PDA

View Full Version : plated kelly c can



PDM1
12-23-2002, 11:42 AM
I thought I read this here before but can't find it again.

Is the Kelly plated c can legal for 2003?

Thanks
Paul

Jeff Bechtel
12-24-2002, 02:51 PM
It is not legal. There is a freeze on ANY changes to the can, endbell or armature in GP-12 until 2004. Besides it was not submitted, and I believe that is why it was not submitted. It will be legal for the 2004 Nats. Bill Skinner told Gugu this several months ago.

Slotracer152
12-24-2002, 06:15 PM
somebody send Gugu an email and tell him to give it the same part number as the old one....problem solved

Chubby
12-24-2002, 10:29 PM
Wat do u mean By Plated.....does It look like a silver can with out the paint???

DDDDDDerek
12-25-2002, 12:15 AM
In the lastest issue of Slot Car Bulleton Kelly products even state that it is just one less step of a regular kelly meaning that he does not paint them black anymore.

Slotracer152
12-25-2002, 02:57 AM
if its the same part number...then it is still legal

Proslot did it for years with their new armature blanks

Jeff Bechtel
12-25-2002, 06:47 AM
Same part number or not, it IS NOT LEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!! The part has been changed! It is not just the can without paint. It now has a nickel plating on it. This plating changes the strength characteristics of the can, therefore making it different from the can submitted, therefore it must be re-submitted. It was NOT re-submitted and it CANNOT be changed in any way, shape, or form until 2004.

Chubby
12-25-2002, 09:41 AM
Ive Seen People Just take off the paint and it looks the same.... can it be noticed.....

Slotracer152
12-25-2002, 11:00 AM
just take the paint off....shine it up real nice...and see what they say

I guess you're right Jeffro...changing the blank of an armature doesn't change its characteristics at all

Jeff Bechtel
12-25-2002, 11:47 AM
Changing the blank DOES change the characteristics of the armature as well. The armature would HAVE to be re-submitted as well. I am not sure which armatures you are referring to in your accusation. Stack designs have not been changed by any of the manufacturers in the past two years. RJR, Proslot and Koford have all gone to the small leg design within the last three years and have ALL re-submitted new armatures to the USRA in that time period.

Chubby
12-26-2002, 12:09 AM
Shouldnt all the manafactures just not sell anything not legal to make it easy for all of us???

Jeff Bechtel
12-26-2002, 01:11 AM
Yes, that would make it easier for us, but we can not tell them that they can't sell something. If we say that they can't sell something, that is called restraint of trade. We can say that it isn't legal to run in our USRA sactioned races, but we can not say that they can not sell it. They can make anything that they want and sell it for what ever reason they want. Not everything that all of the manufacturer's makes is legal for use in the USRA, and that is fine, it doesn't have to be.

goggles_paisano
01-06-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Jeff Bechtel
Same part number or not, it IS NOT LEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!! The part has been changed! It is not just the can without paint. It now has a nickel plating on it. This plating changes the strength characteristics of the can, therefore making it different from the can submitted, therefore it must be re-submitted. It was NOT re-submitted and it CANNOT be changed in any way, shape, or form until 2004.

Yeah, the plating makes the can weaker. Maybe Gugu didn't submit the can because it is exactly the same form factor and mechanical design. Is scraping the paint off changing the design? Is adding more paint? How about tinning the whole can for solderability? Agreed, the plating will help the motor solder in better. Gee, a better product with the same design, adding to the overall enjoyment and satisfaction with the product. What a crime.

As for the moratorium on new designs, the idea is sound, the original premise being that people aren't forced to go out every few months and buy new stuff to be competitive. Nice idea, but while we are at it, lets digress just a little and talk about chassis in box stock. Why disallow a chassis that has been out of proction for two years?. Someone could buy a chassis off the shelf somewhere and get 6 mos. useful life out of it before it is obsoleter. This is especially true if someone makes a single production run and then bales. If someone is satisfied with running old stuff, who cares?

What, exactly is the rational for forcing obsolecence on a chassis after two years? It seems like it is creating a market without forcing a chassis designer to come up with something better to generate business. Just something newer. Next there will be a rule disallowing chassis that have been in production for more than two years. Or is there?

Okay, I'm done grousing.

Rusty Pinion
01-07-2003, 05:41 AM
Uh oh.......over 2 years old.......roflmao........there goes all the Flexi's and Turbo-Flex chassis!

BillyBob
01-07-2003, 09:18 PM
Reading the funnies again. Keep the Band together Rusty. Looks like we got a new bass player. Hope we can jam again soon.

BillyBob:D

InspMoose
01-28-2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by goggles_paisano


What, exactly is the rational for forcing obsolecence on a chassis after two years? It seems like it is creating a market without forcing a chassis designer to come up with something better to generate business. Just something newer. Next there will be a rule disallowing chassis that have been in production for more than two years. Or is there?

Okay, I'm done grousing.

Dear Friend Goggles,

Good points. I suppose a case could be made that someone might produce a super-duper chassis only to perish along with all the blueprints and CNC info in a plane crash over the central Pacific. The upshot being that a fortunate few would have these super-duper chassis with no prospect of further production (did I mention that the distraught widow of the aforementioned central Pacific crashee hated slot racing and refuses to license the patent on her late hubby's chassis?) The two-year obsolescence rule limits that unfair advantage.

Given a few more minutes I could probably come up with other theories but I'm pressed for time right now.

One more thing... I am probably wrong but the only major sanctioning body I know of that declares things obsolete after a certain period of time is NASCAR which decrees that the body panels must be of recent vintage even if they are hung on a 10-year-old tube frame.

Only to be expected from the WWE of motorsports, I suppose, and who can argue with their attendance?

Toodle-pip,

goggles_paisano
01-28-2003, 09:34 AM
In fact, the unfair advantage point is the one point that was or has been offered in defense of the 2 yr. ruling, Basically due to Ace abdicating the production and Box throne with their Ace I.

I can almost understand it on that basis. However, a two yr. moratorium and two year obsolescence in this case makes for an interesting situation.

Regards
G.P.

InspMoose
01-28-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by goggles_paisano
In fact, the unfair advantage point is the one point that was or has been offered in defense of the 2 yr. ruling, Basically due to Ace abdicating the production and Box throne with their Ace I.

I can almost understand it on that basis. However, a two yr. moratorium and two year obsolescence in this case makes for an interesting situation.

Regards
G.P.

Ahh, yes. 2-year moratorium on motor changes and 2-year obsolescence on chassis. As I said a while ago, a set of circumstances can be hypothetically advanced to justify anything.

Beware of specious arguments.

You know what they say... a camel is a race horse designed by a committee.

goggles_paisano
01-28-2003, 05:14 PM
Most welcome conversation, Inspector Moose...

If you are saying that the USRA rationale is a "specious" arugment, then I am probably in your camp.

If you feel that my mention of a two year moratorium on motors and a two year obsolescence is a hypothetical set of circumstances and is part of a specious argument, the point may have been missed.

All the "rules" actions are hopefully to provide a "fair" environment in which to play with our toys. It is interesting that for motors, no one needs to buy new toys for two years, while you are forced to buy a chassis after two years, both in the name of fairness.

One more crank to give a spin....in the name of fairness, why do we let only who ever shows up at the nats vote for the whole USRA population? Proxy vote, anyone? Or did I miss something else?

Grousefully yours
G.P.

InspMoose
01-28-2003, 11:03 PM
Honorable Goggles,

Yes, I am saying that the "fairness" doctrine so often employed constitutes a specious argument, IMHO. It also constitutes an 'ad nauseum' if you take my point. Your question re motor freeze v. chassis obsolescence as contrarian indicators of said fairness doctrine seems a fair one.

I have no doubt that some party or parties thought both of these fairness issues through and they probably seemed to be good ideas at the time. At the risk of casting aspersions, I wonder if that time was very late on a Sunday after a week of thrashing on zero sleep.

As for the USRA as a democracy... I think that needs to be addressed. I have had yet more specious arguments presented to me in support of the present voting procedure but, of course, none of them bore up under close scrutiny.

In a practical sense I suppose that allowing only those members in attendance at 4am at the Nationals to vote serves a purpose. Tu wit: as near as I can an tell from my admittedly insular experience, the USRA Nationals are the only event at which the USRA rulebook is 'de facto' in force. Consequently, a semi-legitimate argument could be made that only those bothering to attend said event should be voting. The counterpoint would be that a plebiscite conducted on the West Coast disenfranchises those East Coast members financially unable to attend and vice versa.

It is a puzzlement.

Regards,

goggles_paisano
01-29-2003, 05:35 AM
My esteemed inspector,

Your assumption that the Nationals is the only event where the USRA rules is the defacto standard used to be the correct one. The intention was to have a rule base that you could point to as governing the event but certainly local race bodies could/would deviate from it.

I think that USRA events and local classes which are also run at the Nats should conform to the rule book. This allows less thrashing on the part of those occassional attenders to the "big one"

As for voting because you happen to be there at 4 a.m. Been there, done that. In "fairness" voted in rules that govern an entire body should not have the right to vote requisite upon making said big event. (being able to afford to, chosing to go, etc. etc.)

As the process is now, everyone except for the 20 or 30 or so who are actually there may wind up being disenfranchised, certainly to the extent they had no voice.

One more question: Will you be at the Barn Burner? I would like to say hello in person to Chief Inspector Moose.

Regards
G.P.

Bent rim
01-30-2003, 09:39 PM
Why dont you two get a room already?:eek:

InspMoose
01-30-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Bent rim
Why dont you two get a room already?:eek:

And I thought "Bent rim" was a wheel reference.

Cheers,

goggles_paisano
01-31-2003, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Bent rim
Why dont you two get a room already?:eek:

Mr. Rim, heir apparent to the slot car kingdom, if not already hegemon...officainado of the USRA. Expert retort, well stated. But alas, I already have a room with a fellow racer. And beside's, I'm not really "bent" in that persuation.

Regards
Goggles

Aubin 3 sixteen
01-31-2003, 05:04 AM
I believe it is "Hair Apparent" :D :D :D

Please don't call him a hedge-hog, we all know he's a bulldog. :D


Yo Bent, can this be the same Goggles whose car spent 3 heats under the track at Elmsford? :confused:

InspMoose
01-31-2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by goggles_paisano


But alas, I already have a room with a fellow racer. And beside's, I'm not really "bent" in that persuation.

Regards
Goggles

I wish to state for the record that the aforementioned "fellow racer" is not The Moose.

Goggles, old sport... mouse-click your way to the thread entitled "Goggles - stop making sense" for an entertaining experience.

Sincerely,

InspMoose
01-31-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by goggles_paisano
As for voting because you happen to be there at 4 a.m. Been there, done that. In "fairness" voted in rules that govern an entire body should not have the right to vote requisite upon making said big event. (being able to afford to, chosing to go, etc. etc.)

As the process is now, everyone except for the 20 or 30 or so who are actually there may wind up being disenfranchised, certainly to the extent they had no voice.

Goggles, old bean...

That is exactly the point. Democracy is not the correct term for the process. I believe Oligarchy more nearly meets the case. In this age of electronic wonder and widespread computer literacy I imagine a reasonably alert teen-ager could set up a USRA site page to receive votes from the members.

Such an innovation would teach valuable lessons in issue-related campaigning, and getting the vote out.

"Democracy inaction" -- clever.

Be well,

Jeff Bechtel
01-31-2003, 12:06 PM
Are you volunteering?















"Become part of the solution...not part of the problem"

J.Bechtel

THOBART
01-31-2003, 12:46 PM
Look the USRA has jurisdiciton over what we let them have jurisdiction over. If you don't like the rules run other rules. The only race that they have any true power over is the NAT's. If you want to do something different do it. Otherwise who cares. I'm not going to the Nat's (dont have the money) so I don't care.

Later
Tony

InspMoose
01-31-2003, 01:12 PM
Mr. Bechtel,

In answer to the question "Are you volunteering?" I must reply "no." Not because I'm unwilling to assist but because I am insufficiently skilled in the requisite software to be of any assistance. Can it be that there is not a single person in the USRA capable of setting up such a system (assuming it was voted in)?

With respect to the trite "Become part of the solution...not part of the problem" I am forced to point out that while you may find it convenient to see the world in black and white it really exists in multiple shades of gray. For example, let's take our political system. Within our two major parties there are radicals occupying the extreme right and left and persons less radical occupying an almost infinite number of positions between the two poles. These disparate views are openly and frankly discussed within the parties, compromises are arrived at, and the parties still function.

I am offering the opinion that the USRA is not truly democratic though it easily could be.

No offense intended.

Ramcatlarry
02-02-2003, 10:58 PM
back to the original subject.... Black crackle paint can be found at all Ace and True Value hardware stores as well as most Home Centers such as Home Depot or Menards. Just paint it before the The motor is installed. It is part of the necessary blueprinting procedure to even assemble that pile of parts that is laughably called a "Motor". Frankly, I think Mr Kelly should rebuild ALL of the motors himself if they cannot run right out of the bag.

goggles_paisano
02-03-2003, 04:40 AM
I wish just painting the kelly cans to solve the plated can debacle was sufficient. (If in fact you were suggesting painting the plated cans)

As Jeff said, the can is nickel plated, not just without paint. This, as we have been told, is considered a design change. If so, then painting the plated can would illegal according to the rules. Maybe one could slip a can by the tech folks, but strictly speaking, cheating.

Jeff, is the above conclusion correct?

Regards
G.P.

raceready
02-03-2003, 09:10 PM
He'y Ramcat, If you dont like the kelly Products,dont buy them. Im sure second place won't bother you.Terry is just starting developing his products. Atleast he is trying to develop new products for racers

Ramcatlarry
02-03-2003, 09:54 PM
It is a simple matter of quality control. IF it DOES NOT RUN do NOT put it in a bag and try to sell it. If the USRA is going to be concerned about not changing the submitted products then NO motor should be BLUEPRINTED.

InspMoose
02-03-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by raceready
He'y Ramcat, If you dont like the kelly Products,dont buy them. Im sure second place won't bother you.Terry is just starting developing his products. Atleast he is trying to develop new products for racers

My goodness... the standard retort returns in another guise.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't like the rule go race somehwere else. If you don't like the food, go starve?

Shouldn't the development be done by the company PRIOR to offering it for sale? Aren't major corporations sued over such issues of fitness for use?

And why, exactly, should a purveyor of substandard materials be shielded from criticism?

Sorry... don't mean to start another donnybrook. Honest to gosh, I really don't.

InspMoose
02-03-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by goggles_paisano
I wish just painting the kelly cans to solve the plated can debacle was sufficient. (If in fact you were suggesting painting the plated cans)

As Jeff said, the can is nickel plated, not just without paint. This, as we have been told, is considered a design change. If so, then painting the plated can would illegal according to the rules. Maybe one could slip a can by the tech folks, but strictly speaking, cheating.

Jeff, is the above conclusion correct?

Regards
G.P.

Jehosaphat, Goggles... jest paint the durned thang and git on wif the race. It ain't no performance advantage, are it?

Then again, if it wasn't... why do it?

This is getting confusing.

Tom Marsteller
02-04-2003, 06:37 AM
It would seem that nickel plating a can is not a performance improvement as much as an improvement to assist racers to more easily solder their Red Fox/Kelly motors in place.

Nickel is not ferrous and might (if I cared to check) show that the same set of magnets may gauss lower in the can compared to the painted can.

The painted can may be the better product for the magnets and heat dissipation. Just not as friendly.

InspMoose you remember the painted cans for sure!

I think the whole idea was to control the attention that BoxStock was getting from advanced racers and manufacturers. It was evolving into a new and very popular class that was pushing the new wing car racers aside.

USSCA addressed this with trying to offer advanced racers their own class and offering new racers their's.

I think that the plated can should have been considered an improvement in product quality. It has no performance advantage.

Keeping track of all slotcar products is a huge challenge. That must be a challenge for volunteer USRA officials to keep on top of. I am sure that at times unpopular decisions must be made and pressure is applied from both the manufacturers and the racers.

People in positions of authority will always draw criticism, it comes with freedom.


"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think that you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

Tom......

InspMoose
02-04-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Tom Marsteller
I think that the plated can should have been considered an improvement in product quality. It has no performance advantage.

People in positions of authority will always draw criticism, it comes with freedom.


"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think that you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

Tom......

Greetings, Tom.

Mark Twain also wrote: It is the prohibition that makes anything precious.

As for the plating and solderability, it is a point I have been made aware of by Goggles Paisano and yourself. In the broad sense I would call this a performance advantage as it would seem to offer a racer greater potential to survive an impact without losing a motor.

I could point out that a Kelly can would be unlikely to dimensionally survive such an impact... but I'm trying to be less obnoxious.

Best to you,

goggles_paisano
02-04-2003, 04:26 PM
Tom, Moose....all very good points.

I think that I will just paint myself black and hopefully nobody will notice my plated can...(watch! it, no pun intended).

After much careful consideration, studying the weakening of the can due to hydrogen embrittlement caused by plating, I would have to agree with the chief inspector moose. The biggest performance factor is how much slower the car goes when the motor falls out of the chassis.

Mr. Marsteller....HOW DARE YOU MENTION ANOTHER SANCTIONING BODY!!! STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!! :rolleyes:

TTFN

InspMoose
02-08-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by goggles_paisano
Tom, Moose....all very good points.

I think that I will just paint myself black and hopefully nobody will notice my plated can...(watch! it, no pun intended).

After much careful consideration, studying the weakening of the can due to hydrogen embrittlement caused by plating, I would have to agree with the chief inspector moose. The biggest performance factor is how much slower the car goes when the motor falls out of the chassis.TTFN

Goggles,

Best of luck at the Barnburner... and I hope that plating on your can clears up.

Regards,

goggles_paisano
02-08-2003, 10:00 AM
C.I.M.

Thanks for the best wishes..

I think a second "plating" operation, perhaps with zinc oxide will help with any can issues...

Ciao...

InspMoose
02-08-2003, 10:14 AM
G.P.

Should that compound prove ineffectual, I recommend a .1% topical Cortisone.

Respectfully,