Fairways Racing Complex Forum

Hi guys,

Seasons Greetings to everyone. Since having to cancel our final 2019 event, I haven't had the time to think about our great hobby and am just now starting to re-focus on it a bit. Besides the racing, there were some pending suggestions on the table regarding a few regulation changes for 2020.

I'd like to suggest that we begin the year with the running of our cancelled final event for our MP, RGT, RLMP and F1 classes since I'm sure that like me, many of you have these cars already prepped and waiting to run. I'm looking at perhaps having this season-opener on either January 9th ot 16th. Let me know in the comment section below which if any of these dates sounds good for you.

On the question of regulation changes, in addition to any ideas and suggestions you may have, please refer to the comments on this post: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1564

There was also a suggestion by Steve for a slight change to simplify the MP rules. Perhaps you can mention it below for everyone's input Steve.

Gordon

I'd go for having the season opener on 9th January. Starting the season with the 'fast' classes is fine with me.

Further to the above, my suggested change for Modified Production would be to limit all the cars to 20,000 rpm motors and to have the magnet placement amended so that all cars would need to have the magnet in line with or ahead of the rear tyres , as currently obtains with motors > 20,000 rpm. I think this would go some way in simplifying setup for this class and would also help in bringing down the speeds of the cars in their current guise a bit. Right now, the best MP cars are doing sub-5 second laps which is quicker than many of the Restricted GT and even some of the less competitive Restricted LMP cars.
My suggestion however, is that even if agreed on, this change could take effect from the second round of competition in 2020 for these cars as many of us would have had cars already prepared for the aborted last 2019 FRC event and would have time to make significant changes to set-up before the first event in the new year.

*would not have time to make significant changes

Hello Gordon,

Yes, it’s some time now you won’t on the forum and great to see you’re back. The length of time nothing was posted by you ... thought you may have started back early next year but clearly (just by 2 days) I was wrong.

For sure all your racing members are looking forward to the 2020 season and a neat idea re-starting the racing/classes where it was abruptly left off in 2019 ..!

That said, I kept a bit of info saved through the year with - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1267&start=10 - my racing days at FRC & TSCC circuits.

Looking over with one noted point ... it’s pretty equal the amount of times/days I attend both venues.

However not too sure if I will better it next year but just have to wait and see how it goes. As you already know - I am more focused selling off slot-car items for myself and some other friends plus reporting how things went on the forum. I have received lots of comments about this venture but this one I remember the best ~ I have made full use of the 2 mediums … SCS WhatsApp and the FRC Forum.

Now concerning your topic with which day to start racing, some regulation changes plus any ideas and suggestions etc ... I have somehow lost that zeal for the hobby but must remind you, I still remain one of your strongest (2000+ posts) FRC members

Luke

Here are my proposed class changes for 2020:

1. For all classes requiring 1.0 mm ground clearance, this is to be measured by placing the car right-side-up on piece of track that is fixed to a solid base which cannot flex. Measurement is to be done with the car placed in the slot, parallel to rails. Gauge must move with no or minimal resistance for car to be legal.
2. 1.0 mm ground clearance requirement to apply to KB, HS, APC, VSGT, VSP, SC and RC classes. (It currently applies only to KB, SC and RC.)
3. I agree with Steve's suggestion re: magnets and motors in MP class.

Prior to my making the ground clearance checking rule proposal above, I spent some time last night checking my own cars to see how they stood up to it. Here are the results:



The cars highlighted in red failed the proposed test (although a couple were borderline), however these can be easily sorted out by slightly taller tyres and/or guide flag spacers. The three cars without data were missing rear tyres so couldn't be checked.

Interesting data there Gordon. I checked my HS and Rally cars a while back and believe that the HS cars pass but the Rally Impreza does not.
On thinking further on this, my thought is that the magnet classes that are already subject to the USD rule could be exempt from this new right-side-up (which for now I'll call RSU) rule. The reason is that even if the cars don't pass now and they are adjusted so that they do, the magnetism which will have been negatively affected can now simply be increased so up to the point where they again just pass the USD rule, with little net change in performance.
I think the RSU rule is a great idea but should be limited to those classes which are non-magnetic and hence not subject to the USD,to ensure that magnetic downforce from the motor is not a factor in their handling. It could also be applied to the Slot.it Challenge class as this is not subject to the USD and these cars are now achieving huge downforce.
Steve

Okay Steve, I understand and agree with your points. As long as we retain the USD rule for some classes, the 1.0 mm rule should not apply to them. My suggestion of the RSU method then applies only to the non-USD classes which require a 1.0 mm ground clearance (currently KB, RC and SC).

Agreed Gordon.