QUOTE 2- No mods or alterations to chassis or motor mount.

Malcom this goes against the rules we have raced to all year we have allowed mods to both chassis and motor mount at every round several fly cars that have been raced this year have been fitted with slot it mounts so that rule effectivly disqualifys the use of a car that might have been developed over the season and as several competitors are in a stong position for a good finish this year I think you should not atempt to change the rules for the last race .
I have no issues with the ortman rule but stongly protest against the changing of the chassis rules as I for one dont want to buy a new car just for one round especialy as the rules are likley to be changed next year .
The system works as it is so why atempt to fix somthing when it isnt broken

 

@ Graham

Thanks for your comments.

See amended requirements.

 

QUOTE 2- Any chassis/motor mount can be used but cannot be altered/modified from the manufactured product

sorry malcom that does not conform with the original rules of the challenge .
The porsche challenge set out to attempt to produce inovative car design and up until jim resigned as chairman had an award for such . You really cant start changing the rules just because whats been raced at other rounds doesnt fit in with your own ideas. This is a national competion and the place to change rules is at the anual general meeting after the final race .as I said befor The ortman tyre rule is ok as it prevents track contamination .the guide rule ok due to lap counter problems the screw rule also to prevent shorts etc but the chassis rule is a no no .

 

QUOTE 2- Any chassis/motor mount can be used but cannot be altered/modified from the manufactured product

As a Non-porsche challenger I don't quite understand the problem here, if you can use any available motor mount that fits the chassis, be it slot it or fly, surely both makes have such a wide variety of mounts that you could fit just about any motor into the chassis anyway in either inline, or sidewinder format so why would you need to use a modified mount? what benefit would it give you ? can some one explain?
Confused
Phil

 

phil several competitors my self included have fitted slotit mounts into other chassis and cut chassis in other ways to fit alturnate bodys why should we now have to buy another car to finish the series instead of racing somthing we have built and developed over the last year .If the rule change is there for my benefit then I hope the instigators will have the bottle to stand up and say what they mean instead of giving other people bullets to fire . if the rule change is malcoms idea then why?If its about the design of my wrexham winning car which troubles other competitors Im quite happy for people to see and copy it . Nobody protested it then so why the sudden change now .
Please feel free to speak up . Im quite willing to show what makes it tick .
The rule change effectivly penalises my less radical cars too .example
slot it hrs in fly gt1 98 shell sidewinder you have to turn the gear round to clear the body ,to do this you cut a bit out of the chassis to allow the body to rock.
None of the setups I have used at any of the porsche challenge meets have contravened the rules so there should be no need to change any thing now .
And incidently the wrexham car wouldnt work at wolves its too bumpy.

 

QUOTE 2- Any chassis/motor mount can be used but cannot be altered/modified from the manufactured product.

I think Graham makes a valid point.

Also, this Slot.It 956 chassis has been repaired using an HRS front piece following a break to the guide post:

No competitive advantage imho - just saves buying a new chassis! Is it legal?

 

If its about the design of my wrexham winning car which troubles other competitors Im quite happy for people to see and copy it . Nobody protested it then so why the sudden change now .
Please feel free to speak up . Im quite willing to show what makes it tick .

Grah1,
I`m interested to find out what makes the car tick (as you mentioned in a previous post) so I can try and understand what difference it makes and in turn why people want you to stop using it

.

ninety_degrees

 

ninety_degrees you have a pm .

 

Grah,
Thank you for the explanation, I didn't realise you had to modify the chassis to make the other engine mount fit or vice versa, but I think I can see what you're saying now. Sorry to be a bit "thick" on this one but as a non-competitor at Porsche Challenge I didn't get what the fuss was about.
Cheers
Phil.

 

thats ok phil If I seem a bit rattled its just that there have been a lot of wagging tongues sayin that if I turn up at wolves with the wrexham car it wont be allowed to race so to clear the air now if any one has a problem with any thing please step forward and speak up now .No one complained at wrexham and i suspect its people who didnt accualy see the car that are at the bottom of this rule change .
Malcom please feel free to contact me off or on board to resolve this .I dont want to drive all theway down next week to be told I cant race.

 

After speaking to Mal this afternoon on the Phone the problem is now resolved and rule 2 has been revoked meaning that all the cars which have previously been used this year are still eligible to race .Mal will be posting confirmation of this later today . I will post pics of the controversial alterations over the week end so there is no confusion about what can and cant race.

 

Hi There
I can confirm Grahams post indicating the withdrawal of the requirement concerning the chasis and motor mount.
My aim was to reduce the magnatration factor thereby putting the emphasis on driver skills on what is a testing track, with in excess of 15 corners to negoiate.(this was on my mind when I posted the notice)Magnatration has been used previously by several drivers, which was innovative,as allowed ,but in my oppinion not in keeping with the spirit of the rules.
The rules clearly state magnets can not be used.We considered magnatration but decided it was not in the spirit.
I acknowledge it is a competion and winning is the name of the game.
As far as I am concerned the matter is closed.Lets move on.
This is the final meeting of the series and we want it to be as memorable as those that we were able to attend(less the pole thingy)
To that end it is proposed to add an extra race,yes race.The top three drivers from the junior and and senior finals will be invited to race for the Porsche Wolves
Trophy.That should be a race worth seeing.
Drivers are coming from afar showing committment and expence.If anyone does not have an enjoyable time I will refund their entrance money and tell them my parrott joke.
I look forward to having a drink with Graham and everyone at the meal(red or white)
May your God be with you
Malcolm

 

QUOTE Magnatration has been used previously by several drivers, which was innovative,as allowed ,but in my oppinion not in keeping with the spirit of the rules.
Ah the light dawns, so while this is a non-magnet formula, the motors are being lowered or turned to provide magnetism from the motor on steel rail tracks? Now I get it. Surely the problem with this innovation is that everybody else lowers their motors and it becomes a question of who can get the balance of the car right rather than who is the best driver, still if that's your bag so be it.
Have fun next weekend you guys, keep it clean, be nice to each other and don't shout at the marshalls otherwise i'll make sure i'm around for race control next year and you know I'm a damn sight less tolerant of bad behavior, hopefully see some of you at the Alpine event on December 11th.
Cheers
Phil.

 

QUOTE The rules clearly state magnets can not be used

Just as a final point of clarification here ,the only magnets used are the motor magnets .There are now many motors available on the market which are sold advertising magnetic leakage and the affect this gives on a plastic track with steel rails .Mals statement that magnets cant be used is a bit misleading because with out the magnets the motor wont run.3 yrs ago I pioneered the idea of turning the motor on its side to give a greater effect .and also to give the side winder cars we were using such as the proslot porsches an equal chance against the nc5/6 cartrix motors that were begining to creep in .Nobody complained when I ran the proto type at wolves 2yrs ago (because it didnt win)
However at wrexham this year the second prototype did win ,reason Wrexam is a smooth sport track wolves is a rather bumpy ninco track .It is much easier to set up a car with "ground effect" from the motor on either sport or carrera as the rails are flush with the surface .Ninco is a different ball game .To get the same effect from a "normal " motor as that given by an nc5/ cartrix motor the car has to run very low indeed as will be apparent when you see the pics of my wrexham car ,out of intrest the fastest car at wrexham was Steve Riggs nc6 powered GT1 which if he had not made a wrong lane choice in the final would have probably won.
The humps and bumps of ninco track effectivly rule out any advantage given by this set up and with out the use of illegal neo motor magnets and at least 2.5 mm clearance the wrexham car will not work at wolves . so Mals panic was a little premature and I thank him for having the sense to revert to the original rules .
Just for the record The car I had planned to use at wolves was an inline nc6 powered 956 the reason it would have been deemed illegal would have been purely down to the shaved motor mount which every competitor does to allow free movement.
Thanks again mal for sorting the problem see you on sunday

 

People have been using motor magnet effect since the sixties so what's the big deal? As soon as others figured out what was going on everyone was doing it. That should be the case here. If someone comes up with a better idea that fits the rules you don't change the rules in the middle of the season; the other drivers will eventually catch up.

I remember several years ago I entered a Proxy race series in the U.S. using, the then unused in Eurocars FK-130 motor, in my cars. No one else had used them up til then because the track power was deemed too little for this type of motor. Well, I used an old Capacitor trick to get the startup power and was able to blow off the competition badly in that series. The next year everyone had figured it out because I had published what I had done. So, no harm no fouls.

All my Marconi Proxy cars used motor magnet downforce in addition to traction magnets so the technology and procedures in plastic chassis cars was out there available for anyone to use since about 2000-01. Maybe builders should read a little more about what others are doing.

I've run one of Graham's Porsches and they are a sweet piece of workmanship. I wouldn't want to see any rules that would prevent people like him improve the breed.

Just my 2 Pence as an interested outsider.

Jimmy

 

Heres the pics as promised

The top car is the wrexham car and as you can see from the marks on the motor wrapper to obtain the down force the car has had to run very low.

The centre car is the one I had prepped for wolves Nc6 this would have been made illegal due to the motor pod mods (side shaved to allow rock)

The bottom car is the HRS I have used at all the other rounds This too would have been Illegal as due to the reversed spur gear the chassis has been cut and the motor mount shaved to allow the use of a small spur .

None of the mods were against the rules as originaly written.
The original porsche challenge rules gave competitors a chance to express som fredom in what they built and raced but I now suspect that after this season ends the series will change and follow a much different format ,without the possibility of inovative design and developement .

 

"If its about the design of my wrexham winning car which troubles other competitors Im quite happy for people to see and copy it . Nobody protested it then so why the sudden change now .
Please feel free to speak up . Im quite willing to show what makes it tick"

In response too the questions asked by 90 degrees & also in response to Grah1's request that any objections should be posted on the forum I would like to add the following statement.

The rules of the Porsche Challenge state that NO ADDITIONAL MAGNETS CAN BE USED TO GIVE MAGNETACTION.

This rules was written to try and prevent the use of magnetraction.

By turning the motor 90 degrees in the mount this makes the motor casing (can) stick down through the bottom of the motor mount. As we all know, the motor magnets (inside the can) sit at either side of the armature in a normal motor mount. Turning the can 90 degrees in it's mount (axis) brings one side of the can (which is where the magnets are) much closer to the track and creates a magnetaction effect which, in my humble opinion will most certainly increse the grip available to the rear tyres.

I notice that there are indeed small scrapes & marks on the label of the motors casing (Can) which shows that the car has indeed been runing very close to the track surface. (Thanks for the pics Graham!!!)

Running the car as close to the track surface as possible will of course increase the effectivness of the can magnets magnetic pull to the tracks pick up rails, so......, if the track the car is to be raced on has steel pick up rails i.e Scalectric, Ninco or Carrera then the magnetic effect of the cans magnets to the track will be effective & make a considerable difference to the way the car handles.

If however the tracks pick up lines are copper tape or braid used in most if not all of the hand built wooden track surfaces with either a sandtex or polyurathane surface the magnetic effect will not work at all.

I my own opinion the rules should state that the motor & mount cannot sit closer to the track surface than the chassis as this type of inovation, though clearly very clever is bending the rules.

Sorry but I had to get that of my chest for the sake of all the competitors involded in the Porsche Challenge who may or may not be fully aware of the potential advantages of this type of modification.

Cheers
The Tok-Ra

 

QUOTE I my own opinion the rules should state that the motor & mount cannot sit closer to the track surface than the chassis as this type of inovation, though clearly very clever is bending the rules.

Hi tokra thanks for the comments On the joest porsche the motor sits almost flush with the chassis,The design was the result of 3yrs development .Idont feel its bending the rules any more than using an nc 6 motor as I pointed out in an earlier post at wrexham steve riggs nc6 and rob skupkis second place car were both on the same pace as mine The rules of porsche challenge were written so competitors could experiment and develop cars using parts on the list .how these parts were used is up to the individual,porsche challenge has long brought the scratch builders out ,James johnsons 6 wheel car John stewarts mono coque ,steve carters 908 .john cooks kremer to name but a few Its part of the funto design and build your own car , next year I expect things may be different and the series will move in a different direction with the amount of new slot it gts coming onto the market we may find we will have a series with tighter controls more akin to the stuff we race on club nights .If thats the case then so be it I dont have a problem racing more standard stuff but untill then .

 

Hello Graham,

Thank you for you reply, I agree that there must me room within the rules for innovation as if it wasn't for people coming up with new & innovative ideas the sport or hobby would progress much more slowly.

The main point of my mail was to try to explain to the other competitors who may not have a full understanding of why some people have issues with this type of modification. Get things out into the open as it were.

As someone else stated, This is not a new idea & the thought had crossed my mind but I realised that other competitors would have issues with this modification and rejected it for a quiet life. I went with the premis that the rules are trying to prevent magnetraction no matter how badly the rule was worded.

As you say it looks like it will be a slot-it challenge next year. Having seen a copy of the proposed rules I'm not sure I will be competing next year as they are restrictive but who knows, we'll just have to wait and see what happens once everyone has had a chance to have their say and see what we end up with.

Cheers
The_Tok-Ra

 

Hi All,
the porsche challenge rules as originally written states "NO TRACTION MAGNETS" the advantage gained by GRAH1 did not use traction magnets and was therefore within the rules. i remember graham running this car 3 years ago at wolves and nobody was bothered, because he did not win or even make the 'A' - FINAL. it seems to me that people want to change the rules when they start getting beaten or dont understand the technology. all sour grapes in my opinion.
jim.

 

i remember graham running this car 3 years ago at wolves and nobody was bothered, because he did not win or even make the 'A' - FINAL. it seems to me that people want to change the rules when they start getting beaten or dont understand the technology. all sour grapes in my opinion.

Hi Slot-Tech,
Just a few queries about your post this morning.
As far as I can see the rules aren`t being changed if traction magnets were not permitted in the original competition rules - as this is effectively what is happening when the motor is turned on its side.
Another point is that the car in question IS NOT the car used 3 years ago at wolves - as GRAH1 states the the car in question is the second prototype, built and run this year, and has been modifyed from the original.
As for people wanting to change the rules when they don`t understand the technology - well its clear from this forum that many people do understand the technology but choose not to implement it as it is deemed to be outwith the rules.

ninety degrees

 

QUOTE As far as I can see the rules aren`t being changed if traction magnets were not permitted in the original competition rules - as this is effectively what is happening when the motor is turned on its side.

This is the 2nd prototype as I previously stated ,but is the same set up as the first the car does not have traction magnets any more that saying a car fitted with an nc6 /5 cartrix type motor has traction magnets it is just configured in a different way .The porsche challenge rules state no traction magnets to be fitted meaning seperate magnets . the only magnets in my car are the ones in the motor . Do we now say that no one may run an nc6/5 etc I think not. If I was running a car fitted with neo motor mags ,then I could understand the problem but as I stated earlier at wolves it doesnt work the track is too uneven wrexham or a carrera track is a different matter it gives the same effect as an nc6 not a traction magnet.

 

Hello again All,

Having gone away & measured the difference between the can sizes (Depth & width) I found that the difference between them is 5mm That means that (assuming that GRAH1 has simply rotated the can 90 degrees on it's axis) the can sticks out bellow the chassis by 2.5 mm which is a considerable amount in slot car terms. I'm sure that if the correct tyres are fitted to bring the chassis really close to the track, at least some magnetraction can be acheived.

I cannot argue that the NC6 type motor does not create some sort of magnetraction as I do not have the tools to measure the magnetic effect but in graham's defence, lowering an NC6 by 2.5mm (impossible perhaps) could perhaps have an even greater effect than turning a proslot motor on it's side simply because the magnets are smaller & not as strong as the ones in an NC6.

As this hobby progresses it is becoming more and more aparent that, just like it is with real racing cars, we are all trying to find an advantage my finding loop holes in the regulations and it's all about how you interprit the regulations thus one persons interpritation may not be the same as someone else's and we all end up arguing about what's right & what's wrong, what should be allowed & what should not.

There is now easy way to resolve these issues & I'm sure this won't be the last issue raised on the forum conserning new & innovative ideas.

That's just politics!!

Cheers
The_Tok-Ra

 

QUOTE the can sticks out bellow the chassis by 2.5 mm

the can sits almost flush with the bottom of the chassis to acheive any apreciable down force you need to run clearance of 1/32" or lower this isnt acheivable on ninco track

however the tokra states if the nc6 is lowered by 2.5mm then an apreciable difference can be felt again this cant be acheived on ninco track but one can use the slot it offset mount and gear set to reduce the clearance substancialy and increase the amount of downforce available this does work on ninco track and also on all other plastic track
Slot car racing has always and will always bring out the competitive urge in people and every competitor has a desire to win the rules with in porsche challenge currently promote the design of inovative cars ,however in the future I fear that out of the box racing may sadly be the way forward for the series .

 

Knowledge and creativity should be applauded by all as it is the only way new innovations and ideas are found but in the opinion of many, it doesn't have a place in a national championship unless it is separate and apart from the main competition.

The new rules proposed for next year will allow many ideologies of the hobby to flourish.

Low modification/relatively standard - for beginners without the technical know-how and serious racers who want to prove they are the most skilful.

Highly modified - talented builders/racers who want to highlight new ideas and innovations to the community whilst competing in competition.

As regards to this year, the competition has suffered with various occurrences (hybrid motors and magnetic affect without traction magnets) of "rule bending" or "creativity" depending on perspective. A motor turned on its side requiring high modification and an NC6 off the shelf in the correct position both create an effect that is beneficial to handling but the latter can be achieved by ALL and not just the experienced who are willing to spend a vast amount of time and money to achieve. Many instances of "creativity" were let go in the past but all the recent occurrences have found the inadequacies in the rules that have been there since foundation and that is why many feel it has to evolve.

As a result, many including myself feel the competition does not have the same meaning in victory and participation. (numbers are down from last year)

The rules have been too open to provide a fair and even playing field for both the newcomer (unless they are willing to spend big for knowledgeable builders to build it for them) and the experienced racer (unwilling to go to such vast lengths to be competitive).

If the competition is moved towards the new rules.

It will restore the optimism and excitement of current racers.
It will bring back past racers put off by the current problems.
It will draw in a new group of keen and inexperienced racers wanting to try a higher level than club racing.
It will give the talented builders a platform to show innovations to an even greater audience.
It will give the most and best level playing field achieved by any competition and the talented drivers will rise to the top.
And finally it will restore the original goal of the event which is to draw the slot car community together.

So lets move it there together.

Ross M.