92 replies to this topic

[Greg VanPeenen]

The whole stamped, formed, die-cut, laser cut controversy was battled out ad nauseam. 
 
New Mossetti chassis
 
I think the original intent was to separate formed steel from EDM spring steel.

 

I have nothing against Mosetti.

 

But, EDM, laser, water jet, etc., they all do away with expensive dies like JK and all before had to spring for. Smart move by Mossetti if you got someone who will turn a blind eye to the rules.

 

Can't just change a program and have a new part in minutes. Stamped means stamped. Not EDM, laser, or water jet cut then bent. Get it: stamped steel not cut.

 

If I were JK, I would laser a new pan out of much stronger aluminum and bend the pin tube uprights just like Mossetti. Then I would laser cut a new wider at the front center section after that. Then I would laser cut new stuff every week until the competition ran out of money.

 

GVP    

[Samiam]

So the intent of the rule was to keep tooling costs high?

 

No... I don't get it.

[Tom Thumb Hobbies]

No, it wasn't. I don't know how you got that from what has been written here.

 

The point is that without the need for a significant outlay of money for new dies to stamp chassis, something needs to be done to stop the proliferation of new chassis leading to a chassis of the week (or day) scenario. When it costs next to nothing to produce a new, or a variation, of a chassis there is a very real possibility that what you bought on Monday could be junk by Friday. How long would racers put up with that??

[Ramcatlarry]

Manufacturing technology is changing faster than the rules makers. A lot of 1950s 'stamping' was done on slower machines that had a slower 'pieces per day' count. Dies wear out and many times one die set could have slight 'imperfections' that were different enough to make an accidental difference.

 

Could be today's process has one set of dies making one batch run during a month/year and the dies are done. If parts are in a barrel on a warehouse floor does that mean the parts are in 'current production'? I think if a frame was ever legal for a class, it should always be legal. Whether it is competitive with a newer design should have no bearing in the design from being used in an event.

[Justin A. Porter]

I find the discussion of manufacturing methods rather amusing in a thread whose main concern is not whether or not the USRA, ISRA, or FNRS maintain Mossetti legality over its method of producing the blank from which the finished chassis is stamped.

The concern of the Ohio Challenge Cup, as rightly pointed out by both Greg Mayer and Dan Ebert, is whether or not we have allowed GT1 weights to slip to an untenable level.

I must reiterate, however, that without proper research carried out on race-ready modern cars - as I have announced my intent to do - there is no reasonable amount of data that tells us what would or would not be a realistic weight or if any should be enforced. Further, no such regulation would be introduced for the 2017-18 Ohio Challenge Cup season, as there is neither the data for a reasonable rule nor time enough for racers to make suitable adjustments particularly as a knee-jerk reaction rule could ban not only incoming equipment but also existing equipment.

I state again, we are plainly aware that the reduction in chassis weights is a potential issue but do not feel there is either the cause for alarm or the information necessary to rule at this time.

[Mad Mexican]

Amigos,

 

There are many varying different components that make up a successful racer and race program. Yes, the chassis is important but there are many other factors also.

 

Let me take a moment to list some basics. Know your equipment, understand what you have in a controller, and its capabilities. Understand your performance and capabilities as racer. Have the ability to practice and know your home race track. The gentleman that has started the post is a local parttime budget racer to no fault of his own, that just a plain fact. Yes. I saw the new Mossetti Defender knock out an awesome lap. Yes, it raise some eyebrows but consider the fact that the racer that put down that lap basically lives at the track, has a very good controller, understands his performance and capabilities.

 

Needless to say a budget or part time racer will throw their arms up in the air and say "No mas"!!! But he will not invest time at local track maybe upgrade or get a better understanding of their equipment also maybe eat some humble pie and take some advice.

 

I certainly ate a lot of humble pie in my lifetime. In my own personal experience I was having trouble dealing with my controller could not make consistent laps. The track owner suggested to change out my chip in my Difalco to make a smoother transition from power on and smoother braking I heeded his advice my lap totals increase from 177, 184 to my current personal lap total of 189 this past Wednesday all using some say an inferior JK X25 chassis. My total investment was time and a $16 chip.

 

Yes, the OCC will be keeping a close eye on this but you have to invest in yourself to get the results that you are looking for, that's it in a nutshell racers.

 

Adios Amigos

[MSwiss]

So the intent of the rule was to keep tooling costs high?

 

If the point is to keep them low, why not just allow spring steel plate chassis with solder-on pillow blocks, motor brace, and guide tongue?

That will eliminate the expensive bending tooling.

And the time racers spend flattening their "stamped" chassis can be spent doing some simple soldering.

[Samiam]

Mike,

 

Isn't that what happened in Box 12 and Intl 15?

 

I think a one year chassis design freeze would be a good idea in all rule sets.

 

For Sale: brand new Patriot in bag... $30 shipped. 10% to the blog.

[YetiSRP]

Ya' know...

 

When I look over my initial post, it seems to me that all I did was advocate adding a minimum weight rule to level the playing field with cars going lighter and lighter.

 

I said nothing about any manufacturer.

I said nothing about any chassis material.

I said nothing about any production process.

 

If Al Roker had forecasted the *poop* storm approaching I'd have been better prepared! ;-)

 

Maybe this was something that was napping for a while and I poked it with a stick.

 

Sorry.

[Frankie Schaffier]

Who really cares how they make the chassis? My guess is Mosetti has a stamp of some sort for bending the rear uprights, so lets call it stamped.. There.. That discussion solved. Don't like it, don't buy one.

I know I have fewer flexi cars in my box then I do Retro cars when I go to the track.

Poor Jim Bandes posted 32 posts ago asking about a weight limit and has had to read the usual amount of crap here. There used to be a 100 gram weight limit, looks like the change was made somewhere along the way and no one knows who or why either due to the timeframe or they are dead.. So Justin stated for the OCC, they will gather some data and talk about it at the end of the year. Sounds fair to me.

Personally... I'm thankful that Mosetti took the time to become a player in flexi racing.

[Rob Voska]

Ran OCC in about 2001-02 time frame. Never seen a car weighed, ever. Never heard of it so it was before my time.

Yes, the class was based off a Flexi 1/Turboflex, Parma 501 with an 1/8" axle, coupe bodies, gears were 48p 8/28 in Ohio and 9/28 in the NY series.

 

But then there were not many "competitive" choices or options back then...

[Samiam]

Ya' know...

 

When I look over my initial post, it seems to me that all I did was advocate adding a minimum weight rule to level the playing field with cars going lighter and lighter.

 

I said nothing about any manufacturer.

I said nothing about any chassis material.

I said nothing about any production process.

 

If Al Roker had forecasted the *poop* storm approaching I'd have been better prepared! ;-)

 

Maybe this was something that was napping for a while and I poked it with a stick.

 

Wait for the "built motor vs. sealed" argument to drift in.

 

I think a minimum weight in entry/lower level classes is a good idea. And it would apply to all chassis. No matter how they're made or by whom.

[Cheater]

YetiSRP, Mad Mexican, et al...
 
It seems clear to me that the majority (not all) of the posters to this thread seemingly are viewing the original question largely from a single viewpoint.
 
The racers seem primarily concerned about the overall situation as it relates to their own racing, and what they might have expend in time and money to succeed with their slot racing activity.
 
The series managers seem primarily concerned about the situation as it relates to the level of success and participation their racing series might receive. 
 
The raceway owners seem primarily concerned about the situation as it applies to the inventory they have to purchase to hang on their walls and their ability to sell it (if ever).
 
And while none have posted (although all the principal players all have active accounts here), I'd bet the manufacturers' primary concerns involve selling more product than their competitors and increasing their business at their competitor's expense.
 
In and of themselves, none of these viewpoints is morally or ethically bad or wrong.
 
Yet, there's a lot of incompatibility between these various perspectives, i.e. what might be positive for one group could be negative for others.

The question for me is: what direction is best for the overall 1/24 commercial track slot racing hobby/sport? What will provide the greatest total benefit for all parties? I'm pretty certain a chassis minimum weight limit for one or more classes isn't the answer to this question...
 
I don't have the answers, but it sure seems to me like the right question isn't being asked and that's my personal primary concern.
 
If anyone wants to dismiss this as Cheater back on his idée fixe soapbox, humor me this: go to the Slotblog Raceway List and, state by state, count the number of (non-dragstrip-only) raceways with 1/24 road courses where USRA, ISRA, FNRS, and Retro racing can be practiced. This is the elephant in the room for 1/24 slot racing at commercial raceways on wooden tracks and it is not being seen or acknowledged by very many.

 

If that isn't a serious concern to you, well, sorry to bother you with the content of this post.

[Tom Thumb Hobbies]

My apologies for the thread drift. My only intention was to raise an issue that IMO is a bigger threat to Flexi racing.

While my recent focus has been on Retro I do have over three decades experience with Flexi racing when the entry totals rivaled what Retro sees at its big events today.

And from that experience I can say with certainty that if Flexi racing becomes a "chassis of the week" affair, it will eventually die.

[ropon]

Good points from numerous individuals. But ultimately, the wallet will decide the outcome of the chassis of the week. I can afford to buy every new piece out there but choose not to on principle. I believe the growth of the hobby will continue if the overhead to the majority is stable.

 

As a couple have suggested, the wait period before acceptance is a good idea for consistency but not for those looking for the fastest lap. Eventually the changes will slow and a happy medium will be found.

Regarding Jim's original post, I agree there should be a minimum weight but for both, GT1-A and GT1-B.

[Cheater]

Mike,

No need to apologize for thread drift of any kind, even though Jim seems a little upset by it. I certainly am not. You certainly weren't the only one; I and others are guilty of that as well.

 

The trajectory of this thread strongly illustrates that many involved in 1/24 slot racing have significant concerns that are not being discussed or resolved.

The bottom line here is this: the 1/24 slot racing hobby simply has to stop its usual approach of trying to heal the patient by sticking band-aids on the shotgun blast wound. Or to use another metaphor, the hobby's higher-level problems are simply not going to be 'fixed' by 're-arranging the furniture on the Titanic,' though based on the actions in the past and now many participants seemingly believe that is an approach that will work.

[Cheater]

... as someone involved now all of this for 50 years and seen it before, that slot racing may be facing an implosion.

Just also wanted to point out that Jim's first sentence in his IP in many ways opened the door to the thread drift that has occurred.

Honestly, more and more, I am achieving a deeper level of empathy with the Greek mythological figure Cassandra...

[Brinkley47]

We are all going to be racing Hardbody break-outs soon so none of this will matter. 

[Cheater]

You may be right, Will, but the real question is where will you be racing them?

[Brinkley47]

Hopefully, I will have options so I never have to make that decision.

[Cheater]

Will,

Your #45 reminds me of the adage that one shouldn't consider playing the lottery to be an effective retirement plan, if you get my drift.

[YetiSRP]

If I stand on my toes, I think I can see the original thread.
 
That being said, I can look to the IRRA^®, Penn-Ohio and the ORS; we all use the same rules but not really.
 
When I advocated a minimum weight, at no point did I suggest that any chassis or chassis part be banned. People have already made 'investments' in equipment. My thought is also, no matter if the cars all weigh the same, some will believe one frame still handles better than another especially dependent of the track. That's great.
 
But no one is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying you have to have a minimum weight (BTW - 100 grams seems like a nice figure, doesn't?). In other words; 'We run OCC rules but with no minimum weight.' You run at Stinky's Raceway, you use weight. You race at Sneaky Pete's, you remove the lead. Ain't really that hard. Within the OCC series, whatever they do, it'll be the same from track to track. Go to another series, just get the head's up if they have a minimum weight or not.
 
Minimum weight or not, the raceway will still sell frames.
 
People act like if a raceway can't sell a specific frames, it's going to close, be burned down, and the earth salted. Ya' sell bodies, tires, braid, axles and, oh, did I mention Retro Hawk motors? How many do you sell to get a good one?
 
If anyone has a good perspective of the hobby over the decades, it's Mike. Things just need to be reined it a bit and maybe it's a stop-gap measure while it's figured out how to look at the bigger picture.

[Cheater]

Things just need to be reined it a bit and maybe it's a stop-gap measure while it's figured out how to look at the bigger picture.

Big thumbs-up on this, but we really need to find some way to convince a larger group of the necessity of taking the "bigger picture" viewpoint. So far, my efforts in that direction have failed pretty miserably.

[Brinkley47]

I don't get your drift.

[Cheater]

Then I will explain.

Hoping there will be a raceway (or even suppliers selling motors, bodies, etc.) for you to race your Hardbody cars on two or three decades down the road is pretty much the same as hoping you'll have enough money to support yourself in your old age because you expect to win the lottery before all your savings are gone.