[Mick Kerr]

QUOTE Is it within the spirit of CSCRA rules?
This often crops up when discussing any set of rules.
In my view there is no such thing.
There is a set of technical regulations.
There is a set of sporting regulations - the CSCRA leave this part entirely up to the club running the meeting as we have no wish to dictate to anyone how they run their own event.
If a car, it's driver and all his/her equipment comply with the letter of the technical and sporting regulations then anything else is irrelevant.

You can, however, say that there is an 'intention' on the part of the rule writers behind the rules.
So what was the 'intention' behind the CSCRA Car Standards?
Put simply.
1. To come up with a standard, and easily accessible, set of rules that encourage the building and racing of reasonably accurate scale models of historically interesting racing cars.
2. To group those cars into historically accurate 'eras' and types related to real motor racing history.
3. To ensure that the rules are as inclusive as possible so as to encourage participation by the widest possible range of slot racers.
There are two other principals on which the rules are based.
a. 'Rubber' tyres (no sponge or silicon) to limit the ultimate performance.
b. 'Hard' bodies - injection molded plastic, resin castings, fibre glass, wood, etc - to ensure the best scale accuracy (no Vac forms).

For anyone who is proposing a major change to the CSCRA Car Standards such as applying restrictions on the design and construction of a chassis you face two challenges.
1. Does what you propose conflict with any of the above 'intentions'?
2. Can you write the proposed rules in such a way that they can be clearly understood by any slot racer?

I look forward to everyone's input on this.
Cheers.
Mick.

 

[Mick Kerr]

OK.
Let's take a step back for a moment and ask; why it is being suggested that certain types of chassis should be excluded?

Are they too fast?
I've yet to see clear evidence that this is the case.
So Richard Mack won the Sports Car class at Netley last weekend with one of his spring steel chassis. That car happened to suit that track on that day and Richard drove it very well (please don't underestimate Richards' driving ability - he is World Class). The other two classes were won by cars having brass and wire chassis and Richard didn't even make the Saloon A Final with his lazer cut spring steel chassis car.
Mick Thomson has also won a couple of races with cars having lazer cut spring steel chassis in the past year.
So how does that compare with all the other types of chassis used at the various classic meetings over the past year?
A quick count up gives the following rough totals;
Plastic - 4
Penelope Pitlane - 4
Spring steel - 4
Brass & wire - 7
This hardly looks like the world domination that is feared.

Are they too expensive?
Again I guess we are talking about Richard Mack chassis and at £35 each ready assembled I don't think so.
I am often asked if I will make brass and wire chassis to sell. I always refuse because the reality is that I would have to charge a minimum of £200 each just to cover my time (not that I have the time anyway).
From my point of view they may actually be too cheap, because at that price why spend all the time needed to construct a brass and wire chassis when you can buy something just as good.
At that price they may also encourage a few 'plastic car racers' to try a metal chassis.
The reality of producing them inevitably means that there will never be a lazer cut spring steel chassis to fit every car in every class. Only the most popular cars and classes will be catered for.

Is the design too advanced therefore making all other designs obsolete?
The design principal that most of the Mack chassis are based upon was invented in the1980s so is hardly new.
Bear in mind that CSCRA cars have front wheels that have to touch the track, unlike BSCRA cars, and this significantly changes the way any chassis performs.
I must also point out that the chassis Richard used to win the Netley Sports Car Race last Sunday was a much simplified design. Basically a flat center plate joining the motor/rear axle assembly to the guide tab, then two spring wires connecting the motor mount to the front axle bracket and pans. It had no hinges at all and could easily be made from a few bits of brass plate and a couple of lengths of piano wire.

To conclude.
I personally see no reason to exclude any chassis that any slot car builder chooses to use provided that the CSCRA wheel & tyre sizes and ground clearance rules are adhered too.

Are we really going to tell someone who has bought a George Turner kit with a Mack chassis, spent time and effort putting it all together, that they can't come and race at our meeting?
Equally, when the promised new F1 cars arrive from Slot.It are we going to say, you can't race that here because it has a plastic chassis?

I really hope not.
Cheers.
Mick.

 

[Mick Kerr]

QUOTE Jeff Norton Posted Today, 07:16 PM
Hi There,-------- the answer to this 'problem' already exists and is in place at some meetings.
The meeting is decided on a combination of concours points and racing points.
Concours marking should include a score for chassis build quality, and points are only awarded if the chassis is self constructed. Richard Mack should be the only person given points for using a Richard Mack chassis, Therefore no one is going to win the meeting using one (except Richard) but it still enables newcomers like me to have fun racing them.
There are several 'issues' with this solution.

How any event is run is entirely up to the organizing club.
There are no CSCRA Sporting Regulation to cover such things.
As an example, the Netley event last weekend didn't have a formal concours competition for each class just a single award for the 'Best Presented Car' at the meeting.

In my experience many people who mark concours cars only ever look at the body anyway. Very few ever turn them over to see what is underneath.

Assuming we can persuade people to look at the chassis then-
If only Richard Mack can score concours points using a Mack chassis does that also mean that only Steve Ward can have concours points for using a Penelope Pitlane chassis, or that only Mauricio Ferrari can have concours points for using a Slot.It HRS chassis?

Taking this idea to it's logical conclusion-
Can only Hornby score concours points for using a Scalextric Camaro body on a Trans-Am car, or only George Turner for one of his bodies.

The other down side to the combined result system is that it means each entrant can only race one car, the one entered in concours, in each class.
Most CSCRA events are run on the heats & finals system and people often take the opportunity to run different cars in each heat.
At most of these events the rules usually insist that the concours car has to run in only one race.
Many entrants have more than one car for many classes, let's see them all racing I say.
There are also the concours specialists who build stunningly beautiful models but might choose not to enter them if they have to race them, and risk breaking them, in every race. It would be a shame to miss out on seeing these cars.

I am playing devil's advocate a bit with the above but you can probably deduce from it the reasons why most organizing clubs would not want to go down the combined results route.
I would, personally, be perfectly happy to enter any event run in this way.

Cheers.
Mick.

 

[Mick Kerr]

Hi all,
Thank you all for your input.
I think we have come to the correct conclusion here.
CSCRA events will continue to welcome anyone who wants to race scale models of historically interesting cars no matter whether those cars are entirely scratch built, assembled from a kit on a proprietary metal or plastic chassis or an out of the box ready to run car.
With all the different tracks we race on and all the different classes and eras of car we race I do not believe that there will ever be a single, dominant, design of chassis that will work everywhere.

QUOTE Hobby posted 14 Aug 2014, 14:09
I would also like to add my thanks, as I am sure you all do, to Mick Kerr for all the time and effort he puts in to keep the CSCRA up to scratch (pun intended!).
Thank you Bill but please do not forget that David Collins (justDave) probably does more than I do in keeping the CSCRA website up to date.
So thank you for your efforts too Dave.

QUOTE scaleslotcars Posted 15 Aug 2014, 11:15
It's now been ten years since I started VECRA, which morphed into CSCRA, and I think all of the aims I had for it when I started have been accomplished.
Thank you Phil and I hope David and I can continue it for many more years.

Cheers.
Mick.