60 replies to this topic

[Bill from NH]

Ron,

Not to change the subject, but who built the Fast Ones team cars for the Sano? Was it Rande?

[Ron Hershman]

Yes, it was Rande Marshall. I started to build stuff for the race and he told me to worry about motors and bodies and leave the chassis to him.

We also got a couple of the MAC Can-Am chassis and he tidied them up a bit here and there. The Mac chassis is a great bargain.

[TSR]

OK, Dokk, sounds good, but you need to make the brass parts look as if they were stamped because that technology is what's truely "Retro"... or perhaps issue the racer a chisel with the kit.

It is simply a question of making some form of chassis kits available to people who need to learn how to solder. Water-jet cutting is something that we have available while we do not have stamping facilities.

These chassis kits will be for novice builders and they will have to work to get them operable, that's the intent. While the basic rules of D3 Can-Am bans laser or EDM for obvious reasons, the beginner's chassis kit is something different altogether. At this time, no one offers an alternative except Gugu but those chassis made in Brasil are ready to operate. Good when someone gets going and has no skills other than assembly. The D3 kit will offer the next step and allow newbies to practice their skill at building, with the help of local experts. It matters little how the parts ae made as long as the product is available for them to have something to play with. Once they learn the skills, they can move on.

[Cheater]

FWIW, I am still seriously sleep-deprived and still haven't finished posting the Sano pics, facts which are making me quite testy, and you need to know that recent posts to this thread have PISSED ME OFF. Both barrels are loaded and cocked and it's time to pull the trigger...

As this forum's admin, I am getting pretty damn tired of reading the same old crap from you both, Philippe and Ron. If you don't have any new points to make, put a cork in it!

Every member who reads Slotblog is crystal clear on the positions you both have set in concrete. No one is gaining any deeper understanding from your continued and frankly boring repetition of the same arguments and it's pretty clear that neither of you is going to convince the other he's wrong. Simply put, we're all tired of hearing you two sniping and carping at each other.

You froze it to get your investment back on the new motors and nothing else by keeping out the competition.

Ron, this statement presents your opinion as fact, and I don't like it. If this is what you believe, fine, then qualify such a claim with "I believe..." until such time as you have iron-clad proof to back up your assertion.

...and get a motor that will run two-three races (maybe four) before needing a rebuild at $15 to $25 depending on mail costs...

Philippe, I have the same problem with this statement. Until controlled tests are performed to determine the MTBR (mean time between rebuild) you are also presenting opinion as fact. And your numbers are at significant variance with the reports I am hearing from other reliable sources.

You both are claiming the other has a vested interest in his position on motor selection and whether that is true or not, I cannot say. There is certainly enough evidence available on either side to support such assertions if one wishes to make them.

I consider you both good friends, but I also know you both to be hard-headed SOBs who are utterly convinced of the correctness of your opinions. You are both intelligent guys and I think you could, if you both weren't so damn stubborn, work together to devise a method to test the "attractiveness" of these two motors, just like we test the effectiveness of multiple Google ads at my place of employment. That way, we have hard numbers to show which ad generates the highest response rate and we don't have to try to predict the future by guessing which ad will work best. Seems to me there is a lot of future-guessing happening on both sides of the motor question.

Let me remind you both (and everyone else here) that the Slotblog Terms of Use REQUIRE "civil discourse." And the exchanges in this thread are coming perilously close to violating that standard.

Either ratchet down the rhetoric or cease the endless posting of your untested, unproved opinions on the motor issue until such time as you have hard data to relate. If you just have to put on the verbal boxing gloves, go on over to Freeblog and tackle the easy stuff, like abortion, gun control, and global warming.

Just in case you've forgotten, I have both delete and lock buttons and they're getting pretty rusty from lack of use. I locked this topic while composing this reply and will now unlock it, but I will not hesitate to lock it again if civil discourse doesn't become apparent.

[Larry LS]

I agree wholeheartedly Greg. Way to tell them off.

Fun is the name of the game not money. No more stupid motor wars.

Just look at the USRA as a bad example. Money and rules kill the FUN.

[Tex]

Now that the results of DA Sano are in, there's no substance on which to build a motor war unless you just like senseless fighting. Both motors were comparable in performance and there appears to be enough customers to support both; how can that be "bad" for business, the hobby or any racing program? Live and let live; why fight about it? Do your "talking" on the track for bragging rights; that's the ultimate test. Personally, I have no problem with either motor. Our Texas program currently uses FK motors exclusively(for now?) as we modeled our program after the SoCal rules since they were the first such program in existence. On the other hand, when I go East next Fall, I'll buy a Pro-Slot to use as that is what they run there; not a problem. It won't break my pocketbook and it won't hurt my ego to run a Pro-Slot. I'm a racer, not a politician.

[tonyp]

Tex,

Did you get your CD?

[Toremeister]

OK... I'll be the first to ask... What is "Retro" about water-jet cut brass? You are so fastidious about undercuts on bodies, F1-chassis widths, drivers, and other seemingly endless minor details... yet, you are using water jet cutting to make a kit...

Yessir, everybody knows water has been around over 100 years. He verbally abused me also for using Warmack's milling machine to cut some brass bat pans. Lucky for me the mill is like 80 years old!

[Pappy]

Tore,

Does Warmack's milling machine pump a coolant on the part? If so it seems to me that if you used some sort of liquid solution as a coolant then you are still legal.

[Ron Hershman]

I guess EDM would also be legal as water is used in the EDM process as well.

[Toremeister]

Yessir, well-said, Larry!

Mr. P really does need to ratchet down his rhetoric!

IMO I think he's stressin' on account those damn Dems are gunna move into the White House!

[Cheater]

Help me out here.

If I take my trusty Dremel and cut a length of brass strip into bat pans with notched-out inner edges, it's OK because it's "Retro".

If I buy a pair of bat pans of the exact same dimensions, same shape, same thickness, that were cut on a water-jet machine, it's not OK because they're not "Retro".

Is that what the claim is? If so, I think it's pretty silly.

If we want to prevent the use of certain types of chassis designs and/or construction techniques, then we should define the acceptable chassis designs via materials, dimensions, and constructional features, not by forbidding specific methods of component manufacture. Since a water-jetted bat pan could be very effectively disguised by having it made slightly oversize and then hand-filing the edges, a rule banning water jets-cut bat pans is essentially unenforceable except via the honor system... and we all know there is little honor among racers.

What's next, ruling that everyone has to run small-gauge multiple leadwires (because that's Retro) to the flag, rather than the silicone large-gauge single leadwires used today. Or ruling that brass strip can only be filed, but not cut with a saw?

Seems to me the "Retro" label is being used to define the cars in ways that make little or no sense on a practical level. "If it ain't retro, we don't want it." The term might ought to be changed to "Retro-inspired" or something...

[Toremeister]

Tore, does Warmack's milling machine pump a coolant on the part? If so it seems to me that if you used some sort of liquid solution as a coolant then you are still legal.

He still banned my car, Pappy. He found out I use a Hakko soldering iron, and sez all D3 chassis must be built with Ungar irons (with cork handles to boot).

[Ron Hershman]

If I take my trusty Dremel and cut a length of brass strip into bat pans with notched-out inner edges, it's OK because it's "Retro".

If I buy a pair of bat pans of the exact same dimensions, same shape, same thickness, that were cut on a water-jet machine, it's not OK because they're not "Retro".

Shouldn't your thoughts on "waterjet" parts be the same if one was to choose EDM or Lazer to produce the same bat pans? Does it really matter how they are cut if they make something more available or less cost to produce? One would think it's time to remove EDM and Lazer from the chassis rules if water jet cut parts are to be accepted and allowed.

Does it make sense to go out and spend 5,000 plus dollars for tooling to stamp out bat pans when one could go out and spend 1,000 and get a lot of bat pans lazer cut??? The rules only allow for the most expensive route and won't allow the cheaper route that makes the most common sense for all involved. Lazer cutting is much cheaper than water jet cutting, but water jet will be allowed as it's excluded from the rules while the cheaper lazer cut parts will not be allowed as the rules state no lazer parts allowed.

Common sense please????

[Ron Hershman]

H...sez all D3 chassis must be built with Ungar irons...

Are you sure it's Ungar only??? I thought soldering "guns" were also allowed.

[Pappy]

Lucky me, I was thinking about buying a Hakko iron but bought a new 50 watt, 1,000 degree Ungar at Grainger two days ago. I'm still legal.

[Mark Wampler]

Here you go. I've had this same Weller 200/260 watt since '67.

[Cheater]

Does it make sense to go out and spend $5,000 plus for tooling to stamp out bat pans when one could go out and spend $1,000 and get a lot of bat pans laser-cut??? The rules only allow for the most expensive route and won't allow the cheaper route that makes the most common sense for all involved. Laser cutting is much cheaper than water-jet cutting, but water jet will be allowed as it's excluded from the rules while the cheaper laser cut parts will not be allowed as the rules state no laser parts allowed.

Common sense please???

Ron,

Sometimes I don't think you even bother to read what people post...

"If we want to prevent the use of certain types of chassis designs and/or construction techniques, then we should define the acceptable chassis designs via materials, dimensions, and constructional features, not by forbidding specific methods of component manufacture."

If it will make it more comprehensible, please feel free to replace "water-jet" with "laser" or with "EDM". Any of these qualify as "specific methods of component manufacture".

I'm beginning to think you are so irascible you won't even agree with people who are agreeing with you!

[Ron Hershman]

Maybe you have missed the point I am trying to make... the rules have already "forbidden" two specific methods of component manufacture. Now because one is not "spelled" out in the rules and the fact that it is basically the same as the other two "forbidden" methods, this non mentioned in the rules method will be come acceptable and approved while the other two forbidden methods could also be less costly.

Here is what is forbidden...

"3b. Chassis Materials: Brass: sheet, rod and tube, steel: wire, pin tubing and guide tongues are allowed. A three-sided motor bracket including rear axle carrier is mandatory. The motor must be attached to the bracket with no less than two machine-screws. Other than guide tongues, stamped steel parts and EDM or laser-cut parts of any material are not allowed."

I guess the rule doesn't include CNC milling, so will that be legal as well???

[Cheater]

Let me try to make myself clear: I do not think rules should attempt to limit chassis design by restricting methods of component manufacture.

I have not been referring to the existing rules at all, though I am aware what they currently state.

[Ron Hershman]

OK, that's better and more clear. I second your point.

[Toremeister]

Are you sure it's Ungar only??? I thought soldering "guns" were also allowed.

Yessir, the soldering gun is OK but it must be a Weller he sez...

Any truth to the matter that Mr. P now demands all D3 cars must have 1/8-inch guide flag shafts starting 1/'08?

[Cheater]

Guys,

Speaking just for myself, the mass flagellating of Philippe in this thread is getting a little tiresome.

Be careful what you ask for. If PdL rides off into the sunset, never to slot race again, is that really going to make everyone happy?

[slotbaker]

I'll keep us way off topic for just one more post.

I read the rules thinking that the intent is to encourage frames to be built by the methods available to the home hobbyist, i.e. by using hand tools.

Most hobbyists would have things like Dremels, soldering irons, hack saws, hammers (Tore), and other small essentials.
Others have lathes, mills, bandsaws, linishers, etc. Not many have laser, CNC mill, EDM, etc.

If the builder can't make a particular part, then he should be able to buy it. From where?? Someone who can make it. Duh.

That someone should be able to make the part by whatever is most cost effective, so that the cost is kept reasonable while supplying a quality part.

Once he acquires/buys the part, he then builds the frame with his hand tools.

[Cheater]

Steve,

That's the idea: to allow manufacturers to produce parts for builders as cheaply as possible.