SCI Logo

Scalextric USA
Pioneer Slot Cars
SCIs  MarketPlace, the online slot car mall
Carrera Slot Cars
Fly Model Car
BRM Model Cars
NINCO
MRC
AFX
Slot.it
Slot Car Illustrated Forum
  #1  
Old 12-20-2011, 07:36 AM
Zoom Beedo's Avatar
Zoom Beedo Zoom Beedo is offline
Championship Contender
View Zoom Beedo's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,390
Default Direction for Future Years

For anyone involved in the Can Am Proxy, there's a great discussion going on over in the thread about 2012 Car Pictures, regarding the direction we should take for future years of the series. General consensus so far seems to favor adding some restrictions to the rules to get back to more realistic looking cars, particularly where ride height, wheel type, and driver placement are concerned. If you would like to chime in, I think it would be great to post those comments here, instead of hijacking the Car Pictures thread. And, anyone that has already posted in the other thread, feel free to restate your comments here. I appreciate all the comments and suggestions.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-20-2011, 09:25 AM
RacerX132 RacerX132 is offline
National Racer
View RacerX132's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga.
Posts: 295
Default

Woops, saw this thread after posting in the pictures thread so I've copied my two cents worth here.

I definitely fall into the racer more than modeler side of things but can say that I too like the more realistic look of the cars. It truly hurt me to put the all black, vacuum formed interior in my No. 69 camaro after all of the painting and building efforts. However, in the name of winning I lived with it.....

I'm all for more stringent rules regarding the scale appearance of the cars including the interior but have to ask, where do you draw the line and how do you enforce it? For example, if we stop allowing the un-realistic interiors or super-slammed cars, will the drag strip looking back tires not be allowed? Will the not true to scale wheels or tire profiles be allowed? If you took a HARD, close look at all of these cars from a scale standpoint, very few of them would fit the bill. I'm not saying don't get back to a more scale appearance but if we do, then make ALL cars meet the requirements and use the same amount of scrutiny on all aspects of the car.

The other problem I see with this is it very well may cause certain cars to become difficult or near impossible to run so you may see classes full of the same car or whatever works the best from a performance standpoint.

Now that I pointed out some of the problems, someone smarter than me can come up with good answers....

Jason
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-20-2011, 09:58 AM
cgingras's Avatar
cgingras cgingras is offline
Championship Contender
View cgingras's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Quebec, QC, Canada
Posts: 1,047
Default

I'll just copy what I said in the other thread. Until further notice, I agree with me!

I'd like to add my voice for more realistic cars for next year and beyond. I really like the way the Pony Car Wars proxy goes about the disappearing drivers.

My car is #13 and my driver is the complete opposite. Probably in transit, something pushed on the poor guy and he's now looking at the roof of the car, the helmet crushed against it. His hands are looking like they're in search a steering wheel!!

I also think we have to do something about wheels. At least, the front and rear wheels should look the same. And maybe we need to revisit the rules about inserts. I'm not an insert fanatic and as the guy behind Slot Car Corner Canada, I'm sold on the great CB Design wheels. But maybe we need to revisit the rules on that front too, even if that means getting rid of some CB Design designs for the race (CB Design now has «insert» wheels for all sizes). I think the 5-Spoke, that was used by a lot of entrants, is perfect for a lot of cars in the CanAm race. The other designs we offer, maybe not.

Let's get back to the original spirit of this proxy race!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-20-2011, 10:06 AM
Robert Livingston's Avatar
Robert Livingston Robert Livingston is offline
World Champion
View Robert Livingston's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Haven CT area
Posts: 16,482
Default

We already see that most of the GTU cars are Fly Alfa Romeo GTAM's, due to their extra width allowing HRS sidewinders. Other proxy races (IPS, TLOR) have gotten around the widest-body-dominates thing, by limiting rear track width to a given dimension, no matter how wide the body. Many different bodies can be competitive under this system. An extra-wide body only means the tires will be deeper under the fenders.

My thinking on interiors is that the current rules are sufficient, with the addition of a requirement that drivers be in a realistic position with head at normal height (it never occurred to me that anyone would purposely build a car with the driver on the floor). I don't want to put a full card in my cars, as that looks unrealistic to me; a dashboard top, driver, partial wheel, and rear-window shelf are good enough.

As for tire width, I think it would be appropriate to set limits that are realistic, but the era of the Can Am was marked by wide tires.

Tire sidewall height is a sticky issue, as many available tires are actually models of low profile tires of a later era. We could eliminate the lowest-profile tires by setting minimum sidewall-height dimensions.

Excessive lowering of cars may be stopped by requiring the full wheel (not tire) to be visible from the side, with uncut wheel arches. If someone wants to go lower, they would have to post a period photo of a real race car of the type they are entering to justify the deviation.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-20-2011, 02:50 PM
dansula dansula is offline
Championship Contender
View dansula's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,694
Default

The art and skills in slamming a car are to be appreciated in the custom model car world.

I like racing and scale cars. Can't we have both? I raise the spectre of wing car racing. It was briefly popular and ultimately led to the decline of slot car racing in the US. Please let us race scale toycars, anything else and well why bother?

For me CANAM slot car racing is about re-creating the late 60/70 era of racing in 1/32 scale. It is conducted in a friendly self governing manner. The era did push the rule book and created the present FIA yellow book of rules for racing. Hopefully we can avoid a similar "rule" development path. I am for comments this year and clear agreed guidelines for next year.

Winning at toy car racing can't be worth pushing the limits. When I hear the body posts forced me to...well it just does not work for me. There are things like spacers/washers that can put the appropriate ride height back into the car. I really do think too many of this years cars in the GT and GTU class are pushing the slammed look too far.

An entrant could include a period photo to verify the side profile of the car if their is doubt as to the provence of the car being modelled. I would like to think most if not all of us can live with some thing like this as it will be self policing. Why over lower the car if you can't show the car in real life? Can we be gentlemen about toy car racing?

if not then there is little point in racing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-20-2011, 03:21 PM
Fumey's Avatar
Fumey Fumey is offline
National Racer
View Fumey's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 487
Default

n/m

Last edited by Fumey; 12-20-2011 at 03:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-20-2011, 03:42 PM
SouthernSlotter SouthernSlotter is offline
Championship Contender
View SouthernSlotter's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 1,909
Default

I would like to keep the vacuum formed interiors, but make sure they are detailed enough to be realistic. The cars are going to be more tippy when you raise the body. Putting a heavy interior will just compound the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-20-2011, 05:00 PM
SuperSlab's Avatar
SuperSlab SuperSlab is offline
Championship Contender
View SuperSlab's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 1,254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernSlotter View Post
I would like to keep the vacuum formed interiors, but make sure they are detailed enough to be realistic. The cars are going to be more tippy when you raise the body. Putting a heavy interior will just compound the problem.
A vote of support: as someone who entered cars with "stock interiors" and has voted for some realism, for going forward I would be more than happy with vacuum formed interiors that look reasonable and are mounted in a reasonable position.

Note that my GT entry is an SCX 'Cuda: these come as stock with pretty much an interior tray: it is slightly recessed but the dash is slightly raised compared to the rest, the dash has some shape and detail to it and the driver looks.... welll, "driverlike". It even has a roll cage, a sort of seat back and what looks like some center console detail (at driver elbow level, but still....). Decent vacuum formed interiors can certainly emulate most of this: I would be more than happy with that. We can easily get much more realistic looking cars without having to go completely overboard.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-20-2011, 05:08 PM
Zoom Beedo's Avatar
Zoom Beedo Zoom Beedo is offline
Championship Contender
View Zoom Beedo's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernSlotter View Post
I would like to keep the vacuum formed interiors, but make sure they are detailed enough to be realistic. The cars are going to be more tippy when you raise the body. Putting a heavy interior will just compound the problem.
I agree with the vacuum formed interiors, George, but what's detailed enough for one won't be for another (for instance, Jason could have painted some detail on his flat black vacuum formed interior to make it more realistic, but since he didn't, some will consider it not detailed enough). I prefer to use language in the rules that spells it out, instead of leaving gray areas that are open to interpretation.

As for the cars being more tippy, I think you're right, on some tracks that might be more of a problem than on others. One thing we might consider is more liberal rules for low-positioned weight to overcome that problem, particularly on the GTU cars.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-20-2011, 05:43 PM
Robert Livingston's Avatar
Robert Livingston Robert Livingston is offline
World Champion
View Robert Livingston's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Haven CT area
Posts: 16,482
Default

I've been building GTU cars since the Can Am proxy's inception, but I cannot recall any limits on low-positioned weight. To what limits do you refer?

As for interiors, I think an injection molded dashboard top and driver bust glued to the base of the windshield and the roof can be as light as a vac formed, full-length, full width interior piece with driver.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-20-2011, 06:56 PM
bov's Avatar
bov bov is offline
Championship Contender
View bov's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,829
Default

Wow - you toss one little hand grenade into the room and........

Although the postioning of the interiors is a bit of a concern, it was really the ride height of a number of cars that caught my eye....

I thought "Unless my memories of 1972 aren't what they used to be, some of these sedan cars don't quite look right". Back in '72 a low profile tire would be what we'd refer to today as about a 60 series tire, not the 35 series rubber bands commonly seen on high performance cars of today.

Sedan cars seemed to have a lot more ride height, softer springs and body roll than today - all in all it was a much more 'ungainly' look, compared to racing sedans of today...

So, I'd suggest for GT cars wheels should be a maximum of a scale15" diameter, the top of the rim should be visible below the bottom lip of the unmodified wheel well (the tire itself may be partially obscured, but if the wheel could 'steer' the fender wouldn't hinder it)..

The dashboard has to be no lower than the bottom edge of the windscreen, and the 'driver' has to be able to see over the appropriately located steering wheel...

After all, we're not racing Funny Cars.....

We're just trying to have fun!

Cheers, Tony.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-20-2011, 07:21 PM
34ever1's Avatar
34ever1 34ever1 is offline
International Racer
View 34ever1's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Salem Ct.
Posts: 645
Default

Effective immediately GTU #7 (Haystack) , along with GTU #26 and GT #101 are being put back on the entry list.

Last edited by 34ever1; 12-21-2011 at 06:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-20-2011, 08:18 PM
Zoom Beedo's Avatar
Zoom Beedo Zoom Beedo is offline
Championship Contender
View Zoom Beedo's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Livingston View Post
I've been building GTU cars since the Can Am proxy's inception, but I cannot recall any limits on low-positioned weight. To what limits do you refer?
Robert, I might be reading more into the existing rule than is intended, but don't rule II.B.1), bullets 1,2,6 & 7 restrict the placement of metal being attached to a GT/GTU plastic chassis as reinforcement? Since most additional weight is metal of some sort, I would consider that a limitation on the position of weight because it could be construed as reinforcement, but again, maybe I'm reading more into that rule than is intended.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-20-2011, 08:23 PM
Wet Coast Racer's Avatar
Wet Coast Racer Wet Coast Racer is offline
SCI Moderator
View Wet Coast Racer's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Vancouver BC
Posts: 22,140
Default

Quote:
Effective immediately GTU #7 (Haystack) , along with GTU #26 and GT #101 are being removed from the entry list.
That isn't right, you know. The cars look great, and there are a lot of entrants who will have been looking forward to putting their best efforts up against yours, particularly after your success last year. Besides, we can still see the whites of their eyes. Kind of.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-20-2011, 08:25 PM
SouthernSlotter SouthernSlotter is offline
Championship Contender
View SouthernSlotter's Photo Album
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 1,909
Default

Let's all take a deep breath now. This years race hasn't even begun and we're talking about next years rules.
This is a very successful proxy series. If it isn't broken, why fix it?
As director for 2013, some of the rules might get tweaked a little toward scale appearance. I was hoping to ease into next season, but that's not going to happen.
Let's give the current season it's due and let the races begin. I would advise for everyone to enjoy this year and next year will come soon enough.

George
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •   

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.