Fairways Racing Complex Forum

From 1966 to 1972 a racing series for production cars was run at a multitude of road-racing tracks all over the US which became the premier US racing series of the day. All the major American car manufacturers joined in, hiring established teams and top professional drivers. Many privateers also competed, particularly in the earlier years. It was know as the Trans-American Sedan Championship (Trans-Am for short) and interestingly, this championship was not for drivers, but for manufacturers. It comprised two classes, under-2 litre (U-2) typically for non-American cars and over-2 litre (O-2), specifically for the then new era of American "Pony Cars", which came about after Ford introduced their Mustang sedan in 1964.

Trans-Am Races were run at major tracks including Riverside, Lime Rock, Watkins Glen, Mid-Ohio, St. Jovite and Laguna Seca, to name a few. Almost from the start, interest in the under 2-litre class paled in comparison to the over-2 litre class. The reason for this was clear. With manufacturer-backed Ford Mustangs, Chevrolet Camaros, Pontiac Firebirds, Plymouth Barracudas, Dodge Challengers, AMC Javelins and Mercury Cougars vieing for honours with popular American pros behind the wheel, there was massive competition and lots of action. Crowds turned out in their thousands on Sundays to see the on-track battles, then headed to car dealers on Mondays to buy the same cars they had cheered on the day before, a living example of the "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" philosophy. It was BIG. The lengths that the teams would go to in preparing their cars to be competitive was legend. All sorts of illegal tricks were tried, including acid-dipped bodies to save weight, hidden suspension components to improve handling, last lap fuel stops to fill the fuel tank with lead shot to get the cars back to legal weight and even having just one cylinder - the one that was checked - at standard capacity while all seven others were over-bored to go beyond the the legal engine capacity.

This was a great period in US road-racing history and is what our current American Muscle (AM) class is based on. We've been running AM as an open class since introduced almost exactly seven years ago on 17th September, 2009 and while we have had lots of great AM races over the years, I feel that its time for a change. We currently have three open classes where, aside from body type and historic period, the specs are identical. We've seen the lap times in these classes get lower and lower over the years. At our first qualifying session for AM in 2009, the fastest lap was a then stunning 5.408 sec. Today, the lap record is 4.261 sec without ever having changed the class regulations once. Its time for something new. I am proposing a replacement of the American Muscle class from 2017 with a different approach and new class for this historic Trans-Am era. This class will be called "American Pony Car" (APC) and I'll reveal more details soon. In the mean time, check out the action in this 3-part video focused on the Mercury Cougar team, but still somewhat summarizing the 1967 Trans-Am season:

Part 1: https://youtu.be/Epz2Ari5SEM

Part 2: https://youtu.be/OVp5LZN-ksk

Part 3: https://youtu.be/TexJQfWCM1Q

Are you in the mood for some Trans-Am pony car slot racing now?

This new class sounds interesting and exciting Gordon.
Didn't look at all the videos (just saw the first). I didn't realize before that the Mercury Cougars were so competitive. Imagine Parnelli Jones coming into the pits to change spark plugs !
Steve

Hello Gordon,

Firstly - don't get too unhappy with what you're going to read okay

I read all you wrote and was watching the 3rd. APC vid ... as well as the others plus their links and found Hans-J Stuck looked like a very very impressive racing driver. Now we all know how easy it is to move away from one thing to the next (while watching YouTube vids) so don't think I am straying from the AM/APC topic because I find it's already very interesting and you still have more details to come with ..!

However - was listening to one of Hans Stuck interviews and he mentioned this rule with their racing.

• To help trade victories with each winner receiving points. A special weight penalty was involved to prevent a car winning every race.

It went on in much more detail of course but thought to myself if this could be possible with slotcar racing?

• The winner gets some sort/kind of restriction with FRC 2017 132 racing.

Again - it is sort of off the topic but just thought I could mention this with your new course of muscle car racing.

Luke

Hi Luke,
I was recently thinking along similar lines for our non-Iroc classes but my thoughts did not involve weight penalties. I was thinking along the lines of the British Touring Car Classis (BTCC) racing whereby the grid position for a race is determined in reverse order by the finishing position of the previous race. This means that the winner of race 1 would stard from the back in race 2 etc.
Food for thought.
Steve

Sorry, BTCC stands for British Touring Car Championship.

That's very nice to know Steve and some very exciting real life drastic rules for BTCC racing and wouldn't it be great for FIA (or whoever) to in force such a neat rule like that in Formula One racing

All the same - don't feel that's the right or enough food for thought ... with FRC racing.

After all - isn't it already being used (to a certain extent) and not to any effect ..?

Long story short ~ a method like that is simply too mild for FRC non-IROC classes.

Luke

Luke & Steve,

The BTCC used to (not sure if they still do) have ballast rules to help even out the field. Here's the specific section of their regulations:

Success Ballast

Cars that are successful in the BTCC must carry ballast (additional weight) in their cars. Ballast is given to the top ten runners in the following allocations:

1st: 75kg, 2nd: 66kg 3rd: 57kg, 4th: 48kg, 5th: 39kg, 6th: 33kg, 7th: 27kg, 8th: 21kg, 9th: 15kg, 10th: 9kg

Between events, ballast is allocated according to championship positions and is carried in qualifying and race one
For races two and three, ballast is allocated according to the finishing positions in race one and two respectively

You can see this here:

http://www.btcc.net/about/key-rules-and-regulations/

Not sure how something like this can be accurately and fairly implemented at FRC though.

Gordon

I agree that the weight 'penalty' may not be practical at FRC. I do think that a reversed-grid system would be possible and not difficult to implement. The problem however, would be to get 'buy-in' to the idea !

Here's a cool and clear cut idea Gordon and Steve plus no weights added to any car okay.

Also, instead of car being placed at the back of the grid ~ like now its normally done.

How about this (thinking very effective) method for a winning car or even one being changed on the grid.

• The (winning or changed) car is placed in the pits and must be the last car entering at the start of race.

In other words - the car is set back a lap and it could help improve a level playing field.

Sure you'll and others can support an idea like this (knowing racing conditions with a car winning every race) at FRC going forward?

Luke

It seems this suggestion isn't very enticing for you'll guys ..?

Maybe a winning or changed (RGT, HS, VS, SC, MP, F1, AM, GT & LMP) car starting in the pits may sound a bit difficult to get a grip on ~ especially with so many FRC non-IROC classes (note: Rally Cars wasn't included) but if any other car could be doing (let's say) a half second faster than others ... Isn't this "starting in the pits solution" an interesting and practical method for scaled racing ~ leveling out the playing field like real world racing? Which could also help with trading victories in 132 racing activities ...

Anyway - I firmly believe if something like this unique and exciting idea isn't incorporated (or even tested) with SSD racing events ...

It could be a "dark day" for slot-car racing

For all you know it may be a cool and persuading way ~ big part of the puzzle ~ for more drivers (tuning or non-tuning persons) in 2017.

Luke