JamesArluck

iTrader: (52)

Things left to cover:

-Price limits for lipos and brushless motors
-Safety tests/specs for NiMH like they have with lipos
-one run foam tires
-outlawing oneways, or more enforcement of rough driving penaltys (no more "calling" oneways)

Darkseid

iTrader: (9)

I'm not sure that the cost of hop ups would even factor into a reduction of weight. If you slap a Lipo in your car right now, any car...your under the standard weight limit. So if the limit gets reduced, no one would "need" to get lightweight parts.

If a car like the TA05R can come in well under weight with just a Lipo and no hop ups, I think all these people running at big events will be okay running X-Ray, Schumacher, Corally, etc...

Advil

iTrader: (19)

You've been racing with STLNLST for too many years.

Mason

These larger races could ask for an IFMAR sanctioning and then anyone could attend. but then why have worlds.. ya know.
You could go about it the other way with superlicensing/registering or atleast the recognition of it. Just gotta make sure the blocs update the master list weekly.

Other wise, the race hosts, or promotors, or other industry affiliates can get together and come up with some sort of ground rules on setting a series of events up to equate to a champion. Each of those races have their own points of interest. The rules may be different for each one - Heck they may actually all be the same.

JUST DONT GIVE OUT A GREEN JACKET.

timmay70

iTrader: (5)

Not only does ROAR sanction the rules used at our races in Northern America, but they also provide the insurance for the event. A superlicense for IFMAR affiliated sanctioning bodies would all be fine, however, I don't see how they could automatically be covered with the ROAR provided insurance unless their membership fee was paid... Just a thought.

Would IFMAR sanction a non-worlds title event?

On the by, I think that racers should choose their shells at their own peril. If they want to race a lightweight shell, so be it. If they get tucked, or the shell disintegrates in one outing, they knew what they were getting into when they bought it. The shells don't last long on our LHS's shelves. We have both types of folks that race at our track, those that like them, and those that hate them. Where did the notion come from that they should be outlawed anyway, it's retarded to rule on something as mundane as that.

JamesArluck

iTrader: (52)

yep, and watching the DHI cup videos too many times

Matt Howard

iTrader: (6)

I believe it was Dale Epp that wanted to outlaw them, you know, Mr. Protoform

mrrcguy

iTrader: (25)

Yeah, I just have not decided on a title for it yet, but its coming.

maybe "MID-AMERICA INTERNATIONAL TC CHAMPOINSHIPS".?

timmay70

iTrader: (5)

Dale Epp makes some really nice shells, so I have respect for his work. I don't see how making thin shells effects him or racers that race his shells. If a racer racing another shell gets tucked, or wants to race a lightweight shell, how does it effect him or Protoform? If ROAR rules that all shells must be .030, how does that effect some of the off-road shells that are extremely thick? Why bother trying to regulate this? It seems like wasted effort that could be spent elsewhere.

or8ital

iTrader: (38)

On the shells. I believe its a cost thing. They have to make 2 of everything.

trailranger

The Tour-De-France set a minimum weight not based on what technology could achieve but what was needed. Many bike makers would skip on saftey and just go for the lightest bike. The weight limit also stop bike makers from trying to lobby for rules that favored thier bikes so they could win the tour and strongarm the market.

At somepoint(future) I feel ROAR should stand their ground and say, this will be the minimum weight and will not be affected by changes in technology. The weight reduction in some areas of the car could be used to increase the durability of the car in other areas.

robk

iTrader: (22)

I think the lightweight body issue is mostly that:
A. It's pretty much considered a must have if they are legal
B. The "average guy" is turned off from touring cars by this, among many other developments.
C. The longevity of the body is shorter (which I also say you pays your money and takes your choice)

Plus body tucks suck.

Personally, I think that lightweight bodies are not a great thing, especially since they inspire so many 1 color paint jobs

TimPotter

iTrader: (15)

Yes Dale brought it to ROAR, and I believe EFRA too, but I do not think it is "retarded". He will most likey sell less bodies in the short term, he saw it as another " One Run" piece of the puzzle that could be eliminated.

Is his and many other people observations ( including Pro Racers ) , the ultra thin bodies are playing too much of a part in determining the results of race. From the One color paint jobs to the tuck and go method of passing, it is taking away from the overall show...

So take that out of the equation, and it is yet another thing that should be done to help a type of racing that is on Life Support.

trailranger

I believe it is a cost thing too.

It is bad enough hobby shops have to choose brand and style of the week, then come up with the perfect ratio of lights to normal bodies to stock. If the LHS, Distributor, or manufacture gets the demand wrong or a untimely release of a new body any of those in the supply chain could be hurt resulting in higher cost passed onto the racers. Dead stock inventory hurts everyone. If a LHS could reduce inventory in one area, I am sure they will increase inventory in other areas, like stocking one or two more colors of paint for that body. A perfect solution for those monotone paint jobs


A .030 rule for onroad cars would not be a bad idea. Some of the die-hards will complain, but the fast guys will always be fast even with thicker shell. This rule would protect our wallets. For those that run only one or two bodies a year for thier car the savings may only be $1, but for the others including the LHS if could be in the hundreds each year.

Darkseid

iTrader: (9)

I'm not a fan of the ultra thin bodies. To me, all it takes is to use one to realize that you don't want one. Last winter I can think of 6 straight...yes SIX...straight club races (one of which was a event race) where I went from high up in the A-main, to dead last, because my lightweight Protoform G6 tucked. I only tried that long to use it because I had a REALLY nice Core Creations paint sceme on it. Otherwise I would have stopped using it the first time it happened. The main problem being that no matter how well you drive, its not up to you whether or not it gets tucked. Its up to the person behind you.

That being said though, I'm also a fan of Formula 1. And as a fan of that series, and seeing whats being done to it by Max Mosely, I believe that when it comes to rules, you want to focus on the absolute essentials and not over regulate.

So if someone knows the drawbacks of running a ultra thin body, and still wants to risk running one, why should that be regulated?

On the flip side, anything that keeps me from having to look at another all white paint sceme at the big races our local races is definitely a plus.