blis

Kerry you're looking at it the wrong way. This is like Gas Touring or SSF, the motives were to create an enjoyable entry level class for newcomers and experienced guys to keep it real. Like with all classes in RC, some people get caught up with the racing and results more so than the original motives behind a class, it's hard to stop the tide of changes coming in whenever more people get involved.

If you read how upset the guys are who developed the class, their motives were to keep it real and enjoy an affordable and robust format so everyone leaves with smiles. As my post stated, even if one newcomer had a great time and chose to commit to our hobby, it's a bonus for RC. From what I've read there were a lot of experience level heads with good motives behind it to form the class, then a bunch of wannabes wanted to turn it into something else and the fun factor left the building. Those pioneers did it because they wanted to enjoy their models and see newcomers enjoy it too. I'm sure most of them had an array of models in all specs and realised their classes were dwindling due to economy, stages of life etc etc.

I have to commend those guys that setup the class in the first place. Our first nitro car was an Kyosho inferno buggy with road rage tyres and you can ask Jeff, it's the first car we drove at EPR. I've always wanted them in QLD but there's no room for another class, we dont have enough drivers as it is.

So rather than bring YET ANOTHER CLASS I watched the same happen to Pullstart in the Australian scene, should I have proposed it to EPR to replace TG racing? YES... Would I have been ridiculed... YES... Would the same have occurred with specs YES... Would we have noticed newcomers enjoying themselves.. NO.

There should be no points or championship points on offer for any class that is designed for merging the experienced racer to have fun and invite newcomers. Once you put any value to a result, arguments, subjective rules and changes ruin it and blurr the scope of the origins of such a class.

Relativity...

So wonder if there's any difference in downgrading an engine and putting it in a pro spec 200mm.. Or starting with an RTR and hopping it up to it. Same thing in my books, and there's plenty of track space in 200mm and 1/8th and it doesnt cost any more or less if the same happens and we consumed peoples budgets and left them high and dry.

If you allow carbon fibre, titanium, unlimited engines, unlimited tyres, you are dealing with an open class, nothing changes just because the engine is spec. It seeds an underlying stigma of cheating, causes many arguments and removes all parity. It defeats the purpose of these classes, everyone who's spent enough time in RC knows we need to create an influx of newcomers and give them enough time to setup their kits and step up.

When we race an open class, whether MOD, 200mm or whatever, there's a rational understanding that others will have bigger budgets, more experience and we shouldn't make it a poor man's hobby, that's up to the individual to decide and by keeping those drivers who still love their hobby and accept the status quo, we can move forward and grow.

I've been a strong advocate of focussing on the personal improvement of drivers versus results. I've witnessed newcomers arrive with RTRs and put on track with Race Spec cars, spent hours with them topping up their empty shocks, really trying to get the point across that they can enjoy their racing if they don't look at other peoples times, they won't win with their car but they can have a great time. Remember buddy, you too once had a Team Magic and I was ridiculed for years for sticking to my guns and developing the skills and equipment we needed to improve car performace when it mattered and as a newby, what matters is encouragement from the drivers in the garage and not alienating new RC enthusiasts because they can't afford the latest and greatest parts.


Back to GT's origins...

I strongly appreciate the efforts of the founders and pioneers of the GT concept and encourage those level headed experienced RC lovers to return to their roots, even if it's outlaw and revive the mode to it's origins. We all need you to put your foot down and tell it like it is, if drivers want to go to 11 on the performance dial, point them to 200mm or 1/8th and push them out if they intimidate newcomers.

If you stand your ground and revert to RTR spec I would bet there'd be a lot of level headed drivers who are passionate about RC racing to contribute in that class in a moderate and sensible way. They'd help the newcomers to develop and it's important to remind them at some point they are beyond the scope of the class and need to get a serious fix of high level racing, have their doors blown off by the top gun's, see how far they can get in the premiere classes and when they feel that it's all about racing and not enjoying it, to come back to RTR and lend a hand to guide the next influx of newbies around the many pitfalls RC has.

If you want to race seriously, then race the open classes and race them nationally. Long live RC, the FUN lives on when wise people kill the RESULTS. Just getting an IC RC model started and idling is the first of many wins!

Rant over!

JLock

iTrader: (4)

blis,

You are not ranting, trust me. You are telling it like you really feel. This is why I like chatting with you on RC Tech. If there were more level-headed guys like you in this hobby or running the r/c racing organizations, the hobby would get more notoriety than what it is getting now.

I know what you are talking about as far as bringing GT back closer to its roots. I have tried with one organizer and one past organizer to re-introduce a spec-type class that would rain in some of the costs and put some parameters back into the GT scene to possibly help attract some new blood and possibly get some of the old-timers back into the game. It has been met with resistance at every turn even when with one organizer, I drew up some revised rules and offered to sponsor the entire spec GT class out of my own pocket!!

From your previous post, the main reason Open GT was even formulated was to satisfy the big-budget, deep-pockets racers to give them a class of their own as to not jack up the Spec GT class. At the very first "GT only" race held at Homestead Florida's track, 82 racers from the Western Hemisphere showed up to run with I believe 60 running in the spec class alone. Why? Mainly because you knew what the specs for running the class were (everyone running comparable engines, tires, cars, etc.) and that the competition were going to be close (no one has a real edge/advantage). I was there and can tell you I had a blast!!! In the Spec class, all but three of the drivers were relatively even as far as equipment and driving skill set. Many of us had fun, helped each other out, and made new friends along the way. In fact, there were more spectators watching the Spec cars race than there were watching the Open cars race. After that March 2010 race, there were some that decided that there should not be a Spec class and that the entire class should be open and to me, that is where the class started "jumping the shark" so to speak. Between my Spec car and Spec engine to compete at this race (which I bumped into the A-main at the end), I had $600 invested. Those lower costs to race GT now is not the case anymore.

In short, I am not saying that it has to be a "cheap" class, but it does have to be "affordable", which many of the big-money racers seem to miss or not realize. You have to have an affordable and effective starting point to attract new racers in for them to get their feet wet and if they like it or hang with it, they can then move on to the other classes. If you stick a newbie with a $1000+ 200mm rig or $1600+ 8th scale pan car rig that is god-awful fast and more fragile than a GT car and they crash it, break a lot of parts, and have to spend more time fixing the car than getting valuable track time, they get frustrated and eventually bail to go do something else that is more enjoyable and less time consuming/labor intensive. The GT class was not suppose to be as fast or faster than 8th scale pan car like many are trying to take it to now. It was suppose to be comparable to running a 200mm-style car that is less twitchy, more predictable, and more durable while at the same time not breaking your budget to do so (having to stock tons of excess parts, truing tires, having to have a high-dollar modified engine, etc.).

I would love to be part of the movement to bring back a spec-type class to GT racing again (since I participated in the beginning movement in its early days). I already have a set of rules developed that are fair to all that would be involved (racers, manufacturers, hobby shops, etc.). I would rather race against 25 to 30 guys that are close competition and have a chance every now and again to win a race than race against 6 to 10 racers that have bigger budgets and deeper pockets than I and never have a chance to be competitive. Unlike those guys, if I am going to sink thousands of dollars into a car, I would rather do it in a 1:1 car of my dreams (would love to get my hands on a Holden Ute HSV) than a toy car that at the end of the day is still a toy car.

Bishop

iTrader: (5)

I was following the lead up into that event JLock, it looked grand, and like I said, I liked the origins of 8th GT, they looked fun, and sturdy, but only when an effort was made to keep the costs down etc.

Australia is replacing RTR Pullstart 200mm, a broken (and dead) class for years because everyone was running pro spec Edams, with a pro level roto start RB, that slipped though a rule loophole, as someone was importing them and selling as a RTR so they complied with said rules, but they did open class lap times (not cheap either to buy).

With, the now proposed 8th GT, but with open motors etc, meaning one flawed entry level national class is being replaced with another, when you can legally bolt a $900 Max Power or whatever in the 8th GT, whats the point of the class?


Too many people looking for answers in RC though now, and I have none myself, just speculation, in the mean time, I'm trying to prove you can do 8th pan cars on a budget, so far I have spent $700, raced three club meets, and had a lot of fun, meaning I win. lol

blis

Ouch my paint brush started drying out, Jlock you have PM.

Kerry, I didnt see any big names on the stand in ACT, so I hope it stays that way. They were a robust chassis, put a fully blown .21 in them and things will start going wrong very quickly.

JLock

iTrader: (4)

The way I see a new version of a Spec GT class, I have re-examined the rules that the Mexico City guys had when they were running regularly. They pretty much ran one Spec engine/pipe for much of their program in the beginning. When they did do it that way, they averaged between 30 to 50 racers every club race. Their spec engine was the OS 21VG and their spec pipe was the stock pipe from the kit (which seemed to work well with the OS 21VG). They also used to run only one brand of car also, the Kyosho GT1 and GT2. It made tech'ing the car, engine and pipe very easy because everyone was running the same thing. I know with the variety of cars on the market now it makes it hard to spec a chassis but I think the only way spec would work again is to spec the engine and pipe (single manufacturer). This way, you could lobby that manufacturer for support for the class and also help your local hobby shops by using a products that they carry (indirect support).

blis

Here's a little dream I had when racing a sanctioned state title race meeting and thinking where everyone has gone...

Approach distributors to supply their brand of RTR GT chassis and organise to supply two additional sets of tyres, engines and quote, get them to price match the kits between themselves. They should be able to scrounge basic tool kits, chargers and come up with a package to help their own industry in the real world. They name their price! One specific criteria is that they supply a few techs to work as a support person for all participants, after all, we want fair play and we want choices.

On a five day event, a section of the garage is corded off and there's a sign that says "Drivers and Delegated Techs only". In that corded area are fathers and sons, mates, brothers, old school buddies and the "team" tech guys.

For the first two days (one of them being practice day) of the meeting these drivers and their mechanics build from scratch kits that were supplied with the help of supplier techs. Once built they can go to scrutineering have their cars checked and pull an engine number out of a hat and receive a pre-run in engine that must be parc ferme at the end of the day. They cant start them up but setup engines, carbs and servos to their chassis and hand it back the next day.

On day 2 there'd be a morning test and tune session, one at lunch and one for each round after that until the end of round 4. Every event is different so no point schedule it prematurely, but the idea is:

Day 1 - Build
Day 2 - Setup - Concourse
Day w - Practice
Day x - Two rounds of quals (Rounds 4 and 5 of 200mm and 1/8th)
Day y - One hour finals in seed - Best overall time wins
Day z - Take car home as souvenir

You could probably do this for around $700 could be more or less with support from supplier and host club and it gives people a chance to experience the bigger picture of RC racing, (yeah the one we're always arguing over) and the roots of where it all starts for many of us.

So they take home this RTR and want to drop in a Open engine, best let them break their cars at home, plenty of telegraph poles and gutters they can use to help with a quick and merciful death. But if they want to bring it back next year and trade in for a new engine, they can, it has to be a marked event engine, and they wont get much for it. Again, 2 days working on the car, the build up of excitement and real world costing on RC racing on a fixed budget.

Yeah I'm still dreamin...

Bundy_Bear

iTrader: (11)

Would England Park look at including the TG class as a class at next years state IC titles? Have to say we enjoyed the ORCCA GT Titles held earlier this year and would like to see it added as a class for those interested to boost numbers and bridge the gap a little for those wanting to step up a little.

blis

Andrew, it's called 200mm IC, open class, engine you use is your choice, specs are the same.

Bundy_Bear

iTrader: (11)

Thought it might go straight through to the wicket keeper as it goes against the grain.

blis

> WIDE <

bigtez

iTrader: (6)

There is no reason why we couldn't run the ORRCA GT and Super Stock titles again, provided that the members will support it. At the AARCMCC IC stat titles we are able to run the national pullstart class rules, however this isn't a very popular class in Queensland.

JLock

iTrader: (4)

It is funny that you bring this up. About three years ago, I was thinking of a spec GT class with 200mm using rubber tires and the OS TG engine (and corresponding matching pipe). The bodies, of course, would be all the cars that are currently running any LeMans, GT, or Sportscar class in 1:1 racing. There would be no limit as far as chassis used outside of being limited to parts made for the car commercially (no custom-made parts from friends with CNC machines). By doing this, you would not be limited to using the "latest/greatest" chassis as you could then dust off your old fill-in-the-blank chassis that has been collecting dust in the back of your closet. Believe it or not, I wrote the rules for it and shelved them. Could be something that could be run along side 8th scale Spec GT???

blis

That's what it was in the past on rubbers but they got too fast. Nowadays it's a race spec open chassis on foams with a TG ringing it's rod at 140c. Ive been heard to say that rubber tyres are a good way to learn car setups, but in truth Im not sure they'd be cost effective nowadays. Guys would run sorex 28s and spend more $$ each round to get that performance edge. The little trusty Nova has been banned from that class of engine, which is the Dutch spec of the same class, they tried using a Taiwanese engine in Victoria but I assume the same thing happens everywhere in the world and they lean on engines to gain results and it's not cost effective. You have to note that we run events every week all year regardless of season. Most the drivers in the TG class won't get 6-9 months from their engines and the comparative costs are equal to the open class.

Having said that, Andrew and his brother are advocates and I 100% believe in their motives and racing etiquette. Without this class, it would have not opened up the opportunity for Richard, to feel confident in having a go, but it wasn't easy going either! It's racier than you think and on some tracks, very little margin running a TG over a Murnan Modified RB.

I'm really chuffed that Richard stuck to it and now Andrew's getting back into giving it a real crack. Richard car steer an open class as can Andrew, the benefits of the TG class at our track is we run on Friday evenings and dear Abby can come and watch and pit, now there's a one in a million girl!!! As is Les' wife.

While I can't prove it, my feeling is that the division in 200mm IC prevents the middle order racing that is missing from the open class nowadays and makes it even less inviting at sanctioned meets when there's a huge gap from top 6 or 8, to 18th in the semi. Perhaps the fear that 1/8th GT would do the same to 1/8 open, I think there are distinct differences there though.

I see GT as being the level headed big brother to 200mm, not a poor cousin to 1/8th. I've always liked the extra room to work with on a GT, it's more robust and it's more inviting for newcomers than the world classes. They shouldn't have open engines, it's too heavy and dangerous in the wrong hands and I assume a significant power gain. As is an electric 1/8th, wickedly fast, awesome thing to see and hear, but I really don't want to marshal one, nor marshal a heavy EP GT. They're quiet and you can't hear them coming till the doctor is telling you to hold still while he removes the wrest of the chassis from the back of your head. I've seen a guy have his ankle broken by a 1/5th, no I don't enjoy this hobby because it's dangerous, yes I accept it is!

h

Bundy_Bear

iTrader: (11)

Taking my bat and ball and going to play elsewhere

Bundy_Bear

iTrader: (11)

Terry:

I am sure the SSF guys would be keen for this, I wasn't sure if ORRCA rotated the venues each year though and had thought a club run class at IC QLDS might have been an alternative like I think they did last year with the 5th scale bikes.