VTA MMR Club Spec Racing
12-02-2008, 05:08 PM
#16
Nothing to argue about here.
MMR "Club" Spec is what it is. If it works for your club that is great if it does not benefit you then don't use it as you do not need to.
It really is nothing more or less.
Lipo Nimmh are pretty equal for power sources at same voltage, ie 6 cell N, 2 cell Lipo.
MMR "Club" Spec is what it is. If it works for your club that is great if it does not benefit you then don't use it as you do not need to.
It really is nothing more or less.
Lipo Nimmh are pretty equal for power sources at same voltage, ie 6 cell N, 2 cell Lipo.
12-02-2008, 05:13 PM
#17
The rules you are posting are already USVTA rules.
In there rules set it says if you find there are problems within your own club racing the track has the option to adjust the rules to fit there track.
Why did you make a thread for this ? This should be the adjusted rules set you are using at your local track only.
12-02-2008, 05:35 PM
#18
We find these work. They are working in places and some clubs have choose to use similar type platforms. So how is that bad?
If they work else were that is great.
Why is this not a open Forum of ideas, Suggestions, and concepts? I do believe it is.
I have no knock if joe snuffy wishes to make Snuffy spec and run 10.5 Lipo in a car. If it work it will get some following if not well then. Not sure what the problem is of posting what we run and how we promote it.
We find this to be a quality program speed that is great for club growth. Not all clubs would feel that way. Some have much larger & stronger race groups, they do not need to worry about all the next guys walking in the door and if the cars get faster and new equipment is required to just run in the pack it is part of the equation. This is not true every where. Some places need a scaled down guideline. and yes every class can be altered on the club level. Even ROAR rules are to be adjusted for club use. But if there is a formula that is working it is a lot easier for a race director to use that then try and relearn by what others have done.
If they work else were that is great.
Why is this not a open Forum of ideas, Suggestions, and concepts? I do believe it is.
I have no knock if joe snuffy wishes to make Snuffy spec and run 10.5 Lipo in a car. If it work it will get some following if not well then. Not sure what the problem is of posting what we run and how we promote it.
We find this to be a quality program speed that is great for club growth. Not all clubs would feel that way. Some have much larger & stronger race groups, they do not need to worry about all the next guys walking in the door and if the cars get faster and new equipment is required to just run in the pack it is part of the equation. This is not true every where. Some places need a scaled down guideline. and yes every class can be altered on the club level. Even ROAR rules are to be adjusted for club use. But if there is a formula that is working it is a lot easier for a race director to use that then try and relearn by what others have done.
12-02-2008, 06:14 PM
#19
I think that would be classified as "doublespeak".
So VTA allowed 21.5 LiPo as an option to use new technology that
A. Is a better value to the racer in the long term
B. Requires less maintenance
So MMR has decided that a 7.2V NiMh Pack, which is inferior to LiPo in economy and durability, should be allowed?
So how does your solution not have "issues"?
So VTA allowed 21.5 LiPo as an option to use new technology that
A. Is a better value to the racer in the long term
B. Requires less maintenance
So MMR has decided that a 7.2V NiMh Pack, which is inferior to LiPo in economy and durability, should be allowed?
So how does your solution not have "issues"?
12-02-2008, 06:21 PM
#20
Actually we recommend no 21.5/7.2v combo..
If you are there already we have found no true good answer just better answers then were it currently is as the three power options are not equal on the track.
There is no logical reason to let Lipo run and not let 6 cell run with the same motor.
If you are there already we have found no true good answer just better answers then were it currently is as the three power options are not equal on the track.
There is no logical reason to let Lipo run and not let 6 cell run with the same motor.
12-02-2008, 07:08 PM
#21
I have to say...since the VTA is supposed to be a Less Competitive, More Fun class... I let 6 cell run instead of a LIPO (It's so much heavier...and less friendly, but some guys HAVE them...just as they had OLD TC Chassis's)
However, much like a large SANCTIONING Body, that's something that is upto the event / club organizer. RULES for LARGE races need to be applied and enforced just a tad different than FUN/CLUB racing.
Being the or at the very least ONE of the original motor testers who brought test results of 17.5 and 21.5 motors to Novak, I can tell you there is NO WAY a 21.5/LIPO shouldn't out perform a 17.5/4 cell combo. Fixing a gear ratio rule will not work, cause you can't have a 'national fix' for all tracks.
Speed wise the 21.5/LIPO will perform almost identical to a 4 cell 13.5 combo.
I have seen where a couple tracks offered a VTA and a VTA "Advanced" class, and only allowed the 21.5 in the advanced class....but there we go splitting classes up ...
I just hope the infighting, bickering and division can be stopped before it gets out of hand...and hurts THIS awesome/fun class... FOCUS guys FOCUS!!
However, much like a large SANCTIONING Body, that's something that is upto the event / club organizer. RULES for LARGE races need to be applied and enforced just a tad different than FUN/CLUB racing.
Being the or at the very least ONE of the original motor testers who brought test results of 17.5 and 21.5 motors to Novak, I can tell you there is NO WAY a 21.5/LIPO shouldn't out perform a 17.5/4 cell combo. Fixing a gear ratio rule will not work, cause you can't have a 'national fix' for all tracks.
Speed wise the 21.5/LIPO will perform almost identical to a 4 cell 13.5 combo.
I have seen where a couple tracks offered a VTA and a VTA "Advanced" class, and only allowed the 21.5 in the advanced class....but there we go splitting classes up ...
I just hope the infighting, bickering and division can be stopped before it gets out of hand...and hurts THIS awesome/fun class... FOCUS guys FOCUS!!
12-02-2008, 07:29 PM
#22
I guess I'm a bit confused.
One side I see you trying to make USVTA work for your track, which is great.
On the other, I see signs of taking the USVTA name and trying to profit from it (club packs, t-shirts, etc).
Either way, I can only hope that my local tracks stay with the USVTA rule set. As a casual racer, I will never buy a brushed motor or Nimh batteries again. If the masses want to go (in my opinion) backwards, I'll put my T/A car on the shelf.
Jimmy
One side I see you trying to make USVTA work for your track, which is great.
On the other, I see signs of taking the USVTA name and trying to profit from it (club packs, t-shirts, etc).
Either way, I can only hope that my local tracks stay with the USVTA rule set. As a casual racer, I will never buy a brushed motor or Nimh batteries again. If the masses want to go (in my opinion) backwards, I'll put my T/A car on the shelf.
Jimmy
12-03-2008, 05:41 AM
#24
What I see is a Race Promoter and Industry Insider sharing successfully researched information on a public forum for other racers to use if they WANT to, without spending half the season 'testing and tuning' to get to a similar spot.
The core idea here, IMO, is that LIPO is 7.4v and 4 cell nicad/nimh is not. The motor is of little consequence to that fact.
And, the core conclusion here, IMO, is at the race venues in our region, LIPO does not play well in the VTA class with the other power choices.
Allan
The core idea here, IMO, is that LIPO is 7.4v and 4 cell nicad/nimh is not. The motor is of little consequence to that fact.
And, the core conclusion here, IMO, is at the race venues in our region, LIPO does not play well in the VTA class with the other power choices.
Allan
12-03-2008, 05:51 AM
#25
Tech Rookie
There is no room for a renagade VTA class. It will just dilute and divide the class.
Last edited by RAPED APE; 12-03-2008 at 06:34 AM. Reason: N/A
12-03-2008, 07:53 AM
#29
The USVTA rules were not accidental or happenstance, or "feeling around in the dark." They came from months of testing with many different drivers and combinations, at different tracks, over thousands of laps. I'm sure you did the same to come to your "new" conclusions.
12-03-2008, 08:39 AM
#30
ammdrew, Please look at the USVTA website. Please understand that brushless and LiPo is the future of our hobby. If someone were to walk into my local hobby shop and ask me how to set up an old touring car for VTA, I would immediately ask them how the car is currently set up for motor and ESC.
IF they had a 27 turn motor, I would have them consider buying 1 4-cell pack to try out the setup with all their old gear.
IF they didn't have a 27 turn motor, I would ask them how much of an investment in the hobby they are expecting to make. If they want to stay cheap, get a 27 turn and a couple 4-cell packs. They will make the trip to LiPo and 21.5 when they are ready.
IF they didn't have a 27 turn motor, and they are prepared to embrace the new technology, I would NEVER recommend a 17.5 turn Brushless or a 27 turn stock motor with a 4-cell as they will be replaced as fast as they see the virtues of the LiPo battery. I would immediately show them the new 21.5/Havoc combo and reasonably priced LiPo and LiPo only charger/balancer. If they are going brushless, why would pay for a 4600 4 cell pack when there are LiPos on the market almost as cheap.
This is what I would tell them in a nice way prior to ANY motor purchase:
I have run a 17.5 4-cell. I have run a 21.5 LiPo. The real difference is punch out of the corners for the 21.5s. Not top speed. The 21.5s need to stay where they are at for close exciting racing. Those who feel the need for speed can graduate out of the class to rubber touring or take something faster up as a second class to run. If you do not like to drive at slower speeds, look at the rubber touring classes, this is not the class for you.
This class has refreshed my memory and re-taught me to brake more efficiently, run a better line, carry more corner speed and set my car up right. There doesn't need to be a "mmr" separate spec. The local tracks DO need to monitor speeds to keep competition in line. This is nothing different from what Doug has said in the past.
John
IF they had a 27 turn motor, I would have them consider buying 1 4-cell pack to try out the setup with all their old gear.
IF they didn't have a 27 turn motor, I would ask them how much of an investment in the hobby they are expecting to make. If they want to stay cheap, get a 27 turn and a couple 4-cell packs. They will make the trip to LiPo and 21.5 when they are ready.
IF they didn't have a 27 turn motor, and they are prepared to embrace the new technology, I would NEVER recommend a 17.5 turn Brushless or a 27 turn stock motor with a 4-cell as they will be replaced as fast as they see the virtues of the LiPo battery. I would immediately show them the new 21.5/Havoc combo and reasonably priced LiPo and LiPo only charger/balancer. If they are going brushless, why would pay for a 4600 4 cell pack when there are LiPos on the market almost as cheap.
This is what I would tell them in a nice way prior to ANY motor purchase:
I have run a 17.5 4-cell. I have run a 21.5 LiPo. The real difference is punch out of the corners for the 21.5s. Not top speed. The 21.5s need to stay where they are at for close exciting racing. Those who feel the need for speed can graduate out of the class to rubber touring or take something faster up as a second class to run. If you do not like to drive at slower speeds, look at the rubber touring classes, this is not the class for you.
This class has refreshed my memory and re-taught me to brake more efficiently, run a better line, carry more corner speed and set my car up right. There doesn't need to be a "mmr" separate spec. The local tracks DO need to monitor speeds to keep competition in line. This is nothing different from what Doug has said in the past.
John