Guys,
In order to simplify our class regulations and allow for easier maintenance of cars as components wear out or break, I'm proposing some basic changes for 2016. Please see the attached PDF document. Proposed changes are shown in yellow.
Also for 2016, DTM cars such as my Opel Vectra GTS will no longer be eligible for our GT and RGT classes but will be eligible for Mod Prod.
Think about these suggestions and let's have some feedback.
Gordon
Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
Hi all,
while I'm in agreement with some of the proposed changes, especially those being made in the interest of improving cars' reliability, I'm not really in favour with the motor change in Historic Saloon.I feel that the motor rule should be left as is. It currently allows a 20k motor only if a car comes standard with it. I'm not aware of any cars which are eligible for this class that actually come with such a motor . Most cars in the class (Scalextric, Carrera, Pioneer etc.) come equipped with 18k motors. The proposed change as written would allow all cars to run a 20k motor. This would mean once one person fits a 20k motor,anyone else wanting to be competitive would need to re-motor their car as well. I would prefer to see one of two things: either (1) leave the rule as it is or (2) allow a change of motor to any brand motor but with a limit of 18k rpm.
Re all classes where the Upside Down rule is proposed, it is not clear whether current magnet location regulations (eg. Mod. Prod.-magnets must be ahead of front of rear tyre) would continue. I would like clarification on this to comment further.
I will again like to request that if changes are going to be made, let us consider at least one class for non-magnet cars. My choice of class for this would be Historic Saloon. We have many talented drivers at FRC who I believe would be able to handle this type of racing very well. If it doesn't work, we could change it the following year (or even mid-year).
Steve
while I'm in agreement with some of the proposed changes, especially those being made in the interest of improving cars' reliability, I'm not really in favour with the motor change in Historic Saloon.I feel that the motor rule should be left as is. It currently allows a 20k motor only if a car comes standard with it. I'm not aware of any cars which are eligible for this class that actually come with such a motor . Most cars in the class (Scalextric, Carrera, Pioneer etc.) come equipped with 18k motors. The proposed change as written would allow all cars to run a 20k motor. This would mean once one person fits a 20k motor,anyone else wanting to be competitive would need to re-motor their car as well. I would prefer to see one of two things: either (1) leave the rule as it is or (2) allow a change of motor to any brand motor but with a limit of 18k rpm.
Re all classes where the Upside Down rule is proposed, it is not clear whether current magnet location regulations (eg. Mod. Prod.-magnets must be ahead of front of rear tyre) would continue. I would like clarification on this to comment further.
I will again like to request that if changes are going to be made, let us consider at least one class for non-magnet cars. My choice of class for this would be Historic Saloon. We have many talented drivers at FRC who I believe would be able to handle this type of racing very well. If it doesn't work, we could change it the following year (or even mid-year).
Steve
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
Steve, something not too correct ...
Its FRC has many drivers but only 1 talented racer, who most times doesn't even have to try ... so much so - he is even asked not to participate
Its FRC has many drivers but only 1 talented racer, who most times doesn't even have to try ... so much so - he is even asked not to participate
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
Steve,
I agree that we should keep the current motor rule in HS. Also, the MP magnet requirement ahead of rear tyres will also still apply. In HS and VS, magnets must be in standard locations. In RGT, magnets can be anywhere.
Regarding a second no-magnet class, I think we should ask others to air their thoughts on this.
Gordon
I agree that we should keep the current motor rule in HS. Also, the MP magnet requirement ahead of rear tyres will also still apply. In HS and VS, magnets must be in standard locations. In RGT, magnets can be anywhere.
Regarding a second no-magnet class, I think we should ask others to air their thoughts on this.
Gordon
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
There's already an official strong non-magnet class in Rally Cars and a second type class was held way back with (30/12/2013) Race Report #152 .... Ferrari "Wet Race" Challenge ...
My point:
Just flick the magnets out of anyone of FRC's other 14 flaming classes (of course RC not included) and race the 6 non-magnet cars so ... don't need to wait for 6 - 12 months if to do or not to do :/
We can even have a full grid of Rally Cars to race all together anytime
Luke
My point:
Just flick the magnets out of anyone of FRC's other 14 flaming classes (of course RC not included) and race the 6 non-magnet cars so ... don't need to wait for 6 - 12 months if to do or not to do :/
We can even have a full grid of Rally Cars to race all together anytime
Luke
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
I don't mind trying a class (HS perhaps) without magnets. My main concern is the possible number of incidents because of cars becoming very sideways, but I guess it will be the same for everyone. We have to remember though that many of these cars were designed to run with some form of magnetic downforce and it may mean a lot of work or getting better-suited cars to be competitive.
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
Hi Gordon,
thanks for clarifying the proposed changes. I think what is being proposed is reasonable and I will endorse the changes. Re the possible non-magnet racing class, while I note Luke's suggestion that we could do this by simply popping the magnets out of one of the IROC classes, I feel that the Historic Saloon cars would be more suitable. They are slower than any of the IROC classes (with the possible exception of the Minis) and would be easier to handle. It would also be interesting to (hopefully) see an assortment of cars on the grid and having no magnets would certainly have a great levelling of the field effect on the class. Imagine not having to check downforce by Upside-Down rule, Magnet Marshal or any such device !
thanks for clarifying the proposed changes. I think what is being proposed is reasonable and I will endorse the changes. Re the possible non-magnet racing class, while I note Luke's suggestion that we could do this by simply popping the magnets out of one of the IROC classes, I feel that the Historic Saloon cars would be more suitable. They are slower than any of the IROC classes (with the possible exception of the Minis) and would be easier to handle. It would also be interesting to (hopefully) see an assortment of cars on the grid and having no magnets would certainly have a great levelling of the field effect on the class. Imagine not having to check downforce by Upside-Down rule, Magnet Marshal or any such device !
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
Hey Steve - had to pitch in here.
Going over some lap times again with ...
Historic Saloon cars are not that much slower than any of the IROC classes.
Check out the order below with up to date HS / IROC classes lap times. (which I did research for not long a go)
Sure you will agree that its (lap times) the same sort of racing group of cars, looking at these chart times.
Glad to lend a hand ...
Luke
Going over some lap times again with ...
Historic Saloon cars are not that much slower than any of the IROC classes.
Check out the order below with up to date HS / IROC classes lap times. (which I did research for not long a go)
- 1. Gordon - Ford Escort .................... 6.5 / NSS cars ................ 6.2 sec. lap times
2. Steve - Mustang N/B .................... 6.6 / LS cars .................. 6.2 sec. lap times
3. Ramesh - Ford Escort ................... 6.7 / FTC cars ................ 6.4 sec. lap times
4. Luke - Ford Capri ......................... 6.8 / SGTC cars .............. 6.6 sec. lap times
5. Luke B. - Ford Escort .................... 6.9 / PC cars .................. 6.8 sec. lap times
6. Gary - MGB ................................. 7.0 / MC cars ................. 7.4 sec. lap times
Sure you will agree that its (lap times) the same sort of racing group of cars, looking at these chart times.
Glad to lend a hand ...
Luke
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
Hi Luke,
Thanks for this info. You really put lots of effort into your research !
I suspect though, that the times of the top HS cars have been made with them running fairly strong magnetic downforce (maybe significantly more than any of the IROC classes) and that if the IROC cars had similar downforce, the times would be quite a bit quicker than the HS cars.
Steve
Thanks for this info. You really put lots of effort into your research !
I suspect though, that the times of the top HS cars have been made with them running fairly strong magnetic downforce (maybe significantly more than any of the IROC classes) and that if the IROC cars had similar downforce, the times would be quite a bit quicker than the HS cars.
Steve
Re: Proposed 2016 Class Rule Changes
Guys,
When I make suggestions for changes to our class regulations you may sometimes wonder my reasoning for some of the suggestions. Well it's primarily because I am always looking at ways to improve the experience at FRC for everyone who takes the time and makes the effort to prepare their cars to compete. In some cases my objective is to slow the cars to differentiate the various classes more clearly.
For example, some of you may be wondering why I am suggesting a modified version of the upside-down rule (UDR) which does not allow added weight ahead of the front axle. Well it's sort of similar to the Mod Prod requirement of no magnets behind the front of the rear tyres. It's purpose is to reduce the speed potential of the cars in classes which use the UDR. How? Well we all know that the preferred position of magnets is close to the rear axle. A car with magnets in this position will more easily pass the UDR if there is weight towards the nose which then acts as a fulcrum to pull against the magnetism. The further forward this weight is, the more easily it will dislodge the pull of the magnets. This has two advantages. The first is that the car can have stronger downforce and still pass the UDR. The second is that less weight will have to be used to dislodge the magnets and less weight is always better, particularly in a magnet class. Both these things mean potentially faster lap times.
By requiring that there be no added weight ahead of the front axle, this effect can be reduced and with it, the potential for quicker laps. The reason I chose the front axle is because all cars have one (or two stub axles) and I needed a clear point of reference.
So I always have a reason for my suggestions, even though it may not always be obvious, and these are always put to everyone for your thoughts and your always useful feedback.
Gordon
When I make suggestions for changes to our class regulations you may sometimes wonder my reasoning for some of the suggestions. Well it's primarily because I am always looking at ways to improve the experience at FRC for everyone who takes the time and makes the effort to prepare their cars to compete. In some cases my objective is to slow the cars to differentiate the various classes more clearly.
For example, some of you may be wondering why I am suggesting a modified version of the upside-down rule (UDR) which does not allow added weight ahead of the front axle. Well it's sort of similar to the Mod Prod requirement of no magnets behind the front of the rear tyres. It's purpose is to reduce the speed potential of the cars in classes which use the UDR. How? Well we all know that the preferred position of magnets is close to the rear axle. A car with magnets in this position will more easily pass the UDR if there is weight towards the nose which then acts as a fulcrum to pull against the magnetism. The further forward this weight is, the more easily it will dislodge the pull of the magnets. This has two advantages. The first is that the car can have stronger downforce and still pass the UDR. The second is that less weight will have to be used to dislodge the magnets and less weight is always better, particularly in a magnet class. Both these things mean potentially faster lap times.
By requiring that there be no added weight ahead of the front axle, this effect can be reduced and with it, the potential for quicker laps. The reason I chose the front axle is because all cars have one (or two stub axles) and I needed a clear point of reference.
So I always have a reason for my suggestions, even though it may not always be obvious, and these are always put to everyone for your thoughts and your always useful feedback.
Gordon