June 22, 2021 at 5:55 am #18681
June 29, 2021 at 7:22 pm #18722
Fun, fun, fun, on the Autobahn! :yahoo:
A song from 1974 by Kraftwerk. :good:
June 29, 2021 at 8:59 pm #18723
I don’t think I will be back in time for this. 😥 Sorry to miss it. Have fun guys.
July 1, 2021 at 2:41 pm #18743
I’m sorry I won’t be able to attend this session. I do have a couple of suggestions though. I think it would be great if we had the ability to use wide wheels and tires for the “Hot Rod” class so that we could emulate the types of cars that can be seen in movies such as “American Graffiti” or at the shows like the various “Good Guys” shows in The States, which are the biggest displays of Hot Rods on the planet. I’d also suggest we put off any changes or adjustments to the Indy Roadster class until after the we’ve gotten together for the seminar on “Building a Front Motor Indy Roadster” as the realities of building such a car might suggest some tweaking of the expected formula.
Anyway I hope you all have a blast.
July 3, 2021 at 1:28 pm #18750
My apologies, I will not be able to attend.
I agree with Racer68 regarding not making any changes to the Indy Roadster class. I have already built my cars as per the specifications provided by the club on this site. My suggestion to those who are struggling with this build, you should review the forum posts by Ken who described in detail how to build a chassis, as well as how to attach the rod and spring to the motor. If you are still having trouble, purchase a custom chassis from Ken, you will not be disappointed.
July 3, 2021 at 2:45 pm #18752
Gents, hope all are well! I will not be attending and as such I believe I am happy with the rules as they currently are, however, Racer68’s suggestion is not unreasonable, though I’m not sure that perhaps there would be an advantage in shodding HR’s with wider wheels/tires?? I think that within reason, as long as the appearance is period/genre correct, that would be fine, but having said that, we know that in years past there have been several members that abide by the Smokey Yunnick ethos… And perhaps this is NOT the correct forum to address return to racing, policy and practice, so MODS please feel free to move, but as a host, I’m interested in what members think. I will entertain hosting racing in the fall, dependent on where we are health wise in the battle, but I will require a ‘Vaccine Passport’ to allow guests to race at Spa.
July 4, 2021 at 11:40 pm #18809
I was hoping to attend this session, since it’s much better to discuss such things in person, but I haven’t been able to secure a ‘leave of absence’ for that time. I was also looking forward to trying out a few new cars that had not been on a track. I do have a few recommendations I would like to make.
Hot Rod class: I agree fully with the recommendation from Racer68. I‘ve had the same concerns for a while now, and had posted a comment along those lines.
The current rule set is: ( “Scratch32 Rules & Guidelines – v4.0 – July, 2018” )
HR – Hot Rod Class – ‘Open’ Inline BWMS050
HR1. Eligible Models: Any model with or without fenders; *[The currently updated practice: cut off year is 1948; see post – #17528.]
HR2. Any inline chassis;
HR3. Motor – ‘Low Power’ BWMS050;
HR4. Wheels – maximum 14mm in diameter with a maximum width of 6mm. Inserts or wheel
detail must be period appropriate;
HR5. DArt SC0120 tires are highly recommended but not mandatory;
HR6. Maximum width of front and rear rolling assemblies (track) is 50.8mm but bodies/fenders
may be wider; and
HR7. Every car requires at least one racing number which may be painted or otherwise fixed on
“A hot rod is a 1948 and earlier American car that has been radically modified for high horsepower, high acceleration and high speed.” ( The reason that 1948 is the cut-off year is that it was the last year that models had protruding fenders. 1949 introduced integrated fenders, ‘streamlined’ bodies. ) [This cut off year is the current updated practice; post – #17528.]
Keeping in line with the principle that ‘the cars are the stars’ and wining or losing a little toy car race is of no great significance, it’s more important to have a proper scale representation of the cars, than to have them balanced for competition purposes. After all, we are not running a trophy series in our races. Also, being “radically modified”, the degree of modification varies, so the Hot Rod class does not lend itself well to close standardized competition unless you eliminate the key characteristic of ‘radically modified’. It’s better to look to GrpC or LMP or 70’s GP for a standardized class that is evenly matched.
Certainly there is a group of Hot Rods that are more or less ‘jalopies’ with rear wheels of the original 1930’s stock sizes. But it makes little sense to restrict all Hot Rods to rear wheels of 6mm width, essentially the same as the 5.5mm width of the pre-war GP’s. The typical Hot Rod is more highly customized and may have widened fenders, very large rear tires in diameter and in width, resulting in a very wide spur for the car. On the other hand, there would be nothing stopping anyone who wants to represent the sub-group of Hot Rods that ran on the narrow 1930’s stock tires. But even with those tires, I’ve noticed some problems in properly mounting the body to the chassis on some of our models, due to the overall width constraint.
That covers my ideas on tire size. In terms of motor configuration, why are we stuck in inline? For a properly seated body, you have to cut away more than half of the bench seat to accommodate the inline motor. Why not allow the drivetrain geometry to be whatever best suits the body and motor, and possibly allows for the use of a full interior? As long as a Slow Motor is in use, if the body can accommodate a sidewinder, why not allow it?
In terms of overall width, the 50.8mm is too narrow to allow for a proper representation of a “radically modified” car. Even looking at our current entries, it’s evident that some have had problems mounting the body low enough to the chassis and tires, because of this width constraint. (I can provide examples, but this post is already too long!) Since most Hot Rods have a very wide rear stance, I suggest that we allow the same tire width and overall width as we do in the 70’s GP class.
Therefore, my recommendation for the Hot Rod rule set is: ( keeping in mind, “radically modified” ! )
HR1. Any modified or customized American car model from 1948 or earlier, with or without fenders, in paint or in primer. [ This cut off year is the current updated practice; post – #17528 ]
HR2. Any motor configuration.
HR3. Slow motor.
HR4. Choice of wheel sizes (rim and tire) is open. (or, we can use the width restrictions from 70GP)
HR5. Maximum overall width of rolling assemblies is 68.5mm, but bodies/fenders may be wider.
( 70GP has Rr tire = 16mmW, Fr tire = 9.5mmW, overall W = 68.5mm )
HR6. Every car requires at least one racing number which may be painted or otherwise fixed on the windshield.
Another set of complications arise with the introduction of the other related classes in the Feb 2, 2021 post, #17528 :
“Hot Rod” sub classes: Street Rod (SR), Rat Rod (RR), Street Machines (SM), and Gassers (GAS).
“ Street Rods (SR) – (aka Hot Rod) – Any modified or customized car or truck model from 1948 or earlier with or without fenders in paint or in primer ” .
However, it would be incorrect to have ‘Gassers’ (such as the ’57 Chevrolet example in the post) as a sub category of Hot Rod. A ‘Gasser’ is not a Hot Rod, since it is not 1948 or prior; in other words, since it doesn’t have a body style originally with projecting fenders.
We could have the classes as:
Hot Rod (HR) – Any 1948 and earlier American car that has been radically modified . (no trucks)
Rat Rod (RR) – Any 1948 and earlier American model Car or Truck with a deliberately worn-down, unfinished appearance, typically lacking paint, showing rust, and made from cheap or cast-off parts.
Street Machine (SM) – Any modified or customized car or truck model from 1949 or later in paint or in primer. ( 1949 or later models already had integrated fenders, and are not a sub class of Hot Rod )
Gassers (GAS) – A vintage drag car that was popularized in the ’50s and ’60s (up to 1968) . . . . . . ( again, cars of the ‘50’s and 60’s are not Hot Rods and therefore can’t be a subclass of Hot Rods )
However, my recommendation is to separate ‘Street Machine’ and ‘Gasser’ from the Hot Rod class, since they are not Hot Rods.
Rat Rod may be a redundant category, since except for the truck option, it can be subsumed into the Hot Rod category. Are we going to find enough 32’nd scale trucks to form a group to race, and how many people want to race a vintage truck in the first place! The models already registered under the Hot Rod class are a mix of custom Hot Rods and Rat Rods.
My suggestion is to drop ‘Gassers’ from the list, since they are dragsters that will not handle well on a road course, and it doesn’t make sense to run a dragster there in any case.
* To accommodate those who may be concerned about wheel and tire sizes leading to performance advantages, I suggest that we can have HR and HR+, as we do in many other classes. The HR rules can the same as in the “v4.0 – July, 2018” rules, and the HR+ rules are those I listed above, HR-1 to HR-6, with the unrestricted motor configuration, wheel size, and 68.5mm rolling assembly width. That will allow for a proper representation of the most popular and most typical form of Hot Rod.
Pre-War GP class:
Rear wheel dimensions on a 1930 MG or Swallow Sidecars (Jaguar) model are quite different from a 1939 Auto Union, in diameter, width, and shape. The early tires had a rounded cross-section, later ones had a flatter wider surface contact. If we are making an allowance beyond the rules, for “slightly larger ‘Dunlop Racing’ rear tires” on the AU type-D, does the same principle not apply to the dimensions of tires on other models, in order to allow for a more accurate scale representation? After all these cars had a wide range of rim and tire sizes and shapes over the ten year period. Considering the use of the Slow Motor, a small difference in wheel sizes should not produce a difference in performance, but if it does, it will reflect that of the real cars.
Also, what is the reason for the max width of the rolling assemblies in the two sub-classes: PGP, set at 54 mm and the PGP+, at 50.8 mm? Are AU Type C and D in PGP+ ?
Boulevard Cruisers class:
Somehow the name ‘American Thunder’ appeared in its place! I don’t think that name captures the original intent of the class. The Boulevard Cruisers are not cars that are modified for thunderous speed, and they don’t run in thunder alley. They are basically stock cars in cruise use. So I think we should keep the original name. I also hope that we are keeping the originally intended fairly open specifications, with respect to wheels, motors, and drive train configuration.
I hope this review will produce a draft set of rules that will go out to all members for final comment, since members that have not yet been part of the discussion and may be assuming no changes, may have differing opinions on the resulting draft. Good luck to all, in working through the review. Felix.
July 5, 2021 at 6:09 am #18846
Some insightful feedback so far! Thanks to everyone who has shared their thoughts on rule twerks to date…
…I hope to broadcast the track testing session live on Twitch through my channel ‘132dart’ when cars finally take to the track… a live text chat is available and will accompany the broadcast for those interested…
July 5, 2021 at 8:05 am #18847
Good Morning Everyone
Felix It’s good to see your detailed and thoughtful feedback on the rules especially around the Hot Rod class/classes.
I would suggest for the sake of parsimony that the Hot Rod/ Rat Rod classes be combined and that light trucks such as Art’s Mandarin Monsoon be allowed in the Hot Rod class. I think that having an HR and HR+ class is workable as long as the two get to race together even if classified and scored apart. This should allow for both better build diversity and fuller racing fields.
July 5, 2021 at 10:50 am #18848
I just wish to clarify one point:
My Mandarin Monsoon meets the current scratch32 HR eligibility test – I wouldn’t want anyone thinking that it doesn’t.
The new proposal by FELIX may exclude it and that is what racer68 is drawing our attention to. This is why we have dialogue, better in person so as to avoid unnecessary chatter.
My apologies for stepping in…
July 5, 2021 at 11:31 am #18849
Not only would I not want any currently eligible models to be excluded but I would love a greater diversity of Hot Rod styles to be eligible. I think that is in the spirit of the original and the evolving Hot rod Ethos.
July 5, 2021 at 2:52 pm #18850
July 5, 2021 at 10:04 pm #18851
Thanks to all who read through my long review. I agree with the follow-up replies from Art and Racer68. I hadn’t realized that the Mandarin Monsoon was considered a truck (not the size or type of truck I had in mind). I certainly wouldn’t want to exclude it, or any other current model from the Hot Rod category. The current models are a completely valid sub-group of Hot Rods. My objective, as Steve describes well, is to include a ‘greater diversity’ of Hot Rods to reflect the ‘radically modified’ nature of the real ones. The easiest way to achieve this is to have HR and HR+ sub-categories, as we do with other classes, thus allowing a more open set of specifications in the HR+, in order to achieve the ‘radically modified’ characteristic, including wide rear wheels.
[ By the way, changing the tire size, motor configuration, and overall width in the HR+ category, may not prove to be a competitive advantage. Since we are still using a Slow Motor, the extra rubber in the fat tires producing a higher Moment of Inertia, will cause a lower acceleration and weaker breaking. On the other hand, if the changes do produce a difference in performance, then it may simply reflect what’s happening in the real cars, and that’s a good thing in terms of realistic modelling. ]
In any case, I greatly appreciate the open discussion so we can accommodate a wider range of ideas.
PS: Here’s another example of a good Hot Rod build, that was well received by this forum, but would not meet the current HR rules because of the rear wheel width, as shown in its chassis photo. ( June 23, 2020 at 8:44 am #15054 )
July 5, 2021 at 10:11 pm #18852
Greetings my fellow S32 racers. Here is the end result of a lengthy discussion from earlier today concerning rule changes.
Once you open the door to changes, they rarely stop. Are the rules perfect? No. Do they satisfy everyone? No. But many cars have already been built around them, and they seem to stand the test of time.
Two areas that were at the forefront of the discussion were Hot Rod wheel width, and overall track width. After going over the pros and cons of as many aspects we could think of. There was some give and take regarding the Hot Rod class.
1) Overall track width will not change. I fought to widen the width to use a few other bodies. But the reality is, there are really a ton of choices out there already.
2) Hot Rod wheel width can be as wide as you like now so long as the overall outside track width remains with the existing rules.
If you want to use wide wheels and tires as seen in the photo of the “Hot Hemi” from Felix. The big wheels need to be tucked inside the standard track width. The standard Hot Rod motor may not have enough power to push the wheels to win a race. But the choice is yours to make.
No suggestions for changes to the front motor class as of yet. Several cars have been built around the penciled in rules. Let’s start building cars that suit the front motor class and see what issues turn up. We can discuss more at the workshop.
“American Thunder” is merely an event name that would comprise mostly American cars and races such as… Hot Rod, Trans Am, Boulevard Cruisers, CanAm, and SCCA. Boulevard Cruisers will still be called Boulevard Cruisers. (Street Racers was actually the first suggested name for Boulevard Cruisers)
Old pick-up trucks are allowed in Hot Rod class when specifically built to Hot Rod rules. There are a few nice old trucks kits out there. I’m thinking of building one myself.
The rules will stay the same with the exception of the Hot Rod wheels being any width now.
There was a discussion about starting a “Rules Commitee” in the future. But it will take time to figure out the best way to make this commitee fair to everyone.
We hope this keeps almost everyone happy for now?
July 5, 2021 at 10:28 pm #18853
I forgot to mention that the Hot Rod class is actually split into 4-classes now.
All builds still fall under the basic Hot Rod rules.
Besides the standard Hot Rod (pre-1949). Rat Rods (Ugly and made up from several different car parts), Street Machines (1950+), and Gassers (nose high unstable buggers) have been added as separate classes.
It is still up to the interpretation of the builder as to what you make. What you build should be easily identifiable. A shiny sports car isn’t a rat rod.
July 5, 2021 at 11:20 pm #18854
What is the rush to arbitrarily cut off this discussion? People haven’t even had time to read the follow-up comments. In the past, a draft set of rule changes was posted for further comment from all members before being adopted. This is no way to have a proper review of rules; you might as well not have started the process.
If you admit that the rules are not perfect, what’s wrong with improving them? The mindset seems to be “that’s the way it is because that’s the way it was”; The quickest path to inbred stagnation. I would think that the objective for reviewing the rules is to improve the rules, not to leaving them the same.
It’s not accurate to say “There was some give and take regarding the Hot Rod class.” Basically you’ve left the rules the same, except for one thing – wider tires are allowed but “need to be tucked in the standard track width” ! How do you ‘tuck in’ wide tires into a Bucket-T ? Makes no sense. That’s no solution. You’ve missed the whole point about representing the more typical Hot Rod, more radically modified, and with a wider rear stance. You’ve ignored all the reasonable arguments presented.
What is the rationale for not going with HR and HR+ sub-categories? Simple, accommodates everyone, hinders no one. Why are we doing it for other classes that represent a narrower range of cars and not for HR? Why ignore this solution, considering the well reasoned arguments presented by two members, arguments that others may agree with if given the time to review them.
July 6, 2021 at 12:49 am #18855
Today was specifically put aside to see if any tweaks to the rules were needed. I was merely giving the minutes of the meeting. Concerning track width, you’re preaching to the choir. I wanted it widened as well, but my arguement ended up as a minority vote. You could have been there to add to and reinforce your/our/my arguement. I would love to drop the back of my 32-Ford. I’m going to make a different car next time. Problem solved.
This was never supposed to be about re-writing the entire rule book. Just about a few new thoughts regarding a few small changes.
It would be impossible to list all the thoughts and converations that went on today. Being there in person would be the only way to add more to the meeting.
A separate “Rules Committee” was suggested today for future changes and updates. Nothing is cut off or etched in stone. Everything takes time. The future looks bright.
3-sub-classes were just added to the base Hot Rod class. Adding HR+ to four HR classes means a possibility of 4-more classes just to Hot Rod alone. Everyone at the meeting agreed that it’s too much. HR+ probably won’t happen. The cars are often too delicate to go lightning fast anyways.
Everyone at the meeting today commented that yours and Steve’s thoughts were greatly appreciated. You and Steve were dearly missed at this meeting. We surely hope everyone can attend the next meeting.
July 7, 2021 at 11:07 pm #18861
The claim is made that: “You could have been there to reinforce your argument”. In fact I could not have been there; If I could have, I would have. The implication is that it’s our fault for not being there. Not all of us have the freedom to attend at any arbitrarily chosen time; what about people with a job, or other duties during the day. If you intend wider participation, a more common time should be considered. There are five of us who replied that we couldn’t attend, not because we didn’t want to.
You say that: “This was never supposed to be about re-writing the entire rule book. Just about a few new thoughts regarding a few small changes.”. In fact, nothing from our recommendation indicates that we were “re-writing the entire rule book”; I don’t know where that idea comes from. We were recommending a ‘small change’ of adding a sub-category. You’ve rejected that recommendation, while at the same time adding a much larger change of introducing two completely separate and new classes. Adding two completely new classes that have nothing to do with HR is not “Just about a few new thoughts regarding a few small changes”, as you put it.
In fact, there are not three subclasses to the base Hot Rod class, and adding HR+ would not produce a fourth class. Street Machines and Gassers are not Hot Rods, and have nothing to do with HR; they are not sub-classes of HR. Are you going to race a Gasser in the same race as a Hot Rod !? Placing Street Machines and Gassers under HR to give a total count of four classes, is no more valid than placing the other new classes, Boulevard Cruisers and Pre-War GP’s there too, and claim there are six categories under Hot Rod. It’s a false analysis.
Also, Rat Rod and Hot Rod, in their current state, are not distinguishable from each other and are raced together, so it’s redundant to call them separate classes just because they have different finishes. You are counting it as a separate class but with no consequence on the track. Our recommendation was to leave HR as is (with Rat Rod included, as is current practice), and add HR+ in order to include a ‘greater diversity’ of Hot Rods to reflect the true nature of the real cars.
That results in only two classes, HR and HR+, something we have done for much narrower ranges of cars. If you want to add Street Machines and Gassers as two new classes, that’s a separate consideration which has nothing to do with Hot Rods and nothing to do with our recommendations regarding HR+.
It’s strange that you are adding two completely new classes, that have nothing to do with HR, and not willing to consider a sub-class of HR that better represents the range of the real cars, while at the same time claiming that there would be too many HR classes.
You also mention: “HR+ probably won’t happen. The cars are often too delicate to go lightning fast anyways.”. I don’t know where this comes from; we have specified Slow Motors in our recommendations.
July 6, 2021 at 5:43 am #18856
Thank you for your accurate recap of our ‘Twerks’ session Ken! …and cheers to F1nutz for his thoughts and reflections… it was really nice to kick back and enjoy lunch in the heat and then move inside (where it was cool) to do some spirited low stress practice laps among fully vaccinated friends… with the comfort of indoor breaks for nature too… no better place than at The Ring where there are lots of trees…!
I’m delighted to see such general enthusiasm about improving our rules. This bodes well for the future.
I will add just one point: I believe that there are two general classes of rules:
- Rules which are designed to level the playing field and keep the racing even or ‘fair’ so that any one model type or tweak does not run away from the field; and
- Rules that prevent others from adversely impacting the performance or race of others.
Because of this the threshold to change class 2 rules in my mind is (and should be) much higher. For instance, widening rear wheels/tires is a class 1 change provided the overall width remains the same. Widening the track to accommodate wider rear wheels is a class 2 change which may directly impede or adversely affect the performance of others in adjacent lanes. Many may not know this but some tracks in our R32 circuit only have 3″ lane spacing where this can be a huge problem… of course unless you’ve raced on every track you would not know this…
Nevertheless, although this thread may soon be at an end our ongoing rules discussions need not be…
July 7, 2021 at 11:18 pm #18864
Your two ‘general classes of rules’ are both about competition. But that’s not all that this club is about. If it’s all about competition, then we may as well be racing lexan bodies on flexi chassis zipping around as blurs on the track, the most competitive form of slot car racing. You have omitted the other very important objective of the ruleset, that is, to create an accurate representation of the cars we are racing; something I know you and all of us value. That objective is completely in line with what Steve and I are trying to promote.
We are trying to ‘keep a level playing field’, and are specifying Slow Motors. (The SP+ class on the other hand, has ‘unlimited motors’ that do ‘run away from the field’.) We are trying not to introduce rules that adversely impact the performance of others, we are just recommending a sub-class, as has been done with other classes. And we are doing so only in order to better represent the range of the real cars, as has been done in other classes.
If you feel the wider stance may hinder other cars on the 3” lane spacing, lets not run the HR+ on those tracks (even though 70GP cars with open wheel 68.5mm widths are being run on those tracks). Simple solution, solves the problem. Or as Steve has suggested, let’s go with a reduced max width of 60mm. Another solution to that concern is to require HR+ to be closed wheel cars with full fenders, at 62.5mm max width. Again, simple solution, completely addresses your concern, solves the problem! (We now have sports cars, Ferrari 312PB for example, on these tracks, at 62.5mm widths.)
Restricting Hot Rods to an overall width of 50.8mm, the same as a 1950 GP car! Just doesn’t make sense if one objective is to create an accurate representation of the real cars. Even the 1930’s Pre-war GP’s class, PGP, is at 54mm.
As Steve describes: “Hot rods have always been about speed but the culture that grew out of them was purely about style. Let’s allow more style into the Hot Rod class. The really competitive racers will most likely gravitate towards the fastest set up but by opening up the rules this way we can allow everyone to express themselves in the way they best see fit just like the full size automotive scene.”; That makes a lot of sense!
Again, it’s strange that you making a larger change to the rules by adding two completely new and separate classes that are not subclasses of HR and cannot race with Hot Rods. That doesn’t seem to me like “twerking the rules”. At the same time, you are not willing to consider smaller change of adding a valid subclass of HR to better represent the range of the real cars.
July 6, 2021 at 9:22 am #18857
Good Morning all
It’s great to see such a spirited exchange on this forum. There are so many interesting and valid points, even if they can be contradictory.
Art I like the way you’ve outlined the two basic classes of rules, by looking at it this way we can make changes that benefit all the club members without being inordinately bound by dogma. I agree that Class 2 rules need more consideration. Many of us may never be front runners but still don’t want anyone but ourselves impeding our progress.
It seems to me that the only obstacle to widening the track for the Hot Rod class is the space they might take up on the narrower tracks that we race on. That’s fair enough. How about this as a possible compromise. The overall width of any Hot Rod at it’s widest point, either the outside of the body/fender unit or the widest part of the tire, which ever is greater may not exceed 60mm. This is the width allowed for our 3LGP class which I believe can run successfully on any of our host tracks and well below the maximum width of some of the classes we already run. If we continue to mandate the slow motor, which I think we should, we could allow both inline and sidewinder/anglewinder options which would allow greater diversity of builds and maybe a few more exposed engines( if you can find them). Hot rods have always been about speed but the culture that grew out of them was purely about style. Let’s allow more style into the HotRod class. The really competitive racers will most likely gravitate towards the fastest set up but by opening up the rules this way we can allow everyone to express themselves in the way they best see fit just like the full size automotive scene.
July 6, 2021 at 12:17 pm #18858
From my experience on 3″ spaced lanes wider open wheel 3LGP & especially 70GP models can be a real shit show. I’ve seen it too many times and when open wheel cars trip over one another in a corner or a squeeze one usually flips and often onto a floor… for plastic RTR factory painted cars not a big deal since they are usually more durable, but for a scratch built detailed model like some HR we see racing in our group it would be painful. I will not speak for others but for me racing with that potential has zero appeal…
Perhaps a compromise would be to see wider track HR race separately – this way every individual can choose whether or not they wish to participate in that class/race…
July 7, 2021 at 11:20 pm #18865
“ Perhaps a compromise would be to see wider track HR race separately ”; that’s a good idea; HR+ doesn’t have to race every time HR does.
July 6, 2021 at 1:42 pm #18859
When I first joined S32. I wanted to go faster, faster, faster! I bought a 35k motor with enough torque to light up the rear tires the entire 19-foot straight at the Ring. F1Nutz was the first to point out the Porsche RS-61 was fish-tailing the entire way. I ended up hating that motor.
These are two of my favorite motors today. I have more fun and laugh while racing with these than any other. I even prefer the slim line BWMS050 over the BWNC1.
July 6, 2021 at 1:59 pm #18860
I bought 3 of those insane torque motors. Oops.
Steve and Felix. Kindly let me know if you want to play with fire? I’ll put your names on one for each of you. :wacko:
My advice might be to put it in something ugly that you won’t mind hitting the wall at a rapid rate. Can you say “Ferrari drywall imprints”?
While my blue RS-61 had the fastest lap of the night at the last race it was in. Art’s silver RS-61 with a slower motor came in 1st place. Live and learn.
July 7, 2021 at 11:22 pm #18866
We have not suggested high speed motors for HR+ anywhere in our recommendations. We specifically listed Slow Motor. We are not looking to get any race advantage in HR+, only to represent the style range of the real cars.
July 7, 2021 at 11:40 pm #18867
I was surprised and disappointed at the process. I wasn’t going to respond further, figuring it was pointless, but with the obvious errors in fact and in reasoning, I concluded I must follow up. I have commented separately on each of the replies above. (Sorry, I couldn’t sugar-coat my responses.)
I have yet to find any valid reason for the strong resistance to making the small change to the ruleset that we are recommending as HR+. We made a very well reasoned initial submission that was rejected completely. We have responded to all follow-up concerns with practical solutions to each, completely addressing the stated concerns. It appears that none of these have been given due consideration.
We are using Slow Motors in order to avoid any competitive advantage in the HR+. (As you know, the SP+ class has ‘Open Unlimited’ motors, that do produce an advantage.) We have addressed the concern of potentially having an adverse affect on cars in the next lane, by proposing various compromises that completely resolve the problem: either reduce the HR+ max width to 60mm; or, not run the HR+ on the 3” lane spacing tracks; or, require HR+ to be closed wheel cars with full fenders, at 62.5mm max width, (the same width as the SP and SP+ classes).
I have a model of the ’34 Ford I bought from the Grp25 show that I have stripped and separated. Some of the parts need repair, but I was planning on doing it as a scratch-built Hot Rod. Not a fan of fender-less ones, I was planning widened the fenders, as on many of the real cars in the class. That’s part of my motivation in this discussion. The other part, believe it or not, is to improve the range and quality of models in our club; to improve the club, not to hinder anyone or to undermine anything. However, given the current state of affairs, I may be forced to build a version of the car that I am not interested in. Even then, judging from other builds, I may still end up with an unrealistically exposed chassis in order to conform to the 50.8mm max width.
For the record, this is a summary of our current recommendation for the HR+ subclass, accounting for the concerns raised and the accommodations we made to address those concerns and solve any related problems (four possible options given to address concerns on overall width):
HR+ 1. Any modified or customized American car model from 1948 or earlier, with or without fenders (subject to the options listed below in HR+ 5) , in paint or in primer.
HR+ 2. Any motor configuration.
HR+ 3. Slow motor.
HR+ 4. Choice of wheel sizes (rim and tire, diameter and width) is open.
HR+ 5. Maximum overall width of rolling assemblies is 60mm, but bodies/fenders may be wider.
Or, Maximum overall width of rolling assemblies is 60mm, but bodies/fenders may be wider, and HR+ cars only to run on tracks having larger than 3” lane separation.
Or, Maximum overall width of bodies is 62.5mm, and cars must have fenders extending to the outer edge of the tires.
Or, Maximum overall width of rolling assemblies is 60mm, but bodies/fenders may be wider, and HR+ to be scheduled separately. [one of these four options to be decided upon]
HR+ 6. Every car requires at least one racing number which may be painted or otherwise fixed on the windshield.
July 8, 2021 at 8:00 am #18868
Felix, tell us how you really feel!!! :wacko:
So after all of that you agree that a separate HR class (call it HR+) permitting a wider track (and ANY low power motor in ANY configuration) be created. :good:
I suggest that before we finalize the maximum track width for this proposed class there needs to be some testing… and therefore we need to see some skin in the game… so when you and Racer68 both have models ready to race in this new class we’ll schedule a mutually agreeable test session to sort out the maximum track width (on consensus) required for such a class.
In the end it will still be up to each R32 host to decide which classes to schedule on their own tracks. Since The Ring hosts Scratch32 events I’m happy to give this new class a green light regardless of whether or not I build a model for it.
July 8, 2021 at 8:03 am #18869
I forgot to add that there would be no limit to wheel or tire sizes/widths in HR+…
July 8, 2021 at 10:00 am #18870
I am 100% on yours, and Steve’s side. I stood alone when the topic came up. I am merely saying that had you and Steve been able to attend. We would have been 3-voices strong. It would have given the meeting a different dynamic.
I am not blaming anyone for not being able to attend. I was lucky to be there myself.
We are all friends. I’ll gladly chip in and make a new car for the HR+ test in favour of your argument. Let’s see how it goes?
July 8, 2021 at 11:22 pm #18872
Ken, thank you for your note, and for your support for the HR+ proposal. I know you had some constraints impacting your build of the ’32-Ford, and that was the original seed of this whole discussion. Since you have had that experience with the restrictions, and since you are going to be the first to build the new class and I will be the last, I request that you build the biggest most modified bad-ass Hot Rod you can!! Set the limit and go past it!
Art, thank you for your thoughtful contributions, and for your accommodation in allowing this subclass a trial run. In the end, I think it will be a good thing for the club as a whole, and that’s been the objective. Of the suggested options under HR+5, the choice of scheduling the subclass to race separately is fine. Perhaps it won’t be scheduled very often, or it may take off and become popular; either is OK. Now, I know that you know that I know that you know that it is very unlikely that I will have a car built by the test run!! If I do, it will be the ugliest thing on the track, chassis and body!
July 8, 2021 at 11:30 pm #18873
Ken, Steve: Let’s collaborate on the builds for this HR+ trail, so we cover a larger range. The overall width is the key factor in question, so we all need to test it, in some form or other. I would like to try a sidewinder configuration, full fenders- widened, large wide rear tires. (In terms of build time, I still can’t make any promises; even if I drop other projects, there’s other work I can’t get around. I will certainly reduce my obsessive requirements on quality and aesthetics, since this will be just a trial run.)
July 9, 2021 at 9:37 am #18874
Good Morning Everyone
Firstly thank you Art for committing to hosting any HR+ events once we have come to some consensus as to what HR+ should be. Without the commitment of track owners this would be an exercise in futility as Felix, Ken and I don’t currently have our own tracks. I certainly have my own ideas on how to move forward and I’d like to share some of them here.
Being mindful of some of the potential difficulties of wide track open wheel slot cars on tracks with 3″ spacing here’s what I’ve come up with so far.
1. The limited torque of the slow FF050 motor means that all builders would have to make the trade off between wider tires and track and better performance, therefore I suggest this be the spec motor for this class, allowing much greater choice in chassis design (inline, sidewinder, anglewinder ) while keeping the HR cars competitive with the HR+ cars. This will allow greater creativity by those who wish to build new cars while insuring existing cars would be run with them thereby allowing fuller fields and minimizing category creep.
2. I’ve taken my calipers to the bodies I’d hoped to use as Hot Rods and the widest is my ’41 Willy’s Coupe at 62.5mm which is positively gigantic next to my 53mm ’32 Ford. So in order to allow for the full range of Hot Rods I suggest a maximum width of 65mm, no ifs ands or buts the widest part of the car whether fenders or wheel assemblies be 65mm. I fully expect most cars will not be this wide as there is no competitive advantage and most would be esthetically compromised being this wide but I think it’s important not to over regulate as it does stifle creativity.
3. Felix and Ken, I’ll gladly exchange ideas with you on how we might develop cars for this class. I will commit to building a car but I’m probably the slowest builder in the club, having said that my next project after the two Indy Roadsters I’m working on will be a Hot Rod. The three of us however aren’t the only ones that this class is for so I encourage all interested club members to consider a build.
This is not a Steve, Felix and Ken issue it is a club and rules issue so we should try to frame it that way. The lively discussion we’ve been having is the sort of thing that keeps clubs living and breathing.
4. I doubt that these changes are likely to cause significantly greater problems racing as everyone will have had to make their own car and are therefore not likely to be reckless with their handiwork. Any problems I’ve had racing have been due to lack of familiarity and skill not recklessness. I don’t like it when even my R32 cars get scuffed up or lose pieces.
5. We’ve had some great looking and innovative Hot Rods brought by former members to compete that did not fit the HR rules but did not cause significant problems while racing. I’m not sure I’ve got the name right but Larry’s cars come to mind.
So much for my interim thoughts, let’s talk’
July 9, 2021 at 12:49 pm #18875
Steve and Felix,
Thank you kindly for the ideas and suggestions. I also have an opinion on track width limitations.
Steve. Your Willys body should easily fit a 60mm max track width. It might even suit it perfectly. I am in favour of 60mm max track width. The body can stick out within reason like the other classes. So your Willys is good to go.
I agree to build a 60mm track width HR+. But the test will require 3-evenly matched cars to remain grouped together on the track for several laps. One car by itself is not a fair test of track width.
That being said. Let’s talk about what cars we want to build? We can also negotiate making three aluminum HR+ chassis. It’s much faster if you just need to assemble the chassis, and simply choose a colour to paint the body. Or maybe Steve can make a 3D chassis for Felix to speed up the process of making a car? We should speak off-forum. We would all need to make a promise not to get stuck in the details, and bang out a car ASAP.
The bottom line at the moment is… the test can’t really happen until 3-cars are ready to go.
Everyone’s time is equally important. We all have responsibilities outside slot cars. Like everyone else already mentioned. I too would need to put something aside to make this test happen.
Let’s please talk out the details? Nothing is etched in stone. I’m hopeful for the future. Threads are a terrible place to have a discussion. Are the three musketeers (Steve, Felix, and myself) all going to be there on Monday at Art’s place? :yahoo:
July 9, 2021 at 1:03 pm #18876
I just went back and noticed all 5-slots are taken for Monday. We can easily do it another time.
Let’s please agree to sit down over a coffee before going any further? Talking is so much easier…
July 9, 2021 at 2:34 pm #18878
I was just trying to specify an easily policed overall maximum width but I have no problem with a maximum 60mm track as long as there is also a concrete maximum overall width. Thinking just of my builds, let’s call that 63mm overall.
I’m not enthusiastic about three basically identical cars for testing as that takes away from the creativity that I’m trying to encourage. I would be open to designing and printing a 3D chassis for Felix or anyone else who’s interested whether it be sidewinder, anglewinder or inline in order to speed up the testing process. I would need the desired track, wheelbase and overall length and width. If you already have a car in mind a photo copy of the bottom of the car would also be helpful.
Ken you and I both live in Scarborough, I’m not sure where Felix lives. Vicky and I have a large back yard and we have started hosting small groups outside. I’m willing to host up to four people and might even throw in a hot dog if it would help move the discussion.
July 9, 2021 at 3:24 pm #18879
I humbly apologize for the incorrect wording. I meant to say 3-completely different cars, but all in the same HR+ class. We need to see how they race together, pass each other, etc.
I’m flexible to try and meet anytime.
July 9, 2021 at 10:35 pm #18880
Hi Steve, Ken: Great discussion. I agree with all that’s been said, except for one correction that arises from chassis geometry. The FF050 is a slimline long-can motor that will not fit into a sidewinder configuration (and still allow room for gearing, bushings, chassis members, spacers, and wide wheels). Since we are allowing for any motor configuration, we need to allow for a short can motor with a comparable rating. I suggest we just put a limit on the max RPM, since torque is not an accurately measured value in these motors.
The ’41 Willy’s Coupe is a great example at 62.5mm wide; I didn’t know that body was available in 32’nd scale. It would be great to include it in our range of cars. The rear stance still seems to be the key factor of discussion, and we are still going back and forth a bit on it. So it’s probably the first thing we have to finalize. Since it’s an area of concern for other members, it may be best to specify both components of the width, the ‘track width’ and the absolute overall width to outer edge of fenders whenever present. That may inspire a bit more confidence and acceptance of the ruleset. (By the way, note that we are using rear ‘track width’ to mean ‘rear spur’, since track width is actually defined as centre-to-centre width between the wheels. Track width seems to be the more common usage on the hobby.) Since we’ve agreed to run the HR+ class separately if or when scheduled, that should give us a bit more leeway on the final widths. From this last exchange, it looks like we are tending toward 60mm ‘track’ and 63mm overall width, which seems fine to me, but open to further discussion.
A sit-down meeting over coffee is a good idea. I can get to most areas in Scarborough in about 45 min or less. If I make special arrangements with my assistant (boss!), I can get free for a few hours after 2pm on a couple of days a week. (Some evenings are also possible.) So lets try to work out a time and place. (Being forum moderators, I assume we have each-other’s email addresses? If so, send me a note.)
July 13, 2021 at 2:26 pm #18934
So after a lively discussion at the Indy Roadster seminar I was prompted to hunt down my ’41 Willy’s coupe, (did I mention that it is my all time favourite hot rod?). … And lo and behold what to my wandering eyes should appear…. but Christmas in July!! Two sets of 1:1 Alfa cams :good: that I have been searching for ages for. Obviously in a treasured hiding spot with my 1/32 Alfas, :rose: although also possibly a sign that I have too many projects on the go as well. :wacko:
However I digress. More in line with the discussion, although the Willy’s looks good with meaty tires on the back , currently about 11.5 mm wide and with 63.89 mm max tire to tire outside width, tires under the body, it looks like it can be built to look quite good (possibly better and more period) and still remain within current hot rod rules.
I should be able to build it with tires inside the body at 50.8 mm and class legal 6mm wide tires. Easy upgrade (possibly) if rules move to allow bigger tires, but I don’t think it will need it with the slow motor and heavy body. There is room to bring the tires in a bit if necessary without the need to cut into the body.
It will obviously need green flames but I think that can be accommodated!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.