SlotForum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,017 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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,017 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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,017 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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,017 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
·
3,017 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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,017 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
·
3,017 Posts
QUOTE 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.
Hi Dick,
These were only put in to indicate the thought process behind the dates chosen.

We looked at things like:
The first Le Mans race after WWII.
The last win at Le Mans for a front engined car.
The first win at Le Mans for a rear engined car.
The banning of the 7litre cars at the end of 1967.
The dramatic increase in tyre widths through 1968.
etc etc.
We have actually written out a time line for all three classes, GP, Sports and Saloon, looking for dates when significant changes to the cars occured.

I think that most of these sub headings can be left out of the final version when it is all approved and agreed.

Cheers.
Mick.
 
1 - 7 of 7 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