Topic: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

The other evening at Howie's while we were waiting around for the traffic to die down and waiting to see if Rico was going to be able to make it. We started discussing our options for the various classes for the upcoming season. One topic was our Classic Sports Car Class which seems to be a crowd favorite. The discussion mainly consisted of changing the motor spec to slow it down a little.

  As I was packing up cars at home to make room for the plumbing work we are having done, a couple of things occurred to me.  As we are all aware this class has gotten faster and faster over the last couple of years, as a result we have really narrowed the field to the few models that can compete at that speed.  At the same time there are a wealth of other cars that pretty much sit on a shelf as a consequence. Some of the other models like Ninco's Austin Healy, 356s, Cobra, Testarossa, ect. are great looking cars, but without heavy modifications are just out of the running. There are also all the great MRRC cars and some of the Monogram/Revell cars that would compete more at a slower speed.  There are also many of the front motored cars that can be made to run very well, just not at the speeds we've been running lately.

  While trying to pick a car for the IPS proxy last year I put a BWA motor in my Fly 250LM. the car was a joy to drive, smooth, quiet, cornered very well, then I reread the rules that called for Inline set up only.

  This brings up another point I didn't think of at the time, one of the things we discussed was eliminating the division 2 (podded chassis) and modeling the class after a proxy such as the IPS, TLOR or Pan-American mainly to encourage participation in these proxies. Later I remembered that podded chassis are allowed in these proxies and as a result these cars are running much faster lap times than in past years. So then there is the question of modifying chassis, a lot of these proxies want inline chassis, that means either modifying or eliminating some of the great sidewinder cars that are out there. At the same time at one of last years proxies there were a couple of MRRC/Monogram Sebring chassis that had been modified to fit a C130 can motor. These were a couple of the best handling cars there.

  Another thing that has become apparent in these proxies is that at 13k the FF (slimline) motors are unable to compete with the C130 can 13k motors. Some proxies have started scoring these separately. I don't know if we might to make an adjustment there or if there is even any adjustment that can be made.  However I've noticed that on my cars the new Minnow 18k and the H&R Jack Rabbit 14k motor run very close together, I think it is more a matter of torque rather than RPM.

  So it seems like there is much more discussion to be had and that's just this one class. I meant to just make a short note, because I'll never remember all these things when we are talking about them.

  Then there is our F1 class, but that's another story.

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Mitch, I'm sitting here at my desk looking at my Ninco Jag XK120 and Testa Rossa and wondering how to make them go faster. Maybe your idea of "motoring down" is a good one? Or perhaps we allow chassis mods to let these things compete with the more technologically advanced cars available today. Worth talking about, I think.

3 (edited by spankythemonk June 27, 2017 6:16 am)

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

I changed this post to be more constructive; As a Noob to the group, I've found the classes a bit confusing. I'd like to know which cars to run in the classes. Tell me the make and model. (slot.it ferrari.f40.black stripe on the motor.8mm wide tires) Buy it, run it, mess with it. I've have a lot of fun with the trans-am class, because I know what it is, and the rules are pretty clear. Its a scalextric camaro or ford. Run it, break it, fix it.
But... I also love the GT open class and the Classics, because we get to see some really beautiful cars, except there are so many cars! Which is the dilema - I love them all... but I've also had a hard time understanding what fits the catagory, and yet stay competitive.

Some things that could be helpful (fuel for the fire):
- Photos of the typical cars eligible for each class
- Include wheel base and overall width. 
- Handicaps. If you give the slower racers/cars 20 laps, knowing that you have to push to beat that, we have a race yo! I can never beat Ricco or Mitch, but if you give me 20 laps, the tides just turned. Now they got something to do...!
- Penalties for pods.
- Spec the motor.
- Adjust the class from season to season

Clarity on  open classes (GT and Classics?) and a couple restricted classes (Trans am, BRM, Can am) and  I think you have a good thing.

j. burns

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Well put Jeff!

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

spankythemonk wrote:

Handicaps. If you give the slower racers/cars 20 laps, knowing that you have to push to beat that, we have a race yo! I can never beat Ricco or Mitch, but if you give me 20 laps, the tides just turned. Now they got something to do...!

I DO know how you feel Jeff.  In my opinion, there are very few persons that can take up a new skill/hobby and be really good at it in the beginning.  When I started racing slot cars with the NASTE group I certainly wasn't at the pointy end and sometimes I'm still not. That being said, I am fairly good repairing/tinkering with many forms of mechanical devices which I have been able to transfer into building/maintaining/racing slot cars. As far as "driving" slot cars the only way to get better is to practice, practice, practice. In the beginning I never thought I could catch, let alone, win against the likes of Bill, Monte, Flyin' Bryan to name a few but I kept trying and occasionally I can beat them. So keep on trying- you'll get there.

I do agree that some of our classes need some restructuring, especially the F1 and Classic Sports car. In my opinion we should down motor the Sports cars to make them run slower than some of them currently do. I also think it would make things simpler if we limited them to actual production cars and eliminate cars that were race cars first and street cars second.  Any car that falls in the latter category can run in our GT class. 

Regards
Rico

Race cars are neither beautiful nor ugly. They become beautiful when they win.

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

reek455 wrote:

In my opinion we should down motor the Sports cars to make them run slower than some of them currently do.


If going slower is what we're looking for, shouldn't we just let Bill tune them?  That'd probably be a bit cheaper.

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

I'd be happy to tune anyone's car, but I am NOT cheap!!! It is NOT the quality of the tune, it is your satisfaction that counts, and if it is SLOWER you're wanting then I AM your man!!!

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

You guys kill me.  Hysterical.  On all accounts.

"Big Smooth"

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Back on this subject, we were discussing this a bit the other night after racing. The big drawback with changing the speck on motors is that unless you get a Ninco classic, you also have to purchase and change a motor.

  It came to me while driving around today that maybe we should just try to drop the voltage a volt or two for the classic sports car class, like we do for Over 50.  It would be far simpler and cheaper, and not intimidating for new racers.

10 (edited by ckouba July 16, 2017 8:58 pm)

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Mitch58 wrote:

It came to me while driving around today that maybe we should just try to drop the voltage a volt or two for the classic sports car class, like we do for Over 50.  It would be far simpler and cheaper, and not intimidating for new racers.


BRILLIANT!!  Excellent idea Mitch, I'm on board.  Like the 50's, perhaps 9V will work?

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

I like that too!

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

So is there some manor of motor limit or will there still be a power divide?

"Big Smooth"

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Now that I think about it, what's the performance of the NC-1 in the old Ninco cars going to be like at 9 volts? Especially compared to the NC5 Speeder in the newer versions of the same cars?

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Pitiful...  They are spec'd to quite a bit more.

"Big Smooth"

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

My thought was to maybe lower the voltage instead of changing motors. It might not work out. I guess some experimentation might be in order. Some motors might react differently to lower voltage than others. It was just a thought.

   On my track 9 volts didn't make much difference, 8 volts felt too slow, 8.5 seemed like a good fit for most of the cars on my small plastic track. It might feel totally different at Al's or Monte's.

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

I'm OK experimenting by location and seeing what feels right. 

Should we assemble an approved motor list?  Something where the OEM motors at 8-10V would all be comparable with any aftermarket options (so why go aftermarket, right?).  I do not have the knowledge to assemble this list but I am certain there are those in the gallery who do.

CK

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

The best starting point would be the motor list that we published based on Robert Livingston's testing.  It does not include some of the newer motors since he stopped doing this but is certainly a very useful reference.

Slot Car Motor List

"Big Smooth"

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

It occurs to me that another aspect we'll want to control is weight.  Since we'll be using lower powered motors the weight of the car can be a significant issue.  A lighter car will get moving quicker.  We'll move from motor wars to weight wars.

"Big Smooth"

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

What are you specifically proposing, Monte?  Are you thinking some minimum weight limit?

That seems like it should be pretty simple to sort out.

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Yes.  I think so.  Or weight to power ratio of some sort.

"Big Smooth"

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Who is going to police this?  All of this complication to avoid switching motors, it would be easier to swap motors.

Race cars are neither beautiful nor ugly. They become beautiful when they win.

22 (edited by ckouba July 19, 2017 4:09 am)

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Weight limit = easy
Power to weight = too hard


Try it first and then see what happens = easiest!

My proposal would be to try it using stock motors (but maybe we add that we can swap any stock motors between chassis?) and use a voltage appropriate to the track, but no weight limit.  If 8.5 is "right" at Mitch's, but 9.5 is "right" at Al's, let those be the standards at those venues.  It will be interesting to tune around that.  If we need (or want) to open it up to all motors up to a certain spec off Livingston's list, so be it.  I'd like to see what happens with trying it first.

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

Most of the motors are rated at 12V and that is where they are designed to run. We are already running them below spec at 10V and if we go lower they are going to be real dogs especially on larger tracks. We won't need computer scoring, just a sun dial.

Race cars are neither beautiful nor ugly. They become beautiful when they win.

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

ok, so what is the goal here again please?

"Big Smooth"

Re: Discussion of Classic Sports Cars ECT.

My goal is to have fun playing with toy cars. Seems most of the other people's goal is to WIN !!