reenmachine

iTrader: (26)

I don't get it. Running the '67 Corvette body would be a travesty but suddenly mini chassis with foreign bodies are totally reasonable?

squarehead

iTrader: (75)

The "foreign bodies" were actually run in the Trans Am (in a small displacement division of the class) series throughout the late 60s. There isn't anything inconsistent about the concept at all.

snoopyrc

iTrader: (2)

I think it takes guts to even offer an idea like that. Plus I will take any excuse to paint up a Bob Sharp 240.

reenmachine

iTrader: (26)

I know all about T/A...I'm just sayin' that any little deviation from the current rule set was always met with derision and now an entirely different platform is on the table.

For the record, I love the idea and if you read back in this thread and the HPI Cup Racer thread to the very beginning you'll find it being discussed between myself and others. I even posted up a Bob Sharp pic right away.

The Cup Racers are definitely going to be popular out here in socal. HPI is out at all our big events and has already previewed the 240Z for us.

They most likely won't be racing with USVTA though as it just isn't catching on out here. RCGT has gotten HUGE (80+ participants in the current socal points series) and that's filling that niche. RCGT has even been added to the Reedy Race of Champions.

DARKSIDE

iTrader: (2)

I think he is refering to "AMERICAN MUSCLE"....or maybe add some more bodies before another division...or maybe Im wrong...but whatever is decided I know it will be in the best intrest of the class..

ps..are you going to race in the USVTA NATS?

pejota

iTrader: (12)

Research the box scores from the Trans Am series and you'll see why the 67 corvette is not included. Vettes and Panteras (to add another favorite body) didn't appear until 1973. By then there was maybe one Mustang at a race, a handful of Camaros and zero Cudas, IIRC.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Pro%20...ns-Am/1973.pdf

Just change the year before the .pdf to see other box scores. It makes for some interesting reading if you're into the history of VTA. Speaking of history, what happened to the rules in 1973? 1972 was chock full of Camaros, Mustangs, Javelins and Firebirds?

In response to the U-2.5 class... i'm in as soon as they make a VW Super Beetle body!! Treuhaft VW Super Beetle ran a few races in the early 70's! Anyone have a pic of that car?

squarehead

iTrader: (75)

The idea is to keep it close to the real SCCA Trans Am racing in the late 60s. If and when there are more accurate ponycar bodies, I'll be happy to add them to the list.

The U-2.5 class would be separate, but combined in the same class of racing, like the original Trans Am class ran. Again, it's just an idea to throw out there. There is a lot of potential for a short wheelbase class, IMO. It's something to consider going forward, for sure.


With a brand new baby in the house, and a new race car in the garage, my R/C track time is severely stunted. My free time has been heavily reduced, so I need to pick and choose what I want to do when I get it. Honestly, I have no interest in a 2-day T/A race, either. I have enough trouble focusing for one day, let alone two. I might take a ride out on Sunday, but it depends on everyone's moods that day.



doug

DARKSIDE

iTrader: (2)

my moood will be great...come A B C D E....main Im going to make the most of this race...hope you make it out so some of can just say thank you..

Evoracer

iTrader: (24)

I believe the short wheelbase cars could help the VTA effort but I don't think running them together would be the way. Keep them separate. Give those that like what it has to offer a place to call there own so to speak. Given the effort thats gone in to VTA and with the VTA spirit in mind, the motor combos should be adopted across the board. Why change a good thing. Thats assuming there's no legitimate reason the smaller cars NEED further adjustment for speed differences. The realism, the slower pace, the overall impression that VTA is more for fun than anything else is what drew a burnt out RCer like me back into racing. Someone mentioned the RCGT class ....I'm a little confused by this. Its basically the same old keep up with the joneses program in a different wrapper. Yes the body choices are cooler but isn't 27t/6 cell racing part of what got touring class into the fix its in now? Whats different(aside from 17.5/LiPos)? Gotta have bigger batteries, better esc, newest chassis ? Same old formula, different wrapper. Thats the difference with VTA....you guys have embraced the idea of slowing things down. The Cup Racer isnt widely available yet ; let the clubs try it out if they wish and keep an eye on its success then think about adding "mini" chassis as a separate VTA class.

reenmachine

iTrader: (26)

I mentioned RCGT. I don't know what you think it is, but it's really very similar to USVTA, just one notch faster is all. Realistic bodies (even with bonus points awarded for added realistic elements such as mirrors, exhaust, driver figures, etc.). Realistic wheels and spec tires in the very same compound USVTA runs. Emphasis on fun and close competition.

I don't understand why you think it's so different...

For the record, I prefer USVTA but it's just not happening out here yet.

Evoracer

iTrader: (24)

No offense meant. I just don't get why the continued effort , albeit with good intentions, to continue with motor combos that have become faster than most people can AFFORD. With the existing mentality in stock class racing the average person will be burned out from the constant barrage of "NEEDS" long before they should. This isn't a new statement....many of us have said the same thing over and over for years. I think RCGT is a great idea but why not go with the same formula as VTA or any other reasonable choice that tempers the same old "need for speed" idea thats lingered way to long.
I figured I better add this. RCGT is a great program nonetheless but some of us just aren't looking to go where we've been. VTA really does offer a tremendous oppurtunity. I'm not insulting anyone for whatever class they race. I'll stand behind VTA and if they add the smaller cars....great. If not, I'll still be running and promoting TA.

robk

iTrader: (22)

Trans Am is awesome, and RCGT is a great idea as well. Judging by racer response (read: class entries), most races 17.5 classes seem to be the biggest, and often have the best racing. Obviously, Trans Am produces great races too. I just think past 17.5 the majority starts to loose their comfort level on the track.

I have thought it would be a great idea for a "scale nats" with USVTA, RCGT, and F1. Preferably in front of a crowd at an auto show or 1:1 race.

reenmachine

iTrader: (26)

I guess I just don't get it. It's not like I'm talking about 10.5 or open mod. 17.5 isn't all that much faster than 21.5 -- our fastest USVTA racers turn faster average laps than a good chunk of the RCGT field. I don't know why you think 17.5 is some crazy "need for speed" formula...

spngr311

iTrader: (5)

I don't understand what makes RCGT that much different from the mechanics of the USVTA. USVTA runs a 21.5 brushless on 2 cell lipo and RCGT runs 17.5 on 2 cell? After that, I don't see much that is different other than the lack of discrimination against import bodies. Both are all wheel drive touring car chassis, specify a motor less than the fastest motor available (no difference in price than running a 21.5T), and specify a specific tire (although, I wish the RCGT would use the A-Drift tires because they make it so that running a faster motor can actually be a penalty!). I understand where you are coming from, but I don't see the vast difference.

Evoracer

iTrader: (24)

Some obvious differences. A 27t, 6 cells running a 7.2 ratio will smoke a 27t with 4 cells. A 17.5 w/ 2c Lipos will definitely smoke a 21.5 /lipos AND no fdr restrictions. Thats my point. Many of us who have been involved with stock class racing felt it was way out of hand. Again...RCGT is a great idea but why not spec the motor/esc/fdr so it's more competitive and more attractive for a broader audience. I already realise that there will be people who dont like VTA simply because we can't run a Skyline body. I like RCGT but have had enough experience to know what happens when the rules are that loose.
On the other hand...as a club we could run our own rules as long as we have no intention of having a sanctioned RCGT program.