Robert, I might be reading more into the existing rule than is intended, but don't rule II.B.1), bullets 1,2,6 & 7 restrict the placement of metal being attached to a GT/GTU plastic chassis as reinforcement? Since most additional weight is metal of some sort, I would consider that a limitation on the position of weight because it could be construed as reinforcement, but again, maybe I'm reading more into that rule than is intended.
Yes, the no-metal-braces rule. You could use smaller pieces of lead laid end to end, like tiles, to be legal. As long as the pieces of metal are discontinuous and don't transmit forces across the axle center line or the motor center line it should be legal. That's the way I understood it. Maybe that rule is ambiguous.
Effective immediately GTU #7 (Haystack) , along with GTU #26 and GT #101 are being removed from the entry list.
I'll also chime in with a "Why?". What rule (as currently written) did they violate? If they don't pass tech, do they get a chance to resolve the issue prior to the start of the series and/or re-enter with a penalty of missing round(s)?
I read (kinda) the rules and did what I did- full stock plastic interior with chassis/body at normal height. Would I have done something differently if we were all building these in the same room and I got to see some of these works in progress? Maybe, but I have not the experience at entering proxies to build the competitive advantages which others have. That's my learning curve. Next year my entry will be different.
This seems to be getting way out of hand... Let's get on with the racing as long as we all meet the rules.
As a newcomer here I don't want to step on any ones toes and wear out my welcome, but I will say the idea of building and racing a car that represents a series from my youth as accurately as possible is what drew me to the series.
I understand the racer mentality, bring raised in a family that raced Oswego Supermodifieds back when they were virtually unrestricted. But if we are trying to build cars that represent the cars as they were run back then, then you would see no low profile tires on cars (unless you were the UOP Shadow), and the stock body classes were just that...bodies pulled off the assembly line and lightly modified, with some series running small blister flares. If the intent is to honor the cars of an era then slamming, lowrider tires and wheels, drivers that would need a periscope, all seem to violate the spirit.
My car is based on an actual car that is a TransAm Capri that a friend of mine competes with in various series. However, although he wins more than his fair share of championships, he is frustrated because although he races his virtually "as raced" in 1971, that some of the series allow the vintage cars to be modified with modern components such as over sized engines as used in later years, disc brakes, much wider tires than would have been used in the time period, taller diameter wheels and much bigger flares than were on the cars when first raced. So his competitors take what he calls unfair advantage.
In essence the very same issues on his 1:1 racer that we're discussing in scale! In fact, his biggest complaint is with sanctioning bodies that allow the wide body Alfas and Datsuns to compete! Slot cars mirroring real life!
Maybe some or all the solutions others have put forward should apply...maximum track, minimum and maximum tire and wheel packages, driver and interior height and material...
Maybe the easiest solution is to simply track down a set of rules from the period and a set of factory and race spec dimensions for each car and scale each down to 1/32 scale?
I'm also a veteran scratch builder and racer dating back to the 1960's and 70's. I stopped racing when the tires became orange and the bodies no longer had any relation to the appearance of a real car. It, as someone mentioned earlier, drove me out of the sport as well,when speed became more important to realism.