319 replies to this topic

[SlowBeas]

My point is that nothing new is being said. It's merely becoming a rehash of everything that was stated previously.

 

IMO, we have clearly and strongly stated our concerns; the manufacturer/distributor is aware; he is trying to help determine a course of action; some have agreed to help.

 

Is there any further constructive comment to be made?

[jimht]

New thoughts, sure, I personally would like to see a sealed FK motor that was faster than a Hawk 7.

 

The complaints in this thread are about variations in either performance or quality.

 

JK is doing as much as possible to improve quality at the price point but the performance issue has to do with us and the tracks we run on.

One size doesn't fit all.

 

All the various past and currently available iterations of the FK from various sources, Pla-fit, JK, H&R, Professor Motor, Trinity, Fast Ones etc. have been relatively mild winds that are just not enough on punchbowl tracks.

 

Would it be possible to make something with a hotter arm for ~$20 that would be useful for a couple of races?

 

Can an FK be produced that will last longer than a couple of pairs of tires and have a 29 gauge wind?

 

I assume the arm would have to be more bullet-proof and maybe the brushes would be an issue but the current can, magnets and endbells should be adequate.

 

To me it's simply a question to throw at the manufacturer, instead of telling them how to build motors we tell them what we want and ask them if they can make it at the required price point.

 

[John Streisguth]

My 2 cents...unless you can control every step of the manufacturing, you will always have issues like this. Everyone knows the situation with stuff coming from China, and for probably 99.9% of the applications these motors go into it matters ZIP.  As Tony said, it is what it is, so now what is the best way to level out the field a little bit.  It seems some people have figured out how to make at least some of the 7R motors fast.  All my best motors except one are from 2015.  Maybe I'll figure something out before the next batch comes out, which hopefully will be better.  I've see a lot of info in these discussions that I need to apply to the motors I have to see what may help.  For specific regions, if limiting some or all classes to 7R motors is what works for them, that's their decision but I don't necessarily believe that should apply to the official rule set.  A year from now we'll be on to some new "issue"  (one way or the other, there will be some resolve)

[swodem]

The fact is the motor is under powered and it’s being used at absolute full power for extended distances on the track. Of course some will be better, it’s no different to any manufactured item made up of many parts. You and I could have identical family cars and they will have real noticeable performance differences if we swapped.
We should be using G12 c-cans and choking the surplus power like the old days if you want to have motor equality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Rob Voska]

Swoden, How can it be that you & zippity are from the same planet.... uh...... I mean country?  You're logical and he's..... well...... errrrr. ......you know..... !

[MSwiss]

The fact is the motor is underpowered and it’s being used at absolute full power for extended distances on the track. Of course some will better, it’s no different to any manufactured item made up of many parts. You and I could have identical family cars and they will have real noticeable performance differences if we swapped.
We should be using G12 C-cans and choking the surplus power like the old days if you want to have motor equality

 

I agree with everything you say.

I proposed the same idea in about 2001 , on OWH, in a thread about motor inequality in the restricted classes(up to G12?) in scale racing.

IIRC, I suggested a G20 with choke. 

 

It's been brought back up and I think an experimental race has been scheduled.(edit-possibly at Mid-America...if so, I'll try to check it out)

The inherent problem with the concept is human nature. Once a racer is behind, it's natural for him to try less choke to catch up.

Also with choke bypasses, are you going to have guys blasting down the straightaway, catching the conservative racers in the bank, and sending them into the wall?

Bottom line, it's difficult to believe it wouldn't lead to sloppy racing.

[swodem]

Swiss,

 

Re: your last concern, would the fast guys and slow guys be in the same race? Prob not, at major events. Qualifying would stream them.

[Rob Voska]

Someone asked for another direction.  More and more are seeing the punch bowl tracks as a large part of the problem.  Equipment has advanced beyond the 50+ year old banked track designs.  How many have thought the sealed motors, just buy more, you have no other options, is the problem?  What I am saying is by year 3 I was fed up with stickers & cheats. My choices were to cheat (can't beat them join them), move to a built motor class or quit.  There was no local class to move to so I literally had to start my own group 10 class.  It grew leaps and bounds, track sold tons of stuff (tire truer's, power supplies, controllers, chassis, setup's, arms and did motor work) & was some great racing and gave guys "hope".  Sealed motor racing gives someone handcuffs.  If they don't feel they are getting a fair shake they have few choices.  Another way to look at it is sealed motor racing is fine for beginners but once you advance beyond that point you end up being a baby seal clubber.  We need a ladder of progression so advanced or people that have decades of experience run against advanced and beginners against beginners.  We clearly do not have that at the local level with so few entries so why would / should anyone want to stick around for something they are not enjoying?  Have to bring back the fun.

[jimht]

The FKs being run are using a wind that was arbitrarily decided to be The One. It's not...in all cases.

 

It's unnecessary to negate the concept of sealed motors to have faster motors.

 

Many of us retrobates reminisce about/propose returning to the old ways, rebuild to go fast, you've got to learn motor rocket science to go fast, you've got to pay your dues to go fast and you've got to spend money to go fast.

 

Bull.

 

Faster wind equals more speed, controlling parameters equals reliability at a particular price point.

 

And, BTW, the reason we keep score is so that the best rise to the top, not to make it difficult or keep out the unworthy beginners.    

[Samiam]

  If I'm recalling this correctly, didn't Wing car Box-12 and Int-15 abandon brass,wire and steel soldered chassis because the speed had exceeded the survive-ability of the chassis? For Retro racing I think we have a fast enough motor now. Sub 4 sec. laps on King tracks with pre 70s style bodies and only a 1/2" added spoiler is enough speed for these brass 'n wire cars. The sealed can motor format has been proven successful by the ever increasing number of entries and influx of younger drivers. Not to mention the international involvement in the class.

 

  Let's not worry about making any big changes until seven guys show up for a big race.

*

[Bob Kurkowski]

Your not recalling it correctly.

 

Bob K.

[LindsayB]

While we are talking about the Hawk 7 and performance differences - I am not sure there is any class in racing where motor performance differentials are not a problem regardless of the cost of the motor:

 

Specifically - Box 12, C12, I15, 27lite and Grp 7. This is much more noticeable on the new faster tracks where driving gets taken out of the equation. So seeing performance differentials with a $12 motor - I think you need to live with it and hope the next batch is better. Maybe adjust weight limits to cope with less performance.

[LindsayB]

I will add to my comment above - this may not be appropriate for large races but should work at club level.  I crew on a sailboat during twilight races - they have a handicap system - yachts s that are different have different start times - yachts  that are the same also get different start times - say if you won last week you start 5 minutes after second place boat.

 

With horse racing - they apply weight penalties to even out the field. So if someone has a rocket ship old motor and they keep winning - add weight until you equalize the field.

[MSwiss]

Lindsay,

Since I've installed infinitely adjustable power on my King, I considered a handicap race with the slower guys getting a touch more voltage.

 

The problem is slower guys usually aren't slower because they are slow down the straight.

 

They are slower because they are slower in the turns/fall off more.

 

Bottom line is I think it would lead to bad racing, to where the slow guys fall off more, or racing where the better drivers would have to resort to nerfing to get past the drivers with more voltage.

[Phil Hackett]

The idea of racing is to make the most laps in the race, regardless of the conditions. The race might be "messy" or chaotic but the notion that the racing should be "beautiful" is very odd.

[MSwiss]

Phil,
You are speaking from the prospective of someone who has spent most of his slot racing career running in semi-pro, G7, hammerfests, and AFAIK, has never run in a clean Retro race.

All my racers prefer good conditions and enjoy clean racing.

Of course, with Retro, you could run on a dry track, or limit the tire width to .250", and that would take the motor out of equation.

But that would be a different type of race.

Slot racing, in general, hasn't been a "Let's make the rules so the cars are difficult to drive" form of racing, and Retro racing, even more so.

[Jay Guard]

OK, you guys want RADICAL, here it is....

Change the body rules to allow bodies that were from the pre-aero era, maybe something like 1966-67 instead of 1969.  In addition do not allow any add on spoilers.  This approach would shift the emphasis away from the motor and to driving ability.  Yes, the motor would still be a significant factor and yes, most of the top guys will still be at the top, but that is because of their ability and not because of how many motors someone can buy.  In my opinion IRRA Retro Racing is getting dangerously close to becoming wing car racing without the wings, especially so on the punchbowl type tracks that many of the races are being run on.  Just my $0.02, YMMV. 

[bbr]

Hmm...at BPR,
Fast guys running 3.7s retro can am
Group F RH 3.2s

[Steve Deiters]

Interesting suggestion from Jay Guard. Going to the earlier bodies ( Lancer Lola T-70 comes to mind Maybe Lotus 40 which were the “go to bodies” back in the day...) would trigger a shift to narrower chassis I think. I believe those bodies are narrower than what we used these days. If I recall the shift to “wider” bodies started in the early ‘70’s.

Not suggesting we make a shift, but it’s a good observation that brings into the discussion an approach for a conversation that has become way overheated on the internet.

[John Streisguth]

Retro East used to have an active "jaildoor" class before entry levels got to where a third class was no longer feasible.  Unless you also restrict the chassis and tires, the bodies will not have a lot of effect, IMO.  Easier would be to mandate narrower tires and no rear spoiler, maybe even more front chassis clearance. But I think these would have a small overall effect, and in reality the top guys will not change. There might be more carnage in the lower mains.

 

Unless everyone starts running on tracks the size of a regal/royal, motors will be a factor no matter what.  They were even in the jaildoor races

[NJ Racer]

FWIW... the JK Falcon II was perfect for the "Jaildoor" class on short tracks. Driving ability was the predominant factor to make the podium. 

[JimF]

Hmm...at BPR,
Fast guys running 3.7s retro can am
Group F RH 3.2s

 

Significant diff but very different cars. I think if one were to put a group F wing body on a 3.7 sec Can Am car, the difference would be smaller. Replace a BPR TI-22 with the type of Retro body (Parma NN or the like) that Jay is referring to..........difference would be smaller yet.

 

I have no idea whether a classic Lola T-160 with no spoiler would really slow down guys like Willy or Duran much on a "punchbowl" track very much but I'd guess that on a flatter track, it just might. I don't know if that would take the motor out of the equation completely..........probably not.

 

I know Jay would remember back in the (distant past) infancy of the NorCal flexi series, we had a class called "A Stock". It was a grp. 12 motor in a (mostly) Champion Astro chassis with slammed stock car bodies. The motors were too fast for the package they were in and at the time, I never worried about the motor being all that great. Naturally one wouldn't select a dud but an average one was just fine and maybe better than a rocket. Of course the tracks were much flatter then than now as well. 

[bbr]

I’m looking down the driver’s panel and sometimes I can’t see past the next guy (fat).

So we should have biathlon events where in-between heats we have 3 mins to make 5 laps around the building. So now you need a fast motor and be in shape.

[Phil Hackett]

Phil,
You are speaking from the prospective of someone who has spent most of his slot racing career running in semi-pro, G7, hammerfests, and AFAIK, has never run in a clean Retro race.

All my racers prefer good conditions and enjoy clean racing.

Of course, with Retro, you could run on a dry track, or limit the tire width to .250", and that would take the motor out of equation.

But that would be a different type of race.

Slot racing, in general, hasn't been a "Let's make the rules so the cars are difficult to drive" form of racing, and Retro racing, even more so.

 

You're correct, I haven't *driven* a slot car since the 1990s. Things and sensibilities have changed since then so I don't participate but I still contend the idea of "beautiful" racing is odd.

 

I have run in clean close races. Those weren't in the USRA for sure... I won the 2 second series championship (it was a local LA series put on by the tracks) by 8 feet. That series ran motors powerful enough to cause hammerfests but they never happened because of other limitations .(this was over 40 years ago, so forgive me if I don't remember the details).

 

Why not just turn the voltage down to 10v and be done with it? If no one can fall off except in gross over-driving you have achieved the goal of "clean racing" without all the complaining about motors. It would be all about the track power: mission accomplished.

[Phil Hackett]

OK, you guys want RADICAL, here it is....

Change the body rules to allow bodies that were from the pre-aero era, maybe something like 1966-67 instead of 1969.  In addition do not allow any add on spoilers.  This approach would shift the emphasis away from the motor and to driving ability.  Yes, the motor would still be a significant factor and yes, most of the top guys will still be at the top, but that is because of their ability and not because of how many motors someone can buy.  In my opinion IRRA Retro Racing is getting dangerously close to becoming wing car racing without the wings, especially so on the punchbowl type tracks that many of the races are being run on.  Just my $0.02, YMMV. 

 

And require 1960s-early 70s style Parma controllers with the steel triggers, 18 gauge leads and a fixed resistor. It's all about the chassis and driving, right?