DRAFT Updated Retro Regulations (incl RETRO PRO)

General Discussion, Race Reports & Results for this Great 'Scratch-Builders' Class.
User avatar
Mark Fox
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Balmain, Sydney

DRAFT Updated Retro Regulations (incl RETRO PRO)

Postby Mark Fox » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:54 pm

Hi All,

UPDATE AS AT 26 AUGUST 2016

Here is the final version of these Regulations:-
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1254

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I HAVE INCORPORATED THE SUGGESTIONS TO DATE INTO A NEW VERSION OF THE DRAFT REGULATIONS WHICH CAN BE FOUND FURTHER DOWN THIS PAGE (AFTER DARRYL'S COMMENTS). PLEASE READ THESE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INITIAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS AND MY RESPONSES BELOW. I HAVE ALSO CLEANED UP THE WORDING A LITTLE TO MAKE IT MORE CONCISE IN SOME PARTS.

I have been contemplating an updated set of Retro Regulations for some time with a view to establishing a simple but comprehensive regulation environment for going forward with our hobby.

I discussed this recently with Wayne Bramble and he was keen for me to progress to a DRAFT set of regulations and to also incorporate regulations for a Retro Pro class of racing. One of the primary objectives for these rules is to provide the 'playing field' for the upcoming Retro Worlds to be held on Raceworlds' King track in 2017. There will be three classes raced in in the 2017 'Worlds': - CanAm, F1 and Retro Pro.

Here are my set of draft rules to be contemplated.

Please consider them and be free with any comments and questions.

1-Retro Draft as Posted - P1.jpg
1-Retro Draft as Posted - P1.jpg (252.06 KiB) Viewed 3156 times

2-Retro Draft as Posted - P2.jpg
2-Retro Draft as Posted - P2.jpg (255.13 KiB) Viewed 3156 times

3-Retro Draft as Posted - P3.jpg
3-Retro Draft as Posted - P3.jpg (153.89 KiB) Viewed 3156 times

4-Retro Draft as Posted - P4.jpg
4-Retro Draft as Posted - P4.jpg (192.88 KiB) Viewed 3156 times


Going forward I think we really need to consider the establishment of a Body to both promote and regulate Retro Racing in Australia and would welcome your comments as to (a) you agree with this in principle and (b) any suggestions as to the format of such a body.

Also when considering these rules please remember that we are racing for fun and that we want to be inclusive rather than exclusive. By this I mean (for example) that if a 'new racer' presents with a car that is not 100% compliant it would be up to the scrutineer to establish whether the car be allowed to race. The ideal result would be to have established racers assist and advise the 'newbie' as to how to make the car compliant for the future and maybe even assist. This would then perhaps help attract and retain an interested participant.

Having said this I do acknowledge and appreciate that this is generally what happens in practice currently.

However I would expect that an established racer to present cars that are within the letter of the regulations - for major races ALL cars will need to be 100% legal as per published regulations. This of course means that you need to read and understand them.

Enough said - let the comments, suggestions and questions begin.
Last edited by Mark Fox on Fri Aug 26, 2016 4:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Regards - Mark 8-)

"Do Less with More Focus"

ozproducts
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby ozproducts » Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:10 pm

Mark I don't like the rule that you can run any can-am retro car in Pro. Pro cars are going to be 1/2 sec, quicker

User avatar
SlotBaker
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:31 am
Location: Barden Ridge

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby SlotBaker » Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:26 pm

Good to see some thoughts on rules.
Good work Mark.

I couldn't see what motor is to be used for Retro Pro?

One comment I'd like to contribute, should we be using metric or imperial dimensions.
Maybe metric, with imperial in brackets?
Last edited by SlotBaker on Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Steve King

ozproducts
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby ozproducts » Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:09 pm

Hawk retro motor in Pro, and 64 pitch gears only( NO 72 pitch )

User avatar
SlotBaker
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:31 am
Location: Barden Ridge

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby SlotBaker » Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:09 am

OK, I thought you might have gone with the PS4002* like the U.S.
Does the gearing have to be 64P? Can it be 48P?
Steve King

ozproducts
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby ozproducts » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:22 am

64 only and we already race the retro hawk so we don't want to add another motor type Lets keep it simple

User avatar
SlotBaker
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:31 am
Location: Barden Ridge

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby SlotBaker » Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:20 am

OK, thanks.

ozproducts wrote:Mark I don't like the rule that you can run any can-am retro car in Pro. Pro cars are going to be 1/2 sec, quicker

If a compliant Retro Can-Am car was presented at tech for a Retro-Pro event, wouldn't it pass tech?
If so, it could be used.
Sure, it might not be competitive, but could still be used.
:?
Steve King

ozproducts
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby ozproducts » Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:38 am

This is only my point of view, I think we should all race apples and not oranges and apples. What is the ruling in the US? Then you are not encouraging people to build Pro chassis.

User avatar
SlotBaker
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:31 am
Location: Barden Ridge

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby SlotBaker » Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:53 am

They can run Can-Am in Pro.
I think Bryan Warmack actually won a race against a field of Pro chassis.
True, but if they want to win, they will need to build Pro chassis.
Steve King

User avatar
Mark Fox
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Balmain, Sydney

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby Mark Fox » Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:45 pm

Thanks for the input Steve and Wayne.

In summary: -
Re motor for Retro Pro I think as the rules currently allow and as Wayne says - Retro Hawk in Retro Pro.

Re Can Am cars being allowed in Retro Pro I have included this as they do so in good ole US of A - doesn't mean we have to follow of course - more discussion. Retro Pro is only raced in SCRRA events (I believe) whose rules do not have a min weight for CanAm and so a good CanAm with a Retro Pro body would be competitive. The rules indicate that an inline construction of Can Am Style but built lighter and with a Retro Pro bod would be eligible as any drive train type (inline, angle or side) is allowed. However as there is no MAXIMUM Weight or Wheel size rule for any class this makes a Can Am chassis legal. This leaves the question of bods - do we allow Can Am approved bods to run in Retro Pro - no advantage to doing so and thus I say this would be ok. The net result of this is that a Can Am car would be legal to run in Retro Pro. If we insist that a Retro Pro entry has an approved Retro Pro bod than a legal Can Am car with a Retro Pro bod would definitely be legal.

Re gears - what is readily available and reasonable cost? - are the gears we use on flexis etc 64 pitch? - if so lets stick to them. We don't want suppliers having to increase inventory or racers going off-shore to source some magical gears that are not held by local suppliers - we want to keep it simple and accessible.

Re the imperial vs the metric issue I have stuck with imperial as all the gear we get is denoted in imperial. Naturally we can give both but the reason that I have not done this as yet is the rules are draft at this point and I want feed-back on the actual content of the rules and then we can sort out any presentation issues.

Please keep the comment coming.
Regards - Mark 8-)

"Do Less with More Focus"

User avatar
SlotBaker
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:31 am
Location: Barden Ridge

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby SlotBaker » Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:39 pm

Mark Fox wrote:Retro Pro is only raced in SCRRA events (I believe)

True. Closest thing in IRRA is their "Retro Anglewinder" class. Similar, but only angle winder.
Steve King

neiljb
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 6:44 pm

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby neiljb » Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:45 pm

Pretty much agree with everything so far. Thanks Mark for your effort, nice and clear, kiss principles.
Let Can Am race, it might make it easier to find Marshalls. But as in the US rules they run as Can Am.
My thoughts on the motors - yes stick to what we already have in our pit boxes. But make them available not compulsory on each track.
I think a time frame for discussion should be put into place .......... let's get racing them!!
Neil

dtslot
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:34 pm
Location: NORTH RICHMOND NSW

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby dtslot » Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:03 pm

Hi all, Thanks Mark for your efforts. In ref to CA-1c the illustration depicts 0.050'' , should it be 0.047'' as per CA-1b
Also I know we have changed the CAN-AM width to 81 mm , but in the draft CA-2c width is stated as 3.125''.
81mm =3.189''. I am ok with whatever, but if these are the new regs, all needs to be very clear, and if cars need to be modified , so be it.
Also FI regs F1-1c minimum chasis clearance at rear 0.040, is that correct or should that also be 0.047 ? to be with a consistant clearance ?
Also not sure as to the 64P rule in RETRO PRO CLASS, I Realise 64 p is better than 48 p but if I want to run my can am in a race unmodified its a problem !
thanks for all the imputs
Darryl

dtslot
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:34 pm
Location: NORTH RICHMOND NSW

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby dtslot » Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:22 pm

Just a bit more,input, I like the imperial over the metric, everything from tyre dia, wire size,brass thickness, body thickness length, width and height always stated in imperial , ah bring back the old days! love retro.
Darryl

User avatar
Mark Fox
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Balmain, Sydney

Re: DRAFT Updated Retro Construction Regulations

Postby Mark Fox » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:43 am

Hi Darryl,

Re you comments - thanks for carefully reading the draft as you obviously have and your comments are addressed as follows.

dtslot wrote:In ref to CA-1c the illustration depicts 0.050'' , should it be 0.047'' as per CA-1b

Yes you are quite right - I originally had the rule stated as 0.050 but on reflection changed it to .047 as we have currently, it is also very easy to check with a piece of 18# wire which is readily available. I will modify the diagram accordingly.

dtslot wrote: FI regs F1-1c minimum chassis clearance at rear 0.040, is that correct or should that also be 0.047 ? to be with a consistent clearance ?

Again I agree with you on this and on the same note will change the rear clearance regulation on the Retro Pro class to .047 as well.

dtslot wrote:as to the 64P rule in RETRO PRO CLASS, I Realise 64 p is better than 48 p but if I want to run my can am in a race unmodified its a problem

Currently there is no rule re pitch of gears in Retro Pro - only a suggestion from Wayne re 64 pitch gears which I take to be regarding spur gears and pinions BUT not inline crowns and pinions. As per my discussion above - under Retro Pro rules a legal CanAm (inline gears) would be legal. Thus to make it absolutely clear I will include a reg that only 64 pitch gears may be used if the drive train is NOT inline. This should sort this issue in a watertight manner.

dtslot wrote:Also I know we have changed the CAN-AM width to 81 mm , but in the draft CA-2c width is stated as 3.125''

Yes that is correct. The history behind the change was that originally the only wheels available were the Alpha hubs and cars were built to 3.125" as per the regulations at the time. Further down the track JK hubs became available and these were wider than the Alpha hubs which meant that some cars were now too wide when shod with JK hubs (this was the case where the construction involved an axle tube carrying the bearings out to the limit for a 3.125" build with Alpha tires). Rather than forcing drivers (some who may not have the requisite skill) to modify their cars it was a matter of pragmatism to increase the rear track width to 3.189" (81mm) to accommodate JK hubs.

Going forward I personally feel that we should reel it back in to 3.125" - being the same width as the chassis - I have been looking carefully at chassis and note that most are now carrying the bearings in the U bracket and the axle tube has by and large been dispensed with and so reducing the rear track to 3.125" is not an issue as it means reducing the amount of spacers only.

HOWEVER please note that this is only my opinion on the matter and we are looking for consensus and also want to be inclusive as I stated. If anybody has an issue with changing this rule they may have input.
Regards - Mark 8-)

"Do Less with More Focus"