I think Kai has a point or there is a misunderstanding of the rules. He wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule book says (Art. 2.1):
"Chassis parts must be from the same manufacturer."
Despite this there was chassies in Oslo with non-manufacturer parts.

I understand this because sometimes it is easier, cheaper and more reasonable to use hand made parts or non-manufacurer tuning parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ik think Kai refers to the many different bodyholder parts that were used. But what is a bodyholder? In every commercial chasis there are 2 parts for each side of the body that can be used as bodyholders. In my case for the Maserati, I had to modify the original Plafit bodyholder or build a new "tailormade"one. Otherwise there was no possibility to mount the body properly to the chasis. If you are not allowed to modify the original bodyholders or make some of your own, some bodies can not be mounted. I have looked at the rules and as I read it, you are not obliged to use the original bodymounts.
Some racers use bodyholders for ballastweight purposes. But that is another issue.

greetz,

The Bull is coming back

Hi,

I refer all chassis parts which aren't from the same manufacturer. For example H-plates.

regards
kai

We used M-Racing carbon parts, the new SLP front end and all these parts are standard M-Racing parts.

As I read the rules the H plate and the mounting plate that connects to the chassis has to be original. All other parts can be specially made. But M. T, back to you fo a clarification.................

As you requested here's the clarification.
It all comes down to wehat is a chassis(part) and what is a body (mount).

Body mounts
I already gave a clarification on what is a body mount in this post when Kai asked about them some time ago.

Chassis parts

here's the rule
2.1 Make & Type - Choice of chassis parts manufacturer is free. Chassis parts must be from the same manufacturer. Chassis' must be angle/sidewinder type.

But this does not mean that everything on the chassis is made by the same manufacturer because there are also the Free materials.

2.2.1 Free Materials

* Assembly materials: nuts, bolts, spacers, springs, washers etc
* Ballast weights
* Guide & Guide-nut
* Braids & Lead wires
* Axle bearings
* Motor holder

So unless its listed under 2.2.1 it should be made by the same manufacturer. The only loophole beeing be the "etc."

But I believe this is not what you guys are talking about.
From what I've heard and read, most of it seems to be about carbon tune up parts. More specificly exchanging parts like the guide holder or the rockerplate (H-plate) with carbon parts.
The answer is simple...unless these parts are made by the original manufacturer they are not allowed!

Unfortunately none of you guys attended me to these "non original" parts when we were in Oslo. But even then, enforcing this clear rule is no longer a simple matter.

In the "good old days" when there was "only the plafit exel" we used a homologation list. This list specified each part that was allowed (DPM rules still use this principle) for that one chassis.
But the number of chassis manufacturers has grown and their range keeps onexpanding. By now it has become more and more difficult to keep track of what parts are made for each chassis let alone if they are made by the original manufacturer. The list is just too long!

To complicate things these so called non original "tune up" parts are often hanging in the same rack as the original parts with labels like Carbon H-plate for Plafit s124, Momo Sw4 etc. etc.


Is there a problem
For this I would like to quote a remark Raymond made about the rules;

The very first question to ask yourself in every issue is simple : is this going to be an unfair advantage for someone? if the answer is yes, the action to undertake is obvious... make it illegal !
If the answer to this question is no, WTF is the problem exactly?

The way I see it is this:
Apparently non original parts slipped through Tech that were not allowed by the rules. Mainly this concerned carbon parts. So the first question is did they bring an unfair advantage for those who used them?
Well the main advantage of carbon parts is that they are lighter than the same parts made out of metal. Although when compared to aluminium part of let's say 4 gram (like a H-plate) there's not that much gain, maybe 1 gram?!
When you consider that most chassis carry 5-10 grams of ballast this "advantage" is negligible.

This whole discussion is exactly why the rules will have to go too a free chassis format, not because we cant write "clear rules" but because they are no longer easy to enforce.
But as this would be a fundamental change....for now we are stuck with what we've got!

So if during the next round you're not sure if certain parts are "legal" ...please be so kind to attend the TC to them, or just ask !

"The Unfair Advantage"

Thats what we are all looking for!

The frase was made famous by the late Mark Donohue, works Penske driver from the mid 60s. The remark was especially pointed at the Can Am season he did in Penskes Porsche 917/30 where the oposition was absolutely devasted!! That 917/30 was The Ultimate Unfair Advantage!

If I could counter (I.e. buy the Unfair Advantage.) the aging of my reflexes, my eyesight, my general physical or any of the other of the stuff that happens while one grows older - Believe me I WOULD!

But seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with Tamar. No one will win races simply by using carbon parts that only give a marginal weight benefit.

I only have two options, if ever I and my team are going to win a race!!

Find that damned Unfair Advantage somewhere (We are working on it..) and practise, practise and then practise some more..........!!!!!

Loking forward to see you all soon!

is the gain deemed unfair?
when you gain 1 gram in 4 it is ok, but what if one finds 2 gram to gain in the same part? is it then unfair? This is going nowhere.
Quite simple, if a top team uses ANY part of which another teams think it gives them an advantage, how the hell are you going to explain to the 'lesser team' that the particular part didn't make the top team win??? The top team could say it's for durability reasons, or that it looks good for all I care, but what when not everybody agrees to their/the organisations explanation?

It is either allowed, or it's not.
To check if a part is standard issue by it's manufacturor, bring it's package, or show it on the site right at TC, there's internet nowadays at any club. Only then the doubtfull part can be considered legal or illegal.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustMe When...is the gain deemed unfair?

There is no question and certainly no "Deeming" .
_"It" is allowed or it is not allowed.
I personally did not actually see anything strange in Oslo, and believe that the lack of
information/knowledge is one reason why some parties feel "Cheated". I also refuse
to believe that such parts give even a marginal gain. But it makes absolutely no sense
waiting X weeks before making indirect airy accusations which are -1. unsupported by
hard facts/proof, and/or 2, just not really grounded since the accuser is not actually sure
about what is or is not legal.

If you are not sure then speak up there and then- ask! or shut up. The same goes for the
stories about "Illegal" tyre/motor fluids. It needs to be reported and checked immediately
The guys at TC should also be armed with the rule book and a check list so that
items cannot "slip" their attention and they are capable of adressing all unclear issues.

To me, using carbon fiber parts is not a question of weight and therefore instant performance advantage but it is very clearly a reliability advantage which in long races is maybe even more important than pure speed... I.e. how much faster per lap do you need to be to compensate a one single pit stop repair of e.g. a bent forward chassis part causing a deficit ground clearance?

Guys,
this is neverending talks about what parts are allowed and what is not.
Have a look at some slot racing categories over the world and look at their problems:

G7 - totaly free cars. Everything is clear and allowed - NO PROBLEMS.
G27 - limited armatures. Armatures are marked and cars performace is the same. NO PROBLEMS
ISRA categories - F1/32, ES/24, ES/32 - Only dimensional prescribtions and the same homologated bodies. - NO PROBLEMS.
ISRA Production 1/24 - Homologated two piece steel chassis. Handout Body, motor, tires. SMALL PROBLEMS with chassis. You can do important modification on simple sheets of steel plates (it is not allowed) - nobody notice anything and you have faster chassis than others. But for sure you modify app. 5 chassis and chose the best... This is not fair but reality.

Have a look at races allowing varios types of screwed chassis, like momo, schoeler, plafit, etc............ These chassis have lightly more than 2 pieces as ISRA Production 24 car.
With this principle "long allowed chassis list" you will always face complains from the racers. Moreover Technical directors are not able to check what is finally allowed and what is restricted.
Allow to use many various manufactured and "homologated" chassis is not ALLOWANCE but RESTRICTION. Not everybody can test all the special parts and you cannot modify parts because it is not allowed. Who is better informed and can buy special parts - he can modify his car.
With these restrictions we are facing BIG PROBLEMS, because only few points in the rules are free.

The only solution how to prevent of suspect could be this:
a/ free chassis (everybody can make it by himself)
b/ homologate only 1 particular typ of chassis with clear ordering No. and complete homologation list.

What do you think?

No [Censored]... way are the GT2s going to use homologated chassis, if we are to participate. It looks as though we will race the Gigawave GT2 Aston and the F430 in the EEC 2009, then again maybe not, but I think it should be free chassis for all EEC classes, or its going to be a complete shambles in my opinion!