RedBullFiXX

iTrader: (34)

As usual
Terry and Gadget are spot on
They've been at this a while

RC tips has found what works in his arena
As UF1, Japan, and China F1 series all do as well

It's important to have a strong pull of cars, in your area, by any means necessary

It isn't so much about turning racers away
However when you have a like minded group, rules can, and will be more narrow focused, this is the way of life, and RC

Personally, my only issue with the FGX is, that since it is 190mm, the rules were bent to allow 190mm for all cars competing in the UF1 series
Hence, less scale in appearance

Aside from that little glitch, all is alive and well in UF1

IndyRC_Racer

iTrader: (9)

It is a shame that the Tamiya F201 was 4wd.

Speaking of the F201, does anyone know if you can mount a F201 body onto a F104?

liljohn1064

iTrader: (17)

I'm joining 180mm club via an F1R build. I'm doing it more for being able to race with stricter rules than pure realism. I still love the FGXs though. I will keep my F103s in running order too. You never forget your first.

robk

iTrader: (22)

You should be able to but they are pretty wide compared to a 104 so it might look weird

2wdrive

I agree with most of what you wrote but rules get bend all the time. UF1 bend the rules to include the FGX. The rules for f1 was first 200mm but was changed in areas of the world for 180mm because tamiya came out with a 180mm car. The 200mm old rules didn't fit the new car. Also because of a perceived advantage that the old car still had over the new car so the old rules were changed. Now they say the 200mm doesn't fit the rules...sure because they changed the original rules in the first place.

I am not trying to get into a discussion, just saying that rules get bend every year little by little to fit into the needs of what people want at the time and place.

InspGadgt

That is true...but only in F1 really. F1 is a niche class and for some reason manufacturers can't seem to stay on the same page. That has always been the difficulty of F1 and the main reason why it is so difficult to write rules for the class...believe me I've been there. Look at any other class out there and you just don't have these issues. TC originally started out in 2 different widths but it really didn't take long for every manufacturer to standardize on one size. Whether the rules were out first or if manufacturers standardized first does not matter...the point is either they standardized first or they all decided to follow the rules. This has never happened in the F1 class...for some reason manufacturers choose to go their own way with F1 cars. And that makes writing a good balanced rules set next to impossible. Because of this there is always going to be someone who isn't happy. As a rules maker we have to balance what makes the most people happy...against what is going to be good for the class in the long run. Not an easy task.

ShadowAu

iTrader: (7)

Why should they?... These companies are out to make money and, frankly, they don't have to waste a moment worrying about what front suspension you guys think is more aesthetically accurate or whatever.

The funny thing is, they actually do consider it as both the Top and the new F113 have the facility to mount a "standard" Tamiya front end. They know that doing so allows them to tap into multiple markets. The new TRG does as well but if you've taken a look at the new TRG 112, all it's standard suspension mounts are just outside the body. Yet for some reason people have made far less of a fuss about this car than some others, and why is that? Maybe because deep down, for all it's adjust-ability and bling, its still a king pin suspension??

TC only became "standardised" at 190mm when IFMAR sanctioned it as world class. It then became impractical to make cars that weren't 190mm because they were never going to sell. Before then the manufacturers were making cars from 180mm to 200mm. F1 has NEVER reached that level of interest so the rules are not concrete so the manufacturers do not have the same motivation to comply.

The bottom line here is MONEY. Manufacturers will make what they think they can sell. Tamiya make their cars their way because they know they have a market and they create things like TCS to promote it. Other brands use other tactics to try and sell. So while people sit on threads like this and do the chicken/egg thing they will KEEP trying to make a market for themselves. They are in the business to make money so they will make whatever they think will sell.

I, for one, will be buying a F113 as soon as I can get my hands on one because I think its F"ing awesome looking. I don't care about anything else because there are so few people running F1's in my area that they'll let it race regardless.

terry.sc

Why we run a solid axle in F1s is fairly obvious to anyone with knowledge of the history of r/c cars. The first F1s came out in the late 70s when your options for electric cars were a solid axle/chassis flex on road design, or the pot metal basic suspension of the Rough Rider/Sand Scorcher and Scorpion buggies at the time. The simpler design was considerably more superior for on road racing. It would be another 15 years before we had something recognisable as a modern touring car.

In the 80s pan car design then went through a bit of a revolution, with full independent suspension and various 4WD systems, and solid axle pan cars with multi link suspensions and independent front ends, but none were superior to the basic pan car design once pan cars had developed to the separate T-piece design. Here in Europe a 4WD, independent suspension chassis can still be legal in 1/12th scale, but no one has built one as it just wouldn't be competitive.

If you have a simple design that proves to be superior why change it just for the sake of it. There have been several RWD independent suspension designs over the years, look at the Serpent Tenforce for example, and none of them have taken off. Even Tamiya tried it, the F201 was Tamiyas attempt to make a basher F1 as while the F103 was popular and worked well on racetracks it wasn't easy to drive on dusty tarmac. Tamiya even included 4WD to make it easy to drive. All it did was kill off TCS F1 racing as the racers weren't interested in a slower, heavier car that needed so much work on it to tune it, and a whole load of parts throwing at it to be competitive.

Having a rule that limits chassis to a solid axle does make sure F1 chassis are similar, so therefore of similar performance. Most places don't allow independent suspension because there is no need to, there are still plenty of options available for the racers. Opening the rules to allow independent suspension could then lead to expensive purpose built race chassis similar to 2WD touring car chassis, not just the FGX, which is why a lot of rules still keep a solid rear axle.

terry.sc

Your reply is just as biased.

So, which kind of newcomer to the hobby are you talking about? If it's a true newcomer with no interest in racing they can get whatever they like, racing rules don't affect them at all. If it's a newcomer to F1 racing then they aren't starting racing because they are accurate pure scale models that are radio controlled, they are starting because they have seen a bunch of F1s going round and to join in. If a newcomer asked me which car to start with the much simpler solid axle designs are much cheaper to be competitive and considerably easier to set up and tune.

Not much of an argument against a solid axle if your only argument is that you don't think they look scale because you can see a spur gear showing with the body on, something you can't notice when it's going round a track. If you are saying a solid axle chassis doesn't look scale, then the FGX chassis and rear suspension is not particularly accurate to the real thing either and I would suggest the D-Drive F103 monocoque looks by far the best chassis available.

If you want to run an FGX then go run one, no one is stopping anyone running an FGX. But if you want to ban solid axles because they aren't scale then go and have a go at all the other non scale electric classes first.

Test Driver

iTrader: (10)

Does anyone else find this amusing?
On one hand the f1 crowds are saying they don't want the new f1's with the 1/12 scale like front ends because they want to keep the realism (I personally don't like some of the new front end designs) but then in the same breath say if you want to run a car with independent rear suspension (as per the real cars) then no way. Must run solid axle.
Bit hipocritical if you ask me.

Just my 2c worth.

edhchoe

iTrader: (41)

I am not the one who stated reasons for the strict rules allowing only solid axle. My post says the prev posters explanation 'to keep its realism' doesn't make sense when fgx looks more realistic than f104.

You and that poster seem to agree with having rules not allowing non-solid axle f1's but for different reasons. Also another post said f1 cars (real or RC) are not the pinnacle of car racing yet you mention the current solid axle design is 'what works the best'. But not on all surfaces like you said. Fgx will beat f104 in certain conditions. If they are that close in performance with, maybe, slight advantage for f104 why not allow fgx and embrace more f1 RC enthusiasts? No matter how much money you spend on a fgx it will not have a clear advantage over a solid axle car in all situations.

"New comer" I mentioned could be anyone who doesn't have 70's-90's RC car history and who is formula 1 racing fan who knows who vettel is.

Btw, My first RC car was f101. I was as enthusiastic about it as I am about my fgx or f1r.

RCBuddha

iTrader: (40)

I'd even argue the FGX is just as bad as the F201. From everything I've read in the FGX thread, you need to spend quite a bit to "fix" known issues.

terry.sc

ShadowAu covered touring cars, they were all different with slipper clutches and two speed gearboxes available and cars in various widths until a set of rules were written and then the manufacturers built cars to those rules.

F1 has had rules which have hardly changed for 20 years, way before touring cars, and until recently they were pretty standardised. Until Tamiya brought out the F104 every F1 chassis from Tamiya, Kyosho, Cross, Tech, TRG, Duratrax, etc were all standardised to the same rules, 200mm wide running foam tyres on F103 size wheels. The only anomaly was the Corally f1, built by using their 1/10th pan car wheels and rear axle and meant most places wouldn't allow it. I know the one major rule change we had when F1 was revived was to add a rule that the rear wheels must be fixed by a single nut specifically to ban pan car wheels.

We have standard rules and as long as we keep to them it is down to the manufacturers to build their cars to fit in them. As long as the sanctioned bodies maintain the rules in the best interests of the racers the rules will always be good for the class in the long run.

UF1 decided to concentrate on modern F1 for their racing, so changed their own rules so they only allow cars that look like modern F1s, then allowed the FGX because their drivers wanted to run it. Apart from width UF1 is still using the same standard rules that everyone else is running to. 200mm foam is still the bigger class elsewhere and is likely to stay that way while there are plenty of cars available. Tamiya are still making F104 cars so there is going to be a 180mm class as well for the foreseeable future.

Any company can make any F1 they want, whether they are race legal or not is down to them.

edhchoe

iTrader: (41)

So the f1's will be subdivided into 200-181mm and 180mm rubber classes?
A very good reason for some to have multiple f1 cars!

robk

iTrader: (22)

You have two problems here: realism and class momentum. Until recently, the class has been populated by straight axle cars for like 20 years. It works fine .

Sure it would be more realistic to have independent rear suspension. We also know that should somebody get serious about producing a car with proper IRS it's going to get expensive and complicated.

On the other hand, a 1/12 front end waving in the wind just looks ugly. Most of the appeal of the class is the fact that the cars at least have a decent likeness to the real F1 cars, otherwise, what is the point? I could get a wide 10L and throw an old Parma F1 body from the 90's on it and run circles around everyone with an "real" F1 car. There is a tendency to sacrifice scale looks for performance, and i like the idea that there is a movement to keep things in check in the looks department.

90's:


Today: