One of the main reasons for everyone to use the "evo" chassis is that they are available to everyone, whereas the older chassis versions are not. It may be a fairness issue. But in SSSS the "evo" chassis rule seems to have been borrowed from another set of rules, rules that try to make all the cars very equal and let the drivers compete head to head with very similar cars, which is not the point of the SSSS.
If in all honesty the "evo" chassis' are not as good as the older versions then by all accounts this is the place to test it. I really like seeing the first Kenwood Porsche 956 (with original chassis, pod, and wheels matched against a new Toyota (with new everything).
Another problem is every time a new chassis version comes out the older versions are "banned". Leaving many folks with different versions of older chassis that can no longer be used.
If this is the friendly place to start Proxy Racing I would allow all chassis versions, but, recommend that builders use the latest versions. The sheer volume of parts and versions provided by Slot It is staggering and it makes it difficult for a new slot racer/builder to get all the "correct/legal" parts to make a legal car.
My impression has been that the Evo chassis was required by this race in order to boost sales, as well as level the playing field. Modified old-type chassis were banned a while ago in this series, leaving me with a fleet of modified early-run Saubers I could not longer use. There is no other Group C proxy anywhere.
I have moved on, don't need to compete in the race any longer, but I still support a return to the creative aspect of allowing modified chassis. I had suggested that old-type chassis be allowed, with modifications to allow freer pod movement like the more current Slot.It issue, but I was told I should just buy new chassis. You know, Slot.It probably upgraded the Evo chassis based, in part, on tuning/modification discoveries by Slot.It customers, so shutting the door on customer-invented modifications has slowed down the development of Slot.It chassis by "the factory."
My impression has been that the Evo chassis was required by this race in order to boost sales
I'm sorry !! If Slot.It has to rely on the sale of maybe 24 chassis a year then there is no hope for the future of the company.
To make things perfectly clear: The rule was never written to make entrants buy a new chassis each year! It was written so that entrants did not have to reshape the chassis for float. All EVO and EVO 6 chassis's have sufficient clearance from the body and motorpod. Yes this is supposed to be a builders proxy too but it is not a brass plate reinvent the wheel proxy series. There are others for that.
Quote:
Modified old-type chassis were banned a while ago in this series, leaving me with a fleet of modified early-run Saubers I could not longer use. There is no other Group C proxy anywhere.
Sorry that a $7.99 part limits your ability/willingness to enter as I am sure that even within the limited modification rule set, you would be competitive.
The EVO chassis's are most probably an improvement in part from the comments of racers and builders. I have noticed some of the newer releases have started having the "triangles" heat tabbed into place. Is this to make the inline set up more rigid?
There was discussion of obtaining Slot.It sponsorship by requiring sales to enter. This was not written into the rules, but was an agenda that was pushed strongly. There was no Slot.It sponsorship before that, and we did very well for a couple of years. I think Slot.It benefits more by engineering experiments on the part of creative builders than by direct sales to a handful of racers, nor by determining which parts-combined setup works best on a handful of local tracks. Some of the cars back then were innovative, but some people seemed freaked out by fitting and cutting things, adding braces, unusual pod suspension, etc.
Last edited by Robert Livingston; 12-23-2011 at 06:00 PM.
There was discussion of obtaining Slot.It sponsorship by requiring sales to enter.
Sorry wasn't part of that discussion?
Only one I was part of, was if you wanted to call it the Slot.It Shootout, then only Slot.It parts should be allowed?
Quote:
I think Slot.It benefits more by engineering experiments on the part of creative builders
So which creative builder is taking credit for the latest innovations shown on the new LMP chassis
But check that optional steel wire "handlebar" rear axle brace on the inline pods. No one as ever given me credit, it may be a coincidence, but I posted many photos of my own brace and lo and behold, a very similar race appeared as a Slot.It option.
My impression has been that the Evo chassis was required by this race in order to boost sales
It's true! Maurizio explained his economic plans to me secretly, when I saw him in Chicago last year.
'Paulo', he said excitedly, 'I've got it all figured out! All I have to do is move another twenty or thirty of those Evo chassis, and quit giving away all those slot cars to everybody who asks for them as proxy prizes, and in no time I'll be moving into that mansion in Milan next to Silvio's place!'
The only reason that the Evo Chassis is spec'd is to follow a clear International Rule Set.
If anyone can not afford an Evo Chassis to enter I will gladly give them one.
I do not need to curry favor with Maurizio. This series is done to show support for a brand I have little direct contact with yes I have a Retail Store that sells Slot.it but I am not the Importer and only out of support for my friend do I support and in part finance this Proxy Series.
I am saddened at the inuendos made here by people I respected. I am not going to change the Rules dramatically the Evo Class will be similar to this year, the Group C class will closely follow the Slot.it International Rules.
My point in all of this is to try to establish an International Rule Set that show cases Slot.it as a brand. To that end I fully support Maurizio's rules and will continue to promote the "Slot.it" ShootOut to showcase the Slot.it line.
Alan,
creating a standard International rules set is a great idea. The place to start is writing rules which are relevant to a proxy race, not applying rules geared towards a driving skills challenge.
The international slotit rules are written with the intent of creating a level playing field for cars entered in international slot car races which are driven by the entrants. Proxy races, by definition, are not a driving skills challenge.
I hope to compete in a Group C proxy sometime soon, I can only hope there will be a class which rewards building and tuning techniques.
Robert Livingston,
you are correct in thinking the benefits from ingenious engineering improvements are a bigger benefit to Slotit and the slot car industry than sales to twenty or so racers.
Here's some pics of the new inline pod brace, as well as a pic of your chassis reinforcement which predates the slotit pod. Not to mention the sprung suspension.
I think your'e owed engineering fees of at least a couple new slotits.
Simple and effective, that brace; that's why I've seen it on a hundred womp womps in the day. Good luck getting those intellectual property rights..
Chris
This is true! The "gear cage" concept even pre-dates Womps; it is just sound practice to build a rear end that cannot flex in any direction. When you pump 300 gm starting torque through a flexible plastic chassis, it is asking for trouble (unless you are running on a flexible plastic track, and then it doesn't seem to matter much).
I have been putting those RL braces on cars since the 60's
Robert your application was/is great just not for this series.
Honestly I have been making those brackets and other braces since the 60's and I never was aware you invented it
I do not think sprung pods or braces can be claimed as those are not new ideas.
Also while I truly admire adaptation it is not for this series and never will be.
The Slot.it pod with the spring on the uprights was not to brace those parts it was only to damp movement, kind of like suspension an anti sway bar of sorts, they do not work well here but I hear they work great on NINCO Track.
The Slot.it ShootOut is for Builders who can create a good example of a Slot.it car using Slot.it parts and only Slot.it parts, this is the way I will go forward and those who do not like that should choose other series where different rules apply.
I do not agree that aligning with the Slot.it rules is to the detriment of this series, but entrants will tell.
I have too many things on my plate to debate rules on SCI, happy to talk to anyone who wants to call me 1-253-255-1807 but I do not expect to change much from last years race.
There will be an added class sort of ShootOut light with less parts purchase required to enter, but the idea is to showcase Slot.it cars and parts and document what works, where and why.
Many felt the Slot.it Porsche was the only car to run in this Event Redlyner's Lancia certainly proved that wrong.
With times on my track close to RAA built cars times where many modifications are allowed ( a GREAT Series by the way ) I am amazed at how well this car, and other in this series run.
Next year with glued and lightly trued Slot.it tires it will be interesting to see how times compare.
That all said.
Happy New Year to all on SCI.
Looking forward to seeing the new Class of 2012 Slot.it ShootOut Cars.
The place to start is writing rules which are relevant to a proxy race, not applying rules geared towards a driving skills challenge.
The rules for this year allowed almost any imaginable set up for a builder, the biggest constraint being the glueing/truing of tyres. Which should be addressed for 2012. The main changes from 2007 to now are the chassis and the use of guide strengtheners/brass plates as well as some tweaking of sanding/reshaping rules. The best built car will still rise to the top and the 2012 rules should cover the wishes of first timers to seasoned builders Hopefully we can post them in the next few days
Linear Mode
