Racing questionnaire

[gordon]

I've had more time to think about these class rule simplifications as well as Ram's proposed four-point regulation basis suggestion.

On the question of the rule simplifications, I've already removed the "fat" and trimmed them down to fairly clear and straightforward points, as indicated earlier in this topic. I really don't think they can be any clearer, unless we have almost (or exactly) the same rules for each class with just different body types. At that point preparing a car would become a simple formula along the lines of:

• Get the widest body available that matches the class requirement.
• Get a 3D chassis for that body.
• Install a Slot.It motor pod and magnets.
• Install a motor matching the class requirement.
• Install chip, axles, wheels, tyres and gears from whatever manufacturers you like.

All cars for every "different" class would then be doing similar lap times and the racing variety would be radically diminished to different bodies. Basically same performance, different bodies.

Following again are Ram's proposed four-point regulation basis suggestion:

1. A motor spec.
2. A magnet location and limits.
3. A ground clearance minimum.
4. A minimum weight.

Well we actually already have them all in our current regs:

1. A motor spec - We have this for all classes.
2. A magnet location and limits - We have the former for all classes and the latter is the USD rule, which applies to most classes.
3. A ground clearance minimum - This is not necessary for classes that have USD rule and is already in place for the others.
4. A minimum weight - We have this for some classes and I have no problem with having it for any other class where it makes sense.

Lets not forget how complicated rules can be: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1234&p=5999

So, what's the problem with retaining a now less verbose version of the original 2020 rules? It seems that they're doing a pretty good job of providing a variety of types of competition and speeds, along with fair racing with a variety of different types and manufacturers of cars.

[steveaca]

We have recently changed some rules (M/Prod to 20k rpm, lower torque motor, amended magnet location; Rally Car and Scratch Built to ground clearance measurement while right-side up and mounted on a track piece) and then re-changed the Rally Car and Scratch Built ground clearance to the old measurement. We have subsequently changed the BTCC magnet rule from Amended USD (45 deg.) to no limit but with a ground clearance regulation.
Please, lets end it now and leave the rules as they are.

[gordon]

Steve, the BTCC change is just to test at the upcoming event. Its NOT permanent at this point in time and my never be.

[obrie]

What we have is a healthy debate on the rules.
Many have said that the present rules are difficulty to follow or are onerous. The effort to simplify the rues is commendable but as in all situations we must not be tempted to throw out the baby with the bath water! The original rules were developed to bring a balance to the field of cars in order to offer some hope of being competitive. Not necessarily to win but to be able to compete. The use of magnet Marshals etc was considered expensive for the individual to purchase for home tuning. I bought one and loaned it to the club but we do not have a clubhouse that has the track and amenities available 24/7. So the next best thing is the USD. Everyone has access to a piece of track to test with and with some tweaking of the rule we can have a reasonable level of fair competition. I for one do not see what is difficult about checking for the USD rule and I do not see how we can do without it! Have we forgotten that we once had to institute a staggered start during the races of the high magnet classes! That was ridiculous and was a case of flat out until there was a crash usually someone tale ending a slower car! simplify ...YES! But end up going back to staggered start??? Not me! If there is a vote I say keep the USD Keep the Motor spec keep the ground clearance rule and the basic rules that distinguish the classes. The others are debatable. Just my .02.

[efiguru]

Gordon
I have no problem with the four four point plan as a way forward.
Bearing in mind that the intention is to attract a wider participation for the sake of increasing competition.
I too have stuggled in the past with the interpretation and implementation of these setups wanting to remain competitive.
One of the thoughts that I've had on increasing participation is allowing motors to be free but limiting drive wheel RPM and diameter. This would greatly increase tunability techniques allowing for a wider variety of available motor usage yet still keeping the competition amongst the racers in check.
What are your thoughts guys?

[arden100]

Guys

I don’t have a problem with rules. All I want is they are in effect for at least 2 years at minimum.

That way we can all get our cars up to speed.

I believe the USD is a bit floored since you can add weight. There is only so much strength you can get from a magnet, but will work with what is decided.

Arden

[obrie]

“motors to be free but limiting drive wheel RPM and diameter.“. Tony. How do you suggest we do This inexpensively??? And above all reduce the time spent on scrutinizing the cars?

[obrie]

Arden i totally agree with eventually getting to a minimum of two years for the rules to change. That way we can seriously look at suggestions made in writing to all on a dedicated chat. May be the good thoughts could then have a trial car or two done to test the suggestion yet not affect the years racing. After two to three years we call for a vote or leave it to the administrator whatever.... to decided so that we are well aware of the pending change and not faced with changes that seem to happen overnight. Also, I think that the elimination of pre scrutinizing and leave it up to 1 st and 2 nd place post race may have some merit in the future. Just my .02

[gordon]

I too have stuggled in the past with the interpretation and implementation of these setups wanting to remain competitive.

Anthony, would you give me an example of something in the class rules you've struggled with the interpretation and implementation of?

One of the thoughts that I've had on increasing participation is allowing motors to be free but limiting drive wheel RPM and diameter. This would greatly increase tunability techniques allowing for a wider variety of available motor usage yet still keeping the competition amongst the racers in check.
What are your thoughts guys?

What do you mean by "limiting drive wheel RPM and diameter"?

[gordon]

Guys

I don’t have a problem with rules. All I want is they are in effect for at least 2 years at minimum.

That way we can all get our cars up to speed.

Arden, with the restructured class rules I've added to the forum today, based on your suggestion I've noted the last time the rules for each class were altered. This will help determine how long a set of class rules has been in place before considering any changes.

I believe the USD is a bit floored since you can add weight. There is only so much strength you can get from a magnet, but will work with what is decided.

It isn't perfect but it is a simple way to help equalize the effective downforce on the cars. I've added significant weigh to cars just so that I can install stronger magnets and still pass the USD rule, then taken them out and run less downforce to again pass the USD rule and find the latter works better. Getting the right balance is the most important thing (as with all other aspects of car setup). Added weight can have other negative side effects - slower acceleration, less brakes, slower cornering because of the greater mass. If we have no downforce equalizing (or close to equalizing), the car with more downforce will just about always be quicker than the one with less downforce.