# Any Suggestions On How To Approach This



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

Hi Guys,

Most of you know I run the Racing to the Future program for 3-12 grade students. We run drag race format and focus on the some of the math and physics involved with slot cars as a learning experience and a chance to exercise some engineering skills. This year at the state championships we ran across a first in eight years of the program. We had a fantastic built entry that was spared no expense in its construction. the car was blindingly fast, but did not last for the duration of several races. In my estimation, the car had close to $250-300 in it.
Most, if not all of the other entries were $75 or less, most under $40. The program has gained in popularity because it is less expensive to compete in, compared to other programs of similar focus, like robotics. 

So here's my quandary, I encourage our students to build their cars as best they can and we race under a "run what you brung" format. Knowing most of my students can't pony up $250+ dollars to get on even ground, how do I keep the building and designing in place, and limit the dollars spent?

I considered dropping amperage to 4 or so to restrict the monster builds. I also thought of an Ohm restriction on the armatures, but we have a very tight time limit on the racing event and in depth tech inspections may not be a viable option. I also don't want to hinder the handful of kids that are making their own parts like rewinds. I also thought about a spend limit, but we have some students that have raced the same car for 4-5 years and would probably not have the receipts.

I guess we got lucky that we went 8 years before the max build/spend surfaced. Any ideas you can bounce my way would be appreciated. If I could get the power set up so cars like a G3 or entry level Viper could run, but a 1 ohm monster magnet car would not be at peak, would be ideal, just not sure if that can be accomplished.

Thanks for the recommendations,
Paul


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

Paul,
I empathise and agree that some kind of limit needs to be applied.
being the source of a car that had those quantitative abilities, I apologize to you and all the participants of your educational program for stepping over the boundary limits of student builds.
I don't know the answer to preventing such in future.
maybe limiting the amps available will discourage those seeking to use expensive set ups? !
al


----------



## Crimnick (May 28, 2006)

I think the answer is classes of some type


----------



## slots-n-stuff (Oct 18, 2006)

*my 2 cents*

Here is my 2 cents worth to your problem... No more self builds for racing... just run stock cars for racing... they can tweet but nothing more.. 
Self builds, let them run any other time... but not for competition... Yah or Nah???


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

*purpose*



slots-n-stuff said:


> Here is my 2 cents worth to your problem... No more self builds for racing... just run stock cars for racing... they can tweet but nothing more..
> Self builds, let them run any other time... but not for competition... Yah or Nah???


the purpose for the builds and competition is for the students to learn engineering, math and problem solving skills.
if they just race stock out of box slot cars the interest will be about the same as it is with the rest of the youth.
NILL


----------



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

You guys are giving me great feedback.

Here's issue with classes. All but the one entry would have been restricted. I have 4 hours to run 100+ students through the event before we have to have results posted and the track cleared from Rupp Arena's floor. That includes getting everyone registered, sorted by age, judging on design, tech inspection (width/length) and racing. Also, I have just enough sponsor support for 1st and 2nd place prizes in each age group. Classes would add to the prize budget/sponsorship.
Here's more info about how we run the program currently.

Classes are by age: Elementary School (40% of Entries), Middle School (40%), High School (20%)
Each student races every student in their age group. Wins and losses are tallied, highest number of wins takes first, etc. 
Cars and bodies run the gamut. Clear or hard body, pretty much any chassis, so long as it is no wider than 1-5/8 inches or 6 inches long. the car cannot pose a hazard to race officials, track, racers, or spectators.

We used to run AFX trip-power on 22 volts 1 amp, lanes were powered independently.
Now we have a commercial power unit that can be adjusted from 0-30 volts, 0-10 Amps.

We also used to run brackets, but we never get the right number of students to fill a bracket completely and we had byes. That resulted in issues with who got a bye, angry parents, etc.
The current, everyone races everyone in their age group solved the issues and the kids had more track time.

Winner is determined by who crosses the finish line first, no timing involved. You can foul at the start however.

Most of the modifications are tires and gears. We had 4 G3's entered and 4 Vipers and the 1 super car. I want them to modify, just need to keep costs down.

Keep those suggestions coming. I'm taking it all in as options.

-Paul


----------



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

My wife (the teacher) reminded me to add this. The students build their car over the school year. They must document what they do to the car and why the changes they made improve the car. So if the changed gears, "why is the new gear ratio better"(show the math), if they added stickier tires, "how did that make the car faster?" and so on. Teachers use the program to reenforce math and observation skills as well as writing and comprehension. It's much more than just the race day event at the state championships.

-Paul


----------



## Tuxedo (Dec 14, 2011)

alpink said:


> Paul,
> I empathise and agree that some kind of limit needs to be applied.
> being the source of a car that had those quantitative abilities, I apologize to you and all the participants of your educational program for stepping over the boundary limits of student builds.
> I don't know the answer to preventing such in future.
> ...


This and...................


Crimnick said:


> I think the answer is classes of some type


this........?
I understand you said that classes will not work and why. Is it possible they could all be run like you normally run them but then have a seperate group (class) for the $200-$300 cars? Just a thought . It could be unlimited whatever the student wants to do - goes. See how they push the envelope as it were?


----------



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

They have always pushed the limit. I had a student ask about model rocket motors one year(yikes!). This was the first time a large sum of money was thrown at building a car. I have parents and teachers concerned the costs will drive them out of the program. That is what I'm trying to avoid. For the most part we saw a self imposed limit of about $50 or so on a car. Most ran for less and still won. Someone suggested a "Parent Class" like they do in Pinewood Derby. I'm getting lots of feedback from this and other boards and I thank everyone for the info. Taking it all in and will talk with the group that helps me run the program. Keep the suggestions coming.

-Paul


----------



## rdm95 (May 8, 2008)

Can you do any sort of fundraising in order to help some of those who can't afford to buy parts to build their cars? ie: garage sales, car washes, bake sale etc.. Those who want to benefit from the proceeds would need to take part in any activities to earn funds. I'd like to think the benefits those kids would get from this wouldn't be limited to monetary gains alone.. 

My 5¢..Keep the change


----------



## leonus (Dec 17, 2013)

rdm95 said:


> Can you do any sort of fundraising in order to help some of those who can't afford to buy parts to build their cars? ie: garage sales, car washes, bake sale etc.. Those who want to benefit from the proceeds would need to take part in any activities to earn funds. I'd like to think the benefits those kids would get from this wouldn't be limited to monetary gains alone..
> 
> My 5¢..Keep the change


Do this, then divide the money equally. This will level the playing field and put the emphasis back on creativity and problem solving instead of whos dad has the deepest pocketsand or whos dad is a slot geek


----------



## Piz (Apr 22, 2002)

How about make it a claimer race at the end of the race , top three cars go up for sale to anyone entered in the race . Say $100 for first place car , $75 for second, $50 for third . More than likely no one will want to buy the winners but the threat of losing a $250 car for less than half that might keep the monster builders away .


----------



## Bubba 123 (Sep 10, 2010)

Crimnick said:


> I think the answer is classes of some type


I too, think this is the only answer....
as in 1:1 bracket racing &/or "Hobbyist-Classes"....

set brackets up in armature Ohms & Voltage classes...
just my best guess (?? :freak::drunk:??)

Bubba 123 :thumbsup::wave:


----------



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

Thanks everyone that sent in suggestions. After talking it over with the group that helps run this program, we are most likely going to employ an armature, ohm per pole limit, most likely around 4-4.5 Ohms per pole. We haven't decided on what the limit will be yet. That will add to our tech inspection process, but seems the easiest point of control and will have the effect we are looking for in controlling overall build cost.
To clarify, minimum reading will be 4-4.5 ohm per pole or higher. Anything lower will not be allowed.

-Paul


----------



## vansmack2 (Feb 9, 2012)

pshoe64 said:


> Thanks everyone that sent in suggestions. After talking it over with the group that helps run this program, we are most likely going to employ an armature, ohm per pole limit, most likely around 4-4.5 Ohms per pole. We haven't decided on what the limit will be yet. That will add to our tech inspection process, but seems the easiest point of control and will have the effect we are looking for in controlling overall build cost.
> To clarify, minimum reading will be 4-4.5 ohm per pole or higher. Anything lower will not be allowed.
> 
> -Paul


The 4-4.5 ohm limit sounds good. Armatures in that range can be purchased rather inexpensively if you know where to look.


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

most stock armatures for inline are in the 6 ohm range.
Mattel Tyco battery operated chassis had a 3.5 ohm armature.

in pancake arms the lowest usual armature is 6 ohms with most being in the 12 to 18 ohm range.
quadralam Super II arms were 4 ohms and they are very expensive.

in my experience in order to get a 4 ohm arm for either, one must rewind or buy a rewound armature.

Paul, you might want to reconsider the minimum ohms!


----------



## vansmack2 (Feb 9, 2012)

alpink said:


> most stock armatures for inline are in the 6 ohm range.
> Mattel Tyco battery operated chassis had a 3.5 ohm armature.
> 
> in pancake arms the lowest usual armature is 6 ohms with most being in the 12 to 18 ohm range.
> ...


A UK seller has Mabuchi style 4.5 ohm motors for about $5.50 US dollars plus a reasonable shipping fee. The armatures from these can be used in SG+, BSRT, Viper, etc. These motors work great in Tomy Turbo/SRT cars.

I was hesitant to divulge this information, because I don't want the stock to run out before I get my fill.


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

[email protected]!!!!
thanx for the info. I'll be looking for them!


----------



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

We do encourage some level of armature work. That gets the student to explore electro-magnetic theory and add that to their documents. I want to crack the door open a bit and let them do some entry level armature tinkering. We had students balance motors in the past and we do have some $10 and $12 dollar "hot Stock" arms in the mix. I asked some of the teachers that have the larger groups of students racing what some of them are doing. We had a couple with the 3.5 battery based arms in the cars, but that was as radical as it got. This still wouldn't stop having a custom wind made that meets the spec, so maybe we up the ohms to 5.8 like HOPRA. I'm willing to bet I still see a custom 38 or 39 gauge rewind pop up. Not sure how much that will gain someone, other than the balanced and trued comm advantages. But you guys are making me think hard about this and that's what I need.

-Paul


----------



## sethndaddy (Dec 4, 2004)

is it possible to put a dollar spent limit on the project?


----------



## slots-n-stuff (Oct 18, 2006)

*Gifts for your Students...*

I see I was no help with your problem.. but I just had a thought... where maybe I could do something ... I have some Slots n Stuff pens n pencils that maybe you could give to the students... lmk about how many, your address and I will ship them to you asap.. Andrew


----------



## slotking (May 27, 2008)

just read through the thread, here a few thoughts I had:

1>bracket racing
2>if you allow arm rewinds, then the cost for a 4ohm arm should the same for a 1ohm (if the kids do the rewind) Buying them is where the money is.
3>you can get cheap neo mags online

4>or as posted before, have 2 or more classes.
5>the hot stock arms are readily available from a few folks, but they are 6+ohms


----------



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

Okay, new question. Knowing that there is some inconsistency in measuring resistance in a single armature pole from the pick up shoes or even the brushes, I ran some controlled tests this weekend.
Taking readings from an armature, removed from a chassis, it measured 6.1 Ohms per pole. I then took measurements from the reassembled chassis, from 1.) the clean pickup shoes (6.3 Ohms per pole) and from the brush barrels (6.3 Ohms per pole). I then ran the car for 300 laps on a 44 foot oval, oiling the motor bushings every 100 laps. I made sure to get significant wear on the pick up shoes. With a dirty comm, brushes and shoes, and after a 1 hour cool down time, the armature measured 6.3 from the pick up shoes and 6.3 from the brush barrels.

I did this with 3 makes of chassis and got similar results with the armature readings either the same as directly from the armature or with a + .2 or.3 variance measuring from the pick ups or brush barrels. 

Is it reasonable to assume this variance would hold up across the board? If so, I'm thinking any car within plus or minus .3 ohms would get torn down and inspected at the armature level. Any car with higher readings would pass. I'm trying to make tech inspection faster, for 100+ cars and still get judging and racing in, within our 4-5 hour window.

Thanks in advance,
Paul


----------



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

I wanted to thank everyone that replied with ideas on how to approach the problem I posted. After many meetings, tests, talking with parents, teachers and students, we decided to go the route of limiting the armature rating for 5.8 OHMs per pole or higher. Any rating lower than 5.8 Ohms would not qualify for the event. We are still leaving the other chassis components available for modification within our width, length and safety guidelines. We will be teaching each car as they are entered. I invested in a new DVOM with some very fine, needle-like probes and can take a reading on all the HO motors in the chassis, with the exception of sealed units like the AFX Mega G+ or cars with N20 or N30 sealed can motors. I'll deal with those as a one off if and when they come up.

Thank you again everyone for your input. I took what I received here and on other forums to our groups and we weighed all the suggestions. It was very helpful in coming to a solution.

-Paul


----------

