The car did not meet WOO standards because the lower frame rails, but would be under USAC rules. .083 lower rails are legal in usac but the outlaws require them to be .095. I think they were just defining the rule after they heard about it.

USAC's rule for the past three years (I think) had been for the lower frame rails to be constructed of 1.5" x .083" or 1.375" x .095" tubing. They adopted these rules in conjunction with the WoO and AllStars adopting identical rules. This rule was made necessary by teams building chassis out of thin wall tubing on the lower rails to improve performance. As teams kept making these rails thinner, safety concerns developed as a hard crash would break the lower rails. Our F-5 chassis were made out of 1.375" x .083" tubing and worked extremely well.

Our team and many others complied with these new rules. All Triple X chassis conform to the WoO/AllStar standard and I would wager that Maxim's and most other chassis manufacturer's do as well since they build cars primarily for WoO and AllStar competition. When Chase took his car to Haubstadt to compete with the WoO they measured the thickness of his frame rails during the tech inspection and found the lower rails were too thin.

It is my understanding that when Levi contacted DRC about this, he was informed that ALL DRC chassis had the thin wall lower rails which would make them illegal unless USAC changed the rule. Apparently a chassis manufacturer located in Indianapolis, building cars for USAC competition, was unaware of USAC having this rule.

Levi contacted me and discussed the situation. I was not in favor of changing the rule because: 1. It was initially instituted for safety reasons; 2. It makes USAC cars non-standard from the other major sanctions; 3. It legalizes cars which have a competitive advantage over many of the current competitors and; 4. It rewards the teams who have been competing with an illegal chassis for the last three years and penalizes the teams who have complied with USAC's rules by forcing them to buy new chassis or accept diminished performance.

I understand the position of USAC not wanting to affect car counts (especially for this weekend)and I proposed to Levi that the rule remain as it was but to make a public announcement that beginning July 1, 2016, USAC would tech all chassis for the wall thickness in compliance with the rules and competitors found to be out of compliance would not be allowed to compete. USAC could also conduct the tech inspections beginning this weekend (without enforcing the rule) to let teams determine if their current chassis is legal.

I guess I should have saved my breath because obviously it did not make a bit of difference. Levi just wanted my blessing to change the rule. Now I am faced with the decision of whether I should have chassis built to take advantage of the new rule because it is a competitive advantage. Nothing like penalizing a team who complied with the rules and rewarding those which didn't!

As many years as I have been doing this I should expect nothing less from USAC!

Change a rule to make illegal cars legal?

Go out tonight on a softer RR and say it should be legal. Maybe they'll change it for you after the fact.

This explains why some cars are doing what they are doing on the racetrack compared to other cars. No names, but just watch and look how these different cars react while they are on the throttle...it is pretty obvious there is a big difference. Now everyone is asking the question,,,,do I buy a new car or not? Might be a big money maker for a chassis builder instead of a big money loss that it was going to be....

Do you think XXX Chinese .095 is as strong as American .083?

That brand has stated publicly on numerous occasions that their materials are 100% american produced chromoloy and aluminum that is shipped overseas for cutting, bending and welding.

Do you poeple really think .012 is really that big of a difference. Plus I know for a fact the some of the Wing cars that get checked and pass have slugs in those spots do make them pass. I have put them in there. Bottom rails are not why DRC's win a lot of races. Look at the teams that own them. The 53, 71p, 66, 40, 32. Look at the drivers in those cars there motor programs the crews that work on them. .012 on a bottom frame rail is not going to automatically park you in victory lane and if you think so you are A. Already beat and B. Just need something to complain about.

Hi Billy, long time since I've talked with you. I used to have a chart, that gave the per ft weights of the moly I was using in building my cars, and for the amount of feet, and the diff in a ft of weight, you could probably build one out of all .095, and not gain much over 5lbs in a whole car, the first one I built, I saved the butts off every stick of welding rod, every bit of tube that was not used, ie, every notch pc, everything, and the first car came up within 1 lb, of the total of all the tube I actually used, plus the filler rod, just had to do it, to see how accurate the final product came to what I started with, now is that worth all this hassle, you can look on AED's website, it has all the per ft weights of all the different sizes of moly, look it up for you own satisfaction. Bob

The fastest horsepower to weight ratio car is a Go-Cart. No suspension and not much flex. Indy car tubs are put in a jig that twists the assembly from the front wing mount to the rear motor mounts. With 10,000 lbs of force it should not flex .001 of an inch. They do not want to compute chassis flex into the grip equation, especially since it changes with time and wear.

DRC's have been built the same way since there first car in 03' 04'. It's not about weight bob. Atleast the most important front and rear cage uprights at .095. Can't say that about some of the others.