Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
"Individual racers that have the where with all, can build their own chassis, speed control, radio, buy their own rubber and make tires, you name it. A racer can even make their own front end, as long as it was a dynamic struct style front end and didn't use shocks."

This was a rule stated on another thread and I didn't want to take that one off topic but I have never understood why this is a rule. It seems to me that creating an active front end may be a good thing if it's done right. Even if it wouldn't be, can someone explain why there is a rule against developing a fully functional front end?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,927 Posts
Seen those Geico commercial's.....i think a few of them are running the organations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
The front end deal was adopted to keep pan car cost down.Yeah Right!!!! $400+ retail for some of the pan cars out there.That rule sure worked well.... LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,343 Posts
I believe ROAR had the rule about the no shocks on the front end or they were able to limit it with a MAX. 3 shock rule...and I know JB adopted it w/ ARCOR, but what I never understood was my very first pan car had a shocked front end (If you can call THOSE things shocks)

It was a BoLINK Invader, and those were about the CRUDEST cars I've even seen (next to a legends car) but they have working...er um MOVING Lower arms w/ shocks.

Later I ran (and still run) the HPI Oval ROADSTAR which has a fully functional floating front end. We've done things to put shocks on it over the years (especially on the velos)which actually skirts the ROAR 3 shock rule...since the old HPI car used Side ROLL Springs and only a Center rear Shock.

The WHEEL and FIRE don't need to be 're-invented', that 'ol HPI front end worked pretty good on a LOT of surfaces....and I'm really suprised NO other company ever tried to get the rights to that design from HPI, or just plain STOLE it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Joe, I tried to find one of those a while back and they are no where to be seen LOL It just looks like to me that the front end rule is something that needs to be addressed. The Associated front end is great and it works really well but it was designed, what, 16 - 17 years ago. I have just never seen a need to restrict development in this area. And P L E A S E don't say it's to hold the cost down!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
753 Posts
McLin: Costs are just a small portion of the reason. Most of all it's another thing that has to be worked on and LORD ONLY KNOWS oval racing doesn't need that!

Some racers have no idea what castor and camber is let alone which springs to use. Then add shocks, plus what oil and springs for them. Maybe none of you remember when 1/8th scale gas was the only class to run? It was the equivalent of our pan cars today. Entries were always huge it was a fun class of racing. Then along came the full suspension cars, and all the other complicated paraphernalia. Before long, to race these cars you needed a engine man and a chassis man and a wheel man. This is not an exaggeration. The 1/8th scale class declined to just a handful of racers in just a few short years, in the early and mid-80's, with the vast majority of them being the Factory employed racers. For a class used to cost very little to race, it wound up being an expensive class even on a weekly basis. I'm taking like $100+ a weekend, just to race locally, back in '83.

So the more complicated we make things, the more it costs to race them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
J.B., I see your point but I am not sure if it really applies completely any more. Not too long ago we ran one shock and a dampener tube. Then the three shock car evolved. After that came the LTO and then the slider chassis, off set pods and now off set chassis’s. All of which require a lot more tuning knowledge than the original one shock and dampening tube setup.

It just seems logical to me that the front end should be allowed to evolve with the rest of the car.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
753 Posts
McLin said:
J.B., I see your point but I am not sure if it really applies completely any more. Not too long ago we ran one shock and a dampener tube. Then the three shock car evolved. After that came the LTO and then the slider chassis, off set pods and now off set chassis’s. All of which require a lot more tuning knowledge than the original one shock and dampening tube setup. YES AND THE MORE THE CARS, MOTORS AND BATTERIES EVOLVED, THE MORE RACES WE LOST.

It just seems logical to me that the front end should be allowed to evolve with the rest of the car.
McLin: The actual "idea" or use of a pan car chassis, is 38 years. Starting back with the 1/8th scale Veco 19 gas cars. They had a ridged front end, no springs and rear end had no diff. Yes, things evolve, but there also has to be a limit on some things and how they evolve.

How about we just drop pan cars all together and run TC cars? Then you can play with independant rear front and rear suspension, 4WD, front and rear diff, and have all kinds of fun things to fiddle with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,557 Posts
I think that is a great idea, JB! The cost's wouldn't be much different. lol I don't think changing the front end to a more conventional front end would help out our cars. I remember that Pro Parts had a true race car style front end and it didn't seem to work out. With complexity comes weight.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,303 Posts
JB said:
How about we just drop pan cars all together and run TC cars? Then you can play with independant rear front and rear suspension, 4WD, front and rear diff, and have all kinds of fun things to fiddle with.

Sound like a great idea, so when we don't have and oval tracks to race at we can go out to the parking lots and run on-road and not have to spend more money for new equipment.


That may be something to try is adapt a tc front end to a pan car. Depending what brand parts will be in stock at most hobby shops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
gezer2u, you're probably right and it may not be anything that would even help in the handling side of it. It's just always struck me as odd that their was rule against it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,476 Posts
Stability

Okay; let's see if I have this right....

We need to promote stability in our sport, and hold down the costs, to attract newcomers. So, we're going to do that by

(1) Switching to brushless motors;

(2) Switching to Lipo batteries;

(3) Buying new chargers;

(4) Redesigning the front end, to make it more complex, heavier, and more expensive.

(5) Refusing to follow NASCAR in our body designs; inviting the Can Am lookalikes.

What am I missing? Thanks; Ernie P. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,476 Posts
Good one!

JB said:
McLin: The actual "idea" or use of a pan car chassis, is 38 years. Starting back with the 1/8th scale Veco 19 gas cars. They had a ridged front end, no springs and rear end had no diff. Yes, things evolve, but there also has to be a limit on some things and how they evolve.

How about we just drop pan cars all together and run TC cars? Then you can play with independant rear front and rear suspension, 4WD, front and rear diff, and have all kinds of fun things to fiddle with.
JB; nice shot. (-: Thanks; Ernie P. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,343 Posts
..."COST" is a funny thing.

We have a Associated dynamic strut front suspension that sells for what $30 - $35? It works pretty good if assembled right with the parts in the package.

However, we have

1) aftermarket springs @ $2.00 - $3.00 per pair
2) aftermarket spindles @ $10.00 - $15.00 per pair
3) aftermarket kingpins @ $2.00 - $10.00 per pair
4) aftermarket caster adjusters @ what ever they run...as much as what...$45.00 per pair
5) aftermarket machined arms (upper)@ $15.00 per pair
6) aftermarket aluminum arms (upper)@ $35.00 per pair
7) aftermarket aluminum arms (lower)@ $60.00 per pair

And I'm sure there are some parts I missed...but using we'll use the Raceway Mfg. aluminum we're looking at close to $175.00 including the castor blocks and a full set of springs, long king pins, extended spindles, etc. and that doesn't count an actual Associated Front end, or the screws, e-clips, etc.

Just to upgrade the $30.00 associated unit w/ something like the IRS caster, long Kings, Long spindles and a spring set you'll have close to $100.00 in just a front end...and that still doesn't include bearings.

...and I forgot to add the pivot balls

Has anyone ever thought of trying a front end similar to a McPhearson Strut system with the Spindle and Steering knuckle incorporated right on the shock with a floating lower arm?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
That’s my point exactly, no one will waist their time trying anything like that when they know that no matter how good of a system they can come up with, it can’t be produced because of the rule. But they will allow you to spend three times or more what the front end cost in aftermarket parts “trying to make it better”. No matter how it’s justified, and there have been some good points made here, it still “don’t make since”.

I have a gas car that except for the Bandit chassis plate is completely scratch built…..but I can’t change the front end, I guess it must be “Holly Ground” or something.

This is not a slam on J.B. or anyone; I just think the rule is out of place and limits advancement.

Think about this for a minute; we are in the process of making some of the most drastic changes this hobby has ever seen with Brushless motors and LiPo batteries. We have chassis that you can buy “off the shelf” that are almost infinitely adjustable. We have electronics that are computer designed and produced. All of this is accepted with open arms, but we can’t touch a front end that was designed 17 or 18 years ago!

There may not be a better design out there or on someone’s drawing board but at this rate we will never know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
753 Posts
I said that cost is a small portion for current front end rules. But if we want to use Joe's cost calcuations, just how much would a newer style cost when we get all the "aftermarket" parts for it? It won't be cheaper, you can bet your last RC $$ on that one.

We want new people to enter our hobby, yet we want to make the cars more complex? We should be trying to make our cars more "user" friendly. If we want to see new people enter the hobby, we also have to make it as easy as possible for them to stay in the hobby. Just look at some of the posts, "I can't race today, because Little Joey has a Soccer meet". Fact is that many people don't have the time to devote to racing that is required to not be a back marker by 5 laps.

Why is brushless racing growing with leaps and bounds? SIMPLICITY

Why are we looking to Lipo's? SIMPLICITY
From McLin: gezer2u, you're probably right and it may not be anything that would even help in the handling side of it. It's just always struck me as odd that their was rule against it. SIMPLICITY
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
954 Posts
If someone wants to redesign the front ends and go to something else, now's the time. I'm not sure if the new owners of Associated will stay in the pan car, front end business.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top