275 replies to this topic

[Noose]

Ran first Can Am car today on Grandstand track and it ran boootiful. Falcon 5 motor doesn't seem to be the one for any speed though. Tried some different gearing but it didn't help. Gonna play around with some of the other motors.

[NJ Racer]

Joe,

Thats everyone's first reaction on the Falcon, but don't get spoiled and stick a Contender in there.

I will be up at Zeppelin's very soon to test and with a Falcon

I wish Lou Ballini still had the King that they ran the Zeppelin 500 on in 1992.

[sportblazer350]

Are there any chassis currently available for us non-scratchbuilders to purchase for this class, whether old NOS or new??? Vintage Can-Am bodies are available. I got the Ti22 from Alpha, and need to know which motors, wheels, tires, and other parts will meet the rules. There are several others I know of who are also interested, but none of us are chassis builders.
Thanks,
Glenn O. (NJ123, C.A.R.S. Vintage Club) slotcar1@optonline.net

[scooooter7]

Call Chris at BP Raceway, (714) 827- 9979. He usually has or can get chassis from Mike Steube, John Kallas, and maybe even from Torre for sale. He also has all the other items you need or can steer you in the right direction.

[Hworth08]

are there any chassis currently available for us non scratchbuilders to purchase for this class, whether old NOS or new???

Just wondering if a Dynamic frame is or could be legal as a base for a Can-Am car. The Dynamic frame was used until around 1967 and with the proper pans might could be competitive today? Just a thought.

[TSR]

Yes, it would be legal. There is nothing in the rules that I can see that say that it could not. HOWEVER, the rest of the chassis MUST be scratchbuilt. The Dynamic motor mount must provide the "3-sided motor bracket". The Dynamic tongue is not acceptable as it would go beyond the "scratchbuilt" requirement.
An inline mount of a Globe SS91 MIGHT just be the ticket as it is narrow enough to fit the FK with a few mods . . . 8)

[gascarnut]

Are there any chassis currently available for us non-scratchbuilders to purchase for this class, whether old NOS or new???

Glenn, check your email.

[Tex]

The Dynamic tongue is not acceptable as it would go beyond the "scratchbuilt" requirement.

P (or anyone else),

Do you have a picture of the chassis or just the tongue? Back in the day, scratchbuilts were built using stamped pans and drop arms . . . I just want to see an example of the tongue that isn't allowed.

[Prof. Fate]

Hi,

Dynamics in the day were solid C main and below entries, no matter what the mods(except for Garcia).

Outside of So-Cal, a popular version of "scratchbuilding" was the "Bounty Hunter" design of Ben Millspaugh in Denver.

Essentially, one would build a scratch front end and side pans out of wire and brass that socketed into the FRONT of the inline bracket. It wasn't as quick as a full scratchbuild . . . however most tracks that had a "Group 12" class for modified kits allowed it and THAT was the fast set up in those circles.

It was popular with the kids because they were buying HOT motors. And as we were usually limited on funds, it made a sort of sense to have ONE good motor, and then plug in various modules in the front for the various classes.

Fate

[TSR]

Make that "brass tounge" and it will be legal.

[TSR]

I don't see why not since it is a (rather weak) brass guide tongue, but everything else will have to be scratchbuilt. So it will mean more work overall than just building a simple chassis from a brass bracket . . . and for a result that is hardly to match any half-arse brass chassis because all it will do is raise the CG since the alloy mount is lighter than brass mount and rails.
So the point of simplifying construction is hardly valid. :|
But hey, if you have the time and the will, go4it . . . 8)

[jimht]

GAAAAAH!

I read this nitpicking stuff about what is or isn't "legal" & it makes me start to twitch. Reminds me of Clinton asking what "is" is...

How 'bout if someone just defines "scratchbuilt" as including production chassis & parts thereof that meet the class specs, but no complete stamped chassis are allowed.

So, butchered & incomplete stuff would be OK but such frankenchassis must contain parts from at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? different chassis.
I recall such stuff from the Glory Days:
Plenty of Munchkins "building their own" by bolting together that which bolted together, whether it was supposed to or not.

[TSR]

Jim,
We tried to keep the rules as short and simple as possible, only to run into some mentally born cheaters always trying to find an loophole in which to wedge their twisted thinking. So please allow me to give them a run for their money as I will enjoy seeing them wasting their time.
I don't know but if I were any of these fellows, the first thing I would do is copy what wins and start from there. But eh, that's me!

[TSR]

Mine is a rubber band so I feel much less yanking . . .
If someone wants to use chunks of brass from a Womp loser to make a Can-Am frame, more power to them if they like to trail in last place . . . :mrgreen:

[jimht]

Uh Huh, but look at the problem. :mrgreen:
You won't build for them.
I won't build for them.
There aren't any kits.
Assembled chassis are either cast-offs or pricey works of art.
So they're looking for ways the solderingly challenged can hack together a chassis.

Eiither that or they're messing with you.

By the way, where are all those cute Checkpoint pans & droparms with the round holes?

[TSR]

Jim, you are right, they have nothing better to do so they are attempting to mess with me, in vain. :mrgreen:

The pretty Steube drop arms and pans are long gone I am afraid . . . I wish someone would have a stack so that I could build a couple of replica chassis. :|

Stay warm and out of the wind! 8)

[Hworth08]

Why the rules are as they are:
1. Adapt a Dynamic motor mount with a Falcon motor.
2. Fit the Dynamic assembly on a Turbo frame.

Fair chance A Turbo WOULD be competitive. In the spirit of the class? NO WAY!

I am seeing some post here and there about wanting a frame that is cheap and legal though. A $150 seems pretty reasonable for a RTR handbuilt car but that price might prevent some potential drivers away. Is there a solution in the works? Just asking.

[idare2bdul]

We tried to keep the rules as short and simple as possible, only to run into some mentally born cheaters always trying to find an loophole in which to wedge their twisted thinking.

So when you find a loophole you are creative; when someone else does they are a cheater?

If you had set a minimum weight rule a lot of the other rules would have been moot. By the second race retro was out the window!

There have been several rules revisions concerning chassis construction but I had not noticed any thread complaining about chassis issues. While the BWA motor bracket was far from retro it was embraced by many builders. Did that make racing worse?

[TSR]

So what are you complaining about exactly? 8)

[Larry LS]

I got told that using copper-plated fiberglass for a chassis was not okay, as it not being an approved chassis material.

Now you say that an aluminum, or whatever material it is, Dynamic inline motor bracket with a brass tongue is okay. Hmmmmm.

According to the new and old chassis rules (aluminum) is also not an approved chassis material that's listed either.

Gotcha!

[TSR]

That's true, aluminum is not mentioned as a chassis material, so a Dynamic motor mount cannot be legal at this time.
A Dynamic guide tongue is.
Lord, what a paradox, save us before Globular Warming swallows us all! 8)

[Hworth08]

The rules situation could be a LOT worse. What if everyone made their own bodies?!