PDA

View Full Version : 2003 scale proposals



LoudCat
04-03-2003, 05:16 PM
I apologize for the delay but here, as promised, are the scale proposals 2003.

The pro and con statements included with each proposal are a distillation of communications with opponents and/or proponents of the proposals and do not necessarily represent the views of the USRA or it's officers.

The meeting will be in the afternoon of Thursday, April 10th. There will also be voting for the overall and scale division officers.

A proponent for each proposal will be given approximately two minutes to speak at the meeting.

You can read the proposals here: http://www.usra.us/2003props.htm


--------------------------------

mark g
04-03-2003, 08:46 PM
sould be a short meeting!:D

LoudCat
04-04-2003, 09:34 AM
I was expecting the board to be full of coments about the proposals by.

Well, maybe a lack of controversy is a good thing. ;)

John Emmons
04-04-2003, 11:05 AM
Roy,

Would you like the comments arranged alphabetically, or by number...?

But seriously, theres some good stuff in there. I like the ideas of getting rid of minimum airgaps. Never heard a valid reason why one can't set it at whatever they want, the only one hurt by running one too close is the guy who did it.
Same with the clearance rules.

I wouldn't count on the handout motors for Experts to fly, although in theory it's a great idea. There's something to be said for a real spec class race, separates the drivers from the motor builders. Maybe you could make up a separate and distinct class, using only hand out motors? I know that in my case not having to worry about motors has make getting organised to go to the Nats is much easier. All I need is chassis', bodies, and tires. And those pesky C12E motors.

If the airgap rule goes out, I think the epoxy rule should go in. Again, there's no real compelling reason to disallow it, if someone has trouble using or buying epoxy, then they don't have to use it. Pretty simple.

The adoption of ISRA style racing formats is interesting, I wouldn't bet the farm on that one getting many votes.

As I've been politely told my posts tend to be too long, so I'll reserve comment on the other proposals, I will say this, thanks for getting them posted and visible. It's a great step towards more openness, something the USRA is in great need of. I'm still interested in figuring out ways to change the bylaws by the way.

And lastly, your tech tools WILL be in Mineral Ridge, the only problem might be those .055" clearance tools, the rest are in the final stages of completion.

John Emmons

glueside
04-04-2003, 12:28 PM
Roy,

I will put my answers to the proposals here and see what happens from there:

1 - Agreed - will help everyone stabilize

2 - If 1 fails - NO (We need bodies that look like actual NASCAR and not something that you see at the drag track)

3 - If 1 fails - NO (We need bodies that look like actual NASCAR and not something that you see at the drag track)

4 - Agreed - will help everyone stabilize

5 - Agreed

6 - If 4 fails - Agreed

7 - Yes (Let the motor people decide on their air gaps)

8 - Yes (Especially if the air gap rule changes)

9 - Yes (Let the motor people decide on their air gaps)

10 - Yes (Especially if the air gap rule changes)

11 - NO (To much expense for people in the short term. Will run numerous new people away from the class.)

12 - Yes

13 - Agreed (I will feel sorry for the director, but if he has help it can be done rather easily)

14 - Yes we need an ethics committee, and I would even volunteer to be on it.

15 - NO (The 16D arms are already way to expensive for a beginners class)

16 - Yes

17 - Yes

18 - No

19 - No

20 - NO

21 - Yes (Sounds like alot of fun for everyone. Hey Bob, wouldn't you love to run with Jerry in this type of race format?)

22 - Yes (Everyone has the same shot at winning the first time around and not the person who can rebuild the car between each semi)

23 - Yes (Move them up)

24 - NO (But we do need to get rid of the "Super Ultimate" bodies somehow and this is not how.)


25 - NO (Make them touch at the beginning and END of the race. If not, they are disqualified.)

26 - NO

27 - Yes

This is just my opinion. Lets here some debate, but keep it clean.

Aubin 3 sixteen
04-04-2003, 12:43 PM
27 potential votes - if only 10 minutes allowed per item to vote and debate, that's still 3 1/2 hours. Not trying to be negative, just suggesting that a big chunk of time be alloted rather than trying to squeeze it in between races.

LoudCat
04-04-2003, 02:41 PM
More about Proposal #4

My thinking behind the freeze is simple. The 4 and 4.5 classes are doing well right now so letís just LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE! If we allow mixing parts and epoxy this year, next year it will be honing and shunt wires. And the year after that it will be ball bearing, and the year after that it will be some new kind of wind or getting rid of D cans altogether. Just my opinion, but starting down the road of turning our intro class into a motor builder class would be a very, very bad thing. If racers want to go faster, they can race GT1. Letís not let what happened to boxstock happen to 4 and 4.5 stock cars.

Jeff,
Thanks for the comments. I donít understand you position on #25. That seems like a really harsh penalty.

Gil,
The idea behind publishing the list is so there can be several days of informal discussion before the meeting. Most likely, there will just be a quick vote on most proposals. Any chance you can come down next week?

John,
See you next week. You will like the UK black.

glueside
04-04-2003, 03:48 PM
Roy,

My reasoning is because of so many people not even having the front tires touching, and that is against the rule book. Check any of my cars (even wing cars) and my front tires are below the chassis, all be it at times just a piece of rubber, but yet a front tire.

I just want someone to show me a car that races with only the back wheels and a picture for its front wheels. I want to see the more scale side of racing in this division, if you want to do the other stuff go race division 1.

Dave Fugate
04-04-2003, 05:48 PM
getting rid of the min. airgap rule is fine, as long as you leave the min arm diameter. C-can racing doesn't need ten different arm diameters to go with all these different airgaps.

The move up rule is good, as long as it only affects the class you win in an not the other classes that you race in.

Example: If you win Am. GT-12, should you now have to race PRO GT1 or PRO 4.5? I think not.

kaboom
04-04-2003, 07:06 PM
I almost mimick all of Glueside's responses:
1) Yes.
2) No.
3) No.
4) Yes, as long as it pertains to 4 and 4.5 STOCK car motors.
5) Yes, but I would want advance notice of any manufacturer
that is going to produce this before it hits the market, such
as 'coming in July......' .
6) No, unless 4 fails, then yes.
7) Yes. Few will know what to do with it anyway, and how to
build/adjust the air gap, and it may help someone learn
how to do something new, then again, it may keep
someone on Div. II and not push them towards the
'upper' classes.
8) Yes. See 7), but keep all dimension specs the same on the
hardware.
9) Yes. See 8)
10) Yes.
11) NO, unless they are Okay'ed in Boxstock 12. Some folks in
GT-12 have their eyes on Boxstock 12, why make them have
to have 2 different motors ? Help the racers and the motor
manufacturers by not forcing them to have 2 identical motors
- except 1 has bearings and 1 has bushings.
12) Yes, as long as there is advance notice we will soon have a
new option available. I don't want it to be a surprise when
someone says 'you can't get that one anymore', or, after I
buy 8 new cans, I find out I should have waited 30 days for
the 'new' can to come out.
13) Is 30 days enough ? Are we talking Rules or Parts ?
14) Define 'Ethics'. For the Competitors ? Track Owners ?
Manufacturers ? Folks sitting on the USRA board ?
Rules violations ? Parts violations, by either the
competitor or the manufacturer ?
15) Yes, but put a cap on the 'raise'. $3.00 ?
16) Yes.
17) Yes.
18) No. Don't waste your time stirring up trouble.
19) No. Again, don't waste your time by creating trouble for
yourselves.
20) Please define the Phil Helmuth rule for those that don't know.
YES. Checkbook racing should not be an issue, if you can
drive, the checkbook is not relevant. Besides, I'd bet 75%+
of us are 'checkbook racers' anyway. How many of us will
be first in line to get newly approved bodies ? And arms ?
21) Yes - for the Euro races only.
22) YES.
23) Yes.
24) NO. Someone can make all the bodies they want, but if they
are not accepted (by the USRA), they cannot run (In the
USRA), so this is an irrelevant 'rule'.
Or did I miss something here ?
25) No in general, but for what class ?
26) No.
27) Yes - as long as the chassis does not touch the track in any
corner.

RollinI
04-05-2003, 06:19 AM
There is something so tempting about seeing proposals that they just draw people that don't even race all of the classes affected in to comment. I don't race many classes any more. I haven't been to a Nats since Orlando (and that was just as a spectator). And I realize that these rules proposals mainly affect just the Nats as opposed to local racing. However, many state-wide series (such as FL Div 2) adopt the USRA rules as a guideline to follow.

So, since I just can't help myself, here's my .02.

1. YES. I'm tired of stocking up on bodies to have them go obsolete and I would like a little more variety.

2. NO. Times haven't dropped off that much, and the cars look better.

3. NO. See above

4. YES.

5. YES.

6. NO. The "D" can classes should be left as close to entry level as possible as these rules can trickle all the way down to the newbie.

7. NO. same reason as 6

8. NO. for the exact reasons stated in the cons section.

9. YES.

10. YES.

11. YES.

12. YES.

13. NO. racers know when the deadline is, if you have something to say.... say it quick.

14. YES.

15. NO.

16. YES.

17. YES.

18. NO.

19. NO.

20. YES.

21. YES. Ūt's racing. schmitt happens. fix it under the green.

22. FENCE. YES. if it really save time. many events are too long now. NO. one good lap doesn't mean you can race. opens the door to sandbagging

23. YES. frankly, I think the top 3 should have to move up.

24. YES. the more scale the cars can appear, the better.

25. NO. part of the challenge of running in the Scale division, is tuning the car to handle with all 4 tires on the track.

26. YES.

27. YES.