Pro10 Class
02-15-2008, 07:03 AM
#586
No, I'm saying BMI should make the car they want to and let the price fall into place just like they did for the DB12R. Don't worry about how much it'll cost. If cost is a worry for Jason, then make a cheaper car with cheaper materials. Cost savings will be over time in running the class. Leave the cheaper car versions for big companies like AE who can afford to.
02-15-2008, 07:06 AM
#587
No, I'm saying BMI should make the car they want to and let the price fall into place just like they did for the DB12R. Don't worry about how much it'll cost. If cost is a worry for Jason, then make a cheaper car with cheaper materials. Cost savings will be over time in running the class. Leave the cheaper car versions for big companies like AE who can afford to.
02-15-2008, 07:14 AM
#588
Tech Initiate
No one implied that any one had anything to do with the design of your car. However, Frank certainly was in on discussions about the rebirth of Pro 10 with 6 other manufactueres at least since before Christmas. It was just manufacturers working together towards a common goal. PM you direct email and I will forward you the emails that went back and forth between the 7 manufacturers involved in the 200mm Pro 10 project. Frank certainly participated.
None of this had any then to do with the specific design of our cars just discussion about common goad as as as dimension, bodies, power systems etc.
Everything Jason (ProTC3) posted was based on concepts discussed and agreed upon by all in these emails and regarding discussions with Frank and others one on one at the Snowbirds.
None of this had any then to do with the specific design of our cars just discussion about common goad as as as dimension, bodies, power systems etc.
Everything Jason (ProTC3) posted was based on concepts discussed and agreed upon by all in these emails and regarding discussions with Frank and others one on one at the Snowbirds.
Now, previous posts are being deleted, and this whole thing is being twisted. Sorry to get your knickers in a twist, but I felt the issue should be clarrified.
02-15-2008, 07:14 AM
#589
Tech Initiate
sorry, dbl post again, damn!
02-15-2008, 07:21 AM
#590
Tech Initiate
help! technologically challenged!
02-15-2008, 07:25 AM
#591
That is all fine. I will just make my car and not worry about anything else. Keeping a common goal is obviously not going to work. I was not looking at the existing hobby enthusiast. I was looking at the new guys who may come in due to a lower cost of the class. That was a nice idea but obviously not going to happen. I look at my costs and try not to undercut the other manufacturers by much. I just want to be competitive in pricing to keep the market honest. We need new blood in the hobby. Attendance is down all over the country and tracks are closing. I dont like to see this happen and am trying to do something about it. Believe it or not, this is not my main business. I can quit tommorow and never look back. I do this because of my passion for the hobby. The money is cool but is an extremely small part of my business. I want what is good for helping the onroad market. I can easily release this car for right at or under $300.00. It just wasnt what i had in mind. With our 1/12th car, i included everything you could ever need want in the car and sell it for $250.00. I could have went cheaper on some of the parts and dropped the price.
As far as a cheaper material usage, I just dont have it in me to put my name on it unless i know it is top notch. This stubborn attitude probably doesnt help me as a business man but that is just my personality.
As far as a cheaper material usage, I just dont have it in me to put my name on it unless i know it is top notch. This stubborn attitude probably doesnt help me as a business man but that is just my personality.
02-15-2008, 07:27 AM
#592
CRC did the smart thing...th reality is that 235mm pan cars are being run popularly in Europe for the past 2 yrs...by far its the car of choice. Same thing in here is the USA where where pro10 is being run in Colorado and CA,and a few other places, is mainly being done with wide 235mm pan cars. Those that had the 200mm initially have converted them to wide versions, and Mr. John Stranahan has been inspiring many with his several yrs of testing and experimenting with 200mm pan car and wide versions- he has caused many to run pan cars again here in the US and influenced many racers to try out he 235mm wide versions and many love them and prefer them over the narrower 200mm pan car. The Truth is that 235mm pan cars dont need 1/8 tracks or 20 ft lanes to be run on...those that have been running them for the past 2yrs in the US and EU before any US manufacturers even thought of getting together and try to "revive" pro10, have actually been running them in small and tight tracks, as wells as open tracks, both indoor and out door...the pblm has been trying to get more Bodies, and manufacturers to make new updated wide pan cars---now that manufacturers like BMI , SpeedMerchant, etc have gotten together, they have decided to make 200mm cars based on what they believe should be done- and they do have some great ideas and concerns, but it seems like the manufacturers are forcing people to run according to what they think is the way to go, ignoring what has actually been going on for the past couple of years with the revival of 1/10 Pan car racing...Maybe those that have actually been running and enjoying 235mm wide pancars here in the US and EU for the past 2 yrs feel like their requests for mnfgs for updated wide pan cars and bodies have been ignored?
That's why I applaud CRC and their car design, as it allows us to run Lipo, narrow or wide pan cars, at a good price, too...
They are not trying to force their ideas and outlook on everyone else--but rather making a car that is easily adaptable to the needs of those who are actually racing today with pro10 pan cars...
Who really thinks that for those running pan cars in the US and Eu for the past 3 yrs, who are largely running wide pan cars, are now going to run 200mm and 4 cell nimh, like some are trying to force the class to be? Its not realistic...and not fair, either. Maybe they'll just keep running their wide cars and others will run their 200mm narrow versions...
That's why I think its good to make cars that will work with Lipo and have wide conversions for it. And Dale Epp should start making some really nice bodies for the wide pan cars---he'll make lots of money in the US and EU, since there's already a base for them here in US and majorly in Europe.
02-15-2008, 07:32 AM
#593
Sorry this is getting so twisted. First of all, I don't even know where your first statement came from. I never accused anyone of implying anything in regards to design! I just wanted the readers to have clarification of some of the posts. I went back to the first page of this thread and read through, thoroughly. CRC was named as being in discussions regarding Pro 10. Fine. If a couple of replies to emails suggesting bodies is definitive of "discussions" than I guess your right. I've seen the emails. It was basically a "yeah, that sounds good" type of reply. Everything seemed pretty positive and upbeat until posts of "pulling out" and not liking the "direction" things are going started. It seemed to blame other companies for breaking some sort of rule. Bodies seemed to be the only thing agreed upon in the emails, on this end anyways.
Now, previous posts are being deleted, and this whole thing is being twisted. Sorry to get your knickers in a twist, but I felt the issue should be clarrified.
Now, previous posts are being deleted, and this whole thing is being twisted. Sorry to get your knickers in a twist, but I felt the issue should be clarrified.
We did all agree on 200mm. I understand frank probably had something going already and that is cool. The direction has gone off track and i am not the only one who feels this way. You guys can do what you like and i dont hold a grudge. I just feel that with more support from you, we could really help this class take off. Trying to decide who started what is pointless. At the end of the day we all just want to get the cars out there. Lets not try to push a class that is pretty much dead and focus on a new class of 1/10th pan cars being born.
02-15-2008, 07:34 AM
#594
Jason, please don't let "building the cheaper entry level" car rest on your shoulders. I know you build top quality kits. And you should continue to do so. I don't want to see you discouraged by this. I am very happy to see you participate on these forums. That in itself speaks highly of you. So lets put this all behind and move forward.
What do yall (i live in NC so stuff it!)... What do yall think of naming this class GT10?
What do yall (i live in NC so stuff it!)... What do yall think of naming this class GT10?
02-15-2008, 07:37 AM
#595
CRC did the smart thing...th reality is that 235mm pan cars are being run popularly in Europe for the past 2 yrs...by far its the car of choice. Same thing in here is the USA where the only place where pro10 is being run in Colorado and CA, is being done with wide 235mm pan cars. Those that had the 200mm initially have converted them to wide versions, and Mr. John Stranahan has been inspiring many with his several yrs of testing and experimenting with 200mm pan car and wide versions- he has caused many to run pan cars again here in the US and influenced many racers to try out he 235mm wide versions and many love them and prefer them over the narrower 200mm pan car. The Truth is that 235mm pan cars dont need 1/8 tracks or 20 ft lanes to be run on...those that have been running them for the past 2yrs in the US and EU before any US manufacturers even thought of getting together and try to "revive" pro10, have actually been running them in small and tight tracks, as wells as open tracks, both indoor and out door...the pblm has been trying to get more Bodies, and manufacturers to make new updated wide pan cars---now that manufacturers like BMI , SpeedMerchant, etc have gotten together, they have decided to make 200mm cars based on what they believe should be done...Maybe those that have actually been running and enjoying 235mm wide pancars here in the US and EU for the past 2 yrs feel like their requests for mnfgs for updated wide pan cars and bodies have been ignored?
That's why I applaud CRC and their car design, as it allows us to run Lipo, narrow or wide pan cars, at a good price, too...
They are not trying to force their ideas and outlook on everyone else--but rather making a car that is easily adaptable to the needs of those who are actually racing today with pro10 pan cars...
Who really thinks that for those running pan cars in the US and Eu for the past 3 yrs, who are largely running wide pan cars, are now going to run 200mm and 4 cell nimh, like some are trying to force the class to be? Its not realistic...and not fair, either. Maybe they'll just keep running their wide cars and others will run their 200mm narrow versions...
That's why I think its good to make cars that will work with Lipo and have wide conversions for it. And Dale Epp should start making some really nice bodies for the wide pan cars---he'll make lots of money in the US and EU, since there's already a base for them here in US and majorly in Europe.
There is no support for it. No one is really bothering with the 235 class. If anything were to happen for the larger tracks i would rather see 1/8th scale electric running these tracks. 235mm is just too big. I will be happy to show you the advantages of the 200mm car over your 235mm at the state race at adrenaline. I will let you drive my car and compare it to your 235mm. You can run your 7.4 volt lipo and i will set mine up with 4 cell and a 5.5. You will see what i mean
02-15-2008, 07:38 AM
#596
Jason, please don't let "building the cheaper entry level" car rest on your shoulders. I know you build top quality kits. And you should continue to do so. I don't want to see you discouraged by this. I am very happy to see you participate on these forums. That in itself speaks highly of you. So lets put this all behind and move forward.
What do yall (i live in NC so stuff it!)... What do yall think of naming this class GT10?
What do yall (i live in NC so stuff it!)... What do yall think of naming this class GT10?
02-15-2008, 07:41 AM
#597
I'd much rather buy a car that's Lipo capable and has a wide conversion kit, though
Many will also feel this way, I suppose.
02-15-2008, 07:52 AM
#598
There is no support for it. No one is really bothering with the 235 class. If anything were to happen for the larger tracks i would rather see 1/8th scale electric running these tracks. 235mm is just too big. I will be happy to show you the advantages of the 200mm car over your 235mm at the state race at adrenaline. I will let you drive my car and compare it to your 235mm. You can run your 7.4 volt lipo and i will set mine up with 4 cell and a 5.5. You will see what i meanIRS and Stormer have been stocking amd making parts for 235mm pan cars and s well as 200mm...that's what those running the pro10 pan cars for the past 2 yrs have been going to keep running their cars. Since there havent been any new cars on the market untill now, thatnks to you guys, they've been running 10L2 and 10L3s, Corally C10Xs, CRC Pantouras with PRC's wide conversion kits, and importing bodies from Germany or getting what they can from the 2-3 choices they have from Stormer Hobbies who has been trying to support them for the past 2 yrs.
If you guys would work on conversion kits and offer your cars with 235mm option and Dale would make bodies for the 235mm pan cars, combined with IRS awesome products, the wide class will booom. Its already being run, yrs before the new era 200mm pancar revival ideas were presented...
Now, if you'd offer a wide version kit or conversion for the 200mms, and people start buying them and running them all over, will this hurt the hobby? Dont see why it would? Their not faster than the 200mm in striaght away speeds, and we're trying to keep these at slower speeds anyways, right?
Last edited by yyhayyim; 02-15-2008 at 08:05 AM.