SlotForum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
David Collins
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Following consultation at races in 2010, and on this Slot Forum thread, the GP and Sports/GT CSCRA car standards are being updated for 2011 with new classes.

The new documents take in cars up towards the end of the 1980s and the early 1990s, including the Ground Effect and Turbo eras, and the Group C sports car period. A new Saloons document is also in preparation.

You can download the pdf files on the 2011 Car Standards page on the CSCRA site.
We'd welcome any further comments and suggestions for improvement.

David
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
Thanks for doing this Dave.
Can I make it clear that the 2011 Sports & GT Standards are just proposals and are open for discussion.
A large majority of our regular racers voted for this re-vamp along the lines of the GP classes and this is only a 'first attempt'.
Please post any comments you have regarding the Sports & Gt Classes on this thread only and leave the earlier GP thread for the GP Classes.
Cheers.
Mick.
PS. 2011 Saloon/Touring Car Standards will follow soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,633 Posts
SP1 says the maximum overall width is scale track width + 5mm.
So when using 5mm wide tyres, the tolerance on scale track is + 0 and - whatever.
It also means you cannot use bodies that extend wider than flush with 5mm wide tyres on scale track.
The mudguards on some cars were somewhat wider than the outsides of the wheels.
Are the rules intended to encourage the bodywork to be narrowed so it's flush with the outsides of the wheel?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
300SLR
I don't know why Mick has worded it that way.
Real problems with older pre war (non racing) stuff to get definitive track or W/Base measurements, as so many of these cars had 2 or three chassis, and then sent to the coachbuilders for any number of body type to be fitted.
As I read it, in brackets at the end of the specs, it says 'Track will be measured across the tyres' to my mind this suggests a track figure + 5mm for the tyre width and then you have another 5mm to play with for your +/-
But, I may have got it wrong as well!
No doubt Mick will clarify the situation.
Regards Bill.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
Thanks for pointing this out guys.
It's exactly the sort of comment we need to get thing right.

This particular wording for class 1 has been carried forward, unchanged, from our previous standards where all pre 1934 cars were grouped into just one class.
Now it refers to Sprorts cars only I agree it is a little unclear as to what it means.

The original thinking behind it went along these lines.
Tyres should be only about 4mm wide but some concern was expressed about them, maybe, dropping into the slot.
A single maximum width was seen as impractical because of the huge variation in cars sizes during this preriod and that most Sports cars, at that time, had cycle wings and/or running boards rather than all enclosing bodywork.

Solutions.
Allow 5mm wide rear tyres.
Measure the overall width over the tyres not the body.
So max width is scale track + the width of a tyre.
It was never intended to restrict the body to this dimension.

So how about revising the wording to;

• Maximum overall width must not exceed Scale track dimension +5mm.
(For this class only, the maximum width will be measured over the outside width of the tyres. Bodywork, wheel trims etc can be wider than this).


Will that make it clearer?
Cheers.
Mick.

PS. This revision to the standars is such a big change from the previous ones there must be much more to be said.
Please post any comments here asap. We won't get offended as we want to get this right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
Hi Mick,
I dont think you could word it any better, as although you may have to read it a couple of times, the end result is; The track figure for that model (assuming you can agree on it!) +/- 5mm which in reality will be + 5mm.
One thing I would urge is a drop in minimum rear wheel diameter to 25 mm/1 inch and maybe a clause for under 2 litre sports to use smaller (23mm rears). There is no need to enforce larger than real racing car wheels of the era on sports cars, as in the main they were the same or a little smaller.It also nicely dovetails into the Brooklands rules, which tony and I had the sports cars of the time in mind as well.
Just my suggestion.
Regards Bill
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
Ok Bill I'll look at the tyre dimensions for class 1.
How many of the classes would need separate, or more particularly, different, dimensions for under 2 litre cars?
I believe that by the mid '60s all top level competiotion sports cars would be using the same size tyres no matter what the engine size.
I don't think it's practical to have individual class standards which cover all the small, road based, sports & GT cars.
If an organiser comes up with a successful and popular event for such cars we can 'adopt' whatever rules they run to at a later time.

Cheers.
Mick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
Hi Mick.
I don't see many problems with the wheel dimensions of later stuff, it is mostly pre War and the earlier you go, the more pronounced the dimension differences between the 'Big stuff' and 'tiddlers' were.
From the 60's onwards, you are as good a person as anyone to get those wheel/tyre dimensions right!
Regards Bill.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
OK guys,
I've had a look at the tyre sizes for the class 1 (pre '34) sports cars.
I agree with Bill's view that it makes sense to adjust them to tie in with the Brooklands cars.
Then if you build a sports type car for Brooklands events it will be ok for a CSCRA run Sports Car event.

So;
Class 1a - over 2 litre cars.
Front tyres: minimum diameter 24mm.
Rear tyres: minimum diameter 25mm, maximum width 6mm.


add Class 1b - under 2 litre cars.
all as class 1a except.
Front tyres: minimum diameter 22mm.
Rear tyres: minimum diameter 23mm.


It would then also seem logical to adjust Class 2 (34 to 49) to tie in as well.
Rear tyres: minimum diameter 23mm.
Ground clearance: 3mm.


Is all this sensible and acceptable?

Cheers.
Mick.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
Me again.
One thing that comes to mind having just been doing some work on an NSR Ford P68.

With NSR and Slot.It producing so many very quick 'Classic' RTR cars should we allow them to race as RTRs?

Whereas other makers tend to make a scale model first and look at performance second these two makers tend to do it the other way round.
For example, a Fly or Scalex car would have over 1.5mm ground clearance, but an NSR has less than 1mm (the P68 is actually about 0.5mm) at the front and a Slot.It Group C car not much more, giving them a distinct advantage over even a scratch built car.

Is there a risk that some classes may be totally dominated by these RTR cars?
Is there justification for insisting the NSR and Slot.It cars can only race in the scratch class and must comply fully with those standards?

What do you guys think?

Cheers.
Mick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
Hi Mick.
Big can of worms here!
As we both know, the potential for 'RTR' models from NSR/Slot It to dominiate the later classes is self evident.
But...how much do we slow them down by insisting on scratch built dimensions?
A little, no doubt..but to the degree that makes guys want to build scratch chassis!!??
This issue is at the nub of 'Classic/Retro slot racing.
Regards Bill.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
Hi Bill,
QUOTE As we both know, the potential for 'RTR' models from NSR/Slot It to dominiate the later classes is self evident.
But...how much do we slow them down by insisting on scratch built dimensions?
Quite a lot actually.

QUOTE A little, no doubt..but to the degree that makes guys want to build scratch chassis!!??
I'd have a go but not if these things are allowed to run 'on the deck' when my scratch built chassis has to have 1.5mm clearance.

But that's why I asked the question.

In reality there competiveness as RTRs would vary from track to track.
At Wellingborough, Wolves and Yorkley they would be quick but at tracks like Oaklands, Netley or N London their motors would be too slow.

Any one else got a view?
Cheers.
Mick.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,509 Posts
It's my opinion that the meaning of RTR has become a bit diluted over the past few years. There seems a clear split between toys aimed at homesets (Scalextric, SCX, Fly, Ninco, Revell-Monogram etc.) and those aimed at club racers (NSR, Slot.It, Avant Slot etc. as well as the "club race" lines of the homeset manufacturers - Fly Racing, Ninco ProRace, SCX Pro etc.)

Probably the former should be RTR, the latter sneaks into scratch classes IMO. I do have two Slot.Its intended for Sports class 2 (T33, 312PB) but have never viewed them as RTR entries, rather as good starting points for working upon and developing cars. I never considered that they may have too much lowth to be legal, will need to check that and tyre accordingly.

Slightly outside our remit, but the "club race special RTRs" have spoilt a lot of box stock club racing recently that were intended to be for circa £30 cars but have actually ended up with only the £60 cars being competitive.

Approaching things from the other angle for a minnute, how much RTR usage do we see in CSCRA?

Coop
 

·
David Collins
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
We could add a clearance requirement for RTRs - it's probably only Slot.It and NSR that are affected. But then again they become non-RTR if they have to change tyres to meet the regs...

Most of us will of course have well-tuned Slot.Its and NSR cars for club racing anyway, and if there's no incentive to scratchbuild for particular classes, it would be natural to reach into our pitbox and bring these cars out.

One of the main aims of CSCRA is to encourage scratch-building, so it would seem to defeat our purpose to create standards which would discourage the scratch builders in certain classes.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
At Yorkley where RTR NSR and Slot-It cars are allowed to race in a class they tend to dominate, even against the quickest CSCRA built car. As NSR tyres are probably the best around at present (on our track at any rate) there would be no need to change from out of the box tyres.
It was not going to be a problen while they were concentrating on making models of more recent cars, but the P68 and Ford GT from Mosler and Ferrari, Alfa and Chaparel from Slot-it have changed the goal posts, the only way I can prevent them dominating Sports car events is to only run classes for earlier cars! (not an ideal solution)
I would hate to organise an event at Yorkley only to find everyone turned up with RTR cars, so I now need to look carefully at the classes I intend to run so as to keep clear of these models!

Perhaps its only an issue on shorter or twisty tracks where motor power is not so important. If so, then local rules from organisers will have to address the problem (if it is seen as a problem)
It would be interesting to hear from other clubs that run CSCRA meetings to gauge the level of concern

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
Some comments on the Sports/Gt classes.

The sub-headings (such as "The front engine sports car era" in Class 3) could read in different ways, some as indicative and some as definative.

There were some rear engined sports cars in 1962, Porsche and Lotus spring to mind immediately but I don't think the intention is to exclude these and neither is it necessary in my view.

Similar comments apply to Classes 5,7&8.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top