WCIC '06/'07
02-03-2007, 08:29 AM
#751
Originally Posted by mjm
If thats the case the most of the people at the race will be from the home track (Calgary) and end up having the say. We can see on the forum that opinions differ greatly from track to track.
02-03-2007, 09:42 AM
#752
mjm you missed the point completely. i look at our series as a series, a group of guys and girls from other cities getting together, having fun and racing r/c. not racers from edmonton, regina ect...... if 90% of the regular racers that attend the series will be at any one race whether it be calgary, or regina then that should give us a general idea of what is going on. yes chris i am on msn. that works for me, maybe we should say lets all chat in 2-3 weeks at a certain time. takes the whole grassy nole thing out of the equation.
but lets get the issue outlined before hand so we may ask our membership what they want and then make our final decisions as a whole.
but lets get the issue outlined before hand so we may ask our membership what they want and then make our final decisions as a whole.
02-03-2007, 10:39 AM
#753
I am sure our Regina club will be talking about it tomorrow, Sunday Feb 4th.
So when needed I am very sure we will be ready for the big meeting to be help with all reps.
So when needed I am very sure we will be ready for the big meeting to be help with all reps.
02-03-2007, 03:51 PM
#754
Originally Posted by mjm
A questionnaire would be a great idea. Instead of 5 reps makeing the decisions regarding the rules and allowances, .
02-03-2007, 03:53 PM
#755
Originally Posted by cclifton
I am the rep for Lethbridge amd i was wondering if the other reps use chat programs like MSN or Yahoo as we could use that possibly for hashing out the rules. Regina is not possible for me to get off work and Calgary is still up in the air if I can attend. I could maybe appoint someone else to be the rep from lethbridge that are going to them races if needed. What are the other reps thoughts?
Chris Clifton
Chris Clifton
I have MSN but would need a time i dont go on very much to confusing with lots of people msn's at the same time, i type ot slow i think LOL.
I cant see why you could not have a different rep from your city show up and speak for your club .
and my writing is fine 
sometimes you need to put it simply and inncorrect for people to understand, have you looked around 
02-04-2007, 01:00 PM
#761
Some of our members had a little meeting at the club race yesterday and this is what came up.
Rubber tires are nice, but don't believe that a new class should be developed for them. By this it was felt that limiting an entrant by making a lower end chassis the mandatory for the class, may in the short term be ok, but then when that person wants to move up to a more competitive class they are forced to purchase another chassis, it was felt that any chassis should be allowed to compete in a rubber tire class.
Again, it was mentioned that perhaps TC Mod entries would go up if it was allowed as a 3rd entry option, the only thing that changed was that you would only be allowed 3 entries, so you could run all 3 TC but then no 1/12th, or 1/10th pan.
As far as anything being voted on, we felt that the list of entries should be used as a list of eligible voters, now whether this is setup as a mailed ballot, or done somehow with computer tech and a log in kind of thing and vote, whatever works, but the feelings where that those that are competeing are the ones that should be given the chance to vote.
It was also felt that there should be a little more, or deeper tech going on after the race, for the top 3. It was felt that a simple "looking over" didn't really suffice for a event of this nature. Not wanting to take away from the fun aspect of the race though.
We don't have any input on a brushed versus brushless, although we had another brushless breakdown last night at racing again. (I just wonder if it may be our outside barriers that are causing the rotors to shatter when hit hard enough?) But we don't have any running in stock.
4 vs 5 vs 6, it was pretty much agreed it will be what it will be. We felt that motor technology will develope and make the 5 cell more acceptable. It was also felt that trying to run 5 vs 6 was like trying to compare apples to oranges, and is not a really fair comparison at all. (see my previous post, everyone in the same boat)
I hope other clubs have some talks and post their results here as well, so a decent amount of items can be agreed or disagreed on in a ballot form.
Rubber tires are nice, but don't believe that a new class should be developed for them. By this it was felt that limiting an entrant by making a lower end chassis the mandatory for the class, may in the short term be ok, but then when that person wants to move up to a more competitive class they are forced to purchase another chassis, it was felt that any chassis should be allowed to compete in a rubber tire class.
Again, it was mentioned that perhaps TC Mod entries would go up if it was allowed as a 3rd entry option, the only thing that changed was that you would only be allowed 3 entries, so you could run all 3 TC but then no 1/12th, or 1/10th pan.
As far as anything being voted on, we felt that the list of entries should be used as a list of eligible voters, now whether this is setup as a mailed ballot, or done somehow with computer tech and a log in kind of thing and vote, whatever works, but the feelings where that those that are competeing are the ones that should be given the chance to vote.
It was also felt that there should be a little more, or deeper tech going on after the race, for the top 3. It was felt that a simple "looking over" didn't really suffice for a event of this nature. Not wanting to take away from the fun aspect of the race though.
We don't have any input on a brushed versus brushless, although we had another brushless breakdown last night at racing again. (I just wonder if it may be our outside barriers that are causing the rotors to shatter when hit hard enough?) But we don't have any running in stock.
4 vs 5 vs 6, it was pretty much agreed it will be what it will be. We felt that motor technology will develope and make the 5 cell more acceptable. It was also felt that trying to run 5 vs 6 was like trying to compare apples to oranges, and is not a really fair comparison at all. (see my previous post, everyone in the same boat)
I hope other clubs have some talks and post their results here as well, so a decent amount of items can be agreed or disagreed on in a ballot form.
02-04-2007, 01:26 PM
#762
Originally Posted by Johnny Wishbone
Some of our members had a little meeting at the club race yesterday and this is what came up.
Rubber tires are nice, but don't believe that a new class should be developed for them. By this it was felt that limiting an entrant by making a lower end chassis the mandatory for the class, may in the short term be ok, but then when that person wants to move up to a more competitive class they are forced to purchase another chassis, it was felt that any chassis should be allowed to compete in a rubber tire class.
Again, it was mentioned that perhaps TC Mod entries would go up if it was allowed as a 3rd entry option, the only thing that changed was that you would only be allowed 3 entries, so you could run all 3 TC but then no 1/12th, or 1/10th pan.
As far as anything being voted on, we felt that the list of entries should be used as a list of eligible voters, now whether this is setup as a mailed ballot, or done somehow with computer tech and a log in kind of thing and vote, whatever works, but the feelings where that those that are competeing are the ones that should be given the chance to vote.
It was also felt that there should be a little more, or deeper tech going on after the race, for the top 3. It was felt that a simple "looking over" didn't really suffice for a event of this nature. Not wanting to take away from the fun aspect of the race though.
We don't have any input on a brushed versus brushless, although we had another brushless breakdown last night at racing again. (I just wonder if it may be our outside barriers that are causing the rotors to shatter when hit hard enough?) But we don't have any running in stock.
4 vs 5 vs 6, it was pretty much agreed it will be what it will be. We felt that motor technology will develope and make the 5 cell more acceptable. It was also felt that trying to run 5 vs 6 was like trying to compare apples to oranges, and is not a really fair comparison at all. (see my previous post, everyone in the same boat)
I hope other clubs have some talks and post their results here as well, so a decent amount of items can be agreed or disagreed on in a ballot form.
Rubber tires are nice, but don't believe that a new class should be developed for them. By this it was felt that limiting an entrant by making a lower end chassis the mandatory for the class, may in the short term be ok, but then when that person wants to move up to a more competitive class they are forced to purchase another chassis, it was felt that any chassis should be allowed to compete in a rubber tire class.
Again, it was mentioned that perhaps TC Mod entries would go up if it was allowed as a 3rd entry option, the only thing that changed was that you would only be allowed 3 entries, so you could run all 3 TC but then no 1/12th, or 1/10th pan.
As far as anything being voted on, we felt that the list of entries should be used as a list of eligible voters, now whether this is setup as a mailed ballot, or done somehow with computer tech and a log in kind of thing and vote, whatever works, but the feelings where that those that are competeing are the ones that should be given the chance to vote.
It was also felt that there should be a little more, or deeper tech going on after the race, for the top 3. It was felt that a simple "looking over" didn't really suffice for a event of this nature. Not wanting to take away from the fun aspect of the race though.
We don't have any input on a brushed versus brushless, although we had another brushless breakdown last night at racing again. (I just wonder if it may be our outside barriers that are causing the rotors to shatter when hit hard enough?) But we don't have any running in stock.
4 vs 5 vs 6, it was pretty much agreed it will be what it will be. We felt that motor technology will develope and make the 5 cell more acceptable. It was also felt that trying to run 5 vs 6 was like trying to compare apples to oranges, and is not a really fair comparison at all. (see my previous post, everyone in the same boat)
I hope other clubs have some talks and post their results here as well, so a decent amount of items can be agreed or disagreed on in a ballot form.
Well, now you've done it, had a laid back conversation about rules with some folks at the track... What's that gonna get ya???!!!
A thought on the lower end chassis, Do you feel it's possible that when a driver is ready to move on, he would also sell the other car and get the new car. Like if you got tired of mini and wanted to run a TC, you'd sell the mini. Start in slow class, and sell the old car and move on?
4 vs 5 vs 6, it was pretty much agreed it will be what it will be. We felt that motor technology will develope and make the 5 cell more acceptable. It was also felt that trying to run 5 vs 6 was like trying to compare apples to oranges,
Oh man, I think I thought of a comparison (5-cell compared to 6-cell)...
Here's what it's like. Laugh if you want to, It's like all of a sudden being asked to pull a parachute around the track. Doesn't seem to effect much on the short tracks (not going fast enough to fully deploy or fill the chute, not much cnahge), but you're gonna feel it on the long tracks (as the chute is fully deployed and exuding maximum drag). Sure, it's easier tor drive, but it's now "EASIER TO DRIVE" for EVERYBODY. You will need to gear up your parachute pullilng car if you intend to turn a faster lap time than the others. People had spare run time before adding the parachute and didn't really worry about run time (for the most part, there are exceptions), and now you'll need to worry about making time with the parachute on your car.
Last edited by Bob-Stormer; 02-04-2007 at 01:49 PM.
02-04-2007, 02:05 PM
#763
Tech Regular
iTrader: (3)
Suggestions
After reading the posts, it's great to see all the open dialogue.
Here are a few of my suggestions to add: I really think as a series, we should establish all the same procedures from venue to venue. For example:
1. All events should list those people who the following will be:
Race Director, Registrar,Tech inspectors, Track manager or any other official of the race. This reduces confusion and provides the racer information as who to approach for questions or concerns.
2. Registration should be closed by Friday at 9:00pm on the event weekend. This allows for the race director at each event time to set up all the heats and revise them on Friday night. The heats would all be posted with all revisions done. So on Saturday morning there are no more changes causing delays.
3. All venues start the race at the same time. My suggestion would be for an earlier start with the Drivers' meeting at 9:00 am and racing starting at 9:30 am. This allows for earlier finish times providing racers either more practice time or more rest in the evenings.
4. All venues should have the same race schedule. An example would be: 3 qualifiers on Saturday, 1 qualifier and the mains on Sunday with resorts after the first and third qualifiers. Two minutes or less between races in the round allowing for drivers to clear the track, go marshall and for the new drivers to check in. As rounds tend to be 3 hrs long, "mercy minutes" should not be needed. This helps with the pace of the event and allows racers foreknowledge of the event schedule.
5. The race results should be printed with lap times for all qualifiers and mains. This allows a racer to analyze if any adjustments helped improve lap times. (Most events already do this which is great, but make it a standard.)
6. Use the website! As the series has a website, it would be great to see a pre-registration system, detailed results, hotel info, basically a "one stop shop" for everything about the series. I realize its currently a work in progress, but its something to think about.
Remember, these are all suggestions and observations. I hope they are viewed as items to think about. . .
Dwayne
Here are a few of my suggestions to add: I really think as a series, we should establish all the same procedures from venue to venue. For example:
1. All events should list those people who the following will be:
Race Director, Registrar,Tech inspectors, Track manager or any other official of the race. This reduces confusion and provides the racer information as who to approach for questions or concerns.
2. Registration should be closed by Friday at 9:00pm on the event weekend. This allows for the race director at each event time to set up all the heats and revise them on Friday night. The heats would all be posted with all revisions done. So on Saturday morning there are no more changes causing delays.
3. All venues start the race at the same time. My suggestion would be for an earlier start with the Drivers' meeting at 9:00 am and racing starting at 9:30 am. This allows for earlier finish times providing racers either more practice time or more rest in the evenings.
4. All venues should have the same race schedule. An example would be: 3 qualifiers on Saturday, 1 qualifier and the mains on Sunday with resorts after the first and third qualifiers. Two minutes or less between races in the round allowing for drivers to clear the track, go marshall and for the new drivers to check in. As rounds tend to be 3 hrs long, "mercy minutes" should not be needed. This helps with the pace of the event and allows racers foreknowledge of the event schedule.
5. The race results should be printed with lap times for all qualifiers and mains. This allows a racer to analyze if any adjustments helped improve lap times. (Most events already do this which is great, but make it a standard.)
6. Use the website! As the series has a website, it would be great to see a pre-registration system, detailed results, hotel info, basically a "one stop shop" for everything about the series. I realize its currently a work in progress, but its something to think about.
Remember, these are all suggestions and observations. I hope they are viewed as items to think about. . .
Dwayne
02-04-2007, 03:50 PM
#764
Originally Posted by Johnny Wishbone
Rubber tires are nice, but don't believe that a new class should be developed for them. By this it was felt that limiting an entrant by making a lower end chassis the mandatory for the class, may in the short term be ok, but then when that person wants to move up to a more competitive class they are forced to purchase another chassis, it was felt that any chassis should be allowed to compete in a rubber tire class.
I must have missed part of this , sometimes the thread grows faster then i can read or type LOL
but why would stock rubber be a class you need a lower end chassis for? any good chassis can run rubber tires or foam tires so i see no reason you would have to buy a low end chassis to run stock rubber tires.
If your meaning the f103 Class i think its just a another mini type of fun class for the amount of new people steping into it first would not be many it is like mini most dont start with it they just end up with them after
02-04-2007, 10:04 PM
#765
Tech Master
iTrader: (23)
Really like the idea of being able to run 3 TC classes. Great for guys wanting to break into TC mod while, still being able to enjoy the close competition in stock and 19. I've been running 1/12 stock just as a filler for track time and really not enjoying it. I'd gladly set up another chassis for mod if I knew I could run all TC classes.
A 3 calss max is a good idea, I'm sure it doesn't really matter what 3 classes right?
Just my own selfish opinion.
Jim C.
A 3 calss max is a good idea, I'm sure it doesn't really matter what 3 classes right?
Just my own selfish opinion.
Jim C.