1LikesU.S. Vintage Trans-Am Racing
03-14-2008, 06:10 AM
#601
Back from my model building days, enamel paint on rubber never dries completely, so it tends makes a big mess. Acrylic might work better, bt probably not very durable.
If I am not mistaken, the Goodyear and Pirelli on the tires above are decals. There are GY ones on some of the decals sheets included with the bodies, I know that.
If I am not mistaken, the Goodyear and Pirelli on the tires above are decals. There are GY ones on some of the decals sheets included with the bodies, I know that.
03-14-2008, 07:11 AM
#604
Back to the pan car thing. I know its not in the rules and Im ok with that, but locally I would like to see Pans running with the TC's either on four cells against a TC with six or with a slower motor. Maybe even a booch.
In F1 we let the 4wd's use 19T or 13.5. Direct drives have to use 27T or 17.5.
In F1 we let the 4wd's use 19T or 13.5. Direct drives have to use 27T or 17.5.
03-14-2008, 03:54 PM
#605
New Thread for Pan cars Check it out Please and let these guys here keep there thread about there series Please.
I take my hat off to all of you here for coming up with this series.
Great Job and I wish you all the best!
I take my hat off to all of you here for coming up with this series.
Great Job and I wish you all the best!
03-15-2008, 07:25 AM
#606
I wonder if they ran these back in the days of the transam series. Might be a great alternative for the import lovers.
03-15-2008, 09:05 AM
#607
I'm going to spend this off-season trying to figure out how to create a U2 (under 2-litre) / 2.5 Challenge (later iteration of the "small cars") formula to run with the "big cars" in our club racing. Ideally I'd like to find parity, but I'm ok with it being separate. The ABC "Genetic" chassis looks like a VERY good basis right now and is the most likely to produce parity with the 1/10 TC's. It is basically a shrunken TC chassis with pillow-ball suspension pivots, etc. Very nice bit of kit, fully assembled at a reasonable price. It will accept 4- or 6-cell packs and standard 540-size motors, uses Tamiya M-Chassis size tires and wheels.
I've also got M03 Tamiyas including a RWD conversion for the 510's, etc. to try but I doubt we'd find parity there unless we allowed 6 cell packs. They'd have more top end, likely less cornering power.
03-15-2008, 02:36 PM
#608
Remember, this is the very same head poohbah who was proclaiming the move to brushless motors made VTA more accessible to racers, but now someone suggests what would be an alternate formula I'd argue to be more "accessible" to more racers than the heavy, overly complicated TC chassis ever will be. Why the hell not embrace a class/chassis that may prove WILDLY popular again now that several manufacturers have announced products. At the very least leave the door open to see if it could, ahem, "pan" out.
Also, how about the fact we're now "enjoying" our third motor spec rules in, what, three months? First it was 27T brushless (good heavens, don't bring those evil 19T motors in, it will dilute the class...). Then it was "let's bring in the brushless" and the establishment of a FDR rule and allowance for bearings in 27T motors for those who prefer to keep with the original "budget" ideals of the class as-proposed. Now we've got a flip-flop again where the FDR is removed AND bearing dis-allowed for 27T motors. What next?
Talk about defining a class that satisfies the whims of the "direc-tator" and his cadre. I think it's early yet to elect a leadership group, but events are beginning to show that it's probably time to appoint a rules steering/advisory committee with active VTA racers WITH EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE THE WI/IN/MI CURRENT FOCUS AREA.
03-15-2008, 03:03 PM
#609
Who peed in your Cheerios?
Wow, having a bad day, Scott? What's that all about?
Do you believe 4wd buggies and 2wd cars should be run in the same class at the same time? How about rubber tires and foam tires on touring cars? And those are even similar cars? Do you understand the need to build a class up strong and not tear it apart before it's even gained a foothold? You're the one also already talking about an "under 2.0" class for minis and other FWD chassis in with the Trans Am cars. Where do you think those racers will come from? Surely not ones already racing Trans Am cars, right? Why not just take any chassis with any body and any tires, and put them all on the track at the same time? Hey, they do it in real racing, right?
Good grief, something good starts to happen with a new class and a handful or yahoos want to tear it apart, start something new and dilute the racers excited about something great into a bunch of new and intriguing classes.
That's fine, but it's also the very thing that is currently holding a knife to the throat of ALL R/C racing. Too many classes with too many variable rules is ruining carpet racing as we know it, with no one on the same page with the same class around the country. ROAR has just started to figure it out, and it might very well be too late. We saw a need for a single guiding presence and jumped at the opportunity to build on an already great idea.
In less than 3 weeks, we took in 73-odd pre-registrations for the Trans Am Nationals, which literally developed in 2 months of work. SEVENTY-THREE CARS in a SINGLE CLASS EVENT! We have heard from tracks around the country where touring cars were flat out dead and gone, that now have 18-22 cars every weekend resurrected and competing in Trans Am. How many stock rubber cars are regulars at your local track?
The pan car thing is great if it takes off, but I am not holding my breath. I watched it rise and fall 20 years ago, and the reasons it died before are already starting to develop before it starts up again. They are different cars entirely and trying to lump them together with 4wd touring cars for anything other than casual club racing is, well, pointless. Why not just throw truck bodies on some buggies and figure out how to make them the same speed on the track? Should be fair and fun, too, right?
You want a direct drive, foam tire, limited suspension pan car to be competitively matched in a Nationally based set of rules to a 4wd, independently spring contemporary touring car chassis on vintage wheels and spec hard rubber treaded tires? You're on your own there.
I will say it again, they will not ever be legal in our USVTA rules base.
Say whatever nasty things you want about me, that's fine. Call me all the names you can think of trying to put down what is being done—that's fine, too. I have no agenda or ego driving this. If it makes you feel better, then so be it.
What we are doing is for the advancement of THIS class. The rules changes aren't any different from what NASCAR, ALMS or F1 would do to make on the fly alterations and adaptations to keep everything as fair and equal as possible as trends start to develop. And you know what? They are ALL working to keep the playing field level for everyone. And the influx of new racers with old cars and brushless systems, and old racers with brushed motors, and the competitiveness of EVERYONE bears out that our rules alterations are working. Plain and simple.
Do what you want, say what you want, be your own little island on in an ocean of floundering R/C tracks looking for consistent patronage, but what has been done with the USVTA so far has WORKED, and there are plenty of tracks running these very rules that are thrilled with it. And 73 racers planning to attend a very large gathering of 4-cell touring cars in April who are pretty excited, too.
Your USVTA benevolent dictator,
doug
Do you believe 4wd buggies and 2wd cars should be run in the same class at the same time? How about rubber tires and foam tires on touring cars? And those are even similar cars? Do you understand the need to build a class up strong and not tear it apart before it's even gained a foothold? You're the one also already talking about an "under 2.0" class for minis and other FWD chassis in with the Trans Am cars. Where do you think those racers will come from? Surely not ones already racing Trans Am cars, right? Why not just take any chassis with any body and any tires, and put them all on the track at the same time? Hey, they do it in real racing, right?
Good grief, something good starts to happen with a new class and a handful or yahoos want to tear it apart, start something new and dilute the racers excited about something great into a bunch of new and intriguing classes.
That's fine, but it's also the very thing that is currently holding a knife to the throat of ALL R/C racing. Too many classes with too many variable rules is ruining carpet racing as we know it, with no one on the same page with the same class around the country. ROAR has just started to figure it out, and it might very well be too late. We saw a need for a single guiding presence and jumped at the opportunity to build on an already great idea.
In less than 3 weeks, we took in 73-odd pre-registrations for the Trans Am Nationals, which literally developed in 2 months of work. SEVENTY-THREE CARS in a SINGLE CLASS EVENT! We have heard from tracks around the country where touring cars were flat out dead and gone, that now have 18-22 cars every weekend resurrected and competing in Trans Am. How many stock rubber cars are regulars at your local track?
The pan car thing is great if it takes off, but I am not holding my breath. I watched it rise and fall 20 years ago, and the reasons it died before are already starting to develop before it starts up again. They are different cars entirely and trying to lump them together with 4wd touring cars for anything other than casual club racing is, well, pointless. Why not just throw truck bodies on some buggies and figure out how to make them the same speed on the track? Should be fair and fun, too, right?
You want a direct drive, foam tire, limited suspension pan car to be competitively matched in a Nationally based set of rules to a 4wd, independently spring contemporary touring car chassis on vintage wheels and spec hard rubber treaded tires? You're on your own there.
I will say it again, they will not ever be legal in our USVTA rules base.
Say whatever nasty things you want about me, that's fine. Call me all the names you can think of trying to put down what is being done—that's fine, too. I have no agenda or ego driving this. If it makes you feel better, then so be it.
What we are doing is for the advancement of THIS class. The rules changes aren't any different from what NASCAR, ALMS or F1 would do to make on the fly alterations and adaptations to keep everything as fair and equal as possible as trends start to develop. And you know what? They are ALL working to keep the playing field level for everyone. And the influx of new racers with old cars and brushless systems, and old racers with brushed motors, and the competitiveness of EVERYONE bears out that our rules alterations are working. Plain and simple.
Do what you want, say what you want, be your own little island on in an ocean of floundering R/C tracks looking for consistent patronage, but what has been done with the USVTA so far has WORKED, and there are plenty of tracks running these very rules that are thrilled with it. And 73 racers planning to attend a very large gathering of 4-cell touring cars in April who are pretty excited, too.
Your USVTA benevolent dictator,
doug
03-15-2008, 03:16 PM
#610
I FURTHER agree that mixing the foamies in wouldn't work either, but the fellow who'd posted the pan cars above (NOT the Florida experiment with foam tires ok'd) has shown the HPI tires/wheels to work as well. Hmmm...on the track from an aesthetic standpoint you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between his pan car and our TC-based TA cars.
Myself, if I do 1/10 pan again it will be GT bodies and, probably,foam tires but I would bet there'd be quite a few folks who would like to run Vintage TA. I maintain it is INCREDIBLY short-sighted to dismiss potential allies out-of-hand.
As far as U2...they DID historically run with the "big cars". My intent is to come up with something different that may or may not work. Won't know 'til we try. If other groups want to give it a go, they're welcome to it. Heck, maybe someone with big ideas might hijack the idea and make it something "bigger". In the mean time, if I can find something that appeals to someone who isn't all "serious" about it all then I've won and it's been worth the effort. If properly researched it will only amount to someone having a choice of "size", kind of like choosing between the Mustang and Camaro now.
03-15-2008, 04:42 PM
#611
Tech Rookie
Parallel venue?
JGTC-R/C -
1)Pan chassis
2) ?? batts ??
3) ?? Tires ??
4) ?? Motor ??
5) ?? FDR Limit (easy) ??
6) japanese TC bodies NSX,Supra,etc.
7)
Race On
Big "D" no toe steppin' here,you've done a killer job with the VTA Series.
Growth in the class speaks for itself.Within the last few posts,I see a viable option for those that aren't much familiar or thrilled with the "vintage" rides.
Looks like "1" class with Japanese bodies and a pan chassis.IMO,a parallel
to the USVTA.............JGTC-R/C
High 5 Big "D"!!
1)Pan chassis
2) ?? batts ??
3) ?? Tires ??
4) ?? Motor ??
5) ?? FDR Limit (easy) ??
6) japanese TC bodies NSX,Supra,etc.
7)
Race On Big "D" no toe steppin' here,you've done a killer job with the VTA Series.
Growth in the class speaks for itself.Within the last few posts,I see a viable option for those that aren't much familiar or thrilled with the "vintage" rides.
Looks like "1" class with Japanese bodies and a pan chassis.IMO,a parallel
to the USVTA.............JGTC-R/C
High 5 Big "D"!!
Last edited by DR Mead; 03-15-2008 at 04:52 PM.
03-15-2008, 08:58 PM
#612
Looking forward to running VTA for the first time soon at the C in Maryland. I can tell this class is moving forward quite quickly because the bodies, rims, and tires are in short supply at the major online retailers. Strangely, one of my local hobby shops has all this stuff in stock (JoJo's in NJ) because of a strong local following for the HPI Nitro RTR cars that come with these parts.
03-16-2008, 12:07 AM
#613
[QUOTE=Cunningham1972;4259292]Not legal its cool ~ keep your class just the way it is.
Last edited by Cunningham1972; 03-17-2008 at 07:17 PM.
03-17-2008, 03:16 PM
#615
Here's mine 
As the class doesn't exist in the UK I've just done it for fun.
As the class doesn't exist in the UK I've just done it for fun.