Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > International Forums > Australian Racing
Adelaide Nitro Offroad Racing Club >

Adelaide Nitro Offroad Racing Club

Like Tree1Likes

Adelaide Nitro Offroad Racing Club

Old 03-04-2014, 07:09 PM
  #18886  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
PAGIE #536's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 453
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Post

If you take away the drop off on the little table top flow it in to a quad option would be good, so my vote is option 1
PAGIE #536 is offline  
Old 03-04-2014, 07:38 PM
  #18887  
Tech Regular
 
Grandpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 374
Default

Originally Posted by PAGIE #536
Hmmmm just a thought on sweeping double, will it create a blind spot for the quad , obviously placing of ramps are key here, tough decision option one or option 2
Shouldn't as jumps are no higher than pit wall and from drivers perspective on rostrum you would have ample view. And also the drop on table top will be go back to a ramp as it was in the beginning.

Either way i'll build it to what members vote the most on.
Grandpa is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 05:41 AM
  #18888  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (4)
 
mallee RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mannum
Posts: 326
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

so option 2 a double double sounds good, if you look at what we raced on in Narracortte, there straight, in front of rostrum was easy to do, it flowed on easy. If you take there idea and jump distance, I think it will work well. Jump height will be the key, as pagie said, a blind spot will happen if they are to big? and yes Nathan, too many take to the quad when there not going to make it, marshalling for the quad is difficult enough without adding another HIGH RISK area to cover as a marshall. cos ill leave ya car on its roof, before I get hit- just ask my leg- hey phill
stewy
Mannum express
SDMCC- secretary
mallee RC is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 12:21 PM
  #18889  
Tech Adept
iTrader: (1)
 
Shano1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 183
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

yeah I like the sound of option 2 as well, as stewy has aready mentioned I also thought It worked well in narracorte as well as being safe too.

Last edited by Shano1; 03-05-2014 at 02:11 PM.
Shano1 is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 04:05 PM
  #18890  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
PAGIE #536's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 453
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Jumps should be same height as the quad or even slightly bigger, just a thought
PAGIE #536 is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 05:17 PM
  #18891  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (9)
 
hyper7vspec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Adelaide , South Australia
Posts: 2,528
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

I think everybody should think about this before they choose an option.

Before naracoorte made the jump section a double double it was a single double, now the lip was tiny on that single, but even with low traction and a tiny lip you were able to triple the section, and mind you the run up was not huge. Now as soon as someone started jumping all 3 then you have others trying it. To combat this Bruce and the club decided to put a lip in front of the single and turn it into a 2-2, this reduced run up distance and stopped anyone from jumping the whole thing.

Now, the problem we have at MV with a 2-2 is that due to the large run up length (and this is because of loop placement respective to the first jump) and relatively high traction, even with a small lip I reckon you can quad that distance, and if there is the oppourtunity to jump the whole section and gain an advantage time wise then people will, especially at a state titles, I know I would.

Now I suppose this isn't a problem necessarily, but what I'm trying to say is if you vote to have a 2-2 instead if a quad, there is a likely chance that you could jump it anyway, and if you can jump it then the reasons for voting for option 2 ie: less dangerous, better flow, easier to marshal are quite irrelevant.

I think it's better to have a jump section that can be done both ways quad or 2-2 so that it's not a hard section to jump with either line, therefore making it much easier. This way it gives people the choice, and that's the best thing you can offer to keep the track good for both beginners and advanced drivers.

But this is just my opinion, and option 2 is obviously more popular so far. As long as we take into account this when building a double double, then hopefully it will be ok.



See you all Saturday at the track!
hyper7vspec is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 05:43 PM
  #18892  
Tech Master
iTrader: (30)
 
WildManDriving's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Radelaide
Posts: 1,412
Trader Rating: 30 (100%+)
Default

I've assumed in my choice of Op#2 the difference between a Quad or 2-2 is the first take off ramp angle. Making the take off angle mellow enough that at full noise you nose plow the 3rd ramp will make it a smooth fast flowing 2-2 section with minimal need for marshalling.

Either way bring on the changes,
Mick .E
WildManDriving is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 06:29 PM
  #18893  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
PAGIE #536's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 453
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Thumbs up

I agree with foord, If people see an opportunity to jump a section they will try it trust me i am one, we should not dumb the track down otherwise there is no point to this jump section, if people don't realize they can't jump sections that the fast guys do that's their problem that's the whole reason in creating option sections there is no disadvantage to running a different option through a jump section, The reason i designed 95% of this track was to have flow with slightly technical sections with decent jump sections but still allow the guys who are learning to have options ! then gradually build there craft to jump the big stuff. I'm sure there are people saying i told you this would happen people whinging on the forum about the track but tough shit we are all apart of this club and everyones input is important, just thought i would throw that in just in case someone wanted to have a sook about my rant lol anyway keeping the flow is very important as i am sure most will agree changing a section which dramatically decreases track flow stuffs up the whole track.

cheers
page

p.s I think it's a step forward for the club to finally start listening too the members / people that make this club what it is and finally have some input, so good on the guys who allow that to happen you know who you are so thank you.

Last edited by PAGIE #536; 03-05-2014 at 06:34 PM. Reason: .
PAGIE #536 is offline  
Old 03-06-2014, 02:22 AM
  #18894  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bordertown
Posts: 535
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

My opinion the quad is great challenge but there needs a bigger gap between jump 2 and 3 so you can get a little bit of speed between them only like 200mm more space.
k goody is offline  
Old 03-06-2014, 02:30 AM
  #18895  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (9)
 
hyper7vspec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Adelaide , South Australia
Posts: 2,528
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by k goody
My opinion the quad is great challenge but there needs a bigger gap between jump 2 and 3 so you can get a little bit of speed between them only like 200mm more space.
That's what Phil and I spoke about on Sunday. If the quad option is voted in then there will be more space between 2-3 so it flows better with the 2-2 line option.
hyper7vspec is offline  
Old 03-06-2014, 03:02 AM
  #18896  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bordertown
Posts: 535
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Doesn't need heaps more room just a bit as the cars seem to nose in the wash off all the speed. And if you go he'll Mary for the quad and stuff it up and need to be marshalled and flame out there's a option of 2-2 at least. The other issue I see with it we there's a Car on its roof on quad landing = 2 broken cars. I'm normally not in front of the pack and there's no other option but run into that car on its roof or mashall in middle of track.
k goody is offline  
Old 03-06-2014, 03:07 AM
  #18897  
Tech Initiate
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Adelaide SA
Posts: 40
Default

I reckon. Option 1. Drivers can Quad if poss or double double if can't make the quad , which would make them loose time, bringing driver skill back in to it. Needs a shallow ramp though in my opinion so as you can hit it fast but keep trajectory low, you don't want it anywhere near as 'poppy' as the current one. Speed should not really be an issue with the run up to it. Just my thoughts.
MBXpro_boy is offline  
Old 03-06-2014, 04:27 AM
  #18898  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (4)
 
mallee RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mannum
Posts: 326
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by PAGIE #536
I agree with foord, If people see an opportunity to jump a section they will try it trust me i am one, we should not dumb the track down otherwise there is no point to this jump section, if people don't realize they can't jump sections that the fast guys do that's their problem that's the whole reason in creating option sections there is no disadvantage to running a different option through a jump section, The reason i designed 95% of this track was to have flow with slightly technical sections with decent jump sections but still allow the guys who are learning to have options ! then gradually build there craft to jump the big stuff. I'm sure there are people saying i told you this would happen people whinging on the forum about the track but tough shit we are all apart of this club and everyones input is important, just thought i would throw that in just in case someone wanted to have a sook about my rant lol anyway keeping the flow is very important as i am sure most will agree changing a section which dramatically decreases track flow stuffs up the whole track.

cheers
page

p.s I think it's a step forward for the club to finally start listening too the members / people that make this club what it is and finally have some input, so good on the guys who allow that to happen you know who you are so thank you.
Hi fellas- This is excellent stuff guys, is great for me to see our club forming together- members are a club, and without members there is no club, Look I think personally, what members want to put forth, you guys should ALL put pen to paper and write your ideas down, this is a important step for the club to create, what we all can call- The Best Track. with the large cost we are putting up, we need everyone's opinion, so we all are happy with what we can achieve.
As everyone Knows- Our magic man Phill is the TRACK MANAGER, and this guy only stands for perfection, The track phill has maintained threwout my time has been near perfect on every meet- when you spend so many extra hrs at our club doing the odd jobs needed, the result follows.
So Saturday, your ideas should be presented to phill, and everyone take the time to have a CLUB MEETING, in advance before your work proceeds. im sure everyone agrees this requires the attention/importance to move forth.

Mannum Express racing
SDMCC- secretary
mallee RC is offline  
Old 03-06-2014, 05:29 AM
  #18899  
Tech Adept
iTrader: (2)
 
Mad-Hatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: a house
Posts: 206
Trader Rating: 2 (75%+)
Default

From what I understand, with the quad being built with jumps 2 and 3 a little more spaced out, the option to double-double will be there anyway. I think option 1 is definatly the way to go.. It will be rewarding enough to tempt people into opting to take the risk of jumping the quad while not overly punishing those electing the safe option of double-doubling it.

Option 1 is where it's at!
Mad-Hatter is offline  
Old 03-06-2014, 01:54 PM
  #18900  
Tech Regular
 
Grandpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 374
Default

Hi Fella's,

Good to see the response from you all. Which ever option we do it will only add another dimension to our track and with a small extension to the track at the back section by the tree will be great additions to what is already a great and challenging track.

Option1 or option2...Hmmmmm. Either way it has to fit within the required space allowed, tomorrow will tell as that is when it's going in and it will be tested with a car, as always our jumps are.

See ya tommorrow.
Grandpa is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.