Class changes

Seeing as how it is now the “off season” and everybody has time to get on the ole ‘putor and raise some hell. I thought it just might be interesting to get some feedbackand discussion going. But there are some rules. You can say anything to want about the subject matter but nothing about the person(s) posting. You can say that an idea is idiotic but you can’t call the person an idiot. Also, the other way around, if someone calls your post stupid doesn’t mean that they are calling you stupid. Now if we play nice and are a little careful about our posts, I think we can get an excellent discussion going.

It has been suggested to me by a number of different racers that QSAC should have a more progressive class system. A system that is more like other car sanctioning bodies.
A number of ideas have been tossed around. I will present one to get the discussion going:

Truck - 8.5 plate with existing carbs and rules

Sportsman – 10.5 plate with existing carbs and rules

Grand National – 15mm OEM carb only, no plate, existing rules

My first concern is possibly killing the GN class because it is really, really going to require expert throttle control and a strategy to save the car for the entire race without burning up the tires. Guys are going to get tired of blowing up tires at $50 a pop.

I feel that the GN class the way it is is as fast as they should be going... If there is another size of restrictor between 8.5 and 10.5, or even going smaller than the 8.5, i would say that would be the way to go... I am sure there are some of us who could handle the extra speed like you said as far as throttle control and what not, but the whole tire wear issue i think would definitley kill the class... And Brent you are not an idiot and this thread is not stupid... There i said it... :wave:

My thought would be:

Sportsman - 7.5 plate

Truck - 8.5 plate

GN - 10.5 plate

Just saying this order because i know the truck guys like going faster than the sportsman guys... but i don't know if a 7.5 plate is even pheasable...

Just my opinion... :thumbsup:

Here is my thought one car class 10.5 reduce laps to 200 truck 10.5 laps 150 sprint same as now novice 8.5 50 laps

Brent - you Devil!!!:devil:

Brent,

How about you take the 8 to 10 8.5 mm plates I have and stuff them where the sun don't shine

Trucks 8.5

Sportsman / GN : 9.5 (One car class)

Sprint 10.5

Trucks would be a stepping stone to the car class (the way it should be). With a (new) 9.5 plate the lap times would only be 3/4 to a tenth slower than what we turn now (example 6.5 to 6.6) with a 10.5 (GN), plus, it would a bit easier to "hook" up....The other benefit would be on tires. It would be a tiny bit easier on RR tires.

Looking at the "Big" picture this is way to go IMO........Large car counts will draw more racers to our sport. Numbers breed numbers...No one wants to race with two or three cars (or trucks). Plus it doesn't look very appealing from the stands.

IMO slowing the cars down with just a smaller restrictor is not the way to go. It becomes a momentum class and we end up teaching drivers bad habits. Less power encourages them to drive deeper into the corner and stay in the throttle longer instead of learning how to lift.

This actually makes the learning curve tougher as they move up to faster classes.

If you want to slow the Rookie and Sportsman classes down look at ways to kill the corner speed. Put rules in place that tighten the cars up and make it easier for a new racer to drive.

My thought is a class structure that would offer a progessin in speed and adjustability as a drivers skills improve.

Rookie - 8.5 Plate, Mandate a 25Lb, LR Spring. Spec 96 LF and a 66 RF

Sportsman - 8.5 Plate, 25lb LR spring, 96 LF and RF

Truck - 8.5 Plate, 96 RF, No spring restriction.

Sprint and GN - 10.5 Plate, 96 RF, No spring restriction

I just don't see any point in slowing them down more and makeing them so tight they will knock the wall down yea everything takes time to learn you can and will develope bad habits in any class but if it takes the thrill and fun out of it what's the point in doing it

Denny, Scott Schramske our Rules Committee Chairman did some testing a few years ago and found that anything smaller than an 8.5 plate really killed the engine. I’m not sure what engine he used and if it wasn’t the current engine perhaps retesting is in order.

Will, I understand the thinking behind one class but why the reduced laps?

Tim, Not me! At least not this time. I’m just kind of interested in seeing if there is or isn’t an improvement to be made. I was told that the Sportsman class was started as a beginner/novice class and it is certainly not that now. So it seems perhaps realignment is in order. Especially now that I am no longer a Co-Chair and have to deal with the headaches this could cause. I waiting for the blistering phone from one of the Chairs.

Mr. Reniger, Your position is noted and I sure am glad you didn’t personally attack me.

Scott, Your thinking certainly has merit. I’m not sure QSAC can afford another round of plates or how pissed everyone is going to be when they have to buy one.

Sonny, More good thinking. But is there such a thing as an inexpensive spring testing device for each track and can it be easily made portable?

Ok i can see that being an issue as far as the smaller plate, and the possibility of upset drivers needing to buy another... Maybe just keep Truck and Sportsman the same 8.5 and leave it at that... 2 classes at 8.5 (Sportsman & Truck) 2 classes at 10.5 (GN and Sprint) The trucks naturally will be a tic slower than the cars due to arrow issues which would make the handeling a little easier, making that the logical stepping stone from Novice as Scott mentioned... When you feel like stepping up, but still not confident to join the GN Pros (:freak:) go to the sportsman... Put the same stock clutch rules to the trucks as well... :confused:

Well brent the reason for the reduced laps is don't like standing up there that long and get a little more life out of the tires like you said 50 a pop on the smaller plate we tried that at lpr it starved the motor and on the spring tester compress the spring on a scale at one inch and you get a acurate reading on the spring rate

And a 8.5 truck will wearout a 10.5 truck because its faster threw the corner

I think you have the right idea of making the cars handle better but I don't think a mandated spring is the way to go. Not only would you have to have a way to rate them, but the actual rate would be different between cars. The wcms would have to run a 50lb spring to equal a 25lb spring on a Lightning. I think a good way to make them handle better would be to add weight or more spoiler. I'd like to leave trucks and gn.

One more thin brent on the reduced laps there is a very good chance we will have a GN class at lpr next year and we will probably only run 125 to 150 lap mains the way it is now to me its just to long at ncs events you know after about 100 laps if you are in contention or not I just think it would be better with fewer laps

My thought on the spring idea is it was more or less away to improve the drivability of a car for new racer and the racing. Yes it will tighten them up but it will also help counter act the dumping effect when a car gets loose.

You see a lot of guys spin because they counter steer after they get loose. Once they catch the spin they weight transfers back to the LR. The light springs we all run are not strong enough to support this abrupt transfer. The frame rails then bottom out and the car spins up the track in the opposite direction, usually causing a wreck.

Agree a spec spring weight would act differently on various chassis. Not sure what the best solution would be for that. I don’t think adding additional weight or spoiler would control this issue.

And a 8.5 truck will wearout a 10.5 truck because its faster threw the corner

Although this is a little thread drift, I have to take exception to this statement. It has been my experience that good handling GN makes a great handling Sportsman. BUT a good handling Sportsman does not always make a good handling GN. I believe the the Sportman plate allows a wider sweet spot on the setup. Which may be one of the reason the class is the most popular. So going to GN from Sportsman you may or may not have the setup but not the other way around.

I'm not sure that a big spring would do anything. It very well could make them handle worse because it wouldn't absorb anything. It's easy to over spring the lr. More weight doesn't slow the cars down but helps the cars be more stuck. We did this for a while locally but the downside is that a car that weighs 4lbs more, hits things that much harder. Bigger spoilers would help the handling without adding weight or slowing them down. The reason that trucks handle so well is that they have so much rear downforce. We are thinking of putting trucks on our local sportsman.:thumbsup:

There is no sweet spot in sportsman you can eather hold it to the floor or not if you can hold it wide open they can't catch you if you can't they can me and gilly have proved that at our track for 3 years

Been down this road before folks.:rolleyes:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=236901&highlight=happened


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=236560&highlight=real+rule+change

If the idea is to create a class for novice so they learn throtle control, why not just make a gear selection that make you do just that? I'm thinking that some testing would have to be done, but if you run at a track that sportsman run like 14/78 or there abouts, have the novice class run 15/75 or something like that without killing the motor.

You still have to get the car to handle but they won't be able to go that deep in the corner and it'll make you bogg down comming off the corner. That would make it less likley that you would spin out.

Really I think Chance has the better idea with spoiler and weight. I'd leave GN and truck alone, and probably sportsman too. They do just fine...

Something else that could work, is make a class that uses tires that are a maximum width of 2 1/2 inches all the way around. Again, would have to test that one out.

If you wanted to go the other way, make a class that the right side tires have to be 4 inches and the left side 3. More testing.... I know....

I would also have to agree that more weight and a taller spoiler would be the way to go.

No wounder no one wants to get in racing change the dam rules ever year, buy more junk that you can clutter your garage with 8.5 carb, old 8.5 restricker the thin one, 9mm carb what next.

No one is changing carbs or changing anything else this is just a discussion for ideas on improving what we have

Every year it's the same old song. Make a change to sportsman and/or truck to herd racers into the GN class. Or kill the sportsman and/or truck class and have only one car class which is just another way to herd racers into GN.

The song sux. Race what we have, promote the crap out of it and hope for the best.

Sorry brent your thread is headed to the can typical bench racers win out everytime on these threads but the ones that actually go to races don't ever have the right to have a say in the direction they would like to see

Personally I don’t think adding a few pounds of weight will accomplish much. You may increase the overall lap times by a tenth or two but you will now have a heavier car going at about the same speed. When this car contact a wall or another competitor it will likely only increase the amount of damage.

IMO larger spoiler will only allow you to drive a car deeper into the corner. Once again increasing corner speed. In addition it would make the cars look less scale appealing than they already are.

Somewhere over the last 15-20 years in the search for speed we have allowed these cars to get away from what originaly made them appealing. The SCALE appearance. Honestly take a look at some of the photos form the early 90’s and compare them to what we race now. We have lost the curb appeal.

I know some would argue the main problem is that 1/4 scale cars are just too expensive these days. I guess my counter argument would be if that was the case explain how the similar priced HPI Baja 1/5 scales have sold so well the last few years.

As for this thread there is nothing wrong with it providing you stay within the guidelines that Brent outlined in the first post.

This thread is NOT about QSAC rules changes for 2010.
It’s more a hypothetical question about the future. What do you think would be a good class structure and why?

We all want to improve ¼ scale racing and watch it grow. A good thought provoking discussion can only help.

What do you think about the different tire widths idea?

First off a little history if I remeber correctly. Sportsman was never intended as a beguinner class. Sportsman class was introduced due to a mandated engine change. When QSAC was forced to change motors they were phased in by class. Grand national was the first cleass to run the newer more powerful motor. Those that did not want to invest in a new motor could run the now called sportsman class. over the years we have all been allocated to run the same motor. The smaller carbs and plates were a way to seperate the two stock car classes.
There are very easy solutions to the classes being so close in performance. It will be very easy to seperate the two stock car classes.
First off leave the grand national class alone. A larger carb for the class is the wrong way to go for as Brent said "tire management will be at a premium". Less experienced racers will soon give up on the class and fall back to sportsman.
Sportsman. These are a mix of my ideas and Randy Bakers. We have discussed these issues in the past. Stay with the 8.5 plate, it works well. Stay with the stock clutch shoes as this also works well. Now, remove the independent suspension and run a straight axle rear end. DO NOT say it won't handle and it won't work. I know better as I started out with a straight axle stock car and they worked. Next go back to the two inch spoiler we used to run. No, it will not go threw the corners as well with out the 3 inch spoiler. Put the driver back in the car and I'm not talking about the little plastic guy. When you get your sportsman car where it will run in the top of the class then, maybe you are ready to run Grand National. Also you could mandate the harder right front tire the 66 or B compounds.
Novice class or limited sportsman. Most of the changes suggested for sportsman will work very well in limited sportsman as well.:wave:

Sonny:
I agree with you in that we have lost curb appeal. I think we should have all caged stock cars with solid axles and driver figuers in every car. After all what class of stock cars run I.R.S. rear ends? How many stock cars do you see with a limited amout of frame members?

Jim:
As for narrower tires they would just over run them, over heat them and blow them up. Then they would complain about junk tires.:wave:

What do you think about the different tire widths idea?

As far as the narrow tire I think it would depend how it is done. If you only did it up front on the Novice and Sportsman car I suspect it would tighten the up and make the pretty drivable. If you did it all the way around I’m afraid it would take away to much rear grip. I think within reason you need to make the cars drive a little on the tight side and with a lot of rear bite for newer drivers.


Now for the experienced GN guys a narrower tire would put a premium on throttle control. That could be good thing for racing . I fear the downside would be that we would probably kill more tires with the power we have now and the cars being a little on the free side.

Yeah, it's all good.

IMO, the class rules and structure are good. To change them would only undermine what the last 4 to 5 years of officials have been able to accomplish. And yes, we know nothing changes here as far as rules go. But man, if they did....:freak:


As for this thread there is nothing wrong with it providing you stay within the guidelines that Brent outlined in the first post.

This thread is NOT about QSAC rules changes for 2010.
It’s more a hypothetical question about the future. What do you think would be a good class structure and why?

We all want to improve ¼ scale racing and watch it grow. A good thought provoking discussion can only help.

I agree with you in that we have lost curb appeal. I think we should have all caged stock cars with solid axles and driver figuers in every car. After all what class of stock cars run I.R.S. rear ends? How many stock cars do you see with a limited amout of frame members?



I’m not real sure how to fix the looks of the stock cars. We are kind of at the mercy of the current bodies that are available.


For the Sprint cars I have an idea I’m working on for a possible trial in 2011. (if racers agree) I call it Speed and Scale. It’s kind of based off what they do with R/C Unlimited Hydros and Giant Scale aircraft competitions.

The simple version of the idea would be that you would get a combined score for the weekend. First score is based on your race performance just like we do now. A set point total for each position.

The second score would be based on a detailed concourse judging. 3 judges each evaluate a car based on a set criteria. The three judges scores are averaged and this added to the race score.

You could still give awards for the race winner as we currently do. Then you would also have an award for the overall winner. The goal over time would be to make the overall win more prestigious than just the race or concourse win.

Sounds interesting but a drawn out process and time consuming for a local race. Would work on the NCS level though. Trouble is getting three non bias judges at each race.
:wave:

Personally I don’t think adding a few pounds of weight will accomplish much. You may increase the overall lap times by a tenth or two but you will now have a heavier car going at about the same speed. When this car contact a wall or another competitor it will likely only increase the amount of damage.

IMO larger spoiler will only allow you to drive a car deeper into the corner. Once again increasing corner speed. In addition it would make the cars look less scale appealing than they already are.

Somewhere over the last 15-20 years in the search for speed we have allowed these cars to get away from what originaly made them appealing. The SCALE appearance. Honestly take a look at some of the photos form the early 90’s and compare them to what we race now. We have lost the curb appeal.




I know some would argue the main problem is that 1/4 scale cars are just too expensive these days. I guess my counter argument would be if that was the case explain how the similar priced HPI Baja 1/5 scales have sold so well the last few years.

It was my understanding that you were throwing an idea out there to make the cars handle better, correct? One thing I dont want to see is the cars slowed down more, only because that class is already about momentum and if you slow them down, people wont lift because they dont want to lose momentum. This will most likely create a lot of dive bombing. That being said, IMO the best course of action would be to make them handle better without slowing them down much if at all. If you believe that adding 4lbs would make the cars .2 faster per lap, why wouldnt they already be doing it? We did do that for quite a while locally, but went away from it because we have a high speed track and as you said can add to the damage. However at the end of the day, it did help the car handle quite a bit better. The spoiler thing has no downside other than losing more scale appearance. At the end of the day we are both talking about making them handle better. I however dont think having a really heavy LR spring will make any car handle much better. If you are looking to do something about the excessive weight transfer under counter steer, you can accomplish the same thing by taking right steering out of the car :thumbsup:. I think it is good to get some creative thinking going like this!

It was my understanding that you were throwing an idea out there to make the cars handle better, correct? One thing I dont want to see is the cars slowed down more, only because that class is already about momentum and if you slow them down, people wont lift because they dont want to lose momentum. This will most likely create a lot of dive bombing. That being said, IMO the best course of action would be to make them handle better without slowing them down much if at all. If you believe that adding 4lbs would make the cars .2 faster per lap, why wouldnt they already be doing it? We did do that for quite a while locally, but went away from it because we have a high speed track and as you said can add to the damage. However at the end of the day, it did help the car handle quite a bit better. The spoiler thing has no downside other than losing more scale appearance. At the end of the day we are both talking about making them handle better. I however dont think having a really heavy LR spring will make any car handle much better. If you are looking to do something about the excessive weight transfer under counter steer, you can accomplish the same thing by taking right steering out of the car :thumbsup:. I think it is good to get some creative thinking going like this!


I think misconception is to slow cars down you need to rob them of horsepower. They have done that with 1/10 scale cars for years. Smaller batteries higher wind motors ect. But even with the loss of power overall lap times decrease every year because we have mechanically gained more grip. Net result is that we have cars that we can basically hold wide open all the way around. It puts a premium on chassis set up and takes the driver out of the equation. Kind of like watching the World of Outlaws on a heavy track. Everyone is wide open running about the same speed and no one can pass. It all momentum. Personally I think that why 1/10 scale pan car racing is much smaller than 10 years ago. You can almost apply the same though process to ¼ scale.

I think you are better off to find a way to take corner speed away instead of reducing horsepower with a smaller restrictor. So the question is how do you do that . I say one of two ways. You tighten them up to the point your forced to lift. Or you take grip away be it mechanical or areo.

For a less experienced racer I would say they are far better off driving a tighter car. It teachs them to lift out of throttle early and roll the center of the corner. The cars are more controllable, less frustrating to drive, and although most won’t admit to it less embarrassing. Knowbody wants to start racing and be that new guy that spins out all the time.

Now if we were talking about more experienced racers say in the GN class it’s a different ball game. You take grip or areo away in order to make them back up the corner. The difference is these cars have more power so a smooth throttle finger is important. The driver makes a difference. Basically the more you make them lift the better the racing should be as it opens up more passing opportunities.

Don’t get me wrong I think the GN class is about where it needs to be right now (with the exception of car counts). It seems to me that the Truck and Sportsman classes are a little miss-aligned in terms of offering a good class progression system.

Sounds interesting but a drawn out process and time consuming for a local race. Would work on the NCS level though. Trouble is getting three non bias judges at each race.
:wave:

Thinking more for major events, not local.

As for the judges I think we could find a way to make it work.

This could be real simple... Why don't we limit the RPM's of the motor for each class. Say 10,000 RPM for sportsman ,Trucks 11,000. G/N 13,000. as a example. They would be teched before and after each run, as to not adjust the radio. Todd Bishop

Todd, are you suggesting a rev limiter or are you mandating tachs that would be looked at after each run? Interesting.

How hard(no pun intended) to come up with a harder tire than the 66? This would definately get the push in the car. Maybe both fronts?

Well todds got a good idea that would eliminate the plates as well but you would or every track would need a load roller to get a baseline on were to start

I'd like to see a 15mm on the Sprint class and a pit stop....! Maybe 2 40's! Will....I'm not talking Beverages either....LOL

Yes, Brent a rev limiter is one way,with a tale tell, or one of those tiny tachs you guys use to check the revs of your motor.That would allow tech to check the rev's easily. it would be up to the racer to set there Legal RPM's, mecanically or electronically. Yes i think that would eliminate restrictor plates, and make the cars more even as a bonus. It sounds off the wall, but it could really work. Fire away......

Things do not need to be changed, we just need to enforce the rules we have not make more.Each time something is changed it devides things up more classes fewr cars. Car counts are small enough, maybe we should do away with the tracks and go back to parking lot shows, gets the best attendance and sells the most cars.

The only part that you can't take out that will happen is wheel spin afecting a tach reading

Dang...a break out class for 1/4 scales?

Here is you another idea put a tent peg in the infield tie a rope to the car crank it up and let her rip that would get rid of the radio 2 and we can go sit on the bleachers and talk about the old days

By reading this thread.It seems like certain classes should be slower.I think there are QSAC mandated tires.Why can there not be a rule to slow any class.By one simple thing.

Now for my simple idea.

To slow down a class.Why not mandate a certain gear ratio.For that class.If the GN has 6.5 to 1 ratio.Make the slower class ratio.To what you guys think.You would need to get guys in the cars.

I hope you get me.


ED

This is all good stuff and a great mental exercise. Please remember we're just having a discussion. Nobody is planning on changing anything. Although I'm not in the loop anymore. Who knows what the Co-Chairs might have up their sleeves.

Will's right you would need some sort of a rev limiter to make the RPM thing work.

It's possible Ed, but a ratio would have to be set at every track we race and someone would need to deterime what that ratio is and someone else is going to be unhappy. Not all engine have the same power band. There is also the problem of tire sizes. For example if the ratio was set high at one track, racers would be putting on bigger tires or low at another track, smaller tires. People will be unhappy about buy and carrying a selection of tires to be competitive. Not shooting you down, just talking.

This is all good stuff and a great mental exercise. Please remember we're just having a discussion. Nobody is planning on changing anything. Although I'm not in the loop anymore. Who knows what the Co-Chairs might have up their sleeves.

Will's right you would need some sort of a rev limiter to make the RPM thing work.

It's possible Ed, but a ratio would have to be set at every track we race and someone would need to deterime what that ratio is and someone else is going to be unhappy. Not all engine have the same power band. There is also the problem of tire sizes. For example if the ratio was set high at one track, racers would be putting on bigger tires or low at another track, smaller tires. People will be unhappy about buy and carrying a selection of tires to be competitive. Not shooting you down, just talking.

Brent NP,
I understand what you are saying.Not picking just asking.The tracks should already know. What gears or ratios.Work at their track.
That is why i said set a certain ratio.That is the most common part on the car. One can set that very easy. That would work for a couple of years.Then someone will find a way to go faster.

I would guess most everyone.Will be close in the gear selection.Tires everyone might be a little different.In tire size,compound,hardness or stagger.It seems like it would be for one class.The sportsmen class runs a few tenths slower than a GN.From what i see.With everyone using the almost setup.Except for the plate.

Not picking on you.
Just an idea.
I hope i stay out of trouble.

ED:wave: