|
|
Post by pete on Aug 20, 2020 12:16:38 GMT -7
Jeff yes you have said to me in PM and in forum about rule discussion. The Super G+ is a separate thing and I have respected your request about that. I await your decision. After that I can decide on my own if I want to build a car or sit out in that class. Yes neither you or Dave have told me told I can't use the fusion. Now everyone knows the car has advanced timing, now everyone knows that you can advance the end bell in the middle position. Now I can with a clear mind enter either car and not feel I have or hold an edge. Thank you. Playing by the rules is important to me. Please do not think of me as causing a problem, I only want to teach what I know as a performance fact in open communication. Now I will get back to helping other racers get quicker should anyone consider what I have to offer. I really am looking forward to the match race against Gnome at your race. Yes I am in agreement with you about rules. They are necessary to create as level a playing field as possible and they need to be enforced. I absolutely do not think you are causing any problems. I appreciate the input and sharing of information. So that I am completely clear on the Fusion chassis.......what Class are you referencing running that in? JJ I want to use the Fusion in Inline Super Stock and 2.5 Pro Mod. Not the stock class as I would agree that it does not belong there. In the Super Stock class all parts meet the rules except the timing rule. Ceramic Grade motors and use the Level Ten traction. 0 timed arm and the 20 degree advanced brushes. How the advanced brush work, its where on the comm the brush touches off of 0 center line. Same concept as the G or Viper. Dave, Wizzard FB page has many videos on how to build the car. Very informative on how to set them up. Of course I would be glad to help also. You should have gotten the c4 ceramic grades. I have them and would be glad to send them to you for your testing if you want them. I have the level ten tractions if you want those. |
|
|
|
Post by AJR on Aug 20, 2020 12:29:51 GMT -7
Yes I am in agreement with you about rules. They are necessary to create as level a playing field as possible and they need to be enforced. I absolutely do not think you are causing any problems. I appreciate the input and sharing of information. So that I am completely clear on the Fusion chassis.......what Class are you referencing running that in? JJ I want to use the Fusion in Inline Super Stock and 2.5 Pro Mod. Not the stock class as I would agree that it does not belong there. In the Super Stock class all parts meet the rules except the timing rule. Ceramic Grade motors and use the Level Ten traction. 0 timed arm and the 20 degree advanced brushes. How the advanced brush work, its where on the comm the brush touches off of 0 center line. Same concept as the G or Viper. Dave, Wizzard FB page has many videos on how to build the car. Very informative on how to set them up. Of course I would be glad to help also. You should have gotten the c4 ceramic grades. I have them and would be glad to send them to you for your testing if you want them. I have the level ten tractions if you want those. OK cool! We are on the same page then. I will get with Dave and see what we can come up with. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 20, 2020 14:24:05 GMT -7
All, I agree that rules discussions should not be done in a public forum. But maybe it's time for the NTRA to adopt sub classes for the inlines? With the pancakes you don't have as much an issue. On the other hand with all the different inline manufacturers it's another thing all together. Just look at the NHRA you don't see a A/S car going heads up against a J/Stocker. Just a thought. p.s Skillet nailed it.... "The rules are for us honest people. I see no difference if some cheats with timing or its a 5.5ohm race and they send in a 5.4 . There's to much work to put on a person to have to check all the cars or even just the winners. I like the idea you all have put in here , that if you your in doubt ask the racemaster before you send it in." Understand the discussion isn't about new rules or cheating. Nowhere have I implied that. It is the definition of said rule being talked about. That is why I agree with JJ that it can become a bit of a mess. If the definition is misunderstood than it becomes more of a opinion than fact. Clearly defined is black or white, not gray. I too saw the 5.4 defining of a stock motor. I have been around a while and never ever saw a 5.4 stock motor. It made me think, wow that car would really move if I had one of those. I reread the complete rule. It says, stock 5.5 . Lets define that. Stock blank, stock comm, crimped tabs not soldered tabs. No dewinding. Since stock arms come 5.8 to 6.2 ohms. The only way to get a 5.5 ohm would be to dewind. By definition, not legal. What if I wound my own. I am not a manufacture of slot car motors, to get the parts I need, I would need to rewind a new motor. To rewind, I have to dewind .It would again be, not legal. That is a bit of pickle. I want that 5.5. I would need a brand new motor made to my specs of 5.5 ohm. That would be legal by definition, OH boy here we go. I really did this. An experiment. I contacted four well know manufactures of slot cars to ask if they would make me a 5.5 stock motor. Everyone of them said NO. I didn't want that motor, what I wanted was to see if it could be done. It can not. But it told me nobody is using a 5.5 motor. It showed me the rule does not have a clear black or white definition. Someone might get the wrong idea, form an opinion and lead to a mess. JJ has defined that pretty clearly as not wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by dave632 on Aug 20, 2020 15:18:43 GMT -7
The minimum ohm limit on armature's is give as a guideline when measuring your armatures to check and see what they read, therefore a lower limit is given. Which I imagine everyone does not even check. If you have a stock chassis and send it in you may have no idea what it reads if you have not disassembled it. Some motors such as the newer AW can motor are very difficult to take apart without damaging them. On the other hand I would not worry to much about it as finding an armature that reads a few tenths lower would be near impossible, I have never seen any basic stock inline or pancake motor that read less than 5.7 ohms that was not shorted internally, in which case that makes them run very bad, and then all the poles will read different, such as 5.0, 5.9, 6.0. I have checked many hundreds of HO slot car arms and found many bad ones, some still ran but not well. I have also had some 14 ohm pancakes which could outrun some 6 ohm pancakes easily so personally I put very little effort into searching for an arm with a few tenths of an ohm lower readings. The 57 Nomad that was on top of the list races for a long time was a 5.8-5.9 ohm arm that was faster than many 2.5-3.5 arms I had in other pancake cars. So there is no hard rule that shows a lower ohm arm is going to be quicker or faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by wbj on Aug 20, 2020 17:14:04 GMT -7
Pete, I understand the point you are making... clear definition is a good thing. It avoids confusion and limits grey area.
|
|
|
|
Post by skillet on Aug 21, 2020 16:24:59 GMT -7
I was just putting a number out there no point intended. Dave I was wondering when you retarted the timing did any of them do better on the strip. Again no point intended just curious of your findings. Sam
|
|
|
|
Post by dave632 on Aug 21, 2020 18:01:29 GMT -7
None of the cars ran their best in the retard position, all ran their best in either neutral or advanced. One showed little difference
no matter where the timing position was which was strange.
|
|
|
|
Post by skillet on Aug 21, 2020 18:28:07 GMT -7
Ha. that is strange
|
|
|
|
Post by dave632 on Aug 22, 2020 12:39:18 GMT -7
These tests really surprised me. Notice the green Camaro which improved a lot from retard to neutral but did not improve when advanced. What could be happening
is that the armature has some natural advance or retard built in at the factory purely by accident.
|
|
|
|
Post by wbj on Aug 22, 2020 15:04:39 GMT -7
Dave, I think that some arms just have that right on "electrical balance". Having played with timing in some of my inline cars. Advance didn't always result in a faster arm. Question for you, did you notice any change in the "front half" of the track times when switching between advanced and neutral settings?
|
|
|
|
Post by dave632 on Aug 23, 2020 16:43:48 GMT -7
Yes some cars would 60' better with different timing settings but it did not always add up to a quicker ET or MPH.
|
|
