StevenS

Step1 :- Get RC REGISTERED as a SPORT. this will open up a number of doors for clubs; schools , funding i think being the main 2.

Step 2:- work on a good cheeep combo for these people ,RGT R2 Onroad Touring Car Kit $187,Speed Passion Reventon S ESC $60, Speed Passion 21.5 $43 Savox servo $60, Transmitter $60/70 Batteries $40/60,Charger $50/60 ,Body shell $20/40, so thats below $600 to get started in a 21.5 spec class

Step 3:- Club members have to lend a helping hand to the beginners (that means the top drivers as well)
just my 2 bobs worth

AARCMCC EP ONR

A price cap is a difficult thing to control, IMO. We as a section can't be everywhere, and there would certainly be some issues with complaints about it not being maintained. Whilst it isn't a bad idea (and certainly any control equipment would want to have a price limit too), it does only cover cost.
It doesn't solve the issue of there being a perception that to be competitive you need to purchase and test many different motors. This would still be a problem under such a cap.

The beginners aspect is in some respect only a small part of the discussion. At the nats, the majority of the feedback I received was from seasoned racers, the majority of whom noted that the current situation is unsustainable, and that something needs to change. What needs to change however is where the main divergence in opinion is. Clive, Damian and I will be doing our best to take this all on-board, and to try to give the clubs the best information for proposals to be formed.

EC

Tazz44

iTrader: (22)

Hey the point to remember is we are racing toy cars for a 3 cent piece of cardboard at club meetings. You people are trying to over complicate a simple sport. At major meetings yes, i agree hand out a motor esc combo plus control tyres. That way at those meetings all will be equal but at club meetings leave 21.5 as it is. The more complicated you make it, the less people you will have running not the other way around. You will turn people off it if you force people buy one brand only.

AARCMCC EP ONR

Yes. Although I believe it has been tried before and CAMS said no.
But in my experience, there is precedent elsewhere. For example, the BRCA is affiliated to the MSA. So maybe this is something we can revisit... but this is more a of a wider issue than an EP only.

This certainly wouldn't be a bad idea for a club level starter. If we as a section can work with the clubs to define equipment that can be suitable for sanctioned level and club level, then that can only be a good thing.

Agreed. Hopefully a better feeling towards the top level of the sport can have a positive effect on those at club level too, with a feeling we are all working together for a better future, and everyone's views are considered. Positivity trumps negativity in my book.

EC

nexxus

iTrader: (315)

So you want to sanction everything down to the Chassis? Come on! If we over regulate it'll just make it too hard to even try.

My thoughts? For a major event

Hand out motor and control tyres
ESC's in blinky mode
Motors tagged so any opening / tampering is immediately apparent.

I have a real issue in too many people given too much control I don't like the idea of sponsored drivers on club committees as agendas conflict. I don't see RC as a sport as much as it is a hobby (look at the drivers stand, these aint no athletes! I'm sure has h.. not, maybe 15 yrs ago but on a basketball court)

blis

Price caps, while quantifiable won't work because when you add up the external costs of racing at sanctioned meets, the price of the gear won't even come to 1/2 the cost of getting to events. And we're not a tourism industry.

This is probably the best AARCMCC inclusive discussion we've had for as long as I can remember. Kudos to those who always stick their necks out and ^5 to AARCMCC for getting involved. it's only a discussion anyway!

The first thing to begin the "numbers" debate is to draw a line in the sand as to the obligations of AARCMCC and those of the clubs. More often than not we're pointing the finger at AARCMCC over issues that won't effect sanctioned events, in among that, emotions flare as individuals take it personally, when in fact, it has no impact at the club level. If there are decisions being made over issues at the club level, then its your club that needs to resolve it, not AARCMCC.

Once you've removed AARCMCC from the club issues, then it's in everyone's interest to capture the hearts of as many RC enthusiasts as possible using whatever flavour of spec the members want. From there, the members need only for club representatives to provide the data for AARCMCC to make decisions that are best suited for all clubs, some will not like those decisions and we need to keep our fingers to ourselves and accept it's never going to be perfect.

I'd like to stress, it's been many years and I hear the same club vs AARCMCC arguments, for the most part, I rarely meet them at sanctioned events. Now yes, we've been out of the EP scene, that doesn't mean we're not waiting for it to settle down and for the past few years, honestly, it's been rule change after rule change, tyres, motors, batteries and now speedies. Don't look at a hand out's price, look at the loss of investment it's going to pose on people. If a newcomer just bought a top line speedy, because he/she wanted to, then a handout is an expense inclusive of the redundant ESC.

Even then with an out of pocket $300-500, if members feel welcomed at their clubs, meet interstate drivers who in turn welcome them to visit them at their clubs, then it's easy to use the speedy somewhere else, who can ever have enough speedies anyway. The real danger is that an AARCMCC rule like a handout may impact the relationships at the club level, and you know who'll we'll blame even if the club voted for it!

So it's about numbers, and for the third time the fields look spot of in terms of times and tightness but there's a need for more than 20-30 per class.

Why? It becomes an all in "A" class battle for 10 spots and there's no room for a newcomer to feel competitive. It's when middle and lower order driver number fall, the gap widens and it spirals downward from there. Middle and lower order is where we need to provide a level of racing that isn't perfect and has some headroom to progress, it's the bottom 10 we need to listen to, find out if they are enjoying it and whether they accept the top 10 have their act together or whether they feel a disparity. If they are happy with the level of competition and feel there's nothing untoward, then AARCMCC has done it's job and it's a club issue.

I agree with NZ, there are social issues at the club level, believing there aren't issues there, might be the problem.

Schwarta

iTrader: (4)

I'm not sure how a control motor and speedy is making it more complicated?

Having 3 or 4 motors that you need to figure out perfect timing and gearing for each track is way more complicated than a handout/control motor with fixed timing and max gear ratio.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

With regards to Club vs AARCMCC this is the fundamental points that must be kept in mind:

1. Whatever are the AARCMCC classes racers will want to race at club level. There is no way around this. In 15 years of racing I've never seen club racers not migrate to a national class format when it has changed.

2. AARCMCC should be running National championships in classes that reflect club racing (or what we want club racing to be). There is no point racing for a National title in a class nobody races unless it is for Worlds qualification, or to provide a pipeline to get drivers towards those Worlds classes.

Every national class should have a purpose clearly defined. And we need to be aware that what AARCMCC does WILL flow onto the clubs.

One thing that has yet to be tried is for AARCMCC to provide recommendations for non-sanctioned classes. If sufficient support can't be gained for spec racing at sanctioned level now, then perhaps a recommended spec formula for clubs that wish to run it, with AARCMCC recommended (or even supplied) gear would help.

hijinx

iTrader: (47)

Make two classes, eg 21.5 stock and 21.5 Pro, 21.5 stock uses controlled motor, esc and a set gear ratio, 21.5 Pro is open for any motor, esc and gearing, do the same for 13.5.
Yes it will add more classes during the race day and make the day longer, but that's the fun of race days and to attract more racers.
Just my thoughts.

Ricardo40

I have a simply question, if at the recent nationals 21.5 was almost as fast as 13.5 why is 21.5 sanctioned? Couldn't top 21.5 drivers cut it in stock?
Shouldn't 21.5 be a pathway to 13.5 and not be a finishing position for sanctioned national racing?

Also the idea of mentoring beginners instead of making them feel isolated is a great one, I think the governing body should encourage clubs to have mentoring programs, I don't know what is encouragement would be.

There is a social aspect to the problem more than a technical one, I believe.

PDR

iTrader: (31)

As a point of fact, there was quite a good gap between the best 21.5 driver and the worst 13.5 driver. That is, there was no overlap, in either laptime or runtime (of drivers' best).

Of all the big meets I've been to, this is a little unusual, but not unheard of.
For example, at the Vic Titles at Bendigo, there were definite overlaps, and a very small overlap at the ACT Titles.

In general terms, the quality of the driving at the Nationals was very good, as evidenced by high levels of consistency. It's rough, but have a look at the attached PDF document which shows the spread in laptimes for each driver/class, showing best/worst/average & outliers. The tighter the boxes are, the more consistent you are. I'm hoping to compile a more comprehensive summary of times, but I've gotta do my day job, too


That's a valid position to take, but I think there's a place for offering a class that suits the capabilities of various levels. The alternative is that there's only one sanctioned TC class, which is open.

Putting limits on 13.5/21.5 does nothing to eliminate close racing nor a whole range of creativity and tinkering, but does mitigate a couple of budget pressure points.

Absolutely! There is more than one thing we can collectively do to make it better. It's up to *us* to do so, not some abstract body.

Phil.

PS: Caveat on the data - there has been arbitrary filtering, dropping out results that are waaaay off base. For example, someone posted a 200+ second lap. I'm not naming names (yet)

PPS: The most consistent driver of the meet? See if you can guess...

ChrisL

Nice box plots Phil!