Slot Cars Forum banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,946 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all,
As most of the UK's D3 racers will know Raceway 81 (Newcastle) and Wellingborough Raceway have run D3 festivals this year.
These events have been quite popular and very enjoyable.
Plans are now being laid to run them again next year, and, if possible, add at least one other venue.

Up to now we have been accepting cars built to a variety of different rule books. Socal D3, IRRA, CSCRA etc.
It is proposed that for future events we should all work to the same, single, set of rules.
Having looked at all these different rules it would seem that those of the IRRA are the most likely to be acceptable to everyone.
IRRA (International Retro Racing Association)
If you currently race D3 cars, or are planning to do so in the near future, please take the time to read through these rules and post any comments on here.

To help everyone to pick up on the points that may be different to those you currently use I offer the following notes and comments.

Motors
IRRA rules allow the use of the Proslot Euro motor in addition to the Falcon 7 type motors in all classes.
(My personal view is that we should not allow this but should stay with Falcons only).

Can-Am
Although there may be some small detail differences there does not seem to be anything significantly different in this class.

Formula 1
Some significant differences in this class.
1. Chassis width.
IRRA allows 1.625" (41.28mm) whereas D3 only allows 1.375" (34.925mm).
(Many of the Newcastle guys already have cars built to IRRA width and the Tottenham F1 rules also allowed chassis of 40mm width).
2. Front tyres.
IRRA specifies a minimum width of 0.375" (9.53mm). D3 is 0.225" (5.72mm).
(In my view the wider tyres improve the look of these cars).
3. Wheelbase.
IRRA specifies a wheelbase between 3.875" and 4.250" (98.43mm and 107.95mm).

Saloon Cars
This is currently a 'mish mash' of different rules, all significantly different.
Many racers simply clip a Saloon body on their Can-Am chassis and race that.
The suggestion is that we adopt the IRRA 'Retro Stock Car' rules for all future events.
This will in effect be an entirely new class for most D3 racers.
Significant rules are.
1. Wheelbase 4.5" (114.3mm).
2. Ground clearance 0.050" (1.27mm) under the entire chassis front to back.
3. Wheels and tyres the same dimensions as Formula 1.
4. American 'stock car' (NASCAR) style bodies only. (ABSlotsport guarantees to keep a good stock of these if this class is adopted).

Lastly Tottenham Retro Sports
This class is, of course, not an IRRA class.
The original rules, written by John Secchi and based on the Association of Raceway Centres rules from 1970, can be found on the CSCRA website (link below).
No changes are proposed but I guess that they could usefully be rewritten in a clearer way. In particular eliminating anything about F1 or Saloon cars.
I suspect that the motor rules may need updating with specific reference to the latest generation of 16Ds.
(Personally I would like to see a return to 0.048" (1.2mm) front ground clearance as written in the original rules. When racing at Tottenham in the '60s we had to have 1/16" (1.6mm) under the entire length of the car).

Your thoughts on any or all of the above will be welcomed. (Please be polite
)

Cheers.
****.
 

·
John Roche
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
Hi ****,

Generally I agree with the idea of standardising rules so we're all running the same. However I don't want to see F1 chassis getting any wider. D3 F1's are already too wide in my opinion.

Cheers

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Hi ****, i love D3 racing because it generates good cheap close racing and great atmosphere at events. By changing saloon rules to 4.5" for saloon would mean that many racers would have to build new cars to what is already ran. I do agree with having a standard set of UK rules for each D3 class so we are all singing off the same hym sheet. I think D3 CanAm is great as you can keep costs down by putting a saloon body on and running in another class too. We at Raceway81 have already adopted a set of rules and built cars to them rules such as wider D3 F1 to the IRRA rules so another change in rules will mean more chassis being built. I know this is only my opinion but i guess the best way of deciding would be a vote?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Hi Mike,

Glad to hear you all had a good time.

Sorry I missed it, but there was no way I could make it.

I have just read the rules for Stock Car interiors on the IRRA site,
presumably there is something that we can buy to comply?
there is obviously something the colonists use for this.

Did anybody discuss "Jail door" racing?

Take care.

Regards,

John.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,600 Posts
Interesting proposals, ****, and I'm very much in favour of condensing and, where possible, simplifying the rule book.

I think the IRRA has the only internationally translatable rule book worthy of the name, D3 seems to be in a continual state of flux in some respects, and it's a shame that the latter name has become our shorthand for 'retro' racing in general. The D3 founders appear to have no interest in what happens outside their home track, aside from general goodwill towards others following a similar path, whereas the IRRA offer clear guidelines for this type of racing and the guys that are in charge take a great interest in what is happening all across the States and, so far, have offered clear and logical solutions to any questions that have arisen. To my mind, there's no comparison.

I bought a Proslot Puppy Dog motor for evaluation purposes a month or so ago and found it far stronger than I'd anticipated. I don't doubt that if these motors were admitted to UK retro racing they would become the motor of first choice. Until there's an infrastructure in place for the legal refurbishment and resealing of these motors over here, and availability becomes easier I think, along with ****, that we'd be better off sticking with the FK size motors.
Note the 'FK size motors' rather than Falcons please. This was the original rule we adopted at North London when we first took up this class of racing and it's allowed a smooth transition from the Falcon 5 to the current generation of motors via Slick 7, Nomad and other brands along the way.

The only real difference in the D3 and IRRA CanAm classes is the IRRA's 100g minimum weight requirement and a wider selection of sanctioned bodies, as far as I'm aware.

The IRRA F1 cars are wider than D3's but with more realistic front wheels, as **** notes, but they also don't permit D3's use of chassis 'extensions' under the front axle. I, for one, would be building a new chassis but that's no problem really.
The F1 Jaildoor class should appeal more to John R, and we should seriously consider taking this class up, especially as the IRRA's chief body supplier resides in ... Twickenham.

As far as the Saloon Car rules go, I'm 100% in favour of the 4.5" wheelbase 'Stockers' rather than what we have now. These cars SHOULD be slower than the CanAm cars and the higher front ground clearance will ensure that happens. The larger cars looked fantastic going around Raceway 81 and I'd love to see a full grid of them. To my eyes the bodies look far nicer than the stretched and lowered Camaros and Mustangs we're currently using as well.
Building a new chassis for the longer wheelbase shouldn't be seen as a deterrent, as I see it. It'd make a true 4th class rather than the 3 1/2 we currently seem to have.

The rules for the Tottenham Sports Car class could be more clearly written. I don't have the historic perspective that **** does but I wouldn't like the front ground clearance to be raised on these cars with the possible outcome of slowing their lap times beyond those achieved by the CanAm cars. The Tottenham cars should remain the top class in my opinion.
My suggestion is to find equivalent modern motors and to allow them to run in this class as a reliance on vintage parts for competitiveness will soon become a limiting factor for entrants.

A general suggestion that I have for next year is to start some form of scrutineering at these events. I like the low key atmosphere we've been running under so far and I don't want to do anything that might diminish the fun aspect but it's undeniable that corners are being cut in the cause of competitiveness. As long as racers have a clear idea of what is being asked of them, there's no need for this to do anything but create a more level playing field. Horrible cliche but I hope you understand what I mean?

Looking forward to further comments.
Regards,
L.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I and my son Richard returned to slot racing just under a year ago, after a 20 odd year sabbatical. The main reason was the emergence of the D3 racing classes, The first cars I built were a can-am for each of us, which we could also use as a saloon simply by changing the body, this kept the cost down, plus the time and effort required to build the saloon car. I can build my own cars, many people can',t and have to buy from those who can, which means paying for a new chassis or buying a existing car off a driver who has upgraded. I personally do not want the to race NASCAR but appreciate that if you want to race them you should be allowed. These cars are not slower than the shorter wheelbase cars, At raceway 81 on club nights they have won races against the trans-am class, the trick is to build them heavy.
I feel that with the saloon class we are missing some British bodies, where is the Ford Capri RS2600 (scale on a 4.25" chassis) or a Vauxhall Royal from 1970. We could allow allow suitable modern bodies from the BTCC Mondeo's Nissans Laguna's etc,on the vintage style chassis, providing they are of a scale appearance.
Take a look at the Raceway 81 rules on the web-page, I made my original cars to California rules not knowing that there were several sets of rules to work to, the worst were those for the saloon class. All seemed overly extensive, I drew up a simple set of rules and Andy Brown-Searle fine tuned them, these are the rules we race to at Raceway 81. They only take up two sheets of paper, simple but rules are always a work in progress and require the backing or the majority to work properly.
The Tottenham rules are pretty good, I build mine to the lower ground clearance, these cars are so heavy with there big "c" can motors they need the lower ground clearance to keep them in the slot. When you crash these cars you wreck them, since using lower ground clearance I have reduced the number of major rebuilds on my car, This is not really a big change to the look of the car and not excessively difficult to achieve. Due to the difficulty of obtaining the old motors it would be sensible to find a modern alternative which would be low cost, a super 16d was raced by Dave Bradburn at Raceway 81 and lapped in the high 4 second range, the C can motor cars lapped in 4.4 second mark
With all these classes I feel that apart from a guide tongue and motor bracket all the materials used in chassis building should be obtainable from a model shop, i.e. no laser cut items or exotic materials.
I have returned recently,and perhaps have a fresh perspective on these racing classes, I feel that the main propose is to enjoy the racing without the rules getting in the way. If we all have quick cars we enjoy the racing.

Mike
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,946 Posts
Hi Steve, Mike, John, Richy and John
Thanks for your input.

I would like to place on record some of my own personal views here if I may.
First thing to remember is that us 'southerners' have been racing D3 cars for at least 4 years and Tottenham cars since about 2002.

Can-Am cars.
It really doesn't matter which set of rules you work too they are all pretty much the same.
I would prefer to just stick with the Falcon type (FK130) motors.
The ProSlots are rebuildable and there are all sorts of hot armatures becoming available to fit them. Controlling that, and the costs, could be an issue.

F1.
This is where problems begin.
The original rules were those of the official SocalD3 group and these are the rules we all work to down south.
With a maximum chassis width off 1 3/8" it will be appreciated that these cars are at a significant disadvantage when racing against IRRA cars which have a chassis width of 1 5/8".
The feed back I am getting down here is that no one wants to switch to the wider IRRA cars.

Saloon.
This is just a mess.
Not many people really seem to want to race the 4 1/2" cars and I can't really understand why.
A full grid of big, fully decorated, NASCAR stockers should be very impressive.
Can anyone tell us what bodies are actually available for this class here in the UK? Mr Dilworth?
I really don't see the point of just clipping a saloon body onto your Can-Am and racing it again. You might just as well race Can-Am twice.

Tottenham.
I can see no reason why these rules needed tampering with.
We have been racing them for 8 or 9 years to the rules on the CSCRA site with no issues.
I do not agree with lowering the front.
The original ARC rules required 1/16" clearance under the whole car so 0.048 is already lower than we ran in the '60s and '70s.
Set up like this they will still be quicker than a D3 Can-Am car.
The option to use a car based on a modern production chassis needs removing (it's useful for club nights but really has no place in a national series).
Modern Parma and Slotworks 16Ds and Super 16Ds have always been allowed in these cars, but the rules might need updating to exclude the modern generation of 16Ds from ProSlot etc. The rules also permit the use of a Group 12 armature in a period C can.

I understand that individual clubs might want to 'fiddle' with rules a bit to encourage wider participation on club nights but if a National Series is to continue and expand I do believe we need an agreed common set of rules to work to.

Please think about all of this and be prepared to compromise.
If not then I can see;
North London and Timaru not joining the series.
Wellingborough being run to the current SocalD3, CSCRA and Tottenham rules.
Raceway 81 being run to IRRA and Newcastle rules.

So we end up with a collection of individual events all requiring different cars or set ups.
Unlike in the USA there are just not enough of us building and racing these cars that we can just ignore what groups are doing and still get a good entry.

Cheers.
****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,600 Posts
Howmet will perhaps speak for himself, ****, but his vac-forming equipment won't cope with a large 'stocker' body. The Mustangs and Camaros are the upper limit to what he can do.
The best source for 4.5" wheelbase bodies that I'm aware of is Ron Hershman's Outisight line. These are the bodies that Andy had at Wellingborough earlier in the year and which were widely admired by all who saw them. At Buena Park the D3 NASCAR class seems to be a one body series using the lowered and flattened Mercury Cyclone available from Electric Dreams.

As I said before, I'd prefer a solely 4.5" wheelbase class but I'll happily race whatever the majority decides. I agree with **** in that a full field of six of them at Wellingborough or Raceway 81 would be awe-inspiring.
It was a pleasure to meet Mike and Richie at Newcastle but I have to disagree with Mike on his Saloon views. If a racer is entered into the 'Retro' national series, he's already committed to building or otherwise acquiring three distinct chassis. I don't see how adding a further one, with six months or so advance notice, should be a deal breaker. The Capri and Vauxhall bodies he mentions would be nice but I suspect that if they existed I would have seen them already in use.

I wouldn't mind the extra width of the IRRA F1 cars in order to have more flexibility in chassis design but, again, I'm happy to go with the majority view.

A further option for Tottenham Sports car motors, somewhere between the D cans and C cans are the Proslot Euro motor, JK Hawk variants. There's a wide selection of arms available and it should be possible to find one that will propel a car around in the same time frame as the existing vintage motors.
I agree with the future removal of the modern production chassis option for this class.

Regards,
L.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
One way to stop two class chassis is to go with a 16D type motor in saloon, that way you can run any legal saloon body you like and the chassis would have to be dedicated because of the size of the motor, so no qiuick body changes!
Long time since i read the Tottenham [or any other!] rules but remember that Ian and i decided to run the cars lower at the front so as to get more out of the rear tyres, however i have no problems with running a 1/16" all round. As for Tottenham motors i would not go the Euromotor route as they are quite a bit smaller than the "C" can and with some creative building would give quite a bit of an advantage over an original.
In my mind F1 should go more the way of the "jail door" than even wider, there are some superb bodies for jail door so why not use them.
All classes as they are at the moment need tighter body regs as you often see some over the top bodies slip through.
[oneofwos]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
No need to have different motors for can-am and saloon, simply specify a maximum wheelbase of 4" for Can-am and a minimum wheelbase of 4.25" for saloon chassis, that then requires a individual car for each class, with no restriction to specific bodies in saloon. Do not forget that if you adapt a NASCAR only saloon class, every quick driver will choose the Dodge Daytona or Mercury Cyclone shell, these being the best handling of the big bodies, with little variation producing a same as everyone else grid. This happened in 1/32 brisca saloon where everyone who raced a long body used the Dodge Daytona.(still got mine).
I agree that the only motor for D3 should be the Falcon.
Mike
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
Does not a min 4.25" w/b saloon chassis restrict body choice?
The motor issue is another problem as all sealed motor classes i have seen [in various types of model car racing] end up costing more than the non sealed type. The problem is getting a good out of whats left from the "selected" out ones on offer, the wallet racer buy a dozen to find a quick[ish] one so its cost him far more than buying the more [by not much!] expensive servicable single motor!
[oneofwos]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,946 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Hi John,
It would seem that I haven't explained myself too well regarding the ground clearance on Tottenham cars.
I am not asking for 1/16" under the entire car as we used to have at Tottenham, Nordic, Hammersmith etc in the '60s.
We had that discussion when you were writing out the original set of rules.
All I am asking for is that the 0.048" front clearance as stated in the rules should be adhered to.
The rules at Raceway 81 currently allow them to run with only 0.015" front clearance.
Cheers.
****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,593 Posts
I love the idea of having slammed, 3 1/8" wide Jags, Capris and Cortinas in the saloon class! I'd happily make some up if there was a use for them. As Steve K rightly says, I can't squeeze much more than a Mustang out of the limited space available in my vacformer. I have a 4.5" w/b Toronado mould which just about works though. But you can get Nascars aplenty from Outisight.
As for other ideas, I do personally prefer the narrower D3 F1 rules, I'd love to see a Jail Door class in F1 and Sports (although the current IRRA rules are very complex), and I don't really have an opinion about clearances other than that Tottenham rules should retain as much 'authenticity' as possible. I like sealed FK motors, and Parma 16Ds in stock car chassis sound good to me.
As a lousy driver, I like to think that all these 'retro' classes should allow a bit of elbow room for builders & concours painting as well as out-and-out racing, so should encourage building and developing chassis more than buying off-the-shelf, or racing one frame with multiple bodies.
But that's just me, and I don't get out much.

See y'all on Wednesday for cocktails.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,600 Posts
One thing that hasn't been touched on yet is that both D3 and the IRRA are both very conscious of the look of their race cars and both have an approved body list, the latter being more liberal than the former.
I don't think we should adopt these wholesale but either might provide a good starting point to which UK bodies fitting the classes might be added. CanAm bodies with excessive aero enhancements should be limited to the Tottenham class in my opinion.

I do like the idea of Parma 16Ds in whatever Saloon/Stock Car class is decided on.
Some good ideas so far.

Regards,
L.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Howmet Tx, love the idea of the Jag, Lets have a British saloon series and not simply copy the Americans in everything .I remember spectating at British saloon racing in the late 60's and early 70's with a mixture of saloons Mini's Jags Cortinas Boss mustangs Camero's Alfa's,etc.I have unfortunately never been to a NASCAR race.
Jags Capri's etc. "IF YOU MOULD THEM WE WILL BUY THEM."
By the way 0.4mm ground clearance is 20 thou not 15, I simply do not understand the problem of using lower ground clearance, after all we no longer use orange and blue tyres with various different compounds of goopas we did in the 70's there doesn't seem to be any fuss over that .Track conditions have changed, adapt.
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Hello-
Just a few notes and observations of my own which I hope might add something to what looks like a very healthy debate on future D3 racing--

Clearly the regulations we're racing under will have to be standardised sooner or later--

Can-Am seems to be pretty clear-cut.Apart from some very slight contention about front end ground clearance,which I'll add my ha'pporth to later--

I think we should be building and racing the bigger 41/2" in saloon.I put the first one together at Raceway 81,and have been racing at some slight disadvantage for the

last several months in our club championship because I'm so taken by the cars--everyone who's seen them on the track has been impressed by their 'presence' and scale

appearance.

The bodies available from Andy are really a bit special by vac-form standards and I know I've been more motivated to finish mine,and one or two for other people ,to a

high standard, than I would have been for the usual cut-down Camaro.

Pursuing the ultimate in slotcar performance and th n'th degree of race advantage results in cars with no profile height and no front wheels,a perversion particularly

difficult to justify to interested outsiders. We are presumably racing retro because they look more like the prototype----

The only comment on F1 is on chassis width-lots of people here have built to 40mm.,which is about the 'relaxed' width of most available bodies--These are all of course

'Handling' bodies by the terminlogy of the time and already more or less under profile and over width on scale sizes--

The formula neverthless works,many of the cars at the recent meeting have looked very impressive and scalish,particularly with wider front wheels--

Tottenham seems close to right-It would be good to keep a close limit on the size of air control devices,as the raceway 81 rule do--these cars, in their era ,were of course

the original root of wing -car racing--I love racing wings,but wouldn't pretend to my worst enemy they look much like real cars--

It would also be good to work out a suitable formula for an acceptable modern motor--vintage Mura bits and such are in short supply and not readily available to the

relative novice--

Regarding motors---I think we should stick to Falcons only--these are close to tamper proof,and in spite of loads of rumour and innuendo to the contrary very consistent --

The 'Euro-Motor'(and the Hawk,which is really just the same thing with a different 'ole) is not so much a motor but rather a motor series--

There are far too many armatures in far too many specs available for these.I have lots of experience of these in scale cars--As an example a 'Big-Dog' arm in a decent

set up produces close to group12 levels of power and revs--Tags can be removed from arms etc. etc and the net result of all of this would be quit impossible to police at

open meetings.

I've changed my mind about front ground clearance--we voted for 15thou for raceway rules--careful testing--i.e driving me Dodge Charger as fast as I can go round our

excellent track-suprised me.I couldn't detect any consistent difference between this and 48thou,and at least the latter guarantees that the car is supported fully by the front

wheels under pressure and not by any horns on the front-end of yer chassis.Any more height than this is surely an unnecessary handicap--

I think it's very important next year's series includes more clubs and is scrutineered to agreed regulations.A relaxed atmosphere is great,but I for one would be more

relaxed if I didn't think anyone was taking the ******* ----- We can do it.

Yours,
Chris Cowan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,593 Posts
There is a slight problem that Steve raises from my point of view, in that officially all bodies need to be sanctioned by the IRRA chaps in the US. It's a bit of a pain to ship them over and have them turned down. I'm very happy to make stuff, but it helps to know in advance that they will be usable. Whether a UK class wants- or needs- to conform to the IRRA itself in this or other matters might be worth thinking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Hi guys, great discussion.

Just some food for thought for you.

1. The ProSlot motors approved for IRRA{TM} use are sealed right from ProSlot. These seals do prevent any perceived changing of arms, etc. Even those refurbished are sealed. While the refurbishers are on this side of the pond, if you know of an existing company that already does motor servicing you may want them to contact us to become an approved refurbisher.

While the rules say "no-sub sets" starting 9/1/11, or guess I should say 1/9/11 for you folks, meaning that all motors allowed for the class are to be allowed to be used, I would imagine that if there was a gentleman's agreement amongst you that would not be a problem. I'd do some more testing with the PS first. Economically it is the way to go IMO.

2. The Stockcar class is one load of fun. May be the toughest class of all (next to Jail Door GP) to drive flawlessy.

3. Guys have run D3 width F1 cars alongside IRRA{TM} F1 cars and there is not as much of a difference as one may think. IRRA{TM} also has a weight limit in F1 of 100 grams but it is rare anyone runs less than 110 with these cars.

4. There is another rule difference in F1 in D3 that IRRA does not have and that is the allowed length of the frame from the center of the axle to the rear. In D3 it is quite long whereas in IRRA {TM} nothing can stick out the furthest most rear portion of the body.

5. You may find, as we have, that the ProSlot 4002B Puppy Dog may not be the motor of choice depending on the track that are racing on. Often the FK motors are much better on shorter tracks like flat tracks, hillclimbs, etc. Some King tracks here be better have also shown to have the FK motors actually be better than the ProSlots and a lot has to do with the power.

6. While the Jail Door Classes are not an official IRRA{TM} Class, they are true retro scratchbuilts and a lot of fun and supported by the IRRA{TM} as you can see a link to the rules from the IRRA website. The TSR homeset or Falcon 2 motors are the ones allowed and we run them often here. I would encourage you to give them a try for sure. I can always send over one of mine to Sir Kemson or Dilworth for you to try out.

7. I personally know the guy that is the conduit for approving new bodies for the IRRA{TM}. If he gives you a hard time let me know. The rules for approval are pretty simple though.
- Make sure it is within the years and class allowed.
- Make sure the dimensions are met (4.5WB for Stockcars, no wings wider the body,etc.
Seems the chap Sir Dilworth has had a few approved and are used. His Lotus 43 F1 is already a podium winner.

Remember, the name is "International" and from the very beginning it has always been thought that this organization should be worldwide.

The 2011 rule sets will be published next week. There are no changes to anything; just incorporation of the things already announced since the last rule set.

Anyway, please feel free to ask me anything on the IRRA{TM} stuff. Thanks for listening..well reading!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
QUOTE (**** Kerr @ 25 Aug 2011, 10:52) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>With a maximum chassis width off 1-3/8" it will be appreciated that these cars are at a significant disadvantage when racing against IRRA cars which have a chassis width of 1-5/8".
Actually, we have not found any observable performance difference between D3-width and the IRRA&#153;-width F1 chassis. Theoretically, I guess there should be a difference, but I and others have used chassis built to D3 width in IRRA&#153; races without being outclassed or outrun due to the chassis. Noose has indicated he's run his IRRA&#153; F1 against Gorski's D3 car and "there was no difference". And it is usually pretty simple to widen most D3 F1s to 1-5/8" if desired.

It would not be possible for me to overemphasize just how important it is to have everyone use a single rulebook. All of us involved in IRRA&#153; felt it was important going in, but speaking only for myself I have been pleasantly surprised to see the many positives that have accrued since IRRA&#153; was created in October 2007.

We've seen interest and involvement in Retro racing from the manufacturing community and my belief is that has happened because, with almost everyone using the same rules, the Retro market represents one of sufficient size to attract their interest and investment.

Fragmentation and duplication of effort has bedeviled the slot racing hobby since I first got involved in the mid-'60s. Some of us preached the benefits of a BoD-managed sanctioning body and one rule set for a couple of decades, but got no traction from folks who seemingly had agendas other than bringing growth and stability to the competitive hobby. Once we put our ideas and concepts in place in IRRA&#153;, we were pretty blown away to find that the positive effects far exceeded our rosiest projections.

I feel the IRRA&#153; probably has the most effective management structure yet seen in a US slot racing sanctioning body. The organization is in place and functioning on all cylinders, with a constantly updated website and very open channels of communication, both up and down, at Slotblog. Because of the odd-number BoD format, no one person can push a personal agenda, which so often happens in slot racing. And the board is composed of racers with deep experience in every slot racing genre, from HO to FCR to Flexi to Eurosports to Opens, both in the US and elsewhere, as well as having more than one director who raced back in the day when scratchbuilt cars were the norm.

QUOTE (lowrider @ 25 Aug 2011, 07:16) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>D3 seems to be in a continual state of flux in some respects, and it's a shame that the latter name has become our shorthand for 'retro' racing in general.
The original proposal from Paul Sterrett in SoCal was for the scratchbuilt Retro niche to be a part of the USRA, thus it was to be called Division 3 USRA alongside Div 1 (wing cars) and (Div 2 ("scale" cars). But the USRA seemingly wasn't interested and virtually none of the early Retro racers wanted anything to do with the USRA (for valid reasons, in my view). Thus D3 was essentially stillborn, but the corpse has been resurrected as a meaningless moniker that communicates exactly nothing to anyone who hasn't had it translated for them. Purely from a marketing and promotional standpoint, Retro racing or something similar with more self-evident meaning would be preferable IMO.

On another topic, I used to be an active poster here at SlotForum and now I'm not simply because my attentions are focused elsewhere. I am sorry not be be able now to spend much time over here and hope my many friends who frequent both board will understand. There's just not enough hours in the day...
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top