SlotForum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
I've been having a bit of a think about the open wheeler max width rules in the latest CSCRA regs, although there are maximum widths stated for each class there is also this rule
"Wheelbase and Track measurements must be 1/32 scale within + or - 2mm."

Which I must say was new to me as the older VECRA rules used to state
"Wheelbase + / - 2mm of scale prototype.
All cars may be built to the maximum width permitted for each class."

So when was this change made?
I certainly cannot remember it ever being discussed and would not, along with others I have spoken to, have agreed to such a rule.
and when has it ever been implemented before, as far as I know all the cars in previous open wheeled races this year have been built to the max width rule, mine most certainly have!
I've never seen anyone checking cars for scale track at any CSCRA meeting I have ever attended.

Personally I don't like the scale track rule, it can sometimes end up with everyone running the same car, and much prefer a max width regulation which is easier to police and means all sorts of cars running on an equal basis.

Someone at Mikes meeting at the weekend must have known the track measurement for a Lotus 56b, so please can they let me know what that is, it will be different to a Lotus 56 as the tyres are wider on the GP car compared to the Indy car as it ran two years later and tyre widths were increasing at a fast rate at this time. I've had a good search for the measurement but can come up with nothing definite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
Hi Phil. I am seeing Clive Chapman at my Presto Park Classic race on Sunday. I know for sure his late Dad Colin had saved all the original drawings from the cars he designed and built. If you would like me to I can speak to him re the cars dimensions and wheel/tyre sizes. He may be able to help. Mike
 

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for that Eddie, that is the first time I've seen a measurement for the 56b.

So the track is 1687mm which is 52.72mm in 1/32 add 2mm for the leeway and you have 54.72mm
Using 14mm tyres I believe that works out at a scale width of 68.72mm
So as I set my car to the max width of 68mm I believe it would have been legal!
That is assuming that the track measurement on the site Eddie linked to is correct of course, maybe Mike will let us know as he must have had the correct measurement when he scrutineered the car.

I have not got the car back yet so cannot measure it but will report back when I do.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
Hi Phil,
The 'scale track' ruling for Grand Prix cars has been in place since the CSCRA car standards were first put on the site.
It was discussed here on SlotForum and between the various Classic Meeting organisers and there was a significant majority in favour of adopting this at that time.
I'm sure I emailed you a copy of what had been agreed back then but, at the time, you were totally disillusioned with the whole scale racing and VECRA scene so maybe you didn't read it too closely.
You may remember that we were trying very hard to get a uniform set of car standards across all the clubs that run these meetings and, to a large extent, we have succeeded. Although it has taken somewhat longer than originally hoped.

As an irrelevant aside, from my perspective, the 68mm max width rule is way too wide.
It is taken directly from the ECRA/BSCRA rules for F1 cars and was the figure used in the VECRA rules.
However no real F1 car has ever been wider than 2 metres and been legal. You may remember James Hunt's McLaren being disqualified for being 2009mm wide in '76.
2 metres at 1/32 scale is 62.5mm, but there was no desire to adopt this narrower dimension back then.

The information I have on the Lotus backs up the track figure on the jpslotus website at 62.5 inches. (From Doug Nye's book Theme Lotus).
This is the same as the Indy car. The F1 tyres were about 2.5inches smaller in diameter than those used at Indy and this may give the false impression that they were wider.
BUT 62.5inches is 1587.5mm not 1687mm as quoted there.
This would give a scale track measurement of 49.6mm.

Hope the above is helpful.
Cheers.
****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
****/Phil.
I think most of us are comfortable with close to scale measurements, where reliable(ish!) dimension figures are available.
I do agree that 68 mm max width looks over generous, to the point of moving towards another scale...1.28!
Another point to bare in mind, should the later class F1 become a more popular class at classic events, is the simple size issue. At some tracks, W/bro 1.32 and Mike's great little Yorkley circuit, you would have extreme difficulty running through the 'nadgery' bits without banging wheels and nasty 'offs'. Perhaps we all need to look at that upper limit max width, and reduce it to a more real world figure.
Kind Regards Bill.
 

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
QUOTE It was discussed here on SlotForum

Any chance of pointing me to where this is?

I also have another source that sets the Lotus 56 track at 1560mm!
Shall I put them all in a hat and have a lucky dip

I could add a few more numbers just to make it interesting.
 

·
mac pinches
Joined
·
2,154 Posts
One can , to some extent understand how and why these anomalies come
into play and a misunderstanding/misinterpretation takes place.
Over the life of VECRA/CSCRA there have been many changes, the written
rules do in some cases lead to ambiguous interpretations.
When VECRA first went into print it used the dimensions of EB,s GP cars up to 1960
as its base, these where stated in metric but the +/- on track was dropped and a
overall width was added for the reasons Phil has stated.
This led to the first flurry of questions "do i work to +/- or O/A width "
When Phil passed on the baton, a few people set out another set of rules under the
name of CSCRA, these stated car should be accurate scale models and reinstated
the +/- track dimensions again but then added an overall width, this again beggared
the question " what do i work to ".
When questioned if scruteneering takes place to verify these rules it was said that
we work on trust or a word in the ear,
I dont think anyone wants to see lines of poe faces legislators, after all its a hobby
A little give and take can be used in a club knock about but at a formal open meeting
rules should be quite clear as to what is correct.
As can be seen both Phil and Eddie where unsure as to what prevailed.
one thing that must be taken into consideration is that there is a core of enthusiasts
who are always up with each and every twist and turn of the rules, there are others
that like to compete but are not so involved in this area, for that reason what ever
rules are in vogue they must be VERY clear and concise and not lead to misinterpretation
Maybe a restatement regarding track/wheelbase/ O/A width should be considered.
Mac P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
I would Just like to point out that at Yorkley on Sunday (from where this dabate started) Phil's Lotus was not failed because of track dimension but because the car was quite a bit wider than the maximum allowed.
I would agree with Phil and others though that overall sizes are far easier to police than scale wheelbase and track.
Mike
 

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I think that just about sums up the situation Mac.

Maybe the scale track statement should be put with all the max width statements.
something like this
"Track must be scale -/+2mm but must not exceed 68mm (or whatever the class width is)

But talking with other people in the last couple of days I don't believe there is a clear consensus for a scale track ruling and that OW is preferred.
As CSRCA is a democratic organisation run by it's 'members' I think a vote may be needed on this.
 

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
QUOTE Phil's Lotus was not failed because of track dimension but because the car was quite a bit wider than the maximum allowed

the max width in the rules is 68mm for this class and the car measures 68mm accross the rear wheels, I have the car in front of me and am measuring it now!
Where was it too wide?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
538 Posts
QUOTE (**** Kerr @ 29 Sep 2010, 22:27) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>As an irrelevant aside, from my perspective, the 68mm max width rule is way too wide.
It is taken directly from the ECRA/BSCRA rules for F1 cars and was the figure used in the VECRA rules.
However no real F1 car has ever been wider than 2 metres and been legal. You may remember James Hunt's McLaren being disqualified for being 2009mm wide in '76.
2 metres at 1/32 scale is 62.5mm, but there was no desire to adopt this narrower dimension back then.
Doug Nye's "History of the Grand Prix Car 1966-85" page 85 says the width limit in 1976 was 215cm, and James Hunt's McLaren was disqualified from the '76 Spanish GP for being 1.8cm too wide across the rear wheel rims.

1/32 of 215cm is 67.1875 mm
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
QUOTE Gone Racin Posted Today, 11:33 AM
Doug Nye's "History of the Grand Prix Car 1966-85" page 85 says the width limit in 1976 was 215cm, and James Hunt's McLaren was disqualified from the '76 Spanish GP for being 1.8cm too wide across the rear wheel rims.
1/32 of 215cm is 67.1875 mm
I stand corrected.

QUOTE philsmith Posted Today, 11:25 AM
Maybe the scale track statement should be put with all the max width statements.
something like this
"Track must be scale -/+2mm but must not exceed 68mm (or whatever the class width is)
Good point Phil.
I'll ask Dave to do that.

QUOTE But talking with other people in the last couple of days I don't believe there is a clear consensus for a scale track ruling and that OW is preferred.
As CSRCA is a democratic organisation run by it's 'members' I think a vote may be needed on this.
Agreed.
We can make the change to the wording in the 'Car Standards' as suggested above right away, as it will be a clarification not a rule change as such.
Then we can then look at making changes for next year.

Bill,
We actually allow 70mm max width for our modern F1 cars on normal club nights at Wellingborough, although most people keep the width down to abot 67mm, and we don't really have too many problems.

Cheers.
****.
 

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
As it seems there were at least three people looking at my car during scrutineering maybe someone could tell me the width measurement you all arrived at for my car (wish I'd been there!)
as it sits on the office desk right now it is measuring 68mm almost exactly (depends how hard or soft you are squeezing the vernier)
I don't build illegal cars I always check and double check all the dimensions are correct and within the rules, so this is all quite annoying to me and sorry I am going on about it but I don't want to be labelled a cheat.
 

·
David Collins
Joined
·
2,473 Posts
Phil,

I am not an expert on the size of your particular car (or any other car for that matter). But I think there was a sense of surprise at the meeting that you would present a car that was perceived as oversize, as you have a reputation as an excellent modeller. So this discussion of the interpretation of the rules serves as an explanation of this. If there was any suggestion of cheating (and I did not hear any) I think you can be sure it was in the usual jocular sense - of course we would have become serious if it was not only large, but also very quick!

David
 

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I'm really not getting this,

was the actual car i.e. the body, oversized?
yes it was but only by about 3mm in the overall length but the CSCRA rules allow for this.
so this does not apply

Was the track too wide in relation to scale?
yes it was, but that was my mistake as I had not realised there was a scale track rule but Mike has stated above that as scrutineer it was not disalowed for this reason but for being too wide overall.
so this does not apply

So was it wider than 68mm?
no it was not.
so this does not apply

Please can someone put forward a sane explanation?
 

·
Gary Skipp
Joined
·
6,545 Posts
Just seeing as **** mentioned it, I would prefer an overall maximum width for models rather than a +- of scale dimensions. It's easier and as has been mentioned it allows more variety in shells. Some people are not keen on extending models to larger deimensions but it's nice to see people being creative so viva la difference.

As ever, rules are guidelines down to the organizers ad infinitum.

As moral support for Mr Smith, and having followed this discussion and the Yorkley thread, I also fail see why the Lotus would have failed tech.
 

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
I have now altered the Lotus to scale track.
I have set it at 51.6mm which is the middle dimension of the three track widths that I had found, a good compromise I think.
I have fitted full width tyres of 14mm which allows for a couple of mm extra width at this setting over the 12mm which were on it before.
The OW is now 65mm.



Doesn't look so scary now so will probably be ok for future events (I still maintain it was legal before but I won't go on about it anymore, well only a little bit
)

Also has the benefit of seeming to be a couple of tenths faster on the track!
 

·
Phil Smith
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Although it's 3mm narrower the tyres are 2mm wider each so I guess it's getting more grip as that's quite a lot of extra rubber.
I would have built it like this in the first place but could not find suitable wheels, but a bit of work on the lathe and I manged to combine two NSR wheels into one and have a recess at the back for the suspension to fit into, just a lot more work than the first version!
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top