80 replies to this topic

[tonyp]

You have to remember that the original slot car track builders like Engleman and American were mass producing tracks which at the time were fine for the speeds of the cars. When the cars of the day were running 8 seconds on a king track no one would ever envision lap times in the 2 second bracket would ever be possible.

[MSwiss]

Mike, I don't know what to say, I think you're reading into it too much.

 

But as far as the early producers and tires, sometimes it's just a matter of a lightbulb going off, like mounting from the can instead of the endbell, or soldering in the motor.  Maybe making swirly silicones on chrome-plated plastic rims was more of a priority than traction - who knows.  Regardless, the notion of using fresh rubber in 1968 I don't think is that farfetched.

 

"More effort" was probably an unfortunate choice of words with respect to trackbuilders of the time.  I guess I was referring to something like removing the humps out of the straights.  I know that raceworthy tracks existed at the time.

 

 

I guess what I am saying, big-picture, is that the scene evolving in a different direction was a distinct possibility with a tweak to a few variables, had we thought of them.  Mine may be the ones or there may be others, I was just throwing some ideas out.

 

 

On the other hand, the notion that the scene evolved the way it did because absolutely no other scenario was possible, is ridicuous.

I was out of this, until you edited in your last line.

 

Too many maybe's in your argument.

 

"Regardless, the notion of using fresh rubber in 1968 I don't think is that farfetched".

 

I think it is.

 

Probably 50 million tires got made in that era, but yet no one stumbled on fish rubber.

 

Of course the scene could of evolved a different way.

 

And with lap times a lot slower, running on silicones?

 

Why would slot racers sacrifice speed, especially when they started touting Blue King World Records?

 

There were classes, in 1/1 racing,where virtually anything goes, like Can-Am.

 

Then there is funny cars and top fuel dragsters.

 

Nothing was done to tame down that insanity, until Scott Kalitta lost his life.

 

And what was being risked in heavy glue slot racing?

 

Getting sticky? LOL

 

PS-and you're touting the center line hinge, that the "not try hard enough", 60's -70's Pro's couldn't come up with, as some major innovation?

 

If it was so terrific, why don't they even use them in 1/24th Eurosport anymore?

[Martin]

Hey Guys, I think its fun to change one variable (like no no glue) and let the mother of invention proceed and take an imaginary alternate path. But to boil it all down IF there was no glue there would have been a lot more focus on tires tech I think we can agree on that. When you say those better tires did not exist, I think you mean you could not buy them over the counter. But hey,all the pros were building there own cars anyway,very little of it was store bought over the counter. Chassis and motors are a good example of that

Another point speed was never a prerequisite for good racing. Solid rules and a level playing field is. I have more fun racing slower classes as long as we are all building cars to the same rules, and that's probably why sealed motor classes are popular now.  I realize this is visionary history but maybe this alternate scenario MAY of kept slots alive longer. A slot car world without glue hmmmmm.

   

Not to be contradictory but In the 1/1 racing examples you mention, there are more rules in one of those classes than all the rules in all the slot classes combined, most of  those rules are trying to keep the speeds down or maintain a steady slow improvement as safety keeps pace with the increased speeds. I know this arena well. F1 may look unlimited also from the outside but their rule book is the size of a encyclopedia.  Still no rules have ever slowed race cars down for long. The designers refine old ideas or look somewhere else for that edge. 

Change one thing and the racer in all of us will find a way to go faster than your competitor,even if it means trying unconventional solutions that's how we got were we are today in our sport.  

[Samiam]

    Big wings and spoilers and gobs of messy sticky goo were band-aids and crutches, not medicine or a cure. Now that the patient is well and the wounds have healed, there really is no need for the grossly oversized aero or disgusting sticky goo.

 

    I have taken some of these vintage cars, tossed the winged chassis cover, and mounted a current Ti-22 body. With recycled Retro rubber, the car was a fun car to drive. I will be ordering some Retro-Pro bodies with more down force. With proper rubber I think these cars can perform very well without the band-aids and crutches of the past.,  

 

   As far as 1:1 comparisons go......How would FOUR FOOT HIGH side dams and spoilers go over on any race car?

[MSwiss]

    As far as 1:1 comparisons go......How would FOUR FOOT HIGH side dams and spoilers go over on any race car?

 

I guess not too well, because they wouldn't be tall enough.

 

These look about 6 feet tall. LOL.

 

[Samiam]

He needed more glue.

[MSwiss]

Big wings and spoilers and gobs of messy sticky goo were band-aids and crutches, not medicine or a cure.

 

Guys certainly dealt with it in the mid-'90s.

At the '95 Lugnut Nats, they had 96 or 98 guys in G27 alone, and that was when Pros were limited to only running Pro.

Bottom line, there had to be at least 175 racers at that event.

Where do you see those kind of numbers now, in your non gobs of glue events?

[Samiam]

Where are those guys now? 

 

There was so much gloopy gooey gobs of glue at big Wing races I wouldn't even come to watch. I didn't think breathing in the glue was prudent. I did race Int.-15 at a local level though. 

 

Like Martin I wonder what would have been if the rules makers and track owners just said NO to glue. Just look at Retro-Pro cars today. Very fast cars with no glue,no wings and under 100 grams.

[MSwiss]

No glue?

There is a ton of glue on your Retro East tracks.

It was just sprayed on, with a lot of naptha evaporating, in the process.

[Martin]

So you guys have all looked at these 3 top Pro built chassis, all have 1/8" axles, so the next challenge is what year are these from and what is/are your reason(s).

 

Mike thanks for the video treat, WOW!

[Martin]

 I think it would have been built with 3/32 axles in late 69 or early 70 at the latest. So am I wrong in thinking my Emott with 1/8" axles and  split pans dates it to 1969? to me it looks the same technology as Bobs chassis raced in Tottenham. Please enlighten me if I am wrong on this.

 

I did a little more research and found this on axle size. Not that size matters unless you are trying to find a time line on development.

 

The Emott Archives

In post #18 and # 20 Bob mentioned the change to 3/32" here. Who knows what race and date he is referring to? Then that date would mean my chassis would have been built before that date?

Bob wrote

"Tony...
That may be the first 3/32" axle car... I think it is the car I built to run at a big race in Texas that I didn't get to race in... Huh!...

 

Jerry Brady and I were sharing a room and we overslept and missed the close of tech after working overnight to finish our cars... The race director asked the other racers to vote on wether we should be allowed to enter late. So being sleep-deprived and a bit stupid, we put our cars in paper bags so no-one would see our new SUPER DUPER STATE OF THE ART LOW-CG chassis, and waited for the vote... He explained that if ONE person voted no, we would not be allowed to enter... Well, there was one no vote... I don't remember who. So we made the trip to Texas for nothing...

But, we did get to meet the immortal "Hump", one of the neatest guys I ever met in slot racing... But Hump is another long story... PVA and Jerry would remember him!!!

BTW, I tried my car at Nutley after we got back and it was nothing special, just a good car... But from then on, everyone changed to 3/32" axles... And I gave up on the ultimate low CG idea... Too much work for too little gain... but it seemed like a good idea at the time..."

A mission statement of sorts 

Steve Okeefe wrote

Post #7 and 8 "The Dallas Pro-Am, where Bob and Jerry Brady had (but didn't get to run) the first cars with 3/32" axles, was on July 4th, 1969."

[tonyp]

Martin,

 

It was probably very late '69 or most probably early '70. It took quite awhile for gears and tires to come out for the smaller axles. Nutley had machined adaptors but they were a pain to use so most stuck with 1/8" axles at least in the rear until proper gears and tires were available.
 

[Martin]

So, Tony, you have looked at the two Steube and one Emott chassis. Are you thinking they were built late '69-early '70?

 

They all came from the same racer's box.

[tonyp]

They all look from the same era.

[Martin]

I agree, thanks for your thoughts on this. I was comparing the build of Blackwells Tottenham car and my Emott car and found them to be the same style and technology. So that's why I also dated my car to that late '69 period.

[TSR]

I agree with Tony. The cars you have are definitely from 1970, I would say mid-year. The 3/32" axles were still timidly being used in 1970, and even in 1971, lots of pro cars retained 1/8" axles. 

At that time, the Champion Bloom-Waters McLaren was the body most used on the East Coast, with rear spoiler and partial side dams, plus added front diaplane and sometimes partial dams around the front wheels wells. Here is a typical example of a West Coast 1971 car, an exacting replica of one of my own cars by Paul Dwyer:



This body is on the 1971 car built by Mike Steube for Bruce Paschal and shows the aero used on the West Coast,  and the Associated ferrari 612 was the favorite body that year:



It is quite difficult to find period pro cars with their original bodies, motor, tires... so this is a true survivor. 


 

[Martin]

If you have time, I am asking one more time, why is the Blackwell and Bobs Tottenham  race cars and my Emott car not the same style and technology. To me they look the same. What am I missing? Tell me what you see as the difference so I can make a more informed opinion.  

 

The 1971 car built by Mike Steube for Bruce Paschal is much later than my cars, I see that, can drive, 3/32" axles, and the brass is probably .032" pans .040" drop arm now that downforce is coming into play.  

[TSR]

Martin, it will all be clear as you read the book, but now I am leaving on a trip for a few weeks to address motorcycle matters, sorry! 

[Samiam]

Ahhhh... The book. 

 

Be careful on those bikes, Philippe. Shiny side up.

[Martin]

Good enough, I will write my own book until you get back

 

I am a bike guy. You buying, selling or ridding? Have fun which ever. If you ever need a frame designer/fabricator, love to work with you.

 

Sam,

Or rubber side down. Is also a good thing.

[TSR]

Martin, riding.
This one and two others:

 

 

 

[Tom Eatherly]

Those chassis in the first picture's look like something John Stephan would have bought from Mike Stuebe back in the day. IIRC, he was a regular customer then and earlier. Just a thought.

[Martin]

That's a rare bird. Nice.

 

Are you going to Goodwood by any chance?

[TSR]

Not unless His Lordship sends me an all-expense paid vacation there... the only way I could afford to go.  

[Martin]

Sad, always wanted to go myself. One day maybe when I go back to see my dad. He was also a long time motorcyclist.