R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-18-2011, 09:27 AM   #136
Tech Master
 
texastc's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Forney Texas
Posts: 1,360
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoracer View Post
It seems all the talk about standardization is a little misguided. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things ?? The 3R chassis is still 2 wheel drive but now has a working rear suspension. Is this such a drastic difference from the current "pan car" F1's. One could argue yes or no. Could it help F1 grow if we actually had 2 classes of F1...pan car and active suspension ?? Probably yes. If this car is successful could it prompt all manufacturers to make a similar car....again probably yes.
I guess i'm trying to figure out just what the argument is regarding racing this chassis against the current crop of other cars. Innovation in designs does not necessarily create a huge gap in performance potential. The F201 is what I'd consider a "radical" departure from any standard but that isn't the case here and as was found with the F201,the performance gap didn't exist. It was just "different".
Being heavily involved with VTA and USGT I can only suggest that the most important thing is to keep an open mind and be willing to accept some slight variation in traditional class rules and offerings. VTA fought that uphill battle and won. Lets do the same with F1 and embrace this potentially class expanding design.
word
__________________
Exotek F1 Ultra
Exotek F1R
CRC Gen-X 10 LE
Kyosho Plazma F1
TC does RC
texastc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 12:04 PM   #137
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoracer View Post
It seems all the talk about standardization is a little misguided. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things ?? The 3R chassis is still 2 wheel drive but now has a working rear suspension. Is this such a drastic difference from the current "pan car" F1's. One could argue yes or no. Could it help F1 grow if we actually had 2 classes of F1...pan car and active suspension ?? Probably yes. If this car is successful could it prompt all manufacturers to make a similar car....again probably yes.
I guess i'm trying to figure out just what the argument is regarding racing this chassis against the current crop of other cars. Innovation in designs does not necessarily create a huge gap in performance potential. The F201 is what I'd consider a "radical" departure from any standard but that isn't the case here and as was found with the F201,the performance gap didn't exist. It was just "different".
Being heavily involved with VTA and USGT I can only suggest that the most important thing is to keep an open mind and be willing to accept some slight variation in traditional class rules and offerings. VTA fought that uphill battle and won. Lets do the same with F1 and embrace this potentially class expanding design.
Honestly so long as it is 2wd, meets the same dimensional specs, and runs the same tire/wheel specs, I don't care what kind of chassis or suspension is under the body and I think most of us who are talking about standardization would agree with me on that. The problem isn't the suspension...it is the dimensions. The F103 doesn't really have any better of a suspension than the F104. But the wider dimensions and wider tires give it a significant advantage over the F104. Same goes with the converted pan cars. VTA is already more regulated than what is being suggested for F1. All the cars are the same width and all run the same size rims and tires. This is what we are trying to get to in F1...if the companies would stick with the same dimensions there would be more options available in tires and bodies as you could mix and match like any other class out there.

As I said over in the other thread...like it or not Tamiya is the standard for F1. Every time F1 has made a come back has been because Tamiya came out with a new chassis or re-released an old one with updates.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 04:33 PM   #138
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: NY&FL
Posts: 3,359
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InspGadgt View Post
Honestly so long as it is 2wd, meets the same dimensional specs, and runs the same tire/wheel specs, I don't care what kind of chassis or suspension is under the body and I think most of us who are talking about standardization would agree with me on that. The problem isn't the suspension...it is the dimensions. The F103 doesn't really have any better of a suspension than the F104. But the wider dimensions and wider tires give it a significant advantage over the F104. Same goes with the converted pan cars. VTA is already more regulated than what is being suggested for F1. All the cars are the same width and all run the same size rims and tires. This is what we are trying to get to in F1...if the companies would stick with the same dimensions there would be more options available in tires and bodies as you could mix and match like any other class out there.

As I said over in the other thread...like it or not Tamiya is the standard for F1. Every time F1 has made a come back has been because Tamiya came out with a new chassis or re-released an old one with updates.
As a long time Tamiya driver I agree that Tamiya has all but kept F1 alive but I still have no clue why this call for standard sizing. None of these cars are extremely different and there are plenty of F104 drivers who would disagree that the F103 is "better" or has an advantage.
Here's something to consider. Unlike TC. which has achieved a basic dimensional standard, F1 is still in it's infancy since we're still using a pan car chassis. Other than the F201, there hasn't been any major development from any manufacturer. Now we're starting to see a number of small changes coming together that may eventually become the "standard". Some dimensions may HAVE to change to accomadate those engineering requirements. Active suspensions, inline batteries, different servo mounting, non direct drive....all these things and likely more may simply force the issue to outgrow the pan car dimensions.
F1 chassis like the F103 are dinosaurs. Yes, they still work but at some point , just like the first all wheel drive touring cars, they should be allowed to progress.
So the question is, do we as a buying public stimey the effort by holding on to years of same old,same old OR do we move beyond the horse and buggy and accept the Model T as a viable vehicle. Thats the difference between the pan car chassis and something like the FGX. Myself, I'm Looking forward to a new standard.
Evoracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 04:50 PM   #139
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Posts: 499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoracer View Post
As a long time Tamiya driver I agree that Tamiya has all but kept F1 alive but I still have no clue why this call for standard sizing. None of these cars are extremely different and there are plenty of F104 drivers who would disagree that the F103 is "better" or has an advantage.
Here's something to consider. Unlike TC. which has achieved a basic dimensional standard, F1 is still in it's infancy since we're still using a pan car chassis. Other than the F201, there hasn't been any major development from any manufacturer. Now we're starting to see a number of small changes coming together that may eventually become the "standard". Some dimensions may HAVE to change to accomadate those engineering requirements. Active suspensions, inline batteries, different servo mounting, non direct drive....all these things and likely more may simply force the issue to outgrow the pan car dimensions.
F1 chassis like the F103 are dinosaurs. Yes, they still work but at some point , just like the first all wheel drive touring cars, they should be allowed to progress.
So the question is, do we as a buying public stimey the effort by holding on to years of same old,same old OR do we move beyond the horse and buggy and accept the Model T as a viable vehicle. Thats the difference between the pan car chassis and something like the FGX. Myself, I'm Looking forward to a new standard.
I don't think setting standard dimensions and tire sizes has anything to do with stifling F1. Touring cars are almost exactly the same size and use the same tires as they did in the very beginning. And look at how far they have progressed. I thinkt he real problem is that many rules (like ROAR's) state that the chassis must be solid axle, direct drive.
Stregone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 05:05 PM   #140
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoracer View Post
As a long time Tamiya driver I agree that Tamiya has all but kept F1 alive but I still have no clue why this call for standard sizing. None of these cars are extremely different and there are plenty of F104 drivers who would disagree that the F103 is "better" or has an advantage.
Here's something to consider. Unlike TC. which has achieved a basic dimensional standard, F1 is still in it's infancy since we're still using a pan car chassis. Other than the F201, there hasn't been any major development from any manufacturer. Now we're starting to see a number of small changes coming together that may eventually become the "standard". Some dimensions may HAVE to change to accomadate those engineering requirements. Active suspensions, inline batteries, different servo mounting, non direct drive....all these things and likely more may simply force the issue to outgrow the pan car dimensions.
F1 chassis like the F103 are dinosaurs. Yes, they still work but at some point , just like the first all wheel drive touring cars, they should be allowed to progress.
So the question is, do we as a buying public stimey the effort by holding on to years of same old,same old OR do we move beyond the horse and buggy and accept the Model T as a viable vehicle. Thats the difference between the pan car chassis and something like the FGX. Myself, I'm Looking forward to a new standard.
Personally I am less concerned about the whole F103 vs F104 debate. I haven't really had a chance to compare them head to head say if the F103 is significantly faster. However the F1s running the 1/10th pan car wheels definitely are faster and lack the scale appearance other cars have. The manufacturers however are shooting themselves in the foot and hampering our ability to put together a viable class by not adhering to a standard...whatever that standard may be.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 05:46 PM   #141
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: NY&FL
Posts: 3,359
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stregone View Post
I don't think setting standard dimensions and tire sizes has anything to do with stifling F1. Touring cars are almost exactly the same size and use the same tires as they did in the very beginning. And look at how far they have progressed. I thinkt he real problem is that many rules (like ROAR's) state that the chassis must be solid axle, direct drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InspGadgt View Post
Personally I am less concerned about the whole F103 vs F104 debate. I haven't really had a chance to compare them head to head say if the F103 is significantly faster. However the F1s running the 1/10th pan car wheels definitely are faster and lack the scale appearance other cars have. The manufacturers however are shooting themselves in the foot and hampering our ability to put together a viable class by not adhering to a standard...whatever that standard may be.
I totally agree that at some point it would be best to find a set of standards to which all F1 class cars are made. As I said, even touring cars had to start somewhere and develop into a standard. God help us if ROAR is the driving force behind what the buying public wants from manufacturers. Remember, ROAR works for YOU. Once a viable product development takes hold in the market, ROAR has to react. Lipo and brushless are just a couple of examples.
Gadget, I agree wholeheartedly. The eventuality is that the manufacturers must either be part of the fix or produce fringe products. Not exactly a smart move on their part. I'm just saying that a development move needs to start somewhere. With something as basic as a pan car F1 chassis ANY significant development will seem major. So the choice is either stay where we are or move forward. I'll say it again...I like the development shown in the 3R chassis. Not to radical, adds some realism and hopefully has some ,even if minor, performance gains.
And YES....Pan car wheels have no place on a F1 chassis.
Evoracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 06:03 PM   #142
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

Well, I am on record as fully supporting the concept of future F1 rc cars dumping the "dinosaur" pan car solid axle design once and for all, and adopting SCALE fully independent suspensions and SCALE looks all the way!!!

The majority of potential racers out there who are looking at some sort of on-road racing class are wanting to run a class of on-road cars that are "scale realistic"; that is one of the main reasons that VTA is so popular across the country; they have standardized rules and very scale looking cars that people just plain love! Most are sick of the "blob" body super touring on-road cars that go super fast but are too expensive and don't even resemble a real car anymore. We don't want that to happen to F1; and if we continue with the archaic "dinosaur" pan car solid axle cars with some using the super low profile shaved foam tires(which also don't look real) then F1 will never evolve beyond what it has been for the past 20 years!

ROAR and other sanctioning bodies need to be ignored until they realize that no one is going to play by their archaic rules which "pigeon-hole" F1 racing with a design that's time has past. Maybe then they will "wake up and smell the coffee", and change the rules to reflect a new standardized F1 class that puts scale realism ahead of all-out performance!

Gadget is right when he says that ALL the manufacturers who produce F1 cars need to "get on the same page" and have a standardized overall design with interchangeable wheels, tires and bodies. The cars should all share the same basic dimensions with regards to width and wheelbase; then you will put an end to the endless debate of F103 vs F104 vs F109, and which one is better. All three of those cars are different in overall dimensions; shouldn't be that way! And you should be able to use Tamiya wheels and tires and bodies on any F1 car; the same would be said for 3 Racing too, as well as any other rc F1 manufacturer. In other words: they should all be interchangeable with each other.

SCALE F1 ALL THE WAY, WITH INDEPENDENT SUSPENSIONS!!!
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 06:16 PM   #143
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: NY&FL
Posts: 3,359
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

You know, I'm not using a 3R chassis now nor have I used one but I'll say this. They seem to be very progressive minded. If the FGX turns out to be worthwhile, maybe we buyers should be contacting them about some suggested "standardization" changes. They just might react to it.
Then again, maybe it'll turn out to be so much better that we should be expecting other companies to get off their asses and do some changing. Point is....wait and see. I want my FGX NOW !!
Evoracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 06:21 PM   #144
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

Agreed! I would start with them(3Racing) making it possible to use Tamiya wheels, tires, bodies, and front and rear wings (Tamiya makes THE BEST looking and scale realistic F1 bodies, hands down)

Hopefully 3Racing would be willing to modify the FGX for that; it shouldn't take much to do.
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 06:30 PM   #145
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,639
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

I think the FGX is the real representation of F1 : 2WD and fully independent suspension. Exactly what the Tamiya F201 should have been! Great work 3Racing !!!! There is no pan car type rear suspension here, and if there is a different class specification for this type of F1 chassis to run with F201 cars that have been converted to 2WD, then it's all good with me !!! This way the F201 cars can have a place to race in the F1 world....
bertrandsv87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 08:16 PM   #146
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 243
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Looks promising .Any word on price?
ace955 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 09:49 PM   #147
Tech Master
 
texastc's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Forney Texas
Posts: 1,360
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ace955 View Post
Looks promising .Any word on price?
$115 msrp. At least thats what the 3racing site says.

If this car catches on great. If not, so be it. Im getting one, whether I race it or not. I still have 2 F109s to race, one wide one standard. Just a cool looking ride. And I want to try it out
__________________
Exotek F1 Ultra
Exotek F1R
CRC Gen-X 10 LE
Kyosho Plazma F1
TC does RC
texastc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 10:19 PM   #148
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 243
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texastc View Post
$115 msrp. At least thats what the 3racing site says.

If this car catches on great. If not, so be it. Im getting one, whether I race it or not. I still have 2 F109s to race, one wide one standard. Just a cool looking ride. And I want to try it out
Thanks . Not having owned a 3racing kit , could someone tell me how do they hold up plastics and quality wise ?
ace955 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 10:38 PM   #149
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,157
Default

Their machining work is very good...I found the plastics on my F109 more flexible than I would like.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 10:39 PM   #150
Tech Master
 
texastc's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Forney Texas
Posts: 1,360
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ace955 View Post
Thanks . Not having owned a 3racing kit , could someone tell me how do they hold up plastics and quality wise ?
I have 3 3racing kits, 2 F109s and a Sakura Zero S. Good stuff. The steering blocks on the F109 are pretty soft, but that said, they dont break. They bend, flexible, helps alot if you tend to hit the wall from time to time. I have broken some parts on all the kits, but the usual front arms and such that you normally break when you crash hard. But I dont break very often at all. I do wreck a lot. A lot.
__________________
Exotek F1 Ultra
Exotek F1R
CRC Gen-X 10 LE
Kyosho Plazma F1
TC does RC
texastc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HPI's new F1 PhatPat Electric On-Road 1173 10-10-2013 12:18 AM
new F1 !!! il-gufo Electric On-Road 29 03-26-2011 11:17 AM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 05:36 AM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.0