mikemyers

If you guys want, I can leave it at "up to 7 ports" and move the rule up to the "accepted" column for now. Also, until this week, I only heard "up to $200" for the engine cost. Would it be acceptable to simply list this as "up to $200" as of today's date (leaving this open to change as prices for everything increase?

I don't want to be "deciding" anything here; I just want to document what you guys want in way of rules, to satisfy the greatest number of people who want to race in this class. If we leave out the emotional and control aspects, it should be fairly easy to get this done.

Grenade10

iTrader: (40)

Mike the cost of the engines has been taked about for 90+ days. The $200 amount is two plus years old and there was talk about moving it last year to $250. One thought was a move to $250 and another was $275 / $280.

I did a list that was pretty complete of what was listed for sale by the major on-line shops. Price break at $200, $250 and $280 not all are in stock, but they still are being currently manufactured. See the list on RcTech, Nitro on road engine thread.

The other talk has been "Open" as the RC Pro event was, how GT8 is run in Texas and Utah, and now the Byrons race in June.

So IMO the engine is the issue.

Chassis kick up could be solved with a "Grandfather Clause" for DM-1's for a limited time, so all new cars are built with the kickup. I race one of these and would be fine having to change cars in 1-3 years if all new chassis are metal with a kick up in the final GT8 specs.

Clete Landefeld

Mike I got a few PMs that suggest we may not of made you feel wecome on the other thread..
please feel free to keep posting.. Again we are all just trying to get one set of rules for all of us..

Cheers,
Clete

mikemyers

Thanks!

I had a very long lunch today with a good friend of mine who has been involved in R/C cars and racing since almost the very beginning of the hobby. He had a suggestion to solve all the "issues" here.

His advice is to create a general set of rules for 1/8 GT racing, leaving out any of the limitations. Any chassis, any engine, any number of ports (which I was told nobody checks anyway), any price, and so on. Those rules would be just like the "open" class for the other R/C classes. This should be very easy to do.

Then, any clubs, groups, tracks, whatever, can create their own "special" class to be used at their races. This is where you could apply motor price limits, or anything else.

If the people putting on the current "World Championship" events want to use their set of rules for those races, they go ahead and do so.

If the people here trying to form a group to set up their own set of rules for a "series", to be held at different tracks, ditto.

It's like when Serpent created the "Serpent Impact Series" many years ago, where all cars had to be Serpent Impact cars. It worked out fine.

If you guys want an "open" class and a "spec" class, you just create and publish the rules.

-------------------------------------------------------

Problem solved - no more infighting, no more "control" issues, and so on.

-------------------------------------------------------

After reading Grenade10's thoughts up above, I'll just separate the "basic" rules from those that add limits. It's easy to do. When it's finished, all the 1/8 GT classes would be using the same "basic" rules, but groups could select whichever "limits" they desire to make it into a "spec" class.

One disadvantage of this is that different groups will be using slightly different rules, but that's pretty much the case anyway. There are club rules. There are ROAR rules. There are IFMAR rules. They're never identical. ......and if ROAR adopts a set of these, the ROAR rules will then exist. If the class grows in popularity, IFMAR will refine those rules and post their own. A quick comparison of the ROAR rulebook with the IFMAR rules will show the same "basic" rules, but with a lot of additional rules added on by IFMAR.

mikemyers

Here's a suggestion for a set of rules that everyone may be able to agree on. The first part is something ROAR could adopt for "open" class 1/8 GT racing, and eventually IFMAR could develop this into an international class.

The second part should allow anyone here to limit the racing as a "spec" class, in any way they see fit. If I left something out of that second list, just add it.

If you guys go along with this, there should be no room left for bickering - there's a basic set of rules that ROAR might accept, and any of you who want to limit this as a "spec" class can do so.

Basic rules that could be applied to a ROAR 1/8 GT Class:
Use additional rules from the second section for "spec" racing


=================================================
PROPOSED ROAR RULES FOR THE 1/8 GT CLASS
chassis: shaft driven, no belts
diffs: standard gear diffs only
body: any commercially available GT style body (not Lola style bodies)
body: rear of body can not be completely cut out
body: rear windows can be completely cut out
body: side front windows can be completely cut out.
body: The engine’s cooling head fins can not be exposed from top or sides of body.
body: front winshield cutout - 70mm maximum
wings: wings and spoilers: allowed
tires: any commercially available rubber tires (no foam tires)
tires: must fit completely under the car body (no add-on wheel flares)
tire inserts: any insert is OK
engine: any .28 or smaller style engine, any carb
engine: must be commercially available
clutch: Offroad style non-adjustable 2, 3, or 4 shoe clutch (no axial clutches)
pipe: any pipe
Fuel Capacity: 150cc maximum
intake: INS box required
Electronics: No electronic stability control allowed
Electronics: No electronic aids (D-Box, etc.)
weight: minimum weight 3500 grams
Car length, maximum: __________
Car width, maximum: __________
Car height, maximum (suspension fully compressed) __________
Wheelbase: maximum __________
Wheelbase: minimum __________
ELECTRIC - speed control - use existing ROAR rules
ELECTRIC - battery - use existing ROAR rules
Fuel nitro content: open




=================================================
OPTIONAL CLASS RULES FOR THE 1/8 GT CLASS (select as desired)
chassis: 1/7 scale - allowed
chassis: allows kickup or flat,
chassis: only 'kickup' or only 'flat'
wings: built for the body, and attached to body,
wings: no buggy style wings.
engine: must be available from mail order shops for under (SET PRICE HERE) w/o tax
engine: limited to only 3 ports
engine: limited to only 7 ports
engine: only stock carb allowed
Traction: Liquid traction additives or rubber enhancment chemicals NOT permitted.
the track/club/series can specify a specific brand of fuel, car, tires, engine, etc.
Tires wider than the above maximum can be allowed or disallowed
Fuel limitations on nitro content?

Grenade10

iTrader: (40)

Mike I understand many sides of this discusion, as I have been racing for 25+ years had my own track and hobby shop. Years after our track closed I helped start a club when Hobby Town closed down thier carpet track.

If you follow the "Normal" nitro rules, the engine should be open with everthing else set so the chassis and body conform to the rules.

However, a large group of these racers want something more like Vintage Trans Am. Hence the GT style body, and a more stable drive line like the non adjustable timing and 21.5 or 25.5 brushless motor. I would go for the $280 non modified off road based engine, as there are many good quality engines that you could buy and run for a season or two. But that is just my opinion.

If the end result is to have a ROAR and IFMAR class, why not just follow the Rally Game rules that are run in Europe?

What I would like to see is class where we show up and have some fun, close racing and something that you could get new racers to join in. I just don't want to spend like 1/8 open so I don't look like a slug on the straight (I have my own issues on the infield). Yes I do have a Murnam modified engine in my Mugen MRX, as well a RM3 for 1/10 touring. I believe that there are more racers / hobbiest who are looking for something similar.

I will travel and run this class 6 - 8 times this summer, and have the parts to run any race I want to make.

PS Used to get your magazine back in the day

mikemyers

Thanks - yeah, doing that paper magazine was a lot of fun, but also a lot of work! I still sort of have it, but it's now electronic - it's all at www.sgrid.com and all the old stuff that was ever posted is accessible.

I agree completely with what you wrote. I just see a different way of getting to it.

What I think many people are asking for is a "spec" class, with limits to keep the cost down and to keep everything more enjoyable. Of course, then there are all the fights regarding what the "spec" rules should include or exclude. I think we can avoid most of that, by simply working backwards. Start with a set of "open class" rules, and then add on the restrictions for local racing.

Working backwards, you know that IFMAR would never have those limitations. IFMAR would need a good set of "open class" rules, explaining what is allowed (such as saying only 3-port engines, as was done for 1/10). I think most of those basic ideas have already been agreed on by everyone here, as well as the Texas rules and the Midwest Series rules.

Again, working backwards, ROAR would need something very similar, but not with all the complexity of the IFMAR rules.

Again going backwards, what I think you're suggesting could easily be a sub-set of the full set of rules. This is where you can have all the limitations such as engine cost, etc.


In other words, rather than constant fighting about "who is in control", just start by listing those main concepts that I think everyone here seems to agree on. For example, I think we've all already established that the engine size will be "under .28". Done.

Jeff Vargas has two classes, one "open" and one "spec". I think what Jeff calls "open" would probably be the same as what I'm describing up above. As far as I can tell, there is zero discussion here about problems in these "open class" areas.



From what I've read, it all gets complicated in two ways. One is "who" is going to control things, and the other is what those "limitations" might be, to turn the open class into a spec class (which is what you just described, with reduced costs and more "fun").

You can suggest to everyone in those discussions (I won't) that they can solve the fighting very simply. Nobody here is in a position to "control" 1/8 GT, or GT8, or whatever you want to call the GT class. To pretend otherwise seems silly to me - there are simply too many different groups of people with different ideas about GT.

How to solve it - simple. The "board" that people are talking about could change their title to be the creators of a new spec class. Since it is "their" spec class, nobody would be in a position to argue with them. It's like the Serpent Impact Series from years ago - only Serpent cars could compete.... but the series was started by, and run by, and controlled by, Serpent. It was their series. Nobody in the rest of the R/C world was hurt by it, or had reason to complain about it.

Right now you've got the guys in Texas using one set of rules that I've been told are working very well. The can continue just as they are. Then you've got the guys in the MidWestSeries who have their own set of rules. Ditto, they will probably continue with their rules (until when/if ROAR comes out with rules). Then there is the races and rules that Jeff created - they can continue just as they have been. Now there's this new group starting up - you can suggest that ALL the infighting will vanish, if they simply say they are setting up THEIR rules for THEIR series.

Actually, you said it yourself - it's the text I quoted up above. If (A LARGE GROUP OF) these guys want this new class and give it their own name, I can't see where anyone would have any reason for fighting with them. Create the NEW class, give it a suitable name (not one implying it's for all of 1/8 GT), select a board or whatever, and go at it. Since it's a new class in addition to (not instead of) what has gone before, everything should go smoothly. In your words, it's "a large group", which is not the same as "all". Let them form the new class without messing up what others may prefer.


(The difference is, nobody is stepping on anyone else's toes, nobody is telling anyone else what they need to do, and so on. If that new group wants engines up to $250, they just include it in their rules. Done. Just like RC Pro has their own rules.) ROAR rules don't bother the guys in RC Pro, and the RC Pro rules don't bother the guys in ROAR. )


Anyway, back to my own needs. I'm trying to gather up a set of rules based on the MidWestSeries rules, but including an electric class. I want to mail it off to the Toledo club this coming week, for possible use at the upcoming Great Lakes Challenge race. It would just be one of the many classes they run. I doubt anyone there is going to include or exclude any brand of tire, or take an engine apart to check the number of ports, or the cost. So far, I don't see much controversy here over most of the firs set of rules I posted up above, but I don't see them bothering with the second set.

Hey, I don't want to get in the middle of any fights here - consider what I wrote up above as nothing more than suggestions on how to end the fighting.

For an example of what I'm trying to say, if there are ten houses on a block, and if many of the owners get together and decide it would be nice for them to all have green mailboxes, that's fine - until/unless they then tell everyone on the block that this is how it needs to be. If seven of the owners like the idea, they an simply do it, and nobody will be offended or object.

In other words, any group here that is trying to set rules for all of 1/8 GT racing will almost certainly generate nothing but controversy and hostility. On the other hand, if they try to set rules for THEIR OWN new class, nobody will have any reason to be upset.

(I'm assuming here that racers would prefer friendly discussions, and not the constant fighting.... )

Anyway, time to make breakfast, which is now almost lunch. I wrote way too much, but I think you'll get what I'm trying to say. If you like the idea, please suggest it in your own words in the other threads. Maybe it will calm the infighting, and 1/8 GT r/c can get back to being fun!

rcmikel

You are so wise Mike. Let's hope we all listen to your advice.

Jspeed

Mike,
In reading your posts, we can all agree that GT racing is a lot of fun and has rapidly grown in popularity over the past few years. Most people who have been actively involved in these recent discussions about GT class racing rules appear to be doing so in good faith and with the most honorable intentions in mind.

Many of us know how difficult it was/is to have our GT class included in many on-road racing events and have heard tons of negativity aimed at discrediting GT racing back in 2007.

During our Ipanema Sports GT World Championships 2010 racing event in Homestead Florida, GT racers from around the world unified together for the very first time.

Most everyone that attended our ground breaking GT racing event had a fantastic time. There was a great sense of unity and harmony because we were able to prove without any doubts, that GT racing was not a passing fad and was here to stay.

You yourself Mike, were contracted and paid very well for your photography skills, in order to capture the event for publication in R/C car magazine. This was done to further help stimulate the growth of GT racing around the world. You did a great job Mike, it worked very well and was worth the investment!

The rules that governed the single largest gathering of GT racers in our class’ history are not just “Jeff’s rules”, as you put it Mike; but rather rules drawn after racing GT cars only for nearly two years and after many conversations with some of the most influential GT racing group leaders and directors from around America and the world.

Those very same GT event rules were also created in conjunction with the support and assistance of our current Roar President as well. So, while I’m honored by your “Jeff’s rules” statements, please understand and try to accept the fact that many fine people contributed to shaped our Ipanema GT class racing event rules. This was all done in a way that has remained “manufacturer friendly” even in today’s volatile new GT enviroment.

The one thing that many GT racers do not know is, within a few days of returning from our historical and ground breaking first ever International GT racing event, I received a very displeasing phone call from a prominent R/C industry professional.

This individual (who should remain nameless) actually had the audacity to say... “You did a great job with the GT race, but now it’s time for you to step aside and let us take over”. Since that phone call, the vile and often disgusting public GT class rules arguments made against what we all worked hard to accomplish began.

Mike, here we are once again talking about what the GT racers from Texas, RC Pro or the Midwest Series or what this or that company is doing, has done or wishes to accomplish now, but at the same time, very little, if anything is said about Ipanema’s GT events and collective contributions to GT racing by very name. One could ask the questions, why is that Mike?

If the civility and unity are what we’re all really after, maybe some of us need to realize that the disagreements are not so much about GT class rules in particular, but more a series of divisionary tactics being used against the sole International GT Only racing event, the company that had the insight/courage to make it happen and the unity we all felt as GT racers back in 2010 at Homestead Motor Speedway.

Good luck to all, have fun!

mikemyers

Jeff, sorry - I thought what I meant was obvious. ...and instead of referring to "Jeff's rules", let me change that to "Ipanema Rules". I need a name - any name - that would separate this specific set of rules from others. I'll use "Ipanema" until you suggest something else.

As you pointed out, we now might have:
"Ipanema" Rules (open)
"Ipanema" Rules (spec)
"Texas" Rules,
"MWS" Rules,
"GT8-RCTech" Rules
(and anything else I'm not aware of)


I don't have a GT car (yet), and don't want to step on Anyone's toes. A lot of people have done a lot to bring GT to the point where it is now - yourself obviously included.

My whole point, is that in those six (or more?) classes, there almost certainly is one group of rules that would apply to all of them. By using a sub-set of rules, this basic rule set could then apply to ANY of the above classes.



As an example, if I build a 1/8 on-road car to race at a local club track, I'll probably have some basic rules that I need to follow. If I want to race it at a ROAR Nationals, the rules get much stricter. If I then want to race it at an IFMAR World championships, the rules get much stricter.


What I'm trying to say, is the point of this thread is simply to get a short, simple list of the rules, regardless of where they came from. Ipanema has rules, GT8-RCTEch apparently is developing rules, ROAR will most likely have rules, and if it ever gets to IFMAR so will they - by which time some of the other groups such as the Texas guys and the MWS guys will probably follow the ROAR rules.

1FastVW

Why hinder progress by limiting what can be used in a growing class? I'm a proponent of perhaps a spec and open class...Things like adjustable clutches for example move the entire class forward because it increases performance and reliability.....just my 2 cents.....

Chris K

iTrader: (46)

You're kidding, right??? Adjustable clutches???? Reliability??? OMG!!!
I've watched experienced, seasoned racers waste entire weekends trying to find the sweet spot in these clutches only to have the track/weather/whatever change and they were back to square clutches....

Help this poor 'ol midwesterner understand how/why/when these clutches would be better in an IGT/GT8/buggy based on road car..... BUT, remember this, you're talking to a guy who runs a composite 2 shoe and a 'blue spring' on his Kyosho, so PLEASE keep it simple - 'cause that is a LOT of what I like about this class!

mikemyers

Suggestion to anyone thinking about rules - print out that one line from Chris and paste it on your computer screen as you type out proposed rules. Think of the guy in "tech" who is going to check all these cars. It's simple and easy for him to weigh a car, and see if it fits into a box created for the maximum size car. Add on a rule about the number of ports, nitro content, carburetor, or anything else "invisible", and it probably won't ever be checked. Even at big races I've been told that this is ignored, and it will certainly be ignored at a club race or for that matter, any race "for fun and enjoyment".

For the most fun and enjoyment - keep it simple!

Z

Going by what you said, wht then, do we limit 1/10 sedan to 3 ports?

mikemyers

Actually, the correct number was 4:

"For .12 ROAR/IFMAR class engines the maximum number of ports including the exhaust port is FOUR."

My friend suggested that there should be no spec for the number of ports; just limit the tire width, so $1200 engines with a gazillion ports could never put all that extra power to the ground. I'll stay out of that discussion - but if a group does put a limit on the number of ports, then they need to follow through and do the tech inspection, preferably for every car entered in the event, not just the top three or four. Up to you guys.