Topic Tag: 1.5L Grand Prix

Home /
Viewing 4 topics - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
    • Topic
    • Voices
    • Replies
    • Last Post
    • R32 LXV FINAL RACE RESULTS Saturday, January 7, 2023 @ Molto VeLoce Classes: Classic Stock Car (CSC) 1960's 1.5L Grand Prix (15LGP) Classic LeMans (CLM) Group C/IMSA (GCI) Format: 4 minute heats (240 seconds) x 3 Voltage set @ 10.9v One marshal for every heat Race to line result determines finishing order Classic Stock Car (CSC): #20 - 98 Laps (15.296 ext.) #32 - 96 (11.132) #13 - 95 (12.934) #92 - 94 (7.926) 1960's 1.5L Grand Prix (15LGP): #8 - 98 Laps (15.576 ext.) #2 - 97 (11.136) #73 - 94 (8.387) #30 - 92 (10.963) Classic LeMans (CLM): #5 - 105 Laps (18.273 ext.) #33 - 104 (11.934) #16 - 101 (12.290) #1 - 100 (6.468) Group C/IMSA (GCI): #19 - 109 Laps (7.376 ext.) #14 - 105 (7.482) #14 - 105 (9.418) #62 - 104 (14.168) [foogallery id="31088"] Cheers!

      Started by: Arthur in: R32

    • 1
    • 3
    • 2 weeks ago

      Avatar photoKen

    • Looking Ahead – Scratch32 Rules Update Gents, Looking ahead and given feedback to date we'll be implementing a few updates to our scratch32 rules (v4) for this summer. These will be: restricting the 1.5L Grand Prix (15LGP) class motor to the BWMS050 ONLY and removing the VANSKI as an option - since they have not been available for many years now - VANSKI motors are still eligible for other low power motor scratch32 classes (unless specifically excluded); adding a pre-CANAM class covering 1960-1965 USRRC & SCCA models - which will be divided into PC and PC+ subclasses; and adding an open Trans Am class (TA+) (1966 - 1973) which will allow period fantasy liveries and have no motor restriction. The second update was already tested in our last CANAM Thunder event and the third will be implemented for CANAM Thunder IV...

      Started by: Arthur in: R32 Class Criterium

    • 2
    • 2
    • 3 years ago

      Avatar photoKen

    • Motor Restrictions & ‘Slow’ Motor Classes for Scratch32 Parts & manufacturers come and go, especially in this hobby. The lucky few, or sometimes the forward thinking stockpile what is now 'unobtainium' for everyone else. This has already happened with urethane tires. Now it is creating waves regarding motors, in particular 'slow' motors. In the past we've had motors come and go or if they've been around a while get replaced with identical looking faster editions. By now most of us should know that labels and ratings from manufacturers mean nothing and are only useful to identify a motor - that's it. Chris told me 'control the motor and grip and you'll have a level playing field'. I agree. I can control one end of this equation - the grip - by continuing to manufacture a single compound tire, which I've now done for a decade or so. I can also identify the tire with a coloured tamperproof mark - a small coloured dot through the meat of the tire. But motors are a completely different animal. I remember when the NC1 was the 'slow' motor of choice which is now unobtainium. Then I remember when the BWNC1 was the faster 'slow' motor of choice which is now unobtainium. I also remember when the 'Vanski' was the slim can FF050 'slow' motor of choice which is now unobtainium. So we are left with a minefield of replacement 'slow' motors with manufacturers' ratings all over the board. What compounds the issue is that others may scour the internet and then obtain what they claim to be a suitable replacement or in some cases the same thing. Almost always it isn't. I've never seen a double shaft stock 'scaley' motor - but others have made this claim. It isn't always their fault - those selling the 'slow' motors may mislabel or mislead. Those that cannot get a formerly available motor of choice are understandably frustrated. And those who try to help find suitable alternatives usually realize that their time and efforts only lead to disappointment and in some cases open a Pandora's box. Up to now I did believe that the Vanski era would eventually come to a close as these motors were used up, but apparently that is not happening fast enough. Discontent is greater than I thought and appears to be quite widespread. To me one thing is sure - this cyclical pattern of the availability of 'slow' motors will always be a problem. Some are still going to great lengths to band aid 'slow' motor classes by trying to acquire suitable replacements. Those with stockpiles of Vanski motors, or those with an army of models all with Vanski motors, have no interest in seeing this restriction altered or lifted. Is there a solution? I have a solution and I'll get to it next...

      Started by: Arthur in: R32 Class Criterium

    • 4
    • 14
    • 6 years ago

      Arthur

  •  

Viewing 4 topics - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)