and .050(F1), we all know tech is done with a piece of .047 wire anyway. an admin tidy up would fix this
in any case, as HSC is the only regular supporter of retro in the state and where probably 95% of the racers are from, I feel it's best left there for rules and direction. I'm certainly happy to participate in meetings with drivers and HSC to discuss rules, but I think ALL need to be involved. after all, isn't this a class "for the drivers, by the drivers" ?

I was sure there was something about max F1 tyre size being .8120. maybe I was dreaming. can't find it in the rules

Hi Justin, thanks for chiming in here.

No, not really a witch hunt. Just a couple of the original racers having a whinge..

The original rule set was based on a combo of D3 (California) and IRRA (New York) rules with a bias to IRRA, but with minor changes for our requirements. (Motor, bearings)

And they worked out great.

You're probably right in that there might not be any difference in performance with the extra width, so why change it? The rules were working in the USA, and more recently the UK, Europe and Japan.

Yes, the F1 rear tyre diameter was originally 0.812" but reduced to 0.790" to allow the worn out CanAm tyres to be re-used, to get more life and save a buck or two.

As I mentioned previously, the rules shown on HSC site are perfectly fine for events organised by HSC. The rules shown on the Aussie Retro site are the original set that we started with so could remain as a datum, or starting point for anyone wanting to begin racing Aussie Retro.

At least, if cars are built to the Aussie Retro regs they will legal in HSC events, but not the other way around. It would be nice to have just one rule set, but different people/groups want different things, so there will be different rules around the place.

As long as there are people like you around to build and have fun racing, the rest doesn't really matter.

Hey Justin,

Definitely NO Witch-Hunt, Agro or Anything.

Simply trying to Clear up some Details.

Steel Nose-pieces and Guide Tongues, are Still Fine,..Steve was referring to the utilisation of 'Flexi' Front ends.




Thanks for making that 'Change' to the HSC rules James !,...

I'm with You Steve, I think we simply make the 'Clearance rules' the Same for Both classes.

OK then.

I was hoping it wouldn't get to the point of being referred to as 2 different rulesets.

appears I was too late before I opened my trap.

OH well, I'll just keep trying to make my cars legal for everything

Ni again Justin,... I'm not sure I understand,..or Perhaps maybe You don't understand,..this Whole 'Issue' / Thread, was about AVOIDING Two different Rule Sets !!!

In case you may be unaware, Steve King aka Slotbaker, is/was the person Mainly responsible for introducing the Retro class/concept to Australia.

With perhaps some uncanny synchronicity, I had only recently become re-engaged in Slot racing and had discovered SlotBlog and was rather pleasantly surprised to find this New 'Retro' class was beginning to develop out here.

The CabAm Rule set and then later the F1 rule set was developed by Steve, Wayne, Fox, James and Myself, based as noted around the IRRA and later D3 rules sets, with differences to Suit Our local conditions etc, like the Motors and Bushings etc.

I/We, were perhaps somewhat 'dismayed', when it appeared to have been a 'Change' to the Original and theoretically Universal rules, with the change of Max' Rear Tyre/Axle overall Width, as Implemented/documented on the HSC site.

I and arguably many Others were completely unaware that an 'Official' Stamp had been placed on this.

NO One is trying for or arguing for ANY form of Division or Change,..WE are ALL about Unity !!!

With No Offence Aimed at Steve K, it perhaps could be argued that being the Instigator of all of this, he is perhaps particularly Mindful of the rules and over the last couple of years there have been a number of 'indiscretions' regarding the legality of cars as presented for 'Tech',..Ostensibly Troy's CanAm car,..lol and perhaps a couple of others.

Heck I am ALL about the "FUN" of it all,..BUT, there Are Rules and they Have been available and understandable for a number of years,..so really, there Should No longer be ANY excuse for a Non 'Spec' car.

This Whole Rule Clean Up and Re-visit came about simply due to the fact that we Now have a couple of NEW people Like yourself and Matt', that Amazingly, Are actually Interested in Building chassis and so I thought it Prudent to make the Rules easily accessible and as we have Now noticed, there are a couple of Weird 'Issues' even within the F1 rules which WE all put together,..so the Whole thing really is just Simply about clarification and ratification,..so we are (in effect),..ALL on the Same Page !!!!,..

It IS all One Big 'Happy Family' in Retro,..unlike in some Other forms of Slot Racing in this country,...

I cleared up the 'Issue' with James the other night and I must say he was particularly Quick in changing the rules on HSC 's site to reflect the 'correct' intent.

It's ALL Good !!!,..
Cheers