1441 replies to this topic

[Marty Stanley]

Cheater,

Just remember one thing...

Although the conductor on a train has nothing to do with the operation of the train, who do you think is in trouble when it's late, or worse?

[Noose]

There may be a problem with the .015" clearance on the Flexi chassis.

The .015" is under the front axle only unlike the other classes where the clearance is all the way to the front. With the 5/8" tires it makes the clearance just fine. On a track with say typical .015" to .020" guide depth I have run a low profile guide with two thin spacers. We have had a bunch of these races and it's not really a problem.

[Noose]

Marty... you figured out the method to our madness! Ding ding!!! You have hit it right on the head in what we were trying to accomplish. And on top of that we even now have a good ol boy class with NASCAR. Welcome aboard!

[Marty Stanley]

Noose,

I have another question for you, or perhaps Dennis - the chassis guru.

It has to do with the side pans on the JK D3 kit.

If you separate the pans from the nose piece, then build the chassis with longitudinal hinges the chassis gets slightly over the 3.125 inches allowed.

If I were to make notches in the pans so I do not have to have the hinge push the pan away from the main wire piece, I can make the 3.125" inches.

However, when reading the rules, I see the following:

• The pans and the nosepiece may not be lightened, i.e. trimming, thinning, and/or adding holes or cut-outs to these components to lighten them is not allowed.

The cut-outs I want to add are NOT for trimming, thinning, and/or adding holes or cut-outs to these components to lighten them, but rather to gain clearance to make tech. The "Notches" I intend to make would look similar to these:

Can I do this and still be legal at regional level races?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

[gascarnut]

Marty,

While I have not yet built one of these frames myself, there are lots of photos already posted that show frames built with hinged pans that are not "notched".

It is an assumption on my part for now, but I would think that most of those shown were within the 3.125" limit.

What size of hinge tubing and wire are you wanting to use? Perhaps you can't stay within the width when using 3/32" tubing and 1/16" wire? It seems most other builds are using .032" wire inside 1/16" tubing.

Of course, it is also possible to build with the hinge tubes on top of the rails, which would also give you the space to use bigger tubes without exceeding the width.

I think Noose has built a frame with this kit, so no doubt he will also respond.

[Noose]

First, the chassis I made from the JK kit is a torsion style so I didn't cut the pans from the nose. In looking at mine, however, there is more than enough room between the main rail and the side of the pan to accept the larger hinge tubing without cutting notches into the pans. This site shows some examples of the JK built where there are no cuts into the pans.

JK Kit Photos

Please note that the chassis shown may all not be JK Spec Class legal including one that says so (the last one) because it's mine and it has shaker pins which are not allowed.

Thus, I would say at this time the answer is no to notching for the tubes as there is not a need to and it is a form of lightening. I will however note this to the board for a final decision on your behalf.

[Josh Crutchfield]

Marty,

I have built several of the JK kits. If you use the 1/16" tubing and .032" wire like Dennis suggested, You won't have to notch the pans.

[Marty Stanley]

I'll just go with either the 1/16" tubing and .032" wire, or choose another method.

There's more than a single method to produce a skinless feline!

[MSwiss]

The outside of the .078" wire form measures approx. 1.120". The inside of an uncut nose piece measures 1.280" in the narrowest spot. .160" should be plenty big enough for two .063" (1/16") tubes.

FWIW, the chassis was designed to use a 1/16" tubing-1/32" wire continuous "piano" style hinge.

[Hworth08]

FWIW, it appears a builder could use 3/32" tubing welded to "slot" where the rails solder to the nose and another peice between the rear tire and the motor bracket, perhaps.

Also, will body clips be allowed in the JK Spec class?

[Noose]

Also, will body clips be allowed in the JK Spec class?

The updated version indicates that body clips can be used:

"Pin tubes, if used, must be brass, must be mounted in the designated locations on the frame, and must be fixed, i.e. floating pin tubes are not allowed. Body clips are allowed."

[MSwiss]

Also, will body clips be allowed in the JK Spec class?

FWIW, clips will have to be custom-made.

[Paul Martin]

I have a few questions for the board concerning the JK Spec class.

First, can we use axle bushings instead of tubing in the front uprights for the axles?

Can the position of the axle height be modified for .050" front track clearance?

Also, since the rules state either the standard or hypoid motor bracket may be used, can we modify the standard bracket if that is what was in the kit, to accept the hypoid setup?

Thank you for your time,

Paul

[Josh Crutchfield]

Why are these the only classes with .050" front clearance?

Wouldn't it be easier to have .050" clearance front to rear on all of the classes?

[MSwiss]

Wouldn't it be easier to have .050" clearance front to rear on all of the classes?

Yes, it would. The problem is, Josh, while you are a great builder and changing existing cars over would be someting pretty easy for you, a lot of racers are guys who purchased chassis.

In the case of these new classes, the cars will be new and can be made with the more practical "same clearance front and back".

[Bill from NH]

Maybe the existing cars without the .050" front clearance should become "grandfathered". After all, they aren't going to last forever if they're raced.

[Rick]

If built cars are set for .015 with .750 tires, increase fronts diameter to meet .050, add guide spacer(s) and all is the same as it was but with .050 frontal clearance. Pretty easy..............


PS: Cars are raced on a guide flag, they should be teched on it. The fronts are then self policeing.

[Pablo]

amazing how 12 volts burns a pinhole in brass and steel at 60 mph

who is the rocket scientist that came up with 015 front clearance ? I guess he forgot to test on old, bumpy tracks

[Pablo]

Rick, my reply to you is, your math works, but how about those who used wire to secure their axles?
I modified one of my F1's today, no wire, a simple heat and tweak increased the clearance no problemo.
Removing JK fronts is not easy, so I did it with the front axle assembly intact.

[Ron Hershman]

who is the rocket scientist that came up with 015 front clearance ? I guess he forgot to test on old, bumpy tracks

They didn't have any "old bumpy" tracks in So-Cal for the "Rocket Scientist" to test on.

[Ron Hershman]

If built cars are set for .015 with .750 tires, increase fronts diameter to meet .050, add guide spacer(s) and all is the same as it was but with .050 frontal clearance. Pretty easy..............

.820" tires and a guide spacer is all that's needed. Oh, I forgot...those bigger fronts are heavier and racers want lightweight stuff.

[MSwiss]

.770" tires and a guide spacer is all that's needed. Oh, I forgot...those bigger fronts are heavier and racers want lightweight stuff.

FWIW,you would need to change from .750 to at least .820 front's to increase your clearance from .015 to .050.
That .070 difference in diameter might me an issue with the tires rubbing the tops of the fenders with some cars.

Also I think the .050 clearance in the front is a great idea and would of done it for the first Sano but
I thought that would go against the inclusive nature of the race.
IMHO,Retro cars handle too well.

[Pablo]

When the mass is rotating in the correct direction God forgives the height.

I'm glad the "manly man G7 racer" has a calculator .05 - .015 = .035 ........... .035 X 2 = .07 .... .75 + .07 = .82

[Noose]

Taking a step back in time. If one was to recall how the rules came about, it was through an analysis of the existing rules when they were laid out on a spread sheet. What the Board did was to take the rules that would make up the "most inclusive" composite and thus the basis for the main classes of rules. Each and every region at that time was running .015 front clearance BUT some were only under the front axle and some were all the way to the front. The latter of course resulted in a wee bit more under the front axle and was chosen as the spec to ensure some clearance up in the front.

At the time, no one really had communicated that any retro racing was taking place on older style tracks where there was any damage seen as a result of the lower front ends. Most tracks raced on, to my knowledge, were more modern style and thus smoother, etc. By comparison, the Flexis of the world typically do not have any front clearance, especially the C-11 style now.

[Pablo]

Taking a step back in time.

Should slot car racing go forward or backward ?

I used to think a slope would create ground effects, but I was wrong.