346 replies to this topic

[Bryan Warmack]

I know we have discussed laps and sections qualifying many times before and this may be a good time to try it!! Also, I think something else may happen here. If I had to build just 1 car and one car only for "The Big Race" I think I would build a 20 rail lead sled that might be close to 140 grams and take my chances. I know these little motors will pull it. I think I could make a lot more laps with an overweight car of this type rather than a 6 or 8 rail light one. I don't think this is what Mike has in mind. Maybe a maximum weight limit or maximum rail number will be necessary. I guess we'll just have to build a few dozen and see!!!

[HarV Wallbanger III]

I think your right Bryan. maybe a "main" rail per side rule 3- 6?? would be better and maybe allow only 2 soldered together on each side or??? Mix and match but I think we will see "solid" brass rod chassis if it did not get limited somehow.

I know we have discussed laps and sections qualifying many times before and this may be a good time to try it!! Also, I think something else may happen here. If I had to build just 1 car and one car only for "The Big Race" I think I would build a 20 rail lead sled that might be close to 140 grams and take my chances. I know these little motors will pull it. I think I could make a lot more laps with an overweight car of this type rather than a 6 or 8 rail light one. I don't think this is what Mike has in mind. Maybe a maximum weight limit or maximum rail number will be necessary. I guess we'll just have to build a few dozen and see!!!

[68Caddy]

Please remember you guy's did not have that much regulations way back then, so please don't limit your self to a bunch of rules, just build it and lets see
what works out?

Nesta
Bryan I sure like the name " The Big Race"

[Mike Steube]

This race is for spaced rail jail door chassis that LOOK like the cars we ran in "66". Not re-invented modern multirailed flexies. Thank you and good night.

[Bryan Warmack]

This race is for spaced rail jail door chassis that LOOK like the cars we ran in "66". Not re-invented modern multirailed flexies. Thank you and good night.

Don't go to sleep on us now!!! You started this MESS!! I should have your new Hakko tip tomorrow so you can keep building!!

[djracer]

I think this is a fantastic idea! I remember building and racing these cars
in the day. I will be there for this race. I raced in one Car Model race at
Don's Raceway in the summer of 1967. I could not believe I was racing
with guys I really looked up to. It was a experience I never will forget as
a seventeen year old kid from Dallas.

I did look up the 1966 R&C rules and the 1967 Car Model rules:

I did notice that the Rear Wheel width's do differ:
The R&C rules state "1/2 inch width" The Car Model rules state
"5/8" total width, however a maximum of 1/2" tread width
is allowed to touch the track". This accomodates a 1/16"
radius on the edges of the tire.

Dale Jones

Katy, Texas

[Hworth08]

I think I could make a lot more laps with an overweight car of this type rather than a 6 or 8 rail light one. I don't think this is what Mike has in mind.

This is from the fourth Rod and Custom race:

http://www.theindepe...Race4_Page3.JPG

I can't isolate the quote from Mike Morrissey stating they are adding more TUBING after the Russkit 23 motors are making more power but ithe quote is on this page.

Sure enough a heavier car will be faster, but that didn't happen till 1967.

[Tex]

I think this is a fantastic idea! I remember building and racing these cars
in the day. I will be there for this race. I raced in one Car Model race at
Don's Raceway in the summer of 1967. I could not believe I was racing
with guys I really looked up to. It was a experience I never will forget as
a seventeen year old kid from Dallas.

I did look up the 1966 R&C rules and the 1967 Car Model rules:

I did notice that the Rear Wheel width's do differ:
The R&C rules state "1/2 inch width" The Car Model rules state
"5/8" total width, however a maximum of 1/2" tread width
is allowed to touch the track". This accomodates a 1/16"
radius on the edges of the tire.

Dale Jones

Katy, Texas

Dale,

Would I have seen you at any of the Texas Series races from about '70 - '72?

I'm looking forward to meeting you at John Myers' track in New Braunfels on the 31st!

[Toremeister]

Tore, R&C rules were 3.0" wide for sport cars and 2.750" wide for GP cars.

Cool !!!!!!!3"wide,,,,,,,,7/8's fronts,,,,,,,,,15/16's rears,,,,,,,,,,,,modern guide flags legal,,,,,,,,,,Drop arm,,,,,,,,,,I still don't know if brass plate are legal,my hunch is Mike wants brass tubing or rod !

[TSR]

Brass plate of ANY KIND except for motor bracket use should be illegal, so as to keep the spirit of what the cars were in 1965 and the beginning of 1966. Not that it was not used (it was), but allowing it will simply destroy the class very quickly.

Maybe a maximum weight limit or maximum rail number will be necessary.

I totally agree on this, and I will weigh one of the period cars at the Muz to propose an upper weight limit. Indeed one could build a true lead sled made of brass rods next to each other and drenched in solder to have a tough car to beat. But would that be following the intent of the class? me think not.

Also I (personally) believe that the use of 1/8" brass tubing for rear axle bearing surface should be mandatory.
I think that the only compromises should be the use of (sealed) FK motors for eliminating the pain of motor building, the use of modern gears for convenience (48-pitch gears only allowed), and the use of modern guides because original Cox guides cost an arm and a leg and are difficult to find anyway.

The use of pre-1968 bodies that actually ran in the USRRC and early Can-Am races should also be mandatory:
-Lotus 30 and 40 (Russkit & Dynamic with curved sides)
-Lola T70 ( Russkit, Lancer, Dynamic with curved sides, no T160's allowed)
-McLaren MK2 and MK6 (Russkit, Lancer, curved sides, no M8's allowed)
-Ford GT roadster only (Revell)
-Genie-Ford MK10 (Revell)
-No coupes.

That would keep things simple and clean and eliminate the over-competitive crowd from introducing modern tech in what should not have any.

[Noose]

PDL,
Speak in modern terms as far as the bodies are concerned. For example, True Scale's Lotus 40 and and Lola T-70 I would think would be fine.

[tonyp]

Why not: if it is the pictures of the R&C road races you can do it. If not you can't. I'd hate to see 30 rail chassis or 3 rail chassis with a whole bunch of 1/2 rails in the front or back to stiffen them up.

I believe the original rules allowed the rear tires to extend past the bodies to make the 3" track in the rear.

[Tex]

This is Mike's gig and I don't want to dump more decision-making on him, so maybe we can come to a gentleman's agreement, PHILIPPE, on one point. You mention wanting to maintain the spirit of the way the cars were built in '65 and '66, but the McLaren M6 was a '67 Can-Am car; I personally don't think it "fits" the period. Also, just to help the body list fill out a bit, how 'bout allowing Chaparral 2/A/B/C's? And Hussein's? I know you may not have meant for your list to be "all inclusive", but I thought I'd throw these suggestions out there anyway.

[Tex]

I believe the original rules allowed the rear tires to extend past the bodies to make the 3" track in the rear.

Which leads to my next question..........

If I've got a body narrower than 3", can I use the hot spoon or socket trick, and flare the wheel wells!?!?! Huh? Can I? Huh? I mean, what would say "period correct" more than flared wheel wells?!

[John Streisguth]

Which leads to my next question..........

If I've got a body narrower than 3", can I use the hot spoon or socket trick, and flare the wheel wells!?!?! Huh? Can I? Huh? I mean, what would say "period correct" more than flared wheel wells?!

The '67 Car Model rules spelled out what you can and can't do in that regard (I have the CM issue that contains them). I would imagine Phillipe has the 65-66 regs somewhere; they'e probably the same or similar. Again, a slippery slope when you start to allow "improvements". (although some will surely be needed out of necessity, as Philippe mentioned)

[TSR]

The original rules allowed the 3" axle width IF the body COVERED the wheels, hence, spoon & candle technology!

[Tex]

The original rules allowed the 3" axle width IF the body COVERED the wheels, hence, spoon & candle technology!

Oh, baby; this is gonna be GOOD!

[Mike Steube]

I've posted some pics of my first jail door chassis build. It's on the jail door chassis thread Jeff started for us. I pushed the envelope on this frame to really be called a "66". I was hoping to set a visual limit/suggestion as to the type of chassis I had in mind for this race. I hope this chassis isn't too far over the top.

[Hworth08]

Hi Mike,

Afraid I'd have to put your, and Jairus's, frame in the 1967 year.

I can't remember any specific frame designs but I remember our track owner put a weight limit on the sports cars that used the 517 type motors because our cars had gotten so heavy we were wearing the braid out very fast.

Our 4.5 inch stock cars were limited stock 26D or oval hole 16D ball bearing motors. I remember well that we started lightning the stock cars because of the lower powered motors.

Hey, when these cars get very popular, just have a 1966 division and a 1967 till anglewinder division.

[Jairus]

I suggest that the year definition be changed from 1966 to 1967 brass rod only. The reason is that a super light car like most of what was built during 1966 were illhandling and underpowered. The cars of 1967 (The summer of LOVE) became easier to drive and thus more popular to the general public. Early 1967 cars still looked like the wispy late 66 cars but the trend was toward more weight as Magnum 88 magnets and hotter arms became the norm.

Also, I would set the maximum weight at 110 grams total to keep the heavy weight cars from dominating.

Just a thought....

[Mike Steube]

I've updated the Rules Post. It's the first post on this thread. Check it out.

[TSR]

Looking better and better...

[Slotgeezer]

..... No piano wire U braces in or on the motor bracket.....

Hmmm ......

Looks like I built my chassis too quickly!

But, the Froggenheimer is running the show, so ....

In keeping w/ the "spirit of the rulebook", I will remove the piano wire brace inside my BP motor bracket, in order to comply w/ the most recent rules revision...

But... Maybe I better wait... I mean, rebuilding it more than once seems counter-productive, given my new job & current lack of available building time!

Rules looking good, Boss! .... Good racing!


Jeff Easterly

[Jairus]

Rules do not correspond with Mike's build. On the post where he describes his chassis he says that one piece of steel wire protecting the gear is the ONLY wire allowed. Yet the rules state the opposite.

Jeff, I would wait before you start modifying your car. Logic dictates that this race will be the first of many and we don't want anyone dropping out just because of one crash or a wall hit. I think Mike just forgot to change that particular rule.
Right Mr. Steube, .... Sir?

[Mike Steube]

My build will be modified. I will replace the piano wire brace with two brass u braces. On the road test thread I make a statement of rules updating. After driving the car and becoming more familiar I've updated the rules and they are more inline with a "1966 to early 1967" car. The race won't be held until April, at the earliest. We have plenty of time. The changes I've been making are minor and shouldn't present any real problems, I hope.