|
Post by old23 on Mar 21, 2016 9:32:17 GMT -5
Some history…
Founded as a proxy race for vintage sports cars, the VRAA switched to F1 cars from the 1961-65 1.5-litre era for the 2008-09 season. A set of rules was consolidated over the next couple of years that have since become pretty stable. To date we have raced 8 seasons of the VRAA for open-wheelers. But…
Unfortunately, the number of individual entrants (as opposed to entries/cars) has been eroding every season for the last few years. Where once we attracted 19-21 entrants in a single class, in 2015 we had only 14 builders of 20 cars divided between 2 classes. I had hoped that the addition of the second class for 50’s GP cars would attract many new entrants without stealing anything from the traditional VRAA 1.5 litre F1 grid, and I was relieved that it did not. On the other hand, the GP2.5 class attracted only 3 new entrants. The balance of the 9-car grid was made up of “second” entries from guys who had already entered a GP1.5 car. When first announced, the 50’s class attracted a lot of enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the closer we got to the deadline, the more the cancellations rolled in.
Though the total entry of 20 cars is certainly a viable number for a proxy race, that number was divided into 2 separate race classes of only 11 and 9 cars. And smaller grids make for a less interesting championship battle, I’m afraid. In my opinion, the VRAA would be optimal with one racing class and 20-24 entries. But can we find that number of individual builder-entrants?
So, I am asking all participants (entrants, track hosts, drivers, etc.), and anyone else interested in the concept of a proxy race for historic F1 cars: Where should the VRAA go from here?
Is there still enthusiasm out there for the 1961-65 F1 cars in the GP1.5 class? We’ve now raced these cars for 8 consecutive seasons and the 1.5-litre Formula One only lasted 5 years historically! Perhaps this class has grown stale for all but the most enthusiastic fans of the era (like me!)? Perhaps an additional factor is that potential entrants are pretty much limited to finishing a resin body shell and scratch building a chassis (or “building” a PP, Beardog or, now, a Policar one). That excludes those slot racers more comfortable tuning a ready-to-run car. We scratch builders are a small subset of this hobby and those of us who are keen to send our creations to a proxy race are an even smaller group. Sadly, we have lost several of those guys over the last few years and the few new entrants have not fully replaced them.
Is there enough untapped interest out there in the 50’s GP cars to fill a grid? There are certainly RTR cars available from Cartrix and Scalextric that can be modified into a viable entry, and there is a large selection of resin shells and chassis choices for those who prefer more of a do-it-yourself route. And yet, the response last year was disappointing. Is this F1 era just too old to interest enough entrants for a full grid of cars?
Should we change the VRAA “formula” to something else, something that might hold more interest to a wider “market segment”?
What about the 3-litre F1 cars from either the late 60’s or the 70’s? There seem to be a lot of offerings in recent years (and in future plans) from a number of slot car manufacturers (Scalextric, Fly/Flyslot/Slotwing, Policar, SRC, etc.), so therefore many options for the “tuner” entrant. Resin shell choices are out there (Pre-Wing, Betta, BSB and others) for those inclined to build their own car. And the more recent F1 history might appeal to a younger demographic who weren’t even born when the 1.5-litre cars raced, but can well remember the 70’s F1 era and the vintage Scalextric slot cars modeled on them.
On the downside, the 70’s GP cars are very wide, so there is likely to be a lot more wheel banging. And where there are open wheels banging there are certain to be cars flying through air. The late 60’s and 70’s cars have front and rear wings that are likely to be broken during the course of those flights.
I would also like to hear from anyone - - past, present or potential future entrant - - on their ideas for how this event might be made better. Which classes interest you? Are there rules that need fixing? Are there other problems or issues that are keeping potential entrants from joining, or past ones from returning?
Perhaps we can come to some consensus on how to re-animate the VRAA.
Or, maybe we’ll conclude that this proxy race has run its course and that we ought to pack up the caravans and move on to something else.
Old23
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 21, 2016 13:29:24 GMT -5
Hello Stewart
I commend you for you bravery taking over the VRAA when I put it off the rails. I was hoping to see that better management and a relaxation of some of the rules would increase the interest of possible entrants. As you said the guys who scratchbuild and enter proxy races are a very finite subset of the people in this hobby. When the VRAA started it was one of the first proxy races being held and now looking at the list of proxy races you could enter there is a whole gamut of types of cars that you could enter. The VRAA is the only open wheel one still out there. If you tried to switch it back over to a more sporty car series you would find that you still may not get a good draw from the guys in the hobby due to so many choices. Please keep it a GP proxy. Twenty cars is a good number for a proxy series for home tracks since it does not take days to get through the racing. If you can keep the car count at that level. I say keep it going.
Thank you Stewart for your tireless efforts in a thankless job, I know how many headaches and how much work you truly do to keep this going.
ken
|
|
|
Post by old23 on Mar 21, 2016 15:39:17 GMT -5
Thanks Ken. I had a pretty good idea of the work involved in coordinating a proxy from watching you do it, then assisting you do it, for many years so I knew what I was getting into. It was your vision that built the VRAA into the premier historical F1 proxy race in the world (in my opinion). I'm just not very happy about the VRAA withering away under my watch. Hence my call for suggestions for improving it. I have no intention of changing the VRAA to anything but a proxy race for historic F1 cars. As I stated in my appeal, 20-24 cars is an ideal number for this proxy, but it would be a better series if they were all racing against each other in one class. Perhaps a change to another era might refresh the series? Or, maybe we should rotate eras from year to year? I don't know but would like suggestions from anybody interested. I hope you are feeling better these days and I'm happy to see your renewed participation on this forum.
Best Regards,
Stewart
|
|
|
Post by datto on Mar 21, 2016 17:37:25 GMT -5
I don't think I have anything direct to impart about how to revitalize your event, but thought I would provide some insight from the "Have considered it repeatedly, but got cold feet" crowd, who may be a potential source of entrants
I've been eyeing entering 1/32 proxies, not without some trepidation. I've only entered 1/43 proxies. That scale is so under-represented that in order to get any kind of reasonable grid going, rules had to be very loose. I have to admit to being a bit spooked by the VRAA rules. (although they do not seem unreasonable, and I've seen much tougher). I'm truly glad you allow a variety of chassis types. I can reduce brass to dead soft lumps trying to solder it together like nobody's business.
I have been gravitating towards building GP cars from the late 40s to mid 50s for one reason and another. I do find the era the VRAA proxy has been dealing with fascinating, and have some un-begun resin kits.
I hope you can whip up some interest in the event, and I would be more than happy to supply some Immense Miniatures figures as premiums for entrants, or to distribute however you see fit.
|
|
|
Post by old23 on Mar 21, 2016 19:42:02 GMT -5
Thanks Marc. Your little men have already piloted VRAA cars to race wins. Like Jimmy in my Lotus 21 (see avatar at left), for instance. I hope to see an entry from you in a future VRAA and be sure that I'll be contacting you for some period-appropriate little guys for prizes.
Stewart
|
|
|
Post by f143 on Mar 22, 2016 1:45:43 GMT -5
I think datto might have hit the nail on the head, a relaxation of the rules in appearance and dimensions of the cars may enable some builders to give it a go. Many of the cars are not actually scratch built anyway, where bought chassis and bodies are put together. Penalties for missing details such as suspension and 1-2 mm oversize etc puts people off. I know the tight rules have produced cars that everyone admires when they see the photos, and the standard is so high in the concours, now the cars even have rivets! Would it be more appealing to more people, I'm not sure, but it may give entrants a window to give it a go. Just some thoughts from an ex entrant who still follows the series with interest in it continuing. Congratulations on keeping the VRAA going so far. Regards Nigel
|
|
|
Post by munter on Mar 22, 2016 2:38:26 GMT -5
I entered once in about 2009. I remember my car was a Cooper. There was some tea strainer mesh over the intakes and the suspension was four pieces of bent wire attached to the body(badly). I was happy to finish mid way through the lower half of the pack
Now I have printed the 2015 rules and have started two cars following the rule set. I am currently struggling with getting the 2.5 class motor,chassis clearance requirement. I will get it right though.
Will I finish them? Will I enter again? Maybe, probably, possibly...I think I have enough time.
Oh and I have a BWA motor for the 1.5 class but I bought it from the era before stickers. Is there any way to verify it is a BWA motor?
I have always looked in on the series and admired the builds.
I dont feel the rules are too restrictive. We can read, we can measure,.... are we not men?
Carry on the great work. Regards John
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 5:35:10 GMT -5
It seems to me that if you relax the rules you are simply assisting mediocrity and Heaven knows we have more than enough of that in most walks of life these days. If slot racing is a hobby that cannot raise more than a handful of people interested in quality, maybe it is a hobby that has had its day and deserves to die out.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by Aurora on Mar 22, 2016 9:16:41 GMT -5
Would an informal poll help identify, and quantify, the reasons people have for entering, or not entering the event?
I can only give you my own reasons for entering in the past. For example, I have entered because:
1. I was intrigued by the technical challenge – the modeling and engineering aspects of building a car.
2. I was fascinated by the spectacle of all the cars together on the beautiful tracks, with the accompanying photographs and entertaining race reports, and wanted to be a part of it.
3. I was attracted to the exclusivity of the event. To me, the combination of scratchbuilt cars from around the world, and the fantastic tracks, each one crafted as painstakingly as the cars, makes the event seem special, almost unique.
Again, those are only my personal reasons for entering, and I can speak for no one but myself. But if you could identify, and quantify, the reasons, and expectations, that others have for participating, maybe it would assist you in generating more interest.
Regarding the issue of increasing participation, would opening up car eligibility help? Many vintage racing events stage races for cars that span time periods, such as Pre-War, or Post-War, and the variety of cars on track only adds to the interest, IMO.
For example, at the Goodwood Revival, there are several races for open-wheel cars:
1. Goodwood Trophy - For grand prix and Voiturette cars of a type that raced between 1930 and 1950.
2. Richmond and Gordon Trophies - A race for Formula 1 cars of a type that raced between 1954 and 1960.
3. Glover Trophy - For 1.5-litre Formula 1 cars of a type that raced between 1961 and 1965.
4. Earl of March Trophy - A race for the iconic ‘500 Club’ Formula 3 cars.
The first two of these races, the Goodwood Trophy, and the Richmond and Gordon Trophies, are especially entertaining, with all manner of different cars on the track at one time. The performance can vary quite a bit, but no one seems to mind.
For our little slot cars, would it be feasible to combine two, or more, of these classes, as above, into the VRAA? How about allowing other open wheels cars, such as Indy cars? F1 from 1966-1969? Formula Fords? Formula 2? Formula Junior?
To limit the performance differences between the cars, you could specify a few dimensions and rules that would apply to all cars:
1. Specify a maximum overall width (at the outer wall of the tire). Any car can be built out to the maximum width. Exclusion for non-compliance.
2. Maximum wheelbase. Any car can be built out to the maximum wheelbase. Exclusion for non-compliance.
3. Minimum ground clearance. Any car can be built to the minimum, but no lower. Exclusion for non-compliance.
4. To deter people from building ridiculous cars that are not within the spirit of the event, you could specify a percentage (±) over-scale or under-scale variation on any dimension that isn’t specified in the above three rules. For example, it could be a ± 10% scale allowable variation on the tire size, or body dimension. This would deter people from building a Cooper Formula 3 car that is the size of Mercedes W196 and slapping steam roller tires on it. The allowable variation from scale is whatever you choose - 3%, 7%, 10%, 50% - whatever. Time penalty for non-compliance.
5. Choice limited to two comparable motors, for example BWA FC-130 and BWA FF-050. If I recall correctly, these two motors are fairly close in performance. Any RPM advantage of the FF-050 is offset by the greater torque of the FC-130.
These are just a few things I can think of at the moment...
Here's hoping that the VRAA continues long into the future!
Matt
|
|
|
Post by old23 on Mar 22, 2016 9:26:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments gentlemen.
Munter, I have sent you a message.
Nigel, the GP2.5 50's class was created to provide an easier path to entry for those less adept at fabrication. Even the skinny half tonner class has seen successful builds with origami Penelope Pitlane chassis. The appearance regs, especially the minimum suspension detail for the GP1.5 are really not that difficult to meet. My own entries are pretty far from the jewel-like suspension reproductions of some of the members of this forum. I think those 60's cars look terrible if there is nothing filling the yawning gap between the body and the wheels. Your hand-carved Cooper and Lola from past years demonstrated well the spirit of the VRAA. I hope you might consider returning with a new car.
Martin, I couldn't agree more. I think the VRAA rules do strike a reasonable balance between scale fidelity and car appearance for a racing proxy.
Stewart
|
|
|
Post by David Mitcham on Mar 22, 2016 9:35:26 GMT -5
Hi Stewart
Like Ken I don’t think you should be despondent about the number of entries last year. Scratchbuilders, and those wanting to enter a proxy series, are a fairly select group of people; that shouldn’t put you/us off keeping the VRAA going and revitalising it.
I'm in agreement with quite a lot of what's been posted so far. Here are my thoughts on the VRAA. A caveat on all my comments is that I only participate in the 1/32 F1 Forum and rarely, if ever, access other fora so my observations are from a rather narrow perspective.
1. For me this year’s format worked very well and I’d be happy for it to continue. However I recognize introducing the ‘50s class didn’t have the desired effect in terms of new or additional entries.
2. I’m keen on almost all eras of grand prix racing – from the ‘30s through to the present but my favourites are the ‘50s, 60’s and early ‘70s (up to 75/76) and I would enter a car or cars for any/all of those periods; I wouldn’t be interested in scratchbuilding anything after the mid-‘70s.
3. I’d be content to see the rules opened up to allow ready to runs (RTRs) and kits (ie made up packages of parts as in Pendle Penelope Pitlane cars) if we are confident that would increase the number of participants. Some modifications could be allowed – wheels/tyres, more realistic driver figure, different livery, extra detail.
4. I’m less keen on relaxing the overall rules to allow more dimensional latitude and reducing the detail requirements for scratchbuilt cars. Maybe an extra millimetre here and there and more motor options would be OK but if one is building a scale car to represent as closely as possible the original why would one want to not model the suspension to the minimum required by the current rules? Its not meant to be easy; if the rules went in the direction of 'anything goes' then I would't enter.
5. Allowing RTRs might require separate concours competitions and might mean a move from the 1.5 litre cars as I don’t think there are many current RTRs of that era (Cartrix Porsche, Scalextric Ferrari 156).
6. May be it is time to move on from the 1.5 litre formula cars anyway – however in the first year of the 3 litre formula several 2 and 2.5 litre versions of the ’61 to ’65 cars competed, eg BRM P261, Lotus 33, so an option might be to have a 3 litre formula (say ‘66 to ‘69) proxy which would allow competitors to field a modified 1.5 litre era car. This has potential to be interesting – its possible that, say, a P261 with 1966/67 tyres would be very competitive as it would be lighter than a 3 litre car; would a car with wings be superior to one without?
7. I’d keep the ‘50s competition going for another year – there are plenty of scratchbuilding options, current RTRs and kits. Also they're relatively less demanding in terms of suspension detail.
Echoing Matt's comments what would be really useful to know is why people don’t enter – particularly those who have entered in the past. Are the current rules too demanding? Is building a car too time consuming/too much effort? Are scratchbuilders an increasingly rare breed? Are people just not interested in proxy racing?
I'll be entering the 2016 VRAA come what may (almost!).
Best Regards
David
|
|
|
Post by datto on Mar 22, 2016 12:28:54 GMT -5
I entered once in about 2009. I remember my car was a Cooper. There was some tea strainer mesh over the intakes and the suspension was four pieces of bent wire attached to the body(badly). I was happy to finish mid way through the lower half of the pack Oh and I have a BWA motor for the 1.5 class but I bought it from the era before stickers. Is there any way to verify it is a BWA motor? John I think the required motor rule more than scale or detail that put me off. Can you even get those anymore? If there is a set required motor it should be universally available. Dwindling NOS would spell death. Opening up the epochs eligible (the Goodwood example was a good one) might be the place to start. After all, the V in VRAA stands for “vintage”, right, so employing a model like Goodwood or the Monterey Historics would make sense. I understand not wanting to relax the scale/appearance rules. Keep the rules in place but revisit the amount of points deducted would be my suggestion. Look into other ways the event might draw in a wider variety of entrants. (Maybe a novice class?) Exclusivity is all well and good, but who wants to play toy cars with bunch of sour old anoraks?
|
|
|
Post by David Mitcham on Mar 22, 2016 12:42:20 GMT -5
Martin
I understand where you're coming from and I admit I was very nervous about entrusting cars I spent many hours building to people I didn't really know on the other side of the world. However my concerns were misplaced and for two of the proxies I have entered my cars returned unmarked and as though they had never raced, running sweetly - better than when they left me. In the third proxy I entered the car was damaged a little but that was partly down to customs savaging it and the other cars.
I would have no problem with a freer/free motor choice and having a more formula libre approach - say including Indy cars and what about F5000/Formula A cars - they did race from time to time with F1 cars in non-championship races.
I admit I do have a problem with vac form cars. Its partly history as I raced totally non-scale vac forms and grew to hate them. For me they don't offer the same scope for detailing but maybe you will tell me otherwise. Does anyone make 'accurate' vac-forms?
Best Regards
David
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 22, 2016 12:43:18 GMT -5
Here is something that I find interesting. This post showed up on this site and the SCI site at the same time. SCI is the host for the series and there have been no posts on that site. Strange...
As for reasons entrants have dropped away I hate to say many of them developed new interests. Robert went to model tanks, Matt moved to Marklin trains, BJ7 turned to RC boats, I moved over to 1/24th scale Retro cars, Kris moved away, Ron did not want to build a new car, Mike Akers has suffered health problems and heaven forbid some of us have died. People move on, we are all getting older and attention spans are not what they used to be.
When I took over the VRAA it was presented to be the top rung of the proxy races with the amount of scratchbuilding that needed to be done to have a car legal for entry. It brought out some amazing cars over the years with incredible detail and that was the primary intention on the series to be a showcase for modeling skills combined with the racing. When the 50s cars were added the rules were toned down for entries from any caliber of builder. It sort of worked but has not gained too much traction. I hope to see the 1.5 liter class to stay the prestige class of proxy racing. I will roll over in my grave the day a neon pink 1963 BRM with Monster logos competes.
Keep the discussion rolling guys.
ken
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Rowland on Mar 22, 2016 12:51:15 GMT -5
I tried to write this morning but as I finished proboards, not for the first time, let me down...... Which means the below is slightly abridged.....
Anyway.
1. I will enter my Lotus 21 in the next series if the series runs.
2. I will consider a '50's entry too. But no promises.
3. Knowing how hard it all is I think this series is going extremelly well with 19 cars and 13? entrants.
4. I am slightly mystified about the BWA motor. Certainly I will require help getting one as I have no idea who sells these or what spec. they are.... Why is the motor not open so that entrants can balance it with the chassis. Yes there is an arms race but isn't that the whole point of racing anyway?
5. Similarly the list of motors for the '50's class are all types I have no experience with so will have to buy them all and test them. Why the choice of one motor for one class and several for the other? These are not criticisms, just things that maybe have been inherited or evolved over time which as a new entrant seem mystifying...
6. Given for the 1970's class I tried to race I got the grand total of 3 entrants I would strongly suggest not to waste time with later cars.....
7. So did you find this year that the '60's and '50's cars have very different performance? Can they be run against one another if the rules were made to restrict the differences? Having 19 cars in a race could be fun? Or does that break other entrant's sensibilities? Would an arms race ensue to make everyone race the same car(s)? At EB's this has not happened despite worries that it might over the years.
8. Keep going, you are doing great and I can't wait to enter at least one car.
9. Keep the cars scale, totally agree with Martin on this. If you build to scale you build to scale and then have an allowable tollerance. The issues arise because people build to MAXIMUM SIZE, then find they are 0.5mm over and get penalised. That is not, in my opinion, in the spirit of the rules....
Don't agree with vac forms though! There are insufficient properly made and scale bodies available AND expecting people to make them the,selves would be far too much. Opening up to vac form would put a LOT of your entrants off I believe. I for one would not bother.
Cheers Andi
|
|