GT class--buggy-based on road!
11-12-2007, 08:12 PM
#137
Apex,
It is only "hating" when people come out of the blocks negative from the start. I have been into the hobby since 1987 and yes, I too have seen many classes come and go. I am not pushing for this to go mainstream like being on Speed TV, but I am one that is concerned that more folks are leaving the racing scene faster than new people are coming into the racing scene. Too many sit back and complain about the declining number of racers but very few try to do something to resolve the issues that are plaguing the racing scene. Talking with some folks in other areas, changing a club race day from Sunday to Saturday, enforcing the rules as stated, or running the race program on time are some things that drive some racers away. Other racers cheating or having the money to bend the rules to the very edge making the playing field uneven are other reasons. Equipment pricing and traveling are other reasons as well. But again, I digress. I see the IGT class as a way to introduce a potential racer into the realm of nitro, but don't have a large budget to compete with the bigger boys. When racers have a sense of the playing field being level and a sense that they have a chance of winning every once and a while, many will keep coming out to race. Once they feel/see that it is no longer fair, then racers quit coming. The IGT class needs to be started and run for a while to get a gauge on attendance in many different areas before it is bashed. That is all I am stating.
It is only "hating" when people come out of the blocks negative from the start. I have been into the hobby since 1987 and yes, I too have seen many classes come and go. I am not pushing for this to go mainstream like being on Speed TV, but I am one that is concerned that more folks are leaving the racing scene faster than new people are coming into the racing scene. Too many sit back and complain about the declining number of racers but very few try to do something to resolve the issues that are plaguing the racing scene. Talking with some folks in other areas, changing a club race day from Sunday to Saturday, enforcing the rules as stated, or running the race program on time are some things that drive some racers away. Other racers cheating or having the money to bend the rules to the very edge making the playing field uneven are other reasons. Equipment pricing and traveling are other reasons as well. But again, I digress. I see the IGT class as a way to introduce a potential racer into the realm of nitro, but don't have a large budget to compete with the bigger boys. When racers have a sense of the playing field being level and a sense that they have a chance of winning every once and a while, many will keep coming out to race. Once they feel/see that it is no longer fair, then racers quit coming. The IGT class needs to be started and run for a while to get a gauge on attendance in many different areas before it is bashed. That is all I am stating.
11-13-2007, 06:58 AM
#138
Tech Adept
All you do when you convolute the rules and complicate things is drive everyone away. Build a simple set of rules and let people JOIN the class—don't try to design the rules around what you think people already have.
Here's your enema...
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it .
d
Here's your enema...
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it .
d
11-13-2007, 07:30 AM
#139
Apex,
I think you’re getting it wrong in the translation of thought on my posts.
We’re not “thinking of what people might have”. J
ust go back a page, a Kyosho Inferno GT owner posted pictures of his car with a Ninja engine in it. Did you see that?
RC Pro wants there to be a level playing field for these classes. Bunching everyone together will not ensure the success of the new programs; it would make them a failure from the start.
As far as me not being into RC racing for 25 years, it doesn’t matter because I raced real cars, motorcycles and powerboats.
Racing is racing, as the “Throttle Man” for a Caribbean Champion Off-Shore Powerboat for 4 years, I can tell you that there are classes determined by many factors.
As a “Drag Racer” you know you don’t run a Pro Mod car against a “Stock Eliminator” car; unless your “Bracket Racing”.
In “Motorcycle Racing” you don’t race a 750cc against a “Busa”.
To bunch everyone together regardless of level of available performance is never a level playing field.
That only works well at 2 o’clock in the morning on a Saturday night with a “Sleeper” when your street racing an idiot for his money or girlfriend.
I think you’re getting it wrong in the translation of thought on my posts.
We’re not “thinking of what people might have”. J
ust go back a page, a Kyosho Inferno GT owner posted pictures of his car with a Ninja engine in it. Did you see that?
RC Pro wants there to be a level playing field for these classes. Bunching everyone together will not ensure the success of the new programs; it would make them a failure from the start.
As far as me not being into RC racing for 25 years, it doesn’t matter because I raced real cars, motorcycles and powerboats.
Racing is racing, as the “Throttle Man” for a Caribbean Champion Off-Shore Powerboat for 4 years, I can tell you that there are classes determined by many factors.
As a “Drag Racer” you know you don’t run a Pro Mod car against a “Stock Eliminator” car; unless your “Bracket Racing”.
In “Motorcycle Racing” you don’t race a 750cc against a “Busa”.
To bunch everyone together regardless of level of available performance is never a level playing field.
That only works well at 2 o’clock in the morning on a Saturday night with a “Sleeper” when your street racing an idiot for his money or girlfriend.
11-13-2007, 08:02 AM
#140
You agree with Apex but from what I read from the rules, they look pretty straight forward to me and many others. As I see it, your IGT either conforms to the rules involving the one of the three classes or you cannot race your car at all. The only problem I see is someone that has the OFNA DTM car which is equivalent to the IGT. What if someone with that car shows up? Do you tell them that they can't race their car? What class do you put them into?
11-13-2007, 08:05 AM
#141
I'm glad you are familiar with real racing sanctioning bodies and class structures. This metaphor will be easy to understand as it is much of the source of my opinions:
If I build a wild-eyed open-wheeled formula car to race in SCCA club racing and just show up, they will NOT let me race in a specific class unless that car is built within that class' guidelines and rules. If you showed up with an old Champ Car trying to race in Formula Atlantic, they'd send you home. There might be an allowance for an "open" or modified class, but you'd be racing by yourself, and none of us want that. Moral: build your race car to fit within an existing class, don't make it up on your own and expect to be legal or allowed to compete. Tracks and clubs should NOT provide a means for people who can't or won't follow a simple rulebook.
All I'm saying is that if there is a simple class rule list to follow, where engines, tires, bodies and other things are governed right from the start, there should be no wiggle room for someone to drop in a $700 Collari or Rossi modified motor. I have a problem when rules are structured to fit what tracks and sanctioning bodies think people will do and not what the class should be. Like that previous GT with a Ninja in it—if he wants to race competitively in a class for iGT cars and the rules don't allow non RTR engines, then he would not be legal to race. It's fine for bashing in a parking lot, but for class rules, he'd have to put in a legal engine.
It's pretty simple. If you allow anything, people will do everything—costs be damned.
I'm a personal believer in the fact that in ALL forms of racing, there are far too many classes. We have become a society of individuals who, if we can't fit our needs and wants into something that is already structured, we will start something new so that we can fit. In the case of R/C racing, it has deteriorated into dozens of small, fractured classes with low turnouts and bad competition. Look at carpet touring, and you'll find stock rubber tire, stock foam, 19T foam, 19T rubber, modified, brushless, lipo and everything else under the sun. And in the age of "any three cars makes a class," it just promotes non conformist racing under loose rules with weak racing and competition.
I agree 100% that the GT class is needed for people to test the waters of nitro on-road racing. I have no doubt that it is a great platform to jump into with both feet, for little cash outlay. It has the makings of being a fantastic, level playing field class where newbies and experienced racers alike can compete in a fun and highly appealing format for racers and spectators.
But I am going to maintain my position on this class that it should be targeted as a SINGLE, simple, cheap (relatively), easy to enter gas class for anyone who wants to jump in. In my opinion, that means turnkey mass market cars and not conversions of already high-powered, heavily modified off road buggies.
I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I'm just saying that this is my opinion on the proposed GT class in the Midwest.
doug
If I build a wild-eyed open-wheeled formula car to race in SCCA club racing and just show up, they will NOT let me race in a specific class unless that car is built within that class' guidelines and rules. If you showed up with an old Champ Car trying to race in Formula Atlantic, they'd send you home. There might be an allowance for an "open" or modified class, but you'd be racing by yourself, and none of us want that. Moral: build your race car to fit within an existing class, don't make it up on your own and expect to be legal or allowed to compete. Tracks and clubs should NOT provide a means for people who can't or won't follow a simple rulebook.
All I'm saying is that if there is a simple class rule list to follow, where engines, tires, bodies and other things are governed right from the start, there should be no wiggle room for someone to drop in a $700 Collari or Rossi modified motor. I have a problem when rules are structured to fit what tracks and sanctioning bodies think people will do and not what the class should be. Like that previous GT with a Ninja in it—if he wants to race competitively in a class for iGT cars and the rules don't allow non RTR engines, then he would not be legal to race. It's fine for bashing in a parking lot, but for class rules, he'd have to put in a legal engine.
It's pretty simple. If you allow anything, people will do everything—costs be damned.
I'm a personal believer in the fact that in ALL forms of racing, there are far too many classes. We have become a society of individuals who, if we can't fit our needs and wants into something that is already structured, we will start something new so that we can fit. In the case of R/C racing, it has deteriorated into dozens of small, fractured classes with low turnouts and bad competition. Look at carpet touring, and you'll find stock rubber tire, stock foam, 19T foam, 19T rubber, modified, brushless, lipo and everything else under the sun. And in the age of "any three cars makes a class," it just promotes non conformist racing under loose rules with weak racing and competition.
I agree 100% that the GT class is needed for people to test the waters of nitro on-road racing. I have no doubt that it is a great platform to jump into with both feet, for little cash outlay. It has the makings of being a fantastic, level playing field class where newbies and experienced racers alike can compete in a fun and highly appealing format for racers and spectators.
But I am going to maintain my position on this class that it should be targeted as a SINGLE, simple, cheap (relatively), easy to enter gas class for anyone who wants to jump in. In my opinion, that means turnkey mass market cars and not conversions of already high-powered, heavily modified off road buggies.
I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I'm just saying that this is my opinion on the proposed GT class in the Midwest.
doug
11-13-2007, 08:14 AM
#142
Doug, very well said. I totally agree.
I feel that if someone is looking to upgrade the stock IGT type car...they are now the perfect canidate for a class like [insert next fastest class here].
Even in the cold midwest fall, the stock IGT's are fun...when they're evenly matched. Here a buddy and I are running our fully stock IGT's at Leisure Hours just outside Chicago. 55sh tires and track not treated. It was a blast!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGWwelLs1oE
I feel that if someone is looking to upgrade the stock IGT type car...they are now the perfect canidate for a class like [insert next fastest class here].
Even in the cold midwest fall, the stock IGT's are fun...when they're evenly matched. Here a buddy and I are running our fully stock IGT's at Leisure Hours just outside Chicago. 55sh tires and track not treated. It was a blast!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGWwelLs1oE
11-13-2007, 08:17 AM
#143
Apex,
I can tell you one thing, when Bvoltz ran his IGT class at his final, big race of the season, there was one guy disqualified due to not following the rules. Bvoltz put the rules out long before the race (about 2 months in advance), so there was no excuse for having an illegal car. Unfortunately, there are people that want to stretch the rules or wiggle around the set rules to get that unfair advantage so that they can win. I agree with you about if you are going to set the rules (spec the class(es)), make them and follow them to the letter. As you know, you will never make everyone happy and that is what kills classes and runs off racers. One or two that don't like the rules bad mouth the class, track, or club/group/organization and that is what eventually kills racing for all of us. Just my $0.02.
I can tell you one thing, when Bvoltz ran his IGT class at his final, big race of the season, there was one guy disqualified due to not following the rules. Bvoltz put the rules out long before the race (about 2 months in advance), so there was no excuse for having an illegal car. Unfortunately, there are people that want to stretch the rules or wiggle around the set rules to get that unfair advantage so that they can win. I agree with you about if you are going to set the rules (spec the class(es)), make them and follow them to the letter. As you know, you will never make everyone happy and that is what kills classes and runs off racers. One or two that don't like the rules bad mouth the class, track, or club/group/organization and that is what eventually kills racing for all of us. Just my $0.02.
11-13-2007, 08:53 AM
#144
I can agree with most of what you say Apex.
But what are you going to tell the guy that shows up with an off-road buggy with a GT body, slicks and an RBS7?
The guy comes to the track and wants to have fun and try racing On-Road, are you going to turn those racers away or tell them they can’t race because they need to purchase another lower performance engine?
Then there’s the guy that has run his “Box Stock” car is a few races and his motor lets loose. He decides that since he has a good old Picco G1XP engine in his box and drops it in because he wants to go a little faster. Do we tell him, he needs to move up to a new belt driven 1/8 scale, rendering is investment in his IGT car useless after a few races just to sell something new?
Last Sunday at the new track we’re building in Tampa 2 guys showed up with IGT cars, one had a Novarossi P5 and the other with a Werks B7 engine.
When the asked me if they could race their cars when the track is ready. Should I have told them sorry you can’t race here with those engines in your cars?
That is not promoting RC racing IMO
But what are you going to tell the guy that shows up with an off-road buggy with a GT body, slicks and an RBS7?
The guy comes to the track and wants to have fun and try racing On-Road, are you going to turn those racers away or tell them they can’t race because they need to purchase another lower performance engine?
Then there’s the guy that has run his “Box Stock” car is a few races and his motor lets loose. He decides that since he has a good old Picco G1XP engine in his box and drops it in because he wants to go a little faster. Do we tell him, he needs to move up to a new belt driven 1/8 scale, rendering is investment in his IGT car useless after a few races just to sell something new?
Last Sunday at the new track we’re building in Tampa 2 guys showed up with IGT cars, one had a Novarossi P5 and the other with a Werks B7 engine.
When the asked me if they could race their cars when the track is ready. Should I have told them sorry you can’t race here with those engines in your cars?
That is not promoting RC racing IMO
11-13-2007, 09:03 AM
#146
Good and valid points Jspeed. That is why there should be at least two (2) classes for the IGT: spec box stock and open. That way, the person that is satified by running his IGT as is can have a class to run in. I agree that the only changes in that class should be a radio upgrade to allow a wider range for frequencies. In the open class, it is anything goes. You want to drop a high dollar engine and pipe, that is okay. You want to run your high dollar buggy conversion, that is okay too. You want to run foams instead of rubber tires, that is fine as well. This way, you satisfy the budget-conscience racer and the racer that always want to push the envelope and overspend because they think they have to in order to win. My only concern is with the OFNA DTM cars that are floating out there. How do you incorporate them into this (since these rules are based primarily on the IGT)?
11-13-2007, 09:08 AM
#147
But what are you going to tell the guy that shows up with an off-road buggy with a GT body, slicks and an RBS7?
The guy comes to the track and wants to have fun and try racing On-Road, are you going to turn those racers away or tell them they can’t race because they need to purchase another lower performance engine?
The guy comes to the track and wants to have fun and try racing On-Road, are you going to turn those racers away or tell them they can’t race because they need to purchase another lower performance engine?
Anyone who shows up out of the blue without knowing what the class rules are has no excuse—especially with a converted car that isn't legal ANYWHERE.
Then there’s the guy that has run his “Box Stock” car is a few races and his motor lets loose. He decides that since he has a good old Picco G1XP engine in his box and drops it in because he wants to go a little faster. Do we tell him, he needs to move up to a new belt driven 1/8 scale, rendering is investment in his IGT car useless after a few races just to sell something new?
Last Sunday at the new track we’re building in Tampa 2 guys showed up with IGT cars, one had a Novarossi P5 and the other with a Werks B7 engine.
When the asked me if they could race their cars when the track is ready. Should I have told them sorry you can’t race here with those engines in your cars?
When the asked me if they could race their cars when the track is ready. Should I have told them sorry you can’t race here with those engines in your cars?
That is not promoting RC racing IMO
Build it and they will come. Don't wait for everyone to show up to see what they have, then make a class around them.
11-13-2007, 09:32 AM
#148
I tell him he can race today, but his car is not legal for any of our classes. If he would like to race again in the future, here are our rules.
Anyone who shows up out of the blue without knowing what the class rules are has no excuse—especially with a converted car that isn't legal ANYWHERE.
No, you tell him that the class rules are what they are. If he wants to continue to race in that class, he needs to follow the rules and replace the worn original engine with a new cheap P/S or a complete engine. Simple.
No, you explain that there is a class for them but the rules are meant to keep costs down and keep the class open and inviting for new racers. If they'd like to "race" in an organized format, they need to follow the class rules and structure. Simple. Otherwise, open practice days are for everyone.
Yes, it IS promoting racing. Just not free-for-all rules that try to fit everyone into a class somewhere. That's not any different than ANY form of organized racing anywhere, full or scale.
Build it and they will come. Don't wait for everyone to show up to see what they have, then make a class around them.
Anyone who shows up out of the blue without knowing what the class rules are has no excuse—especially with a converted car that isn't legal ANYWHERE.
No, you tell him that the class rules are what they are. If he wants to continue to race in that class, he needs to follow the rules and replace the worn original engine with a new cheap P/S or a complete engine. Simple.
No, you explain that there is a class for them but the rules are meant to keep costs down and keep the class open and inviting for new racers. If they'd like to "race" in an organized format, they need to follow the class rules and structure. Simple. Otherwise, open practice days are for everyone.
Yes, it IS promoting racing. Just not free-for-all rules that try to fit everyone into a class somewhere. That's not any different than ANY form of organized racing anywhere, full or scale.
Build it and they will come. Don't wait for everyone to show up to see what they have, then make a class around them.
Now that is what I am talking about. You could not have made your point any better or clearer. I can live with this.
11-13-2007, 11:27 AM
#149
I could be wrong but I think the DTM cars are not buggy based chassis. I kind of remember that they had different wheelbase dimensions, suspension design & geometry.
In any case the rules we’ve made for the IGT Stock & IGT Super Stock are for Kyosho chassis only, ala IROC.
The “GT Open” class is intended for buggy based chassis from manufacturers that at this time are not participating in the RC Pro “GT” racing program.
This is similar to in NASCAR, if you show up to Daytona with a “Hendrix-built” Saab to NASCAR specs they won’t let you race it, even if it conforms to NASCAR specs because the manufacture hasn’t reached an agreement with NASCAR.
Now when Saab realizes the marketing value of being part of the program, they can join the program they can enjoy the benefits the program has to offer.
It works well for NASCAR, IRL and F1 racing. The biggest negatives I've found so far have been from manufacturer’s representatives that want to have their cake to eat and feel we should serve it up for free or at the expense of Kyosho.
In any case the rules we’ve made for the IGT Stock & IGT Super Stock are for Kyosho chassis only, ala IROC.
The “GT Open” class is intended for buggy based chassis from manufacturers that at this time are not participating in the RC Pro “GT” racing program.
This is similar to in NASCAR, if you show up to Daytona with a “Hendrix-built” Saab to NASCAR specs they won’t let you race it, even if it conforms to NASCAR specs because the manufacture hasn’t reached an agreement with NASCAR.
Now when Saab realizes the marketing value of being part of the program, they can join the program they can enjoy the benefits the program has to offer.
It works well for NASCAR, IRL and F1 racing. The biggest negatives I've found so far have been from manufacturer’s representatives that want to have their cake to eat and feel we should serve it up for free or at the expense of Kyosho.
11-13-2007, 12:43 PM
#150
Tech Elite
Thread Starter
Jspeed, I am curious as to how the .21 buggy engines (like the P5) compaired to the stock IGT engine. The stock IGT engine is a .27 isn't it? I would expect that many of the RTR truggy engines (like the Axial .28) would be on a par with a good .21 buggy engine in this class. What did you see on the track?