SlotForum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Proposed Revisions to CSCRA 1/32 Hardbody Car Standards

We have been using the current CSCRA Car Standards since 2011 and the majority of these seem to be very satisfactory.
There are, however, a couple of things that perhaps do need revision.

The first of these is the RTR standards.
We tried to write a universal set of standards for these but this has not really worked.
Firstly because they seem to confuse people regarding what is and isn't eligible.
Secondly because the performance of such cars varies greatly between different tracks and event organizers therefore have different views on what level of modification, if any, should be permitted at their own track.

This is what I propose!

Drop the current RTR rules from the CSCRA Car Standards.

Replace the current RTR rules with the following statement.

READY-TO-RUN (RTR) CARS

Any Ready-to-Run car which fully complies with the above car standards will be eligible to race unless stated otherwise by an event organizer.

Event organizers may also choose to allow Ready-to-Run cars which do not comply with the above standards to enter, and may even have separate classes or finals for these cars, but must clearly define the rules they will be applying to such cars well in advance of the event.


What I have in mind here are, for example, Cartrix GP cars or Ninco and Fly Classic Sports Cars, many of which are not to scale but do provide an ideal introduction to Classic Slot Car Racing. I would also include the Ready-to-Run Classic Trans-Am cars as raced in the current 'Pendle Pony Wars' series in the same category as many of them are sidewinders so do not fit with the 'inline only' CSCRA Standard for saloon classes.

Secondly there is an issue with the
Overall Width limits for Sports and Saloon Cars.
Over the past couple of years there have been a number of RTR Sports, GT and Saloon cars released that have body shells that exceed the current CSCRA maximum widths for their class by a small margin (typically less than 1mm). Many of these are available as body shells only and are otherwise excellent models. (The ones I have particularly in mind are the NSR Classics, the Racer Sideways Group 5 cars and a few others such as the Monogram Lola T70).
It seems a shame to exclude these for such a small excess in body width when they are reasonably accurate in every other respect and most of these body shells are easily available as 'white kits'.

We could simply increase the maximum widths for the classes concerned. However, as soon as we do that someone else will bring out a different car in a different class or push the new limits even further.

What I would suggest is to replace the current statement in section 1 of the Sports and Saloon Car Standards;

No car should exceed the maximum width permitted for each class.
Cars will be measured at the widest part of the body.


With the following;

No car should exceed the maximum width permitted for each class.
However event organizers and Scrutineers shall have the discretion to allow body shells that exceed the maximum width by a small margin to be used provided that the chassis, wheels and tyres do not exceed the maximum permitted width for the class and that the rest of the car fully complies with the Car Standards in every other way.
Cars will be measured at the widest part of the body, chassis, wheels and tyres.


This keeps the Car Standards to realistic limits but allows individual organizers to decide whether to permit these 'slightly too wide' bodies to be used.
Over the past year organizers of every event for which these cars would be eligible has permitted them to be used.
1963-67 Sports Cars at Netley.
Group 5 Cars at Yorkley.
Can-Am Cars at Presto Park.

I have spoken with as many Event Organizers who use the CSCRA Cars Standards as I can and have found general agreement with these amendments.
If anyone would like to add anything or has any objections to any of the above please post your comments on this thread - or PM me if you prefer.

Cheers.
****.
 

·
David Farrow
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
Humm...we did have the "office politics" nd this helps to get rid of them
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
Hi Jaak,
Since the whole CSCRA Car Standards package was put together by the people who organize such events and not by the competitors I think it unlikely that any of them would try to 'skew the rules' to favour anyone.

The clubs that run events to CSCRA standards can choose any class of car in any period of history from the early 1900s to the 1990s so any kind of list of eligible cars is totally impractical.

Cars entered in any CSCRA event can be entirely scratch built, partly scratch built, built from a kit, modified from a Ready-toRun or purely Ready-to-Run provided that they comply to the basic dimensional restrictions for the class being raced at the event in which they are entered.

Some clubs also like to permit Ready-to-Run cars which do not comply fully with CSCRA Car Standards to be entered as a way of encouraging a wider participation in these events and, maybe, enticing new people into scratch building. Cartrix GP cars in a 1950s GP event or Ninco Classics in a 1950s Sports car event are good examples. Modifications to such cars will be kept to a minimum to ensure that they never have an 'unfair advantage' over 'true to scale' models built to CSCRA standards.

CSCRA events are aimed at the scratch builder, the kit basher and the RTR modifier.
They are not aimed at or intended for purely RTR cars hence there will be:
No restriction on the motors used.
No restriction on chassis design, materials or construction methods.
No restriction on gears or gear ratios used.
Bodies must be from a hard material like polystyrene, abs, cast resin, fibre glass, etc. Vac form bodies are usually excluded (there is currently 1 event each year where they are permitted).
Tyres must be from a rubber like material, but not silicon or sponge (foam), and comply to the maximum and minimum dimensions for the class.

It is up to each entrant to build the best scale model car they can from the correct historical period for the event they are entering.
It's not just about the racing either as there is always a Concours d'elegance competition at every event.

I hope this helps you to understand the philosophy behind the CSCRA.
Cheers.
****.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,504 Posts
Thank you ****,

Now it makes a lot more sense.

It sounds like the CSCRA has great rules, ones I would love to follow being a fiddler myself.

Cheers,
Jaak
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Jaak,
I'm sure you would be made very welcome if you decided to make a trip over to the UK for one of our many events.
Maybe you could even start a European division of the CSCRA.

Has anyone got any further comments or thoughts about any of the CSCRA 1/32 Car Standards.

Cheers.
****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
Hi ****.
The proposed revisions you have outlined above, read fine, I have no issue with these.
When you have a 'free' moment, I think we need to revisit the minimum front wheel diameter of the late F1 models.
I am talking of the CSCRA Class 6/7/8.
The rules state 17mm for class 6 and 7 and 18mm for class 8.
It became apparent when checking some of the later models for the Wolves F1 event that front many of the front wheels were smaller than this. I checked my Ostoreo Lotus 79, and my Fly 78, and both of these as supplied wheel/tyre combinations are under 17 mm. After even light truing of these tyres then the diameter would be nearer 16mm.
Other proper srcatch built models, built to (according to the entrant) correct scale drawings were also smaller than the specification.
Is it worth another look at this?
Kind Regards Bill.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Hi Bill,
The minimum front tyre diameters were arrived at;
1. By published information from the tyre manufacturers.
2. The simple expedient of measuring what was available at the time (Scalextric cars from the '70s).
Remember this was all done long before the latest generation of Formula 1 releases from Scalextric, Fly etc.
The tiny front tyre era really belongs in the '70s and did not continue into the '80s.
Many cars in the 'ground effect' era ran on 15inch front wheels rather than the earlier 13s and the tyres would therefore have been proportionately bigger.
Have a look at pictures of cars from the 'ground effect' era '78 to '82 and you will notice that by far the vast majority are running on larger diameter front wheels than cars from the previous era. Compare, for example a Lotus 78 (1977) and a Lotus 79 (1978).
Any exceptions to any rule are covered by the entrants right to 'prove their model is correct' of course.

I think the logical approach here is to propose a reduction of 1mm for the front tyres in classes 6.
Class 6 would then be 16mm minimum.
Leave class 7 as it is and, maybe reduce class 8 by 1mm to also be 17mm.
Classes 7 & 8 would be 17mm minimum.

My prime concern with this is that we need to be careful that we don't end up with BSCRA style 'roller skates' instead of model racing cars.
If there is general agreement amongst the other organisers then we should adopt these changes for next year.

Cheers.
****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
I certainly would favour a change to front wheels. The Policar front tyres when they come out next year will have a front diameter of 17.8mm for Firestone shod cars 1970-1971 and just 16mm for Goodyears of 1973 onwards. These are as far as I can discern the scale diameters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,799 Posts
I agree with the above amendments.

However I would make one further amendment, that the minimum be 13mm for ( and only for ), the Tyrell P34 six wheeler.

vbr Chris A.
 

·
Kitbasher
Joined
·
4,413 Posts
The point about the F1 front tyres is interesting. When I was casting about my shelves as to what to run at Wolves I spotted my Scalextric McLaren M23 (new version) but rejected it as the fronts were clearly too small for the regs and Bill is not that shortsighted .....


Otherwise they look like sensible changes to me.

Peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
Hi Guys. I am quite happy to support ***** ammendments for classes 6, 7, and 8. It would appear from the Camel Grand Prix motor racing book that the P34 Tyrrell ran on specially manufactured 13'' wheels so I also agree with Chris A's comments re this car and it's front wheel sizes. Just how this can be incorporated into the rules I don't know, so I will leave it to you guys with greater knowledge than I. Thanks. Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
Hi ****.
I think the revised diameters would better fit in with what is being produced now by the likes of Fly, and soon by Policar/Slot it.
I agree we have to be carefull not to drop in silly minimum diameters, all the CSCRA dimensional rules should properly reflect a near scale model appearance.
Yes to the above proposed changes.
Regards Bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,413 Posts
Hi gents. I am happy with the changes to F1 front wheel diameters as set out in ****'s post, but I was also happy with them as they were not being in the habit of buying RTR cars.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Thanks Dick,
We do seem to have a consensus on these changes amongst all the regular event organizers.
If there are no further points raised by the coming weekend I'll pass on the alterations to Dave Collins to put on to the website.
Cheers.
****.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Hi All,
Changes as agreed forwarded to Dave Collins to put on the website.

Can I also say a big thank you to everyone who organizes events and who races under CSCRA rules.
The events are always enjoyable, friendly and relaxed and a pleasure to take part in.

I would also say that if any of you think any of the rules need looking at or adjusting in the light of experience of racing at these events then please speak up and we can discuss any changes that may need to be made.

Cheers
****.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top