152 replies to this topic

[Dave Crevie]

Sure Dave but under who's banner?  The IRRA actually did have a Retro Flexi class way back early on but dropped it for a number of reasons.  I think making it essentially an existing class with very few modifications it might be possible to get the IRRA to try out the new class.  Especially so since Trans Am is really very "Retro".

 

It doesn't need a "banner". There are many series around the country that don't have an affiliation with a particular ruling body. Personally, I feel a scratchbuilt chassis class is just the wrong way to go. There are too few guys with interest in getting started with the skill to build a chassis. Try getting a manufacturer willing to sell his older, out of date chassis at a discount to get them out of his warehouse. Use an easily obtained mid-performance motor. A vintage Trans-Am body would be great for this ground level class. Then develop a "step-up" class, using current stamped steel chassis, faster motors, and late model Trans-Am bodies. Now there is a goal for the new racers, and they can decide what path they want to take after they have mastered that class. There is where the new blood is going to come from in this hobby.   

[Eddie Fleming]

Dave I like your ideas with old stamped steel chassis and an entry class. It is much closer to the EZ class i was talking about earlier ( http://slotblog.net/...99563-class-ez/ ) than to Scots idea. 

 

Scott is not talking about an entry class but rather a different fun builders class in the retro style. 

 

At least that is the way I see it.

[snolde]

Dave I like your ideas with old stamped steel chassis and an entry class. It is much closer to the EZ class i was talking about earlier ( http://slotblog.net/...99563-class-ez/ ) than to Scots idea. 

 

Scott is not talking about an entry class but rather a different fun builders class in the retro style. 

 

At least that is the way I see it.

Exactly Eddie,

No reason that both can't be done.

I do like Jay's idea about modifying the current IRRA coupe rules a little in order to make a Trans-Am class.

I like Dave's idea as well. 

[Phil Hackett]

Hey, how about a new retro class called Trans-Am !?

 

The series was best known for competition among American V8 coupes such as the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Plymouth Barracuda, Mercury Cougar, AMC Javelin, Pontiac Firebird, and Dodge Challenger in the 1960s and early 1970s, driven by some of the most famous names in auto racing, like Mark Donohue, Parnelli Jones, Dan Gurney, Sam Posey and Bob Tullius, to name just a few. 

 

Love American Muscle Cars!!!!

 

Back in the day... The MAC Javelin Trans-Am was the body to use. One time I had to convince Philippe to go to his house to grab a few for a race I was going to run a week later. It was quite the good looking body too.

[John Luongo]

JK trans am bodies arrived today

 

 

Camaro

 

 

Javelin

 

[John Luongo]

Mustang

 

[MSwiss]

I haven't hung on every word in this thread, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, JK does sell RTR Trans Am cars.

[snolde]

jk trans am bodies arrived today

 

 

 

John,

Are those fender flares on the camaro?

[MSwiss]

Scott,
I tried, but maybe of not much help.

[old & gray]

From the front it looks like flairs

[John Luongo]

Yes, pronounced fender flares fore and aft. they measure approx 3 1/4" wide in the rear, 3 3/16 in the front

[John Luongo]

Thanks mike and bob for that information and photos!

[John Luongo]

 

Sounds like a good entry point, the questions that comes to mind:

1. What do you use for front tires? Fitting IRRA Retro fronts to .062 axles is difficult, (ducks under desk) are stickers the answer?

 

2 this sounds a lot like Flexi GT (recent rules at http://slotblog.net/...ed-by-trinity/)

 

hi bob. i remember there being 1/16 to 1/8 wheel adapters years ago so i made up my own adapters from aluminum tubing. the adapters allow use of a .125x.750x.250 wheel/tire combo on the front with the standard 1/16 axel. best regards

 

[snolde]

Received the Camaro Trans-Am body today and started the angle winder build.

The body has a 4 inch wheel base and is 3.125 wide at the finder wells so the chassis will be set up to match those measurements.

4" wheel base

.750 guide lead

3.125 track width

.790 rear tires

.750 fronts

CR-102 Motor

14-38 64 pitch

Here is what I have so far...

Basic angle winder main frame.

Chicago Land plated .055 wire soldered all the way up the rails

Chicago Land 2 degree guide tongue.

Axle tube is 1.17" wide, this leaves a little room for spacers on the axle.  

 

 

and a mock up of future things to do

[rvec]

Something like a 4" stock-car class?
 
I know JK had some bodies, I suspect they still do.

 

I am a big fan of Early Trans Am and we have a hard body class for them. Chassis is production H bracket. Motor is Deathstar or ProSlot 16D. Below are a few images that might spark some good memories.  BTW - The Javelin is hard to find. For all T/A we run, see the link Electron Raceway: Historic Trans-Am - Electron Raceway classes - Slotblog
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Luongo]

outstanding cars!

[snolde]

A little more building tonight,

Front end brass added for weight and pan stops.

Trimmed the rails at the axle tube and removed most of the excess solder.

Shooting for 120 grams with out adding lead, keeps the CoG as low as possible.

All flat brass is .062.

Think I'm going to need to shorten up the pans a bit.

[Eddie Fleming]

That's a lot of .062 brass Scott, but looking good. I don't think you will have any problem getting to 120G.

 

I like long pans with the rear edge under the overhang of the rear tire, as long as you don't have to much pan lift.

[John Streisguth]

One of the other Retro East racers and I got a couple of VFC Trans Am bodies (66 Mustang and 68 Camaro) with the idea of maybe generating some local interest.  Never went any further.  The bodies are narrower than the current stock cars and wheelbases were in between stock car and Can Am (they were pretty scale in size).  I still have both bodies, maybe some day I'll build them up just for fun.  

[Dan Ebert]

We tried this experiment several years ago.  The Penn Ohio BOD was looking for an alternative to running the IRRA Coupe class.  We felt it was to repetitive of the Can Am.  So we tried putting the JK 4" inch Trans Am bodies on the Can Am platform.   The cars were just to fast with the body and had little to no downforce.   So we have been there and done that.  I am sure some will disagree here and that is okay.  But a heavier, slower car would be needed.   When the FCRNS was in existence.  They ran one class based on these bodies.   4 Inch FCR with the sealed Parma 501 Deathstar motor.   Fun Class and the cars worked well when set up properly. 

[Tim Neja]

Because of the lack of strong downforce with these bodies you might consider what SCRRA did with their "coupe" class. Originally, there were NO added air dams allowed at the back--the class struggled to get good handling.  Then they decided to allow can am style wings/ dams at the back of the body.  This really helped the handling and re-invigorated the class.  It's been a staple now for all our major races on the flat track and is very well attended.  FWIW

[MSwiss]

Tim,
I think Bryan Warmack is an all time cool guy, but I'm going to call "???" on the above.

This is the same guy/org who legislates against Can Am and F1 bodies if they have an extra micro ounce of downforce ?

Make the cars handle better?

Why not just drive them more?

[Jay Guard]

Thanks for the input guys but maybe a car like this just needs more weight.  Look at the 4.5 Stockers, they are way top heavy with those big thick bodies and virtually no downforce and only start to handle great at around 135+ grams.  Maybe go so far as to mandate a 10 tooth pinion and a 140 gram minimum weight and a .010" thick body?  It usually takes a bit of time and experimenting to find the sweet spot for any new class and a Trans Am class would be no different.  Not to mention new bodies in a full 3.25 width would surely be made in short order.  Finally I second what Mike Swiss says, just drive 'um, these aren't flexi or wing cars.

[Tim Neja]

Tim,
I think Bryan Warmack is an all time cool guy, but I'm going to call "???" on the above.

This is the same guy/org who legislates against Can Am and F1 bodies if they have an extra micro ounce of downforce ?

Make the cars handle better?

Why not just drive them more?

 

I never understand why it's important to bitch about a suggestion.

[MSwiss]

Not bitching.

People can add as much air control as they want.

Just pointing out the deal that the Bryan retro group is usually against too much downforce.