NON MAG. RACING

FRC's latest news and information of interest to members
Luke
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:54 pm

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by Luke »

Here’s a great example from (post) Racing Questionnaire between myself & Steve with 12 points being (our) best raced FRC class.
  • 12 / 03 RGT
    11 / 01 F1
    10 / 06 BTCC
    09 / 05 MP
    08 / 02 RLMP
    07 / 04 SC
  • 06 / 11 RC
    05 / 09 APC
    04 / 10 HS
    03 / 08 VSGT
    02 / 07 VSPT
    01 / 12 KB
An excellent chart ...

Showing Steve having high marks for all the Non-magnet classes & me high marks for Magnets :-D

Post No.2060

Luke
User avatar
gordon
Site Admin
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:34 pm
Location: Trinidad & Tobago
Contact:

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by gordon »

Guys, I had a good look at the current regs, including what both Steve and I are now referring to the new "Clubman" class. Based on the regs, I've come up with the following class analysis to help us all rationalise the best way to go with the regs, of course taking into consideration all the conversations in this post of Ram's. I sort of like the idea of progressing gradually rather than jumping into anything overly radical to begin with. In fact I already have a modified version of this analysis with how I feel we should start based on Ram's idea, but I'll wait to hear from you all before posting it. Here's the analysis:

Image

Looking at the data I've presented in one place instead of having to go back and forth with the regs can help you more-easily get the whole picture so that you can come up with your ideas.
steveaca
Posts: 1568
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:12 pm

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by steveaca »

Thanks for this very useful chart Gordon. It does make the differences between classes as they currently exist very clear. My comments remain unchanged however. In a nutshell these are as follows:
-HS without magnets would be very close to Clubman. I suggest we leave as is .
-Other proposed classes for non-mag would be okay.
-If non-mag configuration is adopted for any class, this should be the only change for that class.
Steve
RameshB
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by RameshB »

Hi guys i hope all is well during this time. my first thoughts on the suggestions came from , seeing that the cortina ,capri ,escorts , datsun, mk 1 and mk2 being cars of the late 60sand early 70s running together by the inclusion of 3D printed chassis and slot it or other components making them run again , and since we had a historic class already we can make the adjustments in opening up the historic time peroid and opening up the chassis regs. Same suggestion with the pony cars . we can only focus on these two classes for now and see how it goes,this way there will not have a need for a new set of cars to build as a clubman class.Which i thought is only a suggestion just as i am doing now. On our current rules for KIT bash we are running a 14t motor with a 64mm track limit but the clubman its suggested we run a 54mm track limit with a 18t motor , its too much motor for that track limit.i suggest a 14t motor or lower , but any way these are just suggestions that we can consider as we look at new ways to race with more variety keeping the interest. I do however realize that some of us may have to accept the fact that 3Dprinted chassis are the best way to go to allow for more tuning and configurations.i would be willing to sponsor a few chassis for Steve to consider getting some of his cars ready.You can go to shapeways printed chassis and view the ones ava. thanks.
steveaca
Posts: 1568
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:12 pm

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by steveaca »

Hi Ram,
thanks for the offer of the 3D printed chassis but I think I will pass on them for now as I already have my cars set up for Kitbash, Historic Saloon and the new Clubman class as per the existing regulations. Re the maximum track width for Clubman is concerned, I'm sure that the 55 mm. allowance will be sufficient.
Steve
RameshB
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by RameshB »

Hopefully some day when ,we will relook at the possibilites ., of chassis changes again. So then Steve your reluctance towards 3d chassis it's not cost then but a barrier to a new technology. I did not know however believe, that a new clubman non mag, class was decided on. As we are still having discussions at this time.Therefore nothing was cast in stone.
User avatar
gordon
Site Admin
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:34 pm
Location: Trinidad & Tobago
Contact:

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by gordon »

Guys,

I've actually been very busy with work that I've been doing both at the shop and at home where I've had my main work computer since the start of the lockdown. I used to lock the shop door and forget about work till the next day, but its now with me 24/7 so I'm just now getting a chance to respond here.

Following up on the comments that have been posted so far, if you look back at my post with the class analysis graphic, you'll see that I said "In fact I already have a modified version of this analysis with how I feel we should start based on Ram's idea". Well here it is below the original analysis for easy comparison:

Original:
Image

New:
Image

Let me explain what I've done and why. Firstly, I've combined Kitbash with Clubman (using the new name) and highlighted the changes in red. You'll immediately notice that the motor maximum RPM has been changed to 18,000, however we can decide to keep it at the Kitbash 14,000 if you prefer. This is because the two classes are more similar than different, so it makes sense just having one class. This also brings us back down to twelve classes.

Secondly, I've suggested that we change Historic Saloon and American Pony Car to non-magnet on a trial basis as a start to see how this works. American Pony Car was introduced specifically to replicate the over-2-litre American cars which took part in Trans Am racing from 1966 to 1972 and this is what the class is all about. For this reason, I would not want to mix them with Historic Saloon where the concept for these was to represent primarily the general saloon cars of the period which raced primarily in Europe and the UK, but also here in the Caribbean.

I say we give these less "disruptive" changes a chance, see how they work and then discuss possible other future changes over time that make sense for us all. Who knows, we may decide to go back to magnets of some sort for HS and APC, or we may want to leave the magnets out and phase in some of the other suggestions on a timed basis.
steveaca
Posts: 1568
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:12 pm

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by steveaca »

Gordon, you have just succeeded in undoing most of the work I've been doing over the last few weeks.
Luke
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:54 pm

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by Luke »

Hello Gordon,

I won’t add or take away any thoughts here - simply because I’m not an active racing member (for sometime now) but what I can do ...

Is compliment you, how you’ve invested a lot of effort to FRC, time with your slot-cars (to race competitively) and most of all, decision making with suggested racing ideas.

Your charts (above) looking like plenty work and clearly ... it is something you enjoy doing 8-)

Post No.2061

Luke
User avatar
gordon
Site Admin
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:34 pm
Location: Trinidad & Tobago
Contact:

Re: NON MAG. RACING

Post by gordon »

steveaca wrote: Fri May 15, 2020 7:11 pm Gordon, you have just succeeded in undoing most of the work I've been doing over the last few weeks.
Steve, I don't want to create any problems with anyone with my suggestions. Those were just my thoughts and often when we present things, they're done primarily from a personal perspective, not understanding the way they may affect others. I have no problem leaving things just as they are and we can do the Clubman thing as impromptu one-off races whenever we have time and entries. As time goes by, we can always come up with suggestions for any changes to any classes or how we run things as we have always done.
Post Reply