.

.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: USRA Boxstock Chassis

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,304

    USRA Boxstock Chassis

    USRA STATEMENT

    The following has been asked:

    This was voted and approved in 2012 to be implemented in 2015. Can we update the rule book to reflect these changes.

    Proposal 6 – Passed 58 – 13 – 2

    7. Disallow adding weight to the bottom of the chassis in Gp12. (needed to maintain a more consistent minimum ground clearance)

    Proposal 7 – Passed 37 – 34 – 2

    8. Establish a minimum chassis weight spec for the Manufacturers of approved Gp12 chassis, effective 2015. The weight of the chassis will be determined by the USRA BoD and the manufacturers of currently approved Gp12 chassis. (this rule is meant to eliminate the need to add weight to meet the 72 gram minimum weight and the risk of being disqualified for not meeting the minimum weight as the result of a crash)


    Following the above rules being voted in place came the following announcement from the 2012 USRA National Director and Administration:

    December 10, 2012 ANNOUNCEMENT
    Due to a miscommunication among the USRA Board Members regarding Proposal No. 7 of the 2012 Division 1 Tech Proposals, the USRA Board has agreed to not implement the proposal to “Disallow adding weight to the bottom of the chassis in Gp 12″ until 2015. This will coincide with Proposal No. 8.
    The minimum ground clearance of 1/16″ (.0625”) will remain in effect as measured from the weight pan or the bottom of the chassis (whichever is lower) to the tech block.

    Milton Gamble
    USRA National Director


    In order for either of these two proposals to have been implemented for 2015 the following should have happened:


    1. The incoming 2015 Administration and New National Director as of Oct 1, 2014 should have been notified of such changes from the previous Administration and out going National Director. This did not happen.

    2. The previous Administration and out going National Director should have updated the 2013 and 2014 USRA rule book to reflect these upcoming rule changes. This did not happen.

    3. The previous Administration and out going National Director should have been in contact with the MFG's regarding the minimum chassis weight spec requirement, as well as determined the minimum chassis weight spec. This did not happen.

    4. All MFG's would have had to submit new or revised chassis to be approved, meeting the minimum chassis weight spec by Aug 1, 2014 during the previous Administration and National Director's term. This did not happen.

    5. Once any and all chassis meeting the minimum chassis weight spec had been submitted and approved, then all previously approved chassis not meeting the minimum chassis weight spec, would have been removed from the approved lists and racers with chassis not meeting the minimum weight spec, would have had to purchase new chassis meeting these new rules or use them only in the classes that have no minimum chassis weight spec.

    Now that this has been brought to our attention, we will start working on determining the minimum chassis weight spec that Proposal 8 calls for and implement this new rule for 2017. We can now act on what was never communicated to the current Administration or acted on by the previous Administration and National Director.

    As for Proposal 7 calling for no weight to be added to the bottom of the chassis, we will also implement this rule change for 2017.

    We will keep the USRA Membership updated to our progress.

    Sincerely,
    Shontel Howard
    USRA National Director
    Shontel

    Dallas Slot Cars
    dallasslotcars.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unknown at this time
    Posts
    41
    having manf's meet a min weight on B-12 chassis imo would not do much and be shortly negated when component's/motor's used on the car are made lighter or modified to be lighter within the rules. weight would still have to be added to the chassis. if a min weight is imposed on a Group-12 chassis, maybe it would make sense to have a min weight on the B-12 motor?

    Group-F, OMG-12, and HB-12 (maybe a future USRA class) have no weight limit and can use all the current approved B-12 chassis, maybe just dropping the weight limit on Group-12 would be the easier way?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    grove city ohio
    Posts
    201
    Racers:
    Sounds like alot of finger pointing.
    Thanks, Ron

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Stratford CT
    Posts
    1,879
    Probably time to simply change the direction of Box. No weight limit, steel chassis, Hillbilly Box replaces ProBox and OMG12 replaces Amateur Box. After all adding the weight doesn't do much except complicate chassis building and puts unnecessary strain on motors.
    MON THE BIFF !!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    942

    Where is the "like" button ?

    Quote Originally Posted by hesketh View Post
    Probably time to simply change the direction of Box. No weight limit, steel chassis, Hillbilly Box replaces ProBox and OMG12 replaces Amateur Box. After all adding the weight doesn't do much except complicate chassis building and puts unnecessary strain on motors.
    Makes good sense to me, change it while it is down and it may come back.
    " A little less whining and a little more driving should cure the problem "
    Ronald R. Van Wagnen

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by hesketh View Post
    Probably time to simply change the direction of Box. No weight limit, steel chassis, Hillbilly Box replaces ProBox and OMG12 replaces Amateur Box. After all adding the weight doesn't do much except complicate chassis building and puts unnecessary strain on motors.
    Without question the direction that should be taken.
    Current Pro Box Stock, I-15 and 27L World Record Holder!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    grove city ohio
    Posts
    201
    Racers:
    The manufacturers and racers have devoted alot of time and development into their program, it makes NO sense to take an item that has been approved and legal for years and all of a sudden force them to change their efforts, especially when they were not given any weight to build them to. All this does is obsolete the racers programs in place now, why place the burden on the chassis guys, why not spread the arbitrary decision to motor designers and tire guys as well. It seems as if the boat has capsized in the last couple years, I have never had any problems working and dealing with the USRA Directors and board since the early 90's. I voluntarily opted out of the USRA legal list because of the direction I saw it going. I have worked with Div1, Div2 and Drag Racing officials along the way with good results. Hopefully the leadership will see what they are trying to do is wrong and do the right thing, if not, racers may have to wait it out till a change is made in leadership.
    Thanks, Ron

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,304
    Ron,
    The leadership understands completely. The membership also needs to understand.
    Thank you for making your points.

    Obviously, obsoleting everyone's equipment is a very poor solution. The entire BOD understands and is discussing the situation.
    Shontel

    Dallas Slot Cars
    dallasslotcars.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    59
    I don't think they are going to obsolete any current equipment, just essentially do away with the weight restrictions. Your current equipment will work just fine.
    Current Pro Box Stock, I-15 and 27L World Record Holder!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by eparison View Post
    I don't think they are going to obsolete any current equipment, just essentially do away with the weight restrictions. Your current equipment will work just fine.
    where is the like button???
    "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity"

    Archie King
    2019 TSRA Series Group 7 Champion
    2018 TSRA Series Group 7 Champion
    2018 HillBilly Box World Record Holder 1.907
    2016 HillBilly BoxStock Champion
    2014 TSRA Series Group 7 Champion

    Team KOFORD
    http://www.koford.com/slot/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    stockbridge, mi
    Posts
    760
    I have to agree but let's see the usra step up and take a look at what the racers actually want when was the last time 30 am/pro box cars were at the nats? Hillbilly box is the way of the future for box cars, reliable motors no more worn out bushings melting endbells, or bushings in the axle being junk after 1 race! Plus I think we all that ran the class can say there was a lot less carnage in all the races than a normal box12 race. Make that like x2 on ernies last post
    Give me my glue bottle!!!!!!!!!![B]

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Va.
    Posts
    801
    Can anyone tell me how we are going to make a major change to an entire class when simple corrections to the rule book are impossible without a major rules proposal and a Nats meeting. This would take GP12 to where it should have been all along so I'm all for it.
    I've done so much with so little for so long it seems like I can do anything with nothing at all.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Stratford CT
    Posts
    1,879
    You won't, the only way to change the rules is to put the appropriate proposals up for a vote in each class that is effected and a detailed description of the changes being proposed. Then get the relevant class attendees at the Nats to vote for it. There is no short cut or work-around, that's the way it needs to happen. The Board might try to make the change outside of the established process, although there isn't much precedent for this type of change being made by the Board. I would be surprised if they did but I've been surprised before.
    MON THE BIFF !!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    12 miles south of P.A.'s
    Posts
    100
    This is a lot simpler then everyone is making it. To comply with Proposal 8, all the Board has to do is weigh all the currently approved Boxstock chassis (except the new Koford Grp F chassis) and set the minimum weight equal to or less then the lightest assembled chassis available. This way no one has to do anything but remove the extra weight pans from the cars they are currently racing. No new chassis have to be approved, no stock is obsoleted and if a manufacturer wants to submit a new lighter chassis they always can. Nothing that Shontel stated in her first post needs to happen, all that needs to happen is, if the National Tech Director doesn’t have them, have each manufacturer send him an assembled copy of their approved chassis, he weighs all the chassis and he reports to Shontel the lightest weight, this then goes into the rule book as the new minimum chassis weight for Boxstock chassis. No new approval process, no obsolete stock, everyone wins. Real simple, could have been done a couple of years ago. Could be done in a month or two max, easily before this years Nats.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,483
    CARSHouston for President?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •