Hi, just to add my experience as F1 race organizer.
Past few years F1 was virtually non-existent. January 2012 I talked to our track owner, and he allowed me to run F1 races.
My gut feel, I allowed any F1 chassis. Any... F201, FGX, Cross (similar to Sakura F113 front shock design) and even the Kyosho KF01 (nitro).
The rookies I allowed foam or rubber tires. Veterans limited to rubber tires only.
For me it was good choice, as F1 became the most popular on-road class in 2012. Had over 50 racers join the 18 race series at one time or another, that spanned 12 months.
In the end, the fastest driver and winner, drove an F104 (then later a V2). A 180mm chassis that beat even the 200mm F103 or F104W. Yes, he would have gone faster with a 200mm, but he wanted the looks of the 180mm F1.
How does the saying go? "Fast guys will always be fast"....
I can understand the argument for "realistic" looking cars (and I totally agree), but has anyone ACTUALLY tested a Top Rebel with the pan car front end to see if it really does have an advantage? I don't mean some perceived advantage based on internet theory or conjecture. I mean some actual, meaningful track data or first hand experience?
As rccartips pointed out, the fast guy in his series was still fast, even with a car change.
A local here has just bought the top car an I drove it with my f1r. I can say, even though his might not e set up properly, the front ends are weak, bent upper tie rods super easily(he bashed a rail) and I like the drive of y f104/f1r much better.
__________________
Xray T3 2011 MMR VTA, Xray T3 2012 17.5 Sedan, Serpent S100 WGT, FT SC10, TLR 22 Buggy, M05 Mini for a laugh.
...and an 800whp MKIV Supra to get me around to and from the track.
How does the saying go? "Fast guys will always be fast"....
I can understand the argument for "realistic" looking cars (and I totally agree), but has anyone ACTUALLY tested a Top Rebel with the pan car front end to see if it really does have an advantage? I don't mean some perceived advantage based on internet theory or conjecture. I mean some actual, meaningful track data or first hand experience?
A race proven design (1:12 and Pro10), vs a compromise mainly built for static (as it's hard to tell when they're actually moving) scale looks? Averything else being equal I don't think that's a contest. Will that edge be of use to most racers? Once you can do consistent laps at a good pace, yes. This does not mean that a high-end front suspension can't be made, I think Serpent had a great idea there.
How does the saying go? "Fast guys will always be fast"....
I can understand the argument for "realistic" looking cars (and I totally agree), but has anyone ACTUALLY tested a Top Rebel with the pan car front end to see if it really does have an advantage? I don't mean some perceived advantage based on internet theory or conjecture. I mean some actual, meaningful track data or first hand experience?
As rccartips pointed out, the fast guy in his series was still fast, even with a car change.
Check out the results of the latest Uf1 race...winner of all 3 mains was running a Top car. The lap times are there to compare, though it was an Exotek front end if I am correct
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure
I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
Check out the results of the latest Uf1 race...winner of all 3 mains was running a Top car. The lap times are there to compare, though it was an Exotek front end if I am correct
Yes Exo front end
New TRG is also going quick in the hands of the experienced Ty Phillips
The Team Repsol/Honda/Tamiya VII has some work to do
My point is why ban or eliminate certain vehicles from your races when there's no reason? If the FGX and TOP Rebel actually gave a real advantage, then everyone would be running them and not F104s. By not letting them compete, no one is giving anyone a chance to actually see if anything is better than an F104.
No race series bans any particular car from any series, if the manufacturers intend their cars to race it is up to the manufacturers to build cars that fit the current rules. The rules makers shouldn't have to constantly change their rules to fit around what's available otherwise what would be the point of having rules.
Around the world the FGX hasn't been banned, it just never fit the rules we all race to. UF1 is unique in that they did the opposite and deliberately changed their rules to allow the FGX to run, but then UF1 rules still doesn't allow the majority of chassis on the market unless they fit the F104 front end on them. Conversely a lot of series around the world tend to have a 200mm class so allow every car available but have a solid axle rule that prevents the FGX from running.
As for only the F104 being allowed, well strictly speaking in 180mm you can only use F104 front arms, the rest of the car is pretty free and just about every F1 will fit an F104 front end, in fact my narrow car is an F103 with an F104 front end on it.
Whether the TOP Rebel pan car front end works better or worse than an F1 front end is irrelevant. The pan car design isn't banned because it's better, it's banned because it doesn't look like an F1 and no one really cares whether it is faster or slower.
Whether the TOP front end is better or not is irrelevant even to TOP, the TOP design is all about TOP building an F1 for the least expense possible. TOP haven't made a deliberate performance decision to go for a pan car front end, all they have done is make a plate that lets them bolt on their 1/12th front end because it saves them money as they don't have to make moulds for F1 front arms so if the car doesn't sell it hasn't cost them thousands in injection moulding tools. They also include mounting holes for any normal F1 front end so it's easy to make it race legal for both 180mm and 200mm classes, again without costing TOP money in producing the parts needed. BTW even if the TOP F1 didn't break the rules over the front end design, if you allow the front arms it will still be illegal for UF1 as it's 200mm wide.
Some of us have been here before, we raced F1s in the early and mid 90s and while we started with Tamiya F102s because we didn't have rules limiting the car design you went through more and more sophisticated designs until basically you needed to buy a Corally F1 like everyone else to be anywhere near competitive.
What reason can anyone give why rules should be changed to accommodate the TOP front end, you can't allow it just because it's available because someone could argue the same reason should mean the Corally F1SL should be allowed as well.
It's hard to put forward an argument to change rules to allow any particular car because the manufacturer didn't design it to be race legal in the first place. If it's not competitive the rules will have been changed for no reason as everyone will still run their old cars, if the new car is better then everyone ends up running the new car instead of what we are running now and you are still running in a class with very few types of car being used.
We have rules, they are there to keep the cars looking like the real thing and aren't there to let the cars be as fast as possible. If you are more interested in speed, performance and chassis development then there's 1/12th and WorldGT.
__________________
John Higgins Team Principal
F1 addict: New school 2 Exotek F1Rs, 2 McKune FGXs and a Speedpassion SP1. 4 Old school F103s and 1 F1 Pan car.
'Rules are there to keep F1 looking like the real thing' reason doesn't explain the solid axle design of majority of f1 cars.
The first F1 RC cars came out before there was any TCs...back then the only on-road design anyone made was solid axle. The front suspension was made to look as scale as possible but due to the limitations the pod design they really couldn't make the rear look more scale. But given that the body, rear wing, and rear wheels very much obscure the rear suspension it really isn't an issue like it is for the front.
That sounds biased. Ask any newcomer to the hobby. I'd bet the fgx will get a lot more votes for realism than any solid axle chassis with a spur gear showing on the side.
That sounds biased. Ask any newcomer to the hobby. I'd bet the fgx will get a lot more votes for realism than any solid axle chassis with a spur gear showing on the side.
*raises hand*
I'm also watching the Serpent F180E very closely, even though there are 0 races for it
__________________
HPI Sprint 2 Flux - GPM and OEM hop ups
AE RC10TC6.1FT - partial WC conversion, RSD hop ups
3Racing FGX - IFS, OEM Aluminum, Exotek hop ups
That sounds biased. Ask any newcomer to the hobby. I'd bet the fgx will get a lot more votes for realism than any solid axle chassis with a spur gear showing on the side.
That's why the FGX is my favorite. Not only is it more scale (longer wheelbase than tamiya), driving it seems more realistic as I can feel the body roll and rear suspension working.
That sounds biased. Ask any newcomer to the hobby. I'd bet the fgx will get a lot more votes for realism than any solid axle chassis with a spur gear showing on the side.
Not at all...I was simply explaining why most f1 cars were originally designed as solid axle and continue to be designed that way. I have nothing against the FGX...my race and many if not most races in the US allow the FGX specifically because the suspension is more true to scale. I've got a FGX myself that I race...it is currently shelved waiting on the new Exotek chassis and front suspension adapter for the IFS. Right now I'm running my F1R trying to figure out which style chassis is going to be faster around our track. Our track is rather bumpy and grip is only about medium so the FGX has been the dominant car but now the direct drive cars are starting to figure setup out and getting to be faster than the FGX.
You'll find many if not most of the people who push the scale aspect of the class accept the FGX whole heartedly...where we have issues with F1 chassis design is with the ones that run suspension arms that are just from a 1/10th or 1/12th pan car and bolted to the chassis outside of the body and with cars that use 1/10th scale pan car rims and tires.
Similar Threads