Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have found that the McLaren front axle rests on chassis posts under the axle where the grub screws would come up to adjust the axle. My low profile Zero Grip tires do not come close to the track because of the posts. I believe we need to amend the rules regarding chassis modification to allow removal of some axle post material to facilitate use of the grub screws to lower the axle.
The alternative is probably to run the taller profile ZeroGrip tire like a gt car would have. I would prefer to prepare the M8D like our Group C cars with low profile tires in front
John and I had discussed rules. I have a draft rule set in Word and a short blurb about the M8D in Word plus the picture above. What should I do with this for your review?
We made a small mistake at the meeting. Neither John nor I have ever posted series rules, so we need a tutorial.
We intend to leave wheels same size, but allow slot.it metal wheels in front. Unless we get negative feedback on tires, we will allow slot.it low profile zero grip tires in front. Slot.it F30 or 22 on rear on stock slot.it wheels of same diameter and width. Is there a strong case for allowing Slot.it, BRM, or NSR rear tires of same size? No minimum diameter on rears, just chassis not touching track.
Open gearing. Stock chassis. No independent rotating front wheels. Slot.it wood guide. Anything else from Group C that we should eliminate???
I would include the little story here but I cannot copy it and paste it here. See header picture below.
Attachments:
Where are you Herr Porsche 908? The Italian stallions are here to challenge you.
Attachments:
I would like to run the NSR Porsche 908/3 as the rally car and again as a part of a LeMans 1970 on the regular track. It would like to see if the NSR 908/3 could run competitively with the slot.it Alfa Romeo 33/3 and the Slot.it/Policar Ferrari 312S. Those three would be quite a recreation of the 1970 era both as Targa Florio and the track 1000K races.
I really hope we run the RevoSlot, ThunderSlot and 1/24 ScaleAuto again in 2019. I don’t mind buying cars, but I hate to waste real good cars.
My car is a rabid dog. I tried the old F30 ‘s that barely pass inspection and ran a best of 4.5xx, then tried new trued NSR. and new trued F30’s. Never better than 4,5 and most 4.6-7. I was running without marshals and got a mile of chasing the wrecked car. I will not be at practice Thursday until late if at all. However, I got a new golf course schedule that does not include Saturday so I can get to meetings and practice. I added some weight but did not get to run many laps. More stable but needs the 25k motor I guess.
Has anyone been able to compare the performance of the C6 and C7 NSR Corvettes to see if a Corvette race would work?
I have discovered that I would have to modify the 3D chassis rear rail next to the pod to make room for the inline motor set up on the Mustang. That would still leave the Mustang fenders narrower, and with extensive mods to use tires that same width as the 70 Camaro. Therefor, after some consultations with other members I am dropping the full Trans Am suggestion.
We could do a 70 Camaro class on 3D Olifer chassis with many restrictions.
I have put the Scalextric 1970 Mustang together with a 3D chassis as a sidewinder. The 70 Camaro on the 3D chassis as a sidewinder is about 3 mm wider at the real wheels than the Mustang fenders. The main problem is the sidewinder gear hub and slot.it wheel are too wide for the Mustang fenders.
Both cars could be assembled as inline which would allow the Camaro to run with tires well within the fenders and equal to the Mustang inline. Tests completed showed that the inline pod gives ability to set rear track width the same on Mustangs and Camaros. Can also use hubless wheels to get as close to the chassis as possible.
The inline pod will require cutting the bottom of the cockpit off to clear the motor.
I am going to stop testing here until we decide if this will be a 2019 series.
The Alfa Romeo Slot.it cars listed mostly have 35 in the serial number except for the first one the has 45. Reading the notes, the 45 is a new version with new features, some slightly different dimensions and a 21,000 rpm motor which is different. Are the differences small enough to leave all of them competitive?
I would like:
1) RevoSlot with slot.it rear bearings and 3/32 axles, gears, wheels and tires. This may also impact the front bearing, axle, wheel, tire change. Tires may need testing, but it should be easy to pick. I would not pick a Marcos, but am OK with it if it is comparable to the Porsches.
2) Slot.it McLaren M8A stock except maybe tires.
3) ScaleAuto 1/24 GT we have just been running.
4a) TransAm Scalextric 1/32 with 3D chassis, and running gear. I have a ’70 Camaro running good, and a 3D chassis to build a 1970 Mustang. The stock rear track width is a few mm wider for the Camaro, but I will be able to check the 3D chassis conversions before October and we can test drive them.
4b) If not TransAm I like the suggestion Marty made that we run Scalextric BMW E30 M3’s with 3D chassis and running gear. I especially like the Ref. C3782 Mobil 1 in honor of my late father-in-law who was the Mobil oil distributor for Pomona in the early Mobil 1 days.
5) Rally Targa Florio as suggested by Marty with Fly bodies on 3D chassis. I have an eligible Fly car from way back to convert.
6) 1970 LeMans with Fly bodies on 3D chassis. I have 2 eligible cars to convert.
7) ThunderSlot Lolas and McLarens if comparable. Is anyone testing the McLaren M6A?
8) Group 5 again with some control on unobtainium parts.
9) Group C again.
10) Maybe some other ideas we see between now and October.
