hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

This point has been covered repeatedly in this forum. We are following the existing ROAR rules as concerns 2wd, and to my knowledge, no one actually running in the class is having a problem with rules or people following them. We are allowing people to build their own car as well, provided it meets spec/rules, and if any issue should come up that would deviate from the existing rules, we'll handle it. Many times we've discussed this, nearly everyone has agreed that ROAR rules for 2wd are in effect, and any issue that comes up should be handled locally on a consensus base, with input from the other races, to ensure that everything remains fair. In short, you can drive a 35 year old SuperJ, or a brand new WRC, and be assured of fair treatment (and very little difference in lap times as well, frankly.) The specific issues of illegality involve suspension (shocks/springs) and any type of multi speed (no two speed or variable speed transmission allowed.) This means we have the most flexible environment to operate in, we are working hard to ensure that this class is more about FUN and the Driver than it is about money. If you have a specific argument against the inclusion of a particular build, you're encouraged to discuss it here, and as a group, we'll work to find the answer that best suits the needs of class.

hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

We may, at some point, get to where we need to modify the existing written ROAR rules governing 2wd. No prob, been there and done that many times in the past, and given how long its probably been since its been done, we may be due. That said, I only know of three manufacturers of pan cars (outside of what we're getting ready to build) and all are basically the same car. I suspect our build will have advantages, but we're building a 2wd that conforms the most closely to the original rules, and hardly matters anyway since we're doing VERY WELL this weekend here in Dayton. Tom is running the pan (his second time driving it) and he's holding his own, so I'm not seeing "new pan" with any advantage over old style. I was not in favor of the floppy style front end, I thought before and still think now that it's just a little too close to suspension, but having so few manufacturers means we can't deny a car without killing a car company at the same time (at least as involves pan.)

I think the carb restrictor idea is a very good one. It worked well for us back in the days of superstock and will do so again.

I think, on your build, you could get away with needing no shock of any type. The G10 has really good flex, and maybe with a chassis stiffener to ensure not too much movement up/down, you can get your lateral flex and the same overall performance you're looking for.

Taylorm

.... So basically if we say no ball type pivots... Every currently available
car on the market is now illegal????....I have and old RC300 has the
Davis t bar rear end... That car would be illegal also....We can't limit
cars in a class that has barely taken flight...I won't be the one to tell
current car racers to remove their pivots and lock hat front end down.....If
we want parity let's carb restrict the motors way down

ElliotCanada

I had two WRC Due Evos on order and canceled them last night because it seems that this discussion about rules has been going on for about three years. I will wait until stable rules are put in place. Is there any reason not to adopt the European Rules where Pan is an official class?

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

The floppy front end doesn't particularly concern me. While it prevents the corner weights from changing as the tires wear unevenly, which is good, the suspension is still essentially solid in bump. It also puts all of the roll stiffness at the rear, which is BAD.

It was dumb to do this on the front end of the car, when doing it at the rear instead would make such a big improvement to the handling. The cars in question have belt drive, and this gives enough compliance to design the car with the rear wheels pivoting side-to-side for zero roll stiffness.

There's no reason why things like pivot balls can't be outlawed from here on out, while still accepting the existing designs as exceptions. I think everybody would be happy with that.

OR... although I don't have one of the cars in question here to look at, I'm guessing it would also be quite simple to disable the pivoting front end. I see nothing wrong with that.

Or we can accept pivot balls, and deal with the consequences.

Shocks (dampers) make a huge improvement in handling. Will viscous dampers be allowed?

Will lossy elastomeric dampers be allowed?

Will a pivoting rear end, as I mentioned above, be allowed?

Will a link-style rear end (like those used in current 1/10 and 1/12 scale cars) be allowed?

Cars using individual drive shafts to each rear wheel can easily accomodate a DeDion rear end. Will this be allowed?

Looking beyond the suspension: Will underbody aerodynamic devices be allowed?

Personally, I'd like the answers to all of these questions to be NO. If that's the case, let's spell it out in the rules NOW before someone (like me!) does it.

If the rules don't currently prohibit a feature, and a manufacturer then makes a car using that feature, would it then be allowed to compete? If so, racers will be upset. If not, the manufacturer will be upset.

P.S. I'm happy that you guys are actually reading my posts. And happy that we are discussing this now!

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

Let me modify my previous suggestions for suspension rules so that (as I understand it, at least) all of the cars now running will conform:

Fiberglass flexure is the only allowed springing means, other than the tires themselves. No metallic or elastomeric springs allowed.

Spring damping must be via friction dampers only. Viscous dampers and elastomeric dampers are not allowed. Friction dampers must be run dry, with no liquid lubrication. (This eliminates the expense and maintenance of shocks.)

The engine must maintain a fixed relationship to the rear wheels whenever the car is in motion. (This permits T-plate cars, or cars with other floating rear pods, as long as the engine and transmission is part of the pod.)

These rules also allow someone to convert a suspension car to compete in the pan class.

Taylorm

....Or do we allow a pan type chassis like the current electric pan cars??.
Ie... T plates ... Or side links... ???...even springs up front as long as there
are no pivot pins like a full suspension car...
We need a balance between new and old tech... We can't have
a straight axle class only ( not readily available))).... But don't want
boot the current cars ( modern) from the class...lets come up with
carb restrictors... Set a base weight....21 cu in. Only..and go from there

Taylorm

... Sorry to hear that... We all want to grow
this class... It's the cheapest gas racing you can do bar none....I think
part of the fun is not having a class with 500 rules... Most of which
are broken at every club race anyway..When was the last time
a 4WD car was weighed in at a club race....????... I've
Never seen it...

5italkart

iTrader: (2)

john, please replace your order you will do just fine with those cars. we are having great low stress fun. just need too sort out the motor questions, i think we are running into "analysis paralysis" at this time. joe

ScottE1776

iTrader: (10)

Alternatively we could "grandfather" specific designs/brands and then identify areas that would be restricted in the future.

MrHistory

iTrader: (2)

I think all this passion should be directed toward putting cars on the track so we can go out and have fun. Rules in Europe work fine and I think we should keep it similar if we are making rules. The fear that things will get out of hand is unrealistic when you accept the fact that all the current cars are made within the European rules and you can see the cars are very simple and are not changing.

That's the last thing I will say about it and I am not participating in a chassis rules discussion on this thread. The rules are clear. And I'm confused why we are having such intense input on the thread when in reality, at the track we are all having a good time and not talking much about this.

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

Are the European rules any different from the rules proposed in post#166 of this thread?

Das 1/8th Mopar

Everybody who has been running in this class, is having a blast. We've had 3 ports racing 5, 7, and 9 ports. We've had old vs new vs home built. We've had several locked suspension cars race and it never has stopped being fun! A 9 port is nowhere near a 100% win over a 3 port, it's a battle. Those who race in it try hard to pass the word to those who say they'd like to race in it, but are afraid of the rules or lack of rules. I'm with Mr history on this one. One more race this year and I've got pan cars to get ready, don't have time for all this B.S.!! If you want to join the fun, we'd love to have you! If you want to fight about rules stay home!

Das 1/8th Mopar

Perhaps you had to be there, the track was less then ideal (sort of a car eater) with too much VHT laid down (can you say traction roll?), It was their first MWS Race (or Gas for that matter), and it rained. Yet the pan cars had large amounts of fun. Dayton did good and I think most everyone enjoyed themselves.
Hope the New York boys got their event in!

LETS RACE ONCE MORE!!!

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any fight going on over rules. I (and others) have asked for clarifications and made some proposals to keep things from getting out of hand.

Maybe everyone here should elect a Pan Car Poobah who says what the rules are, what goes, and what doesn't. It's worked very well for VTA; Rob King has done an excellent job (with help from a few friends). I further suggest that the Pan Car Poobah should be a current racer from the Ohio bunch, as that seems to be largest active group.