Jsaves

iTrader: (4)

Maybe looking hard at 17.5 1s lipo is the way to go. Yeah it is slower, from what I have been told, but that seems to be what we want.
A little slower sounds like a very good thing.
Then you can forget tech on speedos and fdr. That would make the racing easier and more fun.

bob o

iTrader: (2)

Why even think about making those that don't already use a 1S in the other slect classes have to buy yet another set of batteries. I beleive the rules as they are are just fine. I have several other cars/trucks that use the same 2S batteries. To force those that do not run the 1S classes to now have to buy more batteries for just this class, no matter what the cost, will not go over well.
Adjust the FDR FIRST and see how it works, THEN if it doesn't you can look at other options.
REMEMBER THE FAST GUYS WILL ALWAYS BE FAST NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Oaks

Scottrik

iTrader: (261)

I'll point out that Jsaves doesn't run any other classes where 1s is applicable--he only races TC. The difference is HE (like Rob K and a few others) is genuinely trying to think of what's best for the class...and the class needs to be slowed back down to it's original speed. And if 1s is the answer to do that then he's indicating a willingness to make that small investment for the greater good.

As far as "well I don't run anything else that uses those batteries"...THAT lame argument cuts both ways. I don't run any classes where the 2s LiPo did me any good (when the CHANGE was made to 2s LiPo...see kids, those weren't always allowed) but I bought a couple for VTA anyway. And I'm by no means alone in that boat, but you didn't hear any of US crying the blues about it. That's where the class went, we wanted to race the class, we bought the battery. And charger(s).

Finally, it KILLS me to see changes that may be the "right" decision for a class (whether that happens to be 1s or not) held hostage to people who AREN'T willing to invest in the class. This happens in 1/12 too (so VTA is by no means alone in this phenomenon)...folks are invariably pissing and moaning about "but I can't use that in my Touring Car" whenever change is mentioned. The LAST thing a class should be held hostage to is folks who want to "add" the class almost as an afterthought because some of their equipment is compatible.

And as far as "the fast guys will always be fast"...that's ALWAYS going to be true. This isn't about "taking away somebody's perceived advantage", this is about slowing the class (the WHOLE class, EVERYBODY) back down to the original speed which was one of the two primary considerations for the class being invented in the first place.

wizzles29

Attepmting to slow the class (or any class of racing) is pointless. The whole point of racing is to maximize the potential of your car in a manner that you can control it more than the rest of the people on the track. Sure, you could cut the batteries to 1cell, or somehow control the speedcontrol settings. But there's alway going to be something else that someone finds that give them that edge to make them faster. Once that secret gets out, everyone will flock to it, and you're back where you started.

Sure, the adjustable timing speedos make life alot easier, but my tank of a tc3(with a tekin rs) is finishing in front of tc5s and other newer cars with the same electronics, so there's obviously more to it than that. It just goes to show that a good driver with a well set up car can beat someone with a $1000 in their car.

Sure, I'm yet to take first in the A main, and it may be years before I do. But there is no amount of technology in the world that will replace driver ability, knowldege, and expirience. So even if you do slow the class down, the same people will still be winning, and quite possibly by the same amounts.

rockin_bob

You say the class needs to slow down. I think the speed is just right. As soon as you change the rules and make many people running the class already peeved at the change, they'll figure out a way to make the change in motors and batteries the same or faster speed as wer're going now without the change.

robk

iTrader: (22)

It amazes me that everybody thinks the point of this is WINNING. It is not. The point is good racing. I want to see cars racing closely. I want to see more cars on the lead lap. Going faster and faster does not do this.

I do know when we started, the cars were a lot closer in speed. I know as people figure things out, there is an increase in speed. Still, I'd rather make it a formula that allows the maximum number of people to drive the car to it's full potential.

rockin_bob

I don't know, I never said anything about winning.
We raced at our local track tonight with current "VTA Rules" and the racing was closer than ever. A good driver won for his first time after 7 months of trying. He was excited to have worked so hard for so long within our existing guidelines, and finally put it all together. And you want to take that away from him and all the others who enjoy a stable rule platform.

Scottrik

iTrader: (261)

Have you followed "real" racing at all? The "modern era" of motorsports (anything since, say, 1970) there has been nothing BUT efforts to slow cars down in pretty much ALL forms of motorsport.

NASCAR saw the first 200 mph laps and reduced engine sizes. Speeds gradually increased and restrictor plates were implemented. Etc.

F-1 have continually implemented changes to keep speeds (particularly corner speeds where accidents tend to happen) by reducing engine sizes several times, eliminating turbos, minimizing ground-effect manipulation, restricting brake size, and on and on.

Even your homestate "event", Indycar racing have continually done pretty much everything possible to slow racing down. In the mid-90's cars were lapping Indy in the mid 230mph average. Now they're under 200 and have been for years.

Simple fact: the slower the racing class the closer the racing (overall) is AND the more people are ABLE to compete. This has always been true in "real" racing, it has always been true in RC. The fields in Formula Ford are far closer than the fields in Formula One. The fields in Stock have always been closer than the fields in Mod and FAR more folks have the ability/competence to race Stock.

Does this mean that the same "fast guys" won't win? Absolutely not, the fast guys are ALWAYS the fast guys and will win regardless the spec. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT. The debate is about getting the class back to the speed it was at before a RULES CHANGE created a spec that ended up being significantly faster than was originally anticipated. Think of it as correcting a mistake. The class NEVER should have been within a second of TC, much less the sub half-second it has become. The "faster" class already existed...Touring Car. If you get your jollies going fast and doing what it takes to win, Touring Car is ready and waiting for you.

rockin_bob

If you guys who were there as you say at it's inception really want to split the class into "Sportsman", 17.5 1C and "Pro" 21.5, 2C, I say go for it. I'm in for the 21.5, 2C option. They'll race that way at my track and I'll have a heavy voice at the other tracks I frequent. Your vast number of words will not sway me. It's not too fast.

Scottrik

iTrader: (261)

What do you not understand.

1) The rules weren't "stable" in the first place...THAT'S what created the situation that exists. There were rules the first year, those rules were SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED the second year (last summer), and now it is being proposed that we LOOK at changes that MIGHT take place AFTER ANOTHER YEAR of racing.

2) No one is "taking" anything away. Clubs would be 100% able to continue racing whatever the hell they want to race. Our club never adopted the 2s or brushless into our VTA racing--we continue to race 4-cell / 27T only. Market realities are forcing us to start to incorporate some change into the class as we prepare for a situation where round cells are no longer available. Right now it sounds like we'll allow brushless 17.5 into our existing VTA and call it "Sportsman" or "Club Spec" and created a second VTA class that is either 2s / 21.5 in line with current USVTA rules OR go with a 1s formula that might prove to be a real-world testbed for where the class maybe should go. Or not.

Guess what--we run a different spec for VTA (just like any club could now or in the future)...and no one has come to take our birthdays away or anything else. The world continues to go 'round. IF USVTA changes (it may, it may not) your club could do exactly the same thing--stick with what you think works. It's, ultimately, up to your club.

rockin_bob

I race tc also. That's fun too.

Scottrik

iTrader: (261)

Who'da thunk?

I'm sorry...was that in the "out loud" voice?

rockin_bob

I'm sorry.That was quite a hodge-podge, an amalgamation of we do what for rules at your track? What are the real home track rules for you. Sounds like several. I don't care about the rules you run.

rockin_bob

To me, VTA cars are moe the speed of a COT car goin' around Indy than what the F-1 cars were. Pretty slow in comparison. Even to the Indy cars. VTA is not too fast with the current rules IMO.

Scottrik

iTrader: (261)

Nope--we run ONE spec now. The ORIGINAL VTA spec. We were pretty certain that 2s was the wrong way to go with the class for the reasons that have pretty well panned out exactly as we foresaw.

We will (probably) be incorporating some changes for this year.