frozenpod

iTrader: (1)

Some great ideas in this thread.

I agree with the approach of a different format to make the class different and special.

oldnwise

iTrader: (6)

Agree. If you limit the class to the SP LM body then can see some racers will lose interest before the class even starts. One of the great attractions of F1 racing is the multitude of chassis and bodies to choose from. I enjoy looking through the F1 threads on RC Tech to see the latest bodies and paint schemes. Many of the Lemans racers will come from the F1 ranks. Can see some of the racers being turned off if the class is limited to one brand of body.

I would be letting any chassis and body that fits the general concept of a lemans, GTP or Group C style race. Set the chassis and body rules based on design criteria (body style, length, width, wheel base, wing style etc) and then you will open up the class to more racers. Majority of people race at clubs and not at major events and the rules for the class should be designed to attract more people to the class and not force them into a specific body.

wingman2

Hi all,

As someone that loves running Pro10/GT10's, I thought I would put my 2p worth in on the discussion!

Just wondered why you guys dont just run:

1) LMP1 - Pro10 (235mm pan car - 2c/10.5 boosted)
2) LMP2 - Pro10 (235mm pan car - 2c/13.5 blinky)
3) GT - GT10 (200mm pan car - 2c/17.5 blinky)

This gives the guys that want to run a fast car the chance to be able to whilst the guys that might be frightened of a mega fast car car still have a class to build their confidence up from, and that works from GT to LMP2 or from LMP2 to LMP1.

Only an idea, cheers!

nrtv20

iTrader: (9)

Pro 10s are rather fast for our indoor carpet tracks but it would be cool to see a come back.

Howler

All of this back and forth on what to run is head spinning, lol. There's another option. Get a new counting program/update that lets you run a LeMans class with multiple classes within. Upon registering, click the class that will be run by that driver, and it'll sort out positions via sub class. Then, you can run multiple (spec cars) in one race. At the end of the race, everything is sorted and clean, lol.


I my opinion, the closer that these cars can be run together, the better it will be for on-road racing in general. Look at what F1 has done in the last few years by having a set order in what is to be run. I've read though all of these posts and personally like the 21.5, set spur and the options of a few pinions. As for the chassis, I think that if you wanna run a hotter setup, go with a non-speedpassion chassis, and leave the LM1 as a spec class.

Close racing leads to interest, Interest leads to more drivers, More drivers leads to growth, which ultimately ends up in fun for everybody.

Ed Delgado

iTrader: (3)

Maybe because nobody makes an LMP1 body that would fit a 235mm pan car? The interest here, if I may speak for the rest of the contributors on this forum is for a realistic Lemans Prototype. Pro-10 cars are fast and fun, but the only thing they have in common with an LMP1 car is that they have four wheels and an enclosed fender body.

liljohn1064

iTrader: (17)

It is a class that will promote scale realism in a format that is different from current racing formats. The major issue will be the one body, but only initially. If the class grows, the offerings will grow.

Rule idea. Teammate must marshal when not driving. Caviate: marshal position dictated by quali position, the better the time, the loser to pit lane.

trackdesigner71

iTrader: (6)

Not a bad idea liljohn. How would a track handle a situation where a team is in the pits and an accident occurs in a spot where the marshal has vacated while their pit stop is going on?

celt had a very encouraging report on the interest in the LM1 at his track heading into the new year. If we can get 6-8 LM1s at 4-6 different tracks nationwide, that hopefully will alleviate concerns that some like I might have about that getting cannibalized as the LMP1 class is developed.

I was interested in what was said about having a single brand class (similar to the HPI Challenge and the Tamiya TCS) so here is what I am thinking:

Speed Passion LMP Challenge (LMPC)

Chassis: Speed Passion LM1
ESC: Cirtix Stock Club Race
Motor: Speed Passion Competition V3.0 21.5R
Battery: 2S
Body: Speed Passion LM-A
Tire: Speed Passion LM Tire
Weight: 1200g
Ride Height: 6mm
Drive Ratio: 24-26/72

I think that covers everything for that. I will post this idea in the LM1 thread and then we can finish hashing out the general spec for the LMP1 class here and maybe start working on laying the groundwork after the Snowbird Nationals down in Florida

trackdesigner71

iTrader: (6)

Not a bad idea liljohn. How would a track handle a situation where a team is in the pits and an accident occurs in a spot where the marshal has vacated while their pit stop is going on?

celt had a very encouraging report on the interest in the LM1 at his track heading into the new year. If we can get 6-8 LM1s at 4-6 different tracks nationwide, that hopefully will alleviate concerns that some like I might have about that getting cannibalized as the LMP1 class is developed.

I was interested in what was said about having a single brand class (similar to the HPI Challenge and the Tamiya TCS) so here is what I am thinking:

Speed Passion LMP Challenge (LMPC)

Chassis: Speed Passion LM1
ESC: Cirtix Stock Club Race
Motor: Speed Passion Competition V3.0 21.5R
Battery: 2S
Body: Speed Passion LM-A
Tire: Speed Passion LM Tire
Weight: 1200g
Ride Height: 6mm
Drive Ratio: 24-26/72

I think that covers everything for that. I will post this idea in the LM1 thread and then we can finish hashing out the general spec for the LMP1 class here and maybe start working on laying the groundwork after the Snowbird Nationals down in Florida

trackdesigner71

iTrader: (6)

Thoughts?

nrtv20

iTrader: (9)

It doesn't bother me how the marshaling is done; but if someone doesn't marshal a car because its not their team or because they are walking to the pits will not be good for the race. They should be responsible to assist in marshaling but not their main concern.


I'm not a fan of making this a Speed Passion spec series but if so, your rules are really good. I think you have to change the ESC to a any Speed Passion Stock Club ESC because I dont think the Cirtix is made anymore but widely still widely used. Also I think the stock spur should the spec gear and open pinion.

trackdesigner71

iTrader: (6)

My point isnt to make P1 a spec class, but to create a single brand class and then we could refocus this thread for the general spec of the P1 class which will be more of an open class which, if if went national, could have driver and constructor championships much like in TUSC and WEC. once im back on my computer I will post what id try for the LMP1 class

Rick Vessell

iTrader: (10)

Coming soon.....

LMP rules on the USVTA website. Rob and I have been working out a rough set of specs for a LMP class we will be running under the USVTA/USSRCRA banner.

Similar qualifier process to UF1.
3 x 10 min mains with no pit stops.

Simple and easy to follow, our goal is to build the class up to create a solid platform for scale racing in the U.S. (VTA, GT, F1, LMP)

Stay tuned....

trackdesigner71

iTrader: (6)

Here is my thought for the LMP1 class (and as I mentioned before is a separate class from the Speed Passion LMP Challenge class):

Chassis: Any commercially available 200mm direct drive chassis (F1, WGT, etc.)
ESC: Open
Motor: any commercially available 17.5 (no 17.5 stators in non-17.5 cans)
Battery: 2S
Body: 200mm LMP body (see approved list)
Tire: Open rubber or foam (must be commercially available)
Weight: 1200g
Ride Height 6mm
Drive Ratio: Open

The big thing to bear in mind is the words "commercially available". What that simply means is that if you can't either go down to your local hobby shop and by it, or purchase it from a reputable online hobby dealer, its not approved. I specify reputable just so someone doesnt make a custom chassis and then go creating an online store just so they can run it.

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

What is wrong with making one's own car?