1441 replies to this topic

[Upfront slot cars]

One question: do you run soft front tires?

[MSwiss]

If anyone has any questions regarding any chassis specifics concerning this matter, please ask me directly and I’ll gladly discuss them with

 

That's not how it works.

 

We're having an open discussion here.

[Rick Moore]

Andrew, they’re JK8746PF fronts.

 

Mike, I did not say or even insinuate this wasn’t an “open conversation”, just that if someone might have any questions about the specifics of this chassis, or any of the other F1’s I’ve built similarly over the years, such as dimensions, structure, or construction, they could ask me.

 

Rick / CMF3

[MSwiss]

This is just a discussion about the safety issue on those particular elements of that particular chassis.

[Rick Moore]

That is understood. I was referring to specifics with regard to the front tines that are the matter of concern. I should have been more explicit.
 
Rick / CMF3

[Bill from NH]

Rick, are there any of your F1 build articles still posted on here or OWH with photos? Or did the P-bucket dump get them all?

[Half Fast]

I would not marshal a race with a chassis like that running. Sorry, that's a hospital trip waiting to happen.  

 

I concur wholeheartedly I have seen marshals injured in the course of marshaling "regular" slot cars. A car with two steel harpoons is dangerous for no apparent reason.

 

Cheers,

[Rick Moore]

Bill,

 

P-Bucket dumped all the pics on OWH. Earliest pic of my F1s with front tines on Slotblog would be at the 1/2013 races at the Viper Pit, post #7:

 

http://slotblog.net/...0-2013-results/

 

There might be other race chassis pics, like the Southern Showdown.

 

Of course there are my last five F1 chassis built in the last two years in my 1237-Series thread in the Slotblog Scratchbuilding subforum, posts #18, #19, #26, #27, and the latest (noted in this thread) in post #57:

 

http://slotblog.net/...ld-progression/

 

Rick / CMF3

[Greg VanPeenen]

Your chance of getting injured by a slot car, even a G7 open wing car going over 100 MPH, are less then getting hit by lightning. So instead of complaining about something that has run and gone through tech at other races without injuring anyone, get off the computer and go see if you can come up with something to improve your own racing program like Rick has done. Be a thinker and a doer instead of a complainer.

 

Regards,

 

GregVanPeenen

 

PS: Keep up the good work, Rick.    

[Noose]

Sorry, Greg, I disagree. I slot race more than I stand outside in a thunderstorm.

Those pointed ends are dangerous plain and simple.

[Half Fast]

I also disagree strongly, I saw a marshal sent to the hospital during a G7 race at Port Jeff after his hand was cut badly by a wing car, so injury to marshals is not theoretical.

 

Facts not opinion.

 

Cheers

[MSwiss]

However, I have a concern about his F1 chassis from the last GRRR race. Having a piece of my thumb gouged away by a Defender chassis recently, I am sensitive about the leading edges of chassis. Rick's F1 chassis has two long "probes" coming up beside the guide flag. I don't see the design advantage in this, but then Rick builds much better cars than I do.

 
Doc,
 
Whether it is a design advantage, or not, is not an excuse to allow it.
 
Making rules should never be "It works great, let's allow it."
 
GVP,
 
You are totally off base.
 
The racer who has started this discussion, Doc, as he points out in the above quote, has been badly cut by a Mossetti chassis front ear, which is probably only about a quarter as dangerous as those prongs on Rick's cars.
 
On the Mossetti, the ears are only slightly forward of the guide post center line.
 
On Rick's car, the prongs extend all the way ahead of the guide shoe, and they (as said) are prongs.
 
As I already posted, Bryan Warmack figured out a way to have a somewhat safe, far forward, chassis appendage.
 
Rick, clearly, has not.

[Rick Moore]

Despite any needlessly discourteous remarks toward me, I already had a “fix” planned for my next F1 chassis build, so before this degenerates into a pointless social media micturition match, and since it is an easy refit to the chassis in question, I decided to post it up here for your perusal.

 

So, if I place a wire running between the two front tines as pictured below, would that help allay any concerns? Let me know if it’s okay, and I’ll put it on tomorrow. (Busy tonight… well, not really, just doing something else for fun…)

 

Rick / CMF3

 

[Half Fast]

Rick=

 

What Is the purpose of the original extensions any way?

 

Cheers

[gotboostedvr6]

Rick,

The fix for this "issue" is easy as you've already shown us.

Sometimes it's easier to just avoid stepping on shlt then to clean it off your shoe.

It's a bit of a witch hunt but it is kind of a useless design.

Dave

[gotboostedvr6]

I do respect your exhaustive chassis design work.

You definitely put the most work into Retro chassis design.

[MSwiss]

I don't see "needlessly discourteous remarks toward" you. (Edit: I'm just seeing Dave's recent one.)
 
Moving on, since it's not that convenient to put the U on the outside, having it like you have it would be fine if you taper back the original material, as shown in the below pic.
 
Also taper the top, as the hand drawn pic, to the left, shows (on the assumption that is .062" diameter wire that you are using).

[Bill from NH]

Rick, thanks for the two threads. There's a lot of information and photos, but not everything, in the Scratchbuilding subforum thread. Anyone interested in building something similar to yours will get many ideas from the photos.

[DOCinCanton]

I think that at this point of this safety issue, we should start to discuss reasonable chassis rules that would do away with forward facing "harpoons" as pictured above. I suggest something similar to:

 

1) No chassis components (features) allowed forward of the guide tongue (or the centerline of the guide flag post).

 

2) Chassis features or construction forward of the front axle must have a leading radius of a minimum of 1/16".

 

3) Chassis features or construction forward of the front axle must be a minimum of 3/16" wide.

[Cheater]

From my geezer's perspective, I think about the liabiity situation that could ensue for a raceway owner if a child (they're often shorter than adults, you know...) got hit in the face or eye by the original design chassis when it flew off the track. Sure the probability of that happening is very, very low, but it isn't zero and that's reason enough for me to want chassis builders to avoid this kind of chassis design.

Rick, I really appreciate the adult manner in which you have participated in this discussion.

[Rick Moore]

Bill F,

 

You’re welcome. And thanks.

 

Bill B,

 

Thanks for asking a valid question. The idea of the front tines is to add support to the rather flimsy front wings on these F1 bodies; holds them in place better, and keeps them from dragging, and helps to support the entire front of the body as well.

 

This was something I first tried back in 2009 on a “non-rules” F1 chassis, where I built the chassis out to fill the space under the front wings, and even had pin tubes to hold the wings in place (see pic below). If the rules allowed for the chassis to be wider to fill the space under the F1 front wings, I would do so, as I deem it beneficial (whether anyone else does or not). But since the rules limit the width of the chassis at the front wings, I was limited to using the front tines in question, which are admittedly narrower than even I’d like them to be…

 

Hopefully my “fix” will be an acceptable resolution to this matter… Now, back to some other mindless fun…

 

Rick / CMF3

 

 

 

[Cheater]

I think that at this point of this safety issue, we should start to discuss reasonable chassis rules that would do away with forward facing "harpoons" as pictured above. I suggest something similar to:
 
1) No chassis components (features) allowed forward of the guide tongue (or the centerline of the guide flag post).

I agree that this is something we should discuss adding to the rules.

But, not sure I would agree with you regarding 1), as not only have their been stamped steel chassis in the past that would run afoul of such a restriction, but scratchbuilt ones as well. A couple of my old oval chassis would certainly not comply and I don't think they're any more dangerous than most chassis.

[Phil Hackett]

Your chance of getting injured by a slot car, even a G7 open wing car going over 100 MPH, are less then getting hit by lightning.

 
John Geddes was turn marshalling a G7 qualifying session (the Nats somewhere) when a motor had a stack explosion. He had bleeding cuts up his left forearm from the laminations hitting him. I'll let him know he should stay away from lightening storms and, if the force is strong, buy a lotto ticket.

[Rick Moore]

Another quick break from having fun…

 

Mike,

 

No kidding. Regardless, until such time that there are specific rules written that apply to everyone regarding min-max dimensional components of chassis structures that would be applicable to the front tines on my F1 chassis and cars, I will not be undertaking any such modifications as you’ve suggested. It would be easier just to design and build another chassis that would fit those rules as written when the time occurs...

 

Greg,

 

I try… Respectfully, if I had to design and build my chassis/cars for every possible hypothetical situation of debatable probability (and especially in this case after more than six years and about a dozen F1 chassis with no problems of any kind, and foregoing any comments about the relative safety of other classes of slot cars…), I just wouldn’t bother…

 

As for the proposal of a rule stating no chassis component “forward of the guide post,” that would knock out every chassis/car I have…

 

Oh well…

 

Rick / CMF3

[Greg VanPeenen]

Another quick break from having fun…
 
Mike,
 
No kidding. Regardless, until such time that there are specific rules written that apply to everyone regarding min-max dimensional components of chassis structures that would be applicable to the front tines on my F1 chassis and cars, I will not be undertaking any such modifications as you’ve suggested. It would be easier just to design and build another chassis that would fit those rules as written when the time occurs...
 
Greg,
 
I try… Respectfully, if I had to design and build my chassis/cars for every possible hypothetical situation of debatable probability (and especially in this case after more than six years and about a dozen F1 chassis with no problems of any kind, and foregoing any comments about the relative safety of other classes of slot cars…), I just wouldn’t bother…
 
As for the proposal of a rule stating no chassis component “forward of the guide post”, that would knock out every chassis/car I have…

 
Most of this BS comes about because the two or three people on this blog, who by the way, wouldn't know a base if one hit them in the rear most portion of the body. Thinking up mythical problems to go with their mythical solutions. I am sure the raceway owners worry about liability as they are the ones who will have to pay if someone gets injured by flying slot cars or slot car parts. If they found a problems with what you are or were running. I'am sure they would let it be known. And they wonder why we no longer have a Michigan, Indiana, or Illinois version of the IRRA^®. 
 

John Geddes was turn marshalling a G7 qualifying session (the Nats somewhere) when a motor had a stack explosion. He had bleeding cuts up his left forearm from the laminations hitting him. I'll let him know he should stay away from lightening storms and, if the force is strong, buy a lotto ticket.

 

Flying motor parts from a blowing up G7 motor are not a slot car. That would be more in the range of being hit by a meteorite. I personally know more people that have been hit by lightning than the people here say have been hit and injured by slot cars. LMAO.