2016 possible class changes that we're looking at (so far)

[gordon]

Guys,

Following is a summary of the possible class changes we have so far informally discussed both on the forum as well as in short conversations.

For the classes mentioned, my prime objectives for the suggested changes are:

• Reduce the performance variation in different brands and models of cars to encourage variety and inclusion of as many types as possible.
• Keep lap times in check. We don't want all our classes doing the same times and especially super-fast times.
• Make it easy for individual owners to set up their cars without specialised equipment (such as the Magnet Marshal).
• Reduce the number of class groupings so that we can race our non-IROC classes a bit more often.

USD rule definition: Car must not be able to magnetically adhere to standard Scalextric Sport track piece in an upside down position. Magnet-stacking allowed.

You will see several references to the USD rule below. One thoughtful criticism I received from Arden and what I perceive to be the Achilles Heel of the rule is that adding weight to a car - particularly as far forward as possible - allows the installation of stronger magnets than would be possible without the added weight. If we are going to implement this rule, we will probably want to consider possible options to offset the advantage longer cars have over shorter ones and to generally limit the potential lap times for classes using the rule. An example could be limiting added weight to rearward of the front axle (ie. no added weight ahead of the front axle).

With these things in mind, please put some thought to the following suggestions and leave your comments below. We will be having a meeting in early January to finalise any changes before our first event.

Historic Saloon:

• Magnets: USD rule. Magnets must be positioned in one of the standard magnet locations for the particular model.

Vintage Sports and Group 5 Sports Cars:

Combine these two classes into a single Vintage Sports '60-'75 class with the following requirements:

• Body: Eligible cars will be a combination of the current VS and G5SC lists.
• Chassis: Standard for the particular model.
• Interior: Full interior as standard for the particular model, however this may be altered if necessary, but only to the extent required to install digital chip. Must comply with General item 3.
• Digital Chip: Scalextric brand only (or we can leave this free).
• Motor: Up to 21.5K.
• Gearing: Motor and axle gears may be changed.
• Motor Pod (where applicable): Standard for the particular model.
• Magnets: USD rule. Magnets must be positioned in one of the standard magnet locations for the particular model.
• Wheels: Standard for the particular model.
• Axles: Standard for the particular model.
• Tyres: Free.
• Guide Flag: Free.

Slot.It Challenge:

• Magnets: Single currently-available standard Slot.It "non-race" magnet (the one with the grooves) which may be positioned in any of the standard locations on the Slot.It motor pod.

Restricted GT and Modified Production:

• Magnets: USD rule. Magnets may be positioned anywhere.

I would also like to introduce a new class which may in time replace our current F1 class (or can continue alongside it). This is discussed in this post however its early days for the class so far, so I'm just mentioning it here.

Now let's hear your thoughts

[steveaca]

Hi all,
here are my thoughts on these proposed changes:
Historic Saloon:
I was originally hoping for a magnet-less racing class and thought that HS would be the best class for this. More recently, I saw and agreed with Gordon's suggestion for applying the USD with magnets ahead of the wheelbase centre line. I thought that although there would be a magnet to offer some sort of stability to the cars, the handling would be a lot 'looser' than previously obtained and the cars' performance would more closely emulate reality. This set-up would involve some degree of modification to several cars but nothing that I feel is beyond any of the regular non-IROC racers at FRC. I'm not sure whether just applying the USD while leaving magnet positions standard will achieve the desired performance adjustment or even level the field to a significant degree as some cars' standard magnet position may be better than others.

Vintage Sport/Group 5:
I feel that digital chip could be free (see my comment on previous post on this topic) but everything else is fine.

Slot.It Challenge:
Agree .

Restricted GT:
Agree.

Modified Production:
I think that specs. for this class should be left as-is. At present , no car is disadvantaged as this is already a modified class and all would have been optimized for current rules. Allowing free magnet placement here will allow magnets to be moved rearward and handling would be improved, leading to faster lap times, the opposite of what is the desired outcome. These cars would, in essence , be saloon versions of the Restricted GT cars.

I look forward to reading others' thoughts on the topic.
Steve

[gordon]

I would like to test some HS cars with the magnet ahead of the centerline and see the performance characteristics as well as how easy/difficult this magnet placement is to accomplish with different chassis. If things work out with these tests, I'm in favor of going this way.

[gordon]

Guys,

I have a little homework for those willing to take part. I'd like those willing to do so, to set up and test one or more HS cars for the USD rule but with all magnets ahead of the axle centreline. This idea is a variation of the magnet requirements of a class run by Nomad Slot Racing in the US (their Vintage Sports class). This configuration with their "One Gee" rule (what we call "USD rule") works well for them and it may well do so for us too. To quote them:

We have added a variation to our rule for our Vintage Sports Car class. We thought that vintage sports cars should drift in the turns and be slower than modern cars, so our normal ruled made the cars too aggressive. On the other hand, it took too much tuning and modification to get some of the cars to be competitive with no traction magnets. So, we added the stipulation that no traction magnet may be placed further than 1.5” from the front of the guide blade, to the One Gee Rule. This creates a class midway between magnet and no magnet cars. The cars are evenly matched and easy to set up. And they drift and slide that way an early sports car should! The further forward the magnet is, the “looser”, more forgiving the handling is. If you find the unstipulated rule makes the cars too aggressive for your tastes, you can back off the magnetic effect by stipulating a more forward magnet position... Maybe a different one for each class... Experimentation is the key. The “One Gee" rule has provided the framework for years of Fast Fun at Nomad Slot racing. Let us know how it works for you!

I hope to have a test session at FRC as our opening event in January (no date as yet) where we can test these cars, along with others.

Remember, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Gordon

[Luke]

Hello GG,

You sure do have lots of great ideas with a great deal of info going forward and even with some homework assignment ... but what you also mentioned.

I hope to have a test session at FRC as our opening event in January (no date as yet) where we can test these cars, along with others.

Remember, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Gordon

Understanding your overall 132 car passion and noticing how eager you are to race the new proposed FRC racing cycle (pet project - Group 2) of slotcars.

Do you have plans for a main event and hope you don't mind me mentioning that a test session alone (with any class) of 132 cars, isn't sounding too exciting as an opening event for 2016 ...

My input on this subject going forward.

Luke

[arden100]

Gordon,

I like the idea for the vintage class, however to get more person involved I will leave the gearing as stock. Wheels and tyres could be free. Remember these are generally stock classes.
You may get some of the new driverS interested in this class.

I agree with the first session as testing.

Arden

[steveaca]

Looking forward to the opening event of 2016.
Maybe instead of a 'test session', we could call it an 'open-track session' in which testing as well as other impromptu activities/races could take place, depending on what cars drivers bring along. It would be a good opportunity to drive cars that some of us may have which don't fit into any of FRC's established classes.

[gordon]

Luke, I feel we need a test session/open-track session before starting the new year's racing. Steve's suggestion sounds good to me. This may even be on a Saturday afternoon so that we can have enough time to do both some testing and some racing. We can go into more detail as we get closer to a date.

Arden, the main reason for allowing gearing changes is to accommodate cars like the Slot.It, NSR and other models that make it easy to change the gearing, otherwise we'd have to check the teeth on these types of cars which sounds like a real headache to me.

[Luke]

Looks like the "I's" have it GG ...

Testing as an Opening (2016) Event ... and as you rightfully mentioned.

• On a Saturday afternoon so that we can have enough time to do both testing and some racing.

Although - I feel Preseason Testing could be the way to go - which is between the Christmas and New Year's weekends

• Sunday 27th. to Wednesday 30th. December 2015.

What do you and others think about working out some testing details (lime) with any one of those four days ..

Luke

[steveaca]

Luke,
a pre-season lime/test session during the time mentioned (after Boxing Day and before Old Years) would be fine with me. I know however, that this is a busy time for many people but most important of all, it would need to be convenient to Gordon.
Steve