162 replies to this topic

[TSR]

One more chance for everyone to b*tch and moan... :mrgreen:

[BigDaddySlotRat]

:? WHERE CAN I SEE A PICTURE OF THIS STYLE CHASSIS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO RACE IN THIS CLASS
SOUNDS LIKE A TON OF FUN :!:
DON'T FORGET THE BODIES. PICS. WOULD HELP ALOT :!: :!:

[slotbaker]

f. Front axle: A single front axle is required, carrying both front wheels. The axle may be fixed or in a tube. NO hinged front wheel movements are allowed (i.e. no “L” arms or Iso-fulcrums).

Sounds like a great class.

Can you please elaborate the Iso-fulcrum part of this?
When I see Iso-fulcrum, I think Cox Cuc, so I'm not sure what would be wrong with that type of front axle.

[idare2bdul]

what would be wrong with that type of front axle.

It's an arbitrary rule to keep things simple. Why not 9 yards for a first down? That kind of thing.

[TSR]

DON'T FORGET THE BODIES. PICS. WOULD HELP ALOT

1969 Ti22



1969 Abarth 2-liter



1967 Lola T160



1969 Ferrari 312P

There are also 2 McLaren, a 1966 MK6 and a 1967 MK8, made by two different companies, plus a few more. The cut-off date for bodies is October 1969, and only reproduction of old molds are allowed, no "new-old" tooling.
This to eliminate technocrats right in the egg. The same goes for "A" or "L" arm chassis: the front wheels MUST be fitted on a straight axle, period.

In keeping the class simple and low-tech, more will be tempted to race it. And so far, it works!

[endbelldrive]

Dokk,

It was mentioned somewhere on another thread that Electric Dreams might also have the Russkit Cro-Sal Olds Can Am in stock. Is it truth or rumour?

[slotbaker]

what would be wrong with that type of front axle.

It's an arbitrary rule to keep things simple. Why not 9 yards for a first down? That kind of thing.

OK, I understang the KISS thing, and the 9 yards thing, but . . .

I'm just trying to understand the difference.
What does the "Iso-fulcrum" part play in the front axle rule?
What does an Iso-fulcrum front axle look like? and how does it differ to "f. Front axle: A single front axle is required, carrying both front wheels. The axle may be fixed or in a tube"
:?

[Slotgeezer]

Steve....
Good photos of the iso-fulcrom concept under the "Thingie" heading here on the Blog... :think:
I've built two... one for (ahem) Can-Am (sorry, boys.. ) & one for Hardbody NASCAR 36D class... still awaiting results of track testing... the Hardbody works well, & I added some more weight to increase stability... w/ the front wheels & axle assembly separated from the chassis center section, the center section needs to be heavy enough to "hold" the car down in the slot, while the front axle assembly tries to stabilize the entire car, while rounding the corners... limiting the up-down movement of the iso-fulcom assembly helps to stabilize the entire car, but you'll want to see how it works w/ a LIMITED amount of "drop", like .060" or less... :think: ...
Family obligations have stopped my current testing program... :mrgreen: ... I hope to resume track testing this weekend...
Take care, Steve! ... Good luck, looking! ... & good racing!

[TSR]

Please repeat after me:

K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S....
K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S....
K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S....
K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S....
K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S....
K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S.... K.I.S.S....

If you want an Iso, Cucaracha frames are legal for the class.

[TSR]

It's called insomnia. 2.18AM today... :|

[gascarnut]

If you want an Iso, Cucaracha frames are legal for the class.

I don't think so:

"a. Chassis type: Any personally-built or commercially available scratch built chassis conforming to these specifications and to the spirit of the intent statement is allowed."

I do agree with the KISS sentiments though.....

The iso-fulcrum principle allows the weight of the motor to ride on the guide while the front wheels support the rest of the chassis. This can also be achieved by the use of the "L" axles seen on a number of later chassis designs, and as pioneered by Philippe's Diamond chassis. In the interests of KISS, the rules have outlawed both of these designs for this class. These principles will fit much better into an anglewinder class at a later time in the development of the Division III classes.

[TSR]

Hi Dennis,
Fully agreed, I was merely jesting as usual.
Why does no one understand my plaisanteries? :| :boohoo: :cry: :smokin:

[gascarnut]

Fully agreed, I was merely jesting as usual.
Why does no one understand my plaisanteries? :| :boohoo: :cry: :smokin:

I can't speak for others, but personally:

1. I don't read "iconese" very well.
2. I don't expect anyone to be "jesting" about rules or their interpretation. But that is just my own expectation, and may not be shared by others.
3. At the last race, the racers were introduced to the four people to whom all questions regarding the rules and their interpretations are meant to be directed: Paul Sterrett, Mike Steube, Tore Anderson, and myself. Granted, not everyone on this thread knows that yet, but I would think that those who do should be referring those who don't to the appropriate sources for rules interpretations. In the long run, the fewer people who are interpreting the rules, the more consistent they will be, IMO.

Some questions are easily answered just by reading the rules as they have been released. In some cases, however, there will be a need for discussion amongst the four people mentioned before a final decision is issued, and there may be some need to adjust the wording of the rules to clarify their intent or to add something that has been overlooked. That is all good, as this whole Division is still in its infancy and undergoing development.

Peace?

[TSR]

Hi Dennis,
There is never any war with me! I agreed from Day One that the class should be:
1/ low-tech
2/ simple
3/ even more simple
4/ fun
I think that so far, all points have been achieved, and the simplest chassis won all 3 races.
So, no Cucaracha chassis will be allowed, it's a deal!

[Slotgeezer]

Hello, Dennis!
Hello, Dokk!

I checked w/ Mr. Sterret b/4 attempting to build my iso-fulcrom chassis... he & I had discussed the issue, after Dennis had "thrown a chassis across the garage", & agreed that if the ONLY movement in the chassis was the iso-fulcrom movement, then it should be within "the spirit of the rules" :think: ... I'd seen the Shinoda-style chassis, here on the Blog, & thought they'd make an interesting project... the John Skeels-type iso was different, w/ the front wheels hinged just ahead of the anglewinder "motor box" area, & the side pans attached to the main center section, as I'm sure you both remember... but, it also incorporated hinged tilt pans, a hinged plumber movement, & later a hinged bite bar, which weren't "period-correct" for this era of slot racing... so, in keeping w/ the 60's-era motif, I built it like a 60's-era Shinoda chassis ... & as HEAVY as the car is that I built, it'll be a "B" car! LOL! 132.8 grams!! YOUCH! :shock: LOL! ... Can you say, "bullet-proof" assembly technique?! :roll: ... I have a JK II w/ some good low-end punch to put in it, to push it around the Hillclimb... testing pending! ... :mrgreen:
Thanks, gentlemen... looking forward to the 12th & racing again... C U then !!!

[TSR]

Jeff,
The Iso chassis as you describe was first born in 1971 and widely used in California and the Midwest. Most famous example is that of Jan Limpach who dominated the Parma Nats in 1972 with one. Tony P., Monty Ohren also built many, as well as Neil Kuhns and Dave Fortner, also in 1972 and 1973. John Skeel's car is a much-later evolution of those.
I don't know anything about Iso-type frames in the Nostalgia Can-Am but if they are allowed, it means that those chassis would have to respond to the rules as they are and hopefully will stay, I.E. a hinged or floating movement is only permitted in ONE direction.
I am personally against any other movement than a simple hinged set of side pans but it is just my opinion and I don't make the rules.
Regards,

Dennis, does this mean that my Cuc chassis is now legal? :mrgreen:

[gascarnut]

I guess that Paul, Mike, Tore and I would need to discuss this. The elimination of Iso-fulcrum hinges in the rulles was based directly on a quote in one of Philippe's own posts on this subject, and has been in the rules from the beginning. If Paul has given the OK for Iso-fulcrum chassis then perhaps he discussed it with Mike and Tore, but he hasn't talked to me about it - not that he needs to, but since I'm the only one of the 4 that is posting here, maybe I should know about these decisions.

BTW it was the "other" Dennis (Foamy) that threw a frame across his garage when he read this rule, so hopefully he will be OK with the rule being changed now, if indeed it is or will be.

Personally, I would not like to see this rule relaxed, as it will lead to the use of "L" axles and "diamond" front ends etc that go against the intent of the class.

And Philippe, no, this still doesn't make a Cuc chassis legal, unless you scratch built it from brass and wire! Aluminum is not on the list of approved materials, neither are any non-scratch built frames! Sorry......(and I know you are jesting this time )

[idare2bdul]

The current rules I think are very new builder friendly. Seems like change won't benefit them, but I'm open to being informed of the error of my ways.

[BWA]

I think this last line from rule b would immediatly nix the Cuc. chassis.

"Stamped steel parts (other than guide tongues) and EDM or laser-cut parts of any material are not allowed."

Maybe better reword it to stamped steel or Aluminum

Anyway, rule b generally would rule out any stamped production type chassis, or, maybe a sentence like this could be added just for utmost clarrity. P always did like a good Clarrit I'm told.

[TSR]

Personally, I would not like to see this rule relaxed, as it will lead to the use of "L" axles and "diamond" front ends etc that go against the intent of the class.

We sure agree on this one and I would hate to see ANY of it relaxed.

[Larry LS]

When exacly did the Cox Cuc hit the market?

Because as soon as I had one in hand, I was building Iso type chassis for my self and for at least 10 other guys here on the Central Coast of CA.
Seems like it was 68 or 69 as we were running them on the old American orange track in Pismo Beach above the Skating Rink then. They worked great with all brass rod and brass plate chassis. We threw all the drop arms away after that.

[BWA]

Here's another question, what about a Dynamic Midwest Pan style car, certainly fits the era/criteria

[Slotgeezer]

Well, as long as the "solid front axle, either in an axle tube or soldered directly onto the main rails" criteria is maintained, I think trying an iso-fulcrom chassis would be interesting.... :?
I'll gladly abide by the final decision of the Rules Committee :up: ... & I've started building a "conventional" style chassis... guess my creativity is not "in the spirit of the intent of the class"... :think: ... But, scracthbuilders always enjoy trying new designs, whether they're considered "legal" or not, eh? ... Just our nature, I guess... build a better mousetrap, so that I can attempt to compete w/ the "dynamic trio" of Tore, Mike, & Phillipe! LOL!
Thanks, guys... we'll get it sorted out...maybe! LOL! ... Good racing!

[BWA]

so that I can attempt to compete w/ the "dynamic trio" of Tore, Mike, & Phillipe! LOL!

So, those guys ARE using Dynamic chassis, well, that answers my question then. 8)