Ernest Provetti Open letter to RC Industry
01-15-2010, 06:16 AM
#76
Mr. Provetti's letter addresses ROAR's approach to larger races but this provides a good segway into the local scene as well.
Unless you are lucky and live in an area with a large R/C following, it is difficult to spit up the same class of cars when many times the "B" main is the novice class relative to the ability of the racers at that particular track. Along with that idea, onroad is a difficult class to get started in at a low cost and at a level and speed that is manageable for newcomers. We all know how crazy the costs of touring has become and I feel 12th, at any modern speed is too much for newcomers.
In order to make onroad grow as a whole, I believe we need an entire new class of cars or promote an existing class that are easy to drive, relatively cheap but make for an easy segway into the "bigger" classes of onroad (ie TC, 12th). I wish I had an answer for such a class and I've seen so many forms of "spec" classes come and go. I do think that with these ROAR rules, a control on the ESCs and a class that is manageable both financially and ability-wise and is fun to even experienced drivers is the ticket.
Unless you are lucky and live in an area with a large R/C following, it is difficult to spit up the same class of cars when many times the "B" main is the novice class relative to the ability of the racers at that particular track. Along with that idea, onroad is a difficult class to get started in at a low cost and at a level and speed that is manageable for newcomers. We all know how crazy the costs of touring has become and I feel 12th, at any modern speed is too much for newcomers.
In order to make onroad grow as a whole, I believe we need an entire new class of cars or promote an existing class that are easy to drive, relatively cheap but make for an easy segway into the "bigger" classes of onroad (ie TC, 12th). I wish I had an answer for such a class and I've seen so many forms of "spec" classes come and go. I do think that with these ROAR rules, a control on the ESCs and a class that is manageable both financially and ability-wise and is fun to even experienced drivers is the ticket.
01-15-2010, 06:41 AM
#77
i would say there is nothing wrong with the proposal and it should be done. But i dont feel this does anything for joe club racer at all.
IT does nothing to promote club growth... as long as we don't fool our selves with this idea.. its a good idea but it does nothing for racing as a whole.
,C,d mains is for the new guys... more classes is the last thing most clubs need.
IT does nothing to promote club growth... as long as we don't fool our selves with this idea.. its a good idea but it does nothing for racing as a whole.
,C,d mains is for the new guys... more classes is the last thing most clubs need.
01-15-2010, 06:55 AM
#78
What I want to know is, how does the less than 100% sponsored drivers feel about losing their deals? Ernie stated that he is dropping all level sponsorships. I assume that means all drivers that are not 100% sponsored. I am currently on a 50% off deal with RCAmerica. For me, being dropped wouldn't be that big of a deal, since I don't race as much as I did when I got it. But I can see some drivers being upset over this.
To me what this move does is allows the racers that were on a deal to run sportsman, and still sandbag. Most racers that are on this sort of sponsorship are your "stock" racers. So they will be released to run sportsman.
To me what this move does is allows the racers that were on a deal to run sportsman, and still sandbag. Most racers that are on this sort of sponsorship are your "stock" racers. So they will be released to run sportsman.
01-15-2010, 07:02 AM
#79
And as for classes, to me there are too many now. I think what should be done is Amateur and Pro, that's it. Amateur will run 17.5 or slower, pros run mod or designate a motor for them per the track like say on a small carpet track 10.5 or 13.5 or on larger tracks 10.5 or 7.5. Once you finish in the top 5 in amateur at any major event ie Nationals, Snowbirds, IIC etc you move on to pro.
01-15-2010, 07:02 AM
#80
What I want to know is, how does the less than 100% sponsored drivers feel about losing their deals? Ernie stated that he is dropping all level sponsorships. I assume that means all drivers that are not 100% sponsored. I am currently on a 50% off deal with RCAmerica. For me, being dropped wouldn't be that big of a deal, since I don't race as much as I did when I got it. But I can see some drivers being upset over this.
To me what this move does is allows the racers that were on a deal to run sportsman, and still sandbag. Most racers that are on this sort of sponsorship are your "stock" racers. So they will be released to run sportsman.
To me what this move does is allows the racers that were on a deal to run sportsman, and still sandbag. Most racers that are on this sort of sponsorship are your "stock" racers. So they will be released to run sportsman.
01-15-2010, 07:16 AM
#81
This is a heated subject, and I see both sides of the argument. I agree that we need a novice-friendly class, but I don't think the current 17.5 Stock Touring class is it. This week a 17.5 with a Tekin RS is 90%+ as fast as a 13.5 was last week with an SPX.
It is yet to be seen whether or not more 50% sponsored drivers will move up to Pro Touring or instead drop their sponsorships and continue to run Stock Touring (in which case not much has been solved).
It is yet to be seen whether or not more 50% sponsored drivers will move up to Pro Touring or instead drop their sponsorships and continue to run Stock Touring (in which case not much has been solved).
01-15-2010, 07:20 AM
#82
Tech Fanatic
What do you think about the idea to use some weight handicap system instead of the elimination of sponsored/fast/well equiped drivers from stock classes.
This method is applied now for some real touring cars racing series.
Approximately so:
Any driver has won stock race - he must put additional 50 grammes ballast on the car for next race.
If this driver has won next race again - add 50 gr. more etc.
For the second and third places the weight addition is less.
Speed of fast racers will fall soon due to ballast and some driver can win the next race even with old GTB.
There will be some ballast weight variable ranking for each driver according his current racing history.
Similar change of rules will not demand additional expenses from racers (except possible purchase of lead), will allow to involve top-drivers for stock races, will equal chances for new and old ESC, will make races by more fascinating.
This method is applied now for some real touring cars racing series.
Approximately so:
Any driver has won stock race - he must put additional 50 grammes ballast on the car for next race.
If this driver has won next race again - add 50 gr. more etc.
For the second and third places the weight addition is less.
Speed of fast racers will fall soon due to ballast and some driver can win the next race even with old GTB.
There will be some ballast weight variable ranking for each driver according his current racing history.
Similar change of rules will not demand additional expenses from racers (except possible purchase of lead), will allow to involve top-drivers for stock races, will equal chances for new and old ESC, will make races by more fascinating.
01-15-2010, 07:31 AM
#83
just because a better driver using a 17.5 beat a guy with a 13.5 does not make the class to fast?
So what should it be a 21.5 class?... Then we will hear how a 21.5 beat a 17.5
What is a novice class? OR a novice friendly class anyway? Does it entitle new racers to win an a-main? Does it really make for affordable racing? 2 noobs join a novice class one pays the bills off of his paper route the other has dads platinum visa at his disposal... How do we make it equal for those 2 racers?
Maybe we should stop tying to convince ourselves and the non rc community(the ones we want to join our fun) that rc racing is affordable?(racing is not affordable) This would eliminate the need to have novice classes. The only thing we need is to ensure there are "slower" classes. For example our club that i have been with for about 15years has always run stock motors(27t and now 13.5) the speed is just easier to handle for the new guys yet fast enough that the seasoned guys can battle it out for .001second lap comparison without breaking the bank on hi cost of running mod. Sure there are guys that want to race mod but it never seems to catch on for long, and everyone seems to come back to the slower stock motors.
Bottom line is it cost money to race. There should be levels of speed to separate classes not income level or sponsorship level.
Thinking back on this rule change. IF you have been in the hobby for sometime and do not like mod and have always enjoyed the drive ability of stock motors is it fair that you can not compete at a national lever because you have some assistance?
sorry for the crappy random post
So what should it be a 21.5 class?... Then we will hear how a 21.5 beat a 17.5
What is a novice class? OR a novice friendly class anyway? Does it entitle new racers to win an a-main? Does it really make for affordable racing? 2 noobs join a novice class one pays the bills off of his paper route the other has dads platinum visa at his disposal... How do we make it equal for those 2 racers?
Maybe we should stop tying to convince ourselves and the non rc community(the ones we want to join our fun) that rc racing is affordable?(racing is not affordable) This would eliminate the need to have novice classes. The only thing we need is to ensure there are "slower" classes. For example our club that i have been with for about 15years has always run stock motors(27t and now 13.5) the speed is just easier to handle for the new guys yet fast enough that the seasoned guys can battle it out for .001second lap comparison without breaking the bank on hi cost of running mod. Sure there are guys that want to race mod but it never seems to catch on for long, and everyone seems to come back to the slower stock motors.
Bottom line is it cost money to race. There should be levels of speed to separate classes not income level or sponsorship level.
Thinking back on this rule change. IF you have been in the hobby for sometime and do not like mod and have always enjoyed the drive ability of stock motors is it fair that you can not compete at a national lever because you have some assistance?
sorry for the crappy random post
01-15-2010, 07:36 AM
#84
"Team Epic is supporting this decision one hundred percent. We will share information to ROAR for all our level team drivers with respect to any R.O.A.R. entry list for any R.O.A.R. event. Any driver that is sponsored by us will immediately be dropped from our racing program and I truly hope that my fellow manufacturers will follow suit and allow ROAR to provide us with this class which will surely help our long term goals as an industry!"
01-15-2010, 08:26 AM
#85
And as for classes, to me there are too many now. I think what should be done is Amateur and Pro, that's it. Amateur will run 17.5 or slower, pros run mod or designate a motor for them per the track like say on a small carpet track 10.5 or 13.5 or on larger tracks 10.5 or 7.5. Once you finish in the top 5 in amateur at any major event ie Nationals, Snowbirds, IIC etc you move on to pro.
Sure, new technology has decreased lap times significantly - maybe to the point where cars are on the verge of being out of control - but slowing things down on all levels isn't the answer. If racers set up their cars to suit their individual skill level and worked towards improving their driving skill (while improving the car as needed; e.g. adding timing boost, using a more optimal gear ratio, better tires, etc.). If we simply looked towards finding enjoyment in improving after each race instead of seeking the instant gratification of winning, I'm not sure we'd be discussing this topic. Simply because 17.5 touring has become "too fast" for some drivers doesn't mean that they have to use all of the power that's available - if they were willing to grow into the car they've built by avoiding the temptation to drive over their heads, they'd be better off in the long run as their driving skill increases. Meanwhile, the faster drivers need to play an active role in mentoring the racers that want to go faster, demonstrating firsthand what it takes to win at any level. There's no better lesson than watching faster drivers make their way around the track and asking for their input; segregating the very best drivers from participating in any class (outside of a true Production class) "waters down" the talent pool and lowers the bar for the vast majority of drivers.
In short, create a class for the new drivers to let them learn the basics. After that, it's time to take off the training wheels, which will allow drivers to develop better car control and setup skills.
01-15-2010, 08:29 AM
#86
Why do the " ROAR Nationals" have classes other than those to qualify people for the international championships. ROAR will not be able to affect change upon the commercial national events.
If rc racing were to model itself after real racing, then realize the SCCA, even though it has Pro racing and there are those that compete in pro and amateur racing, they do not govern the large professional division like NASCAR, IndyCar, WC Challenge.
Yes, the SCCA has nationals for amatuers, but these races do not qualify racers for international events. Why should the ROAR Nationals involve classes that mix international classes with the amatuer classes.
I do not think barring sponsered drivers from amateur will grow the amateur classes. I can remember many "unsposered" drivers going to national events amd returning home with sponserships. IMO, the success of amateur racing is the appeal of competing on a level field with others that have the same goals. Thiis means racing in close competion, not testing equipment for an upcoming "national" event.
If rc racing were to model itself after real racing, then realize the SCCA, even though it has Pro racing and there are those that compete in pro and amateur racing, they do not govern the large professional division like NASCAR, IndyCar, WC Challenge.
Yes, the SCCA has nationals for amatuers, but these races do not qualify racers for international events. Why should the ROAR Nationals involve classes that mix international classes with the amatuer classes.
I do not think barring sponsered drivers from amateur will grow the amateur classes. I can remember many "unsposered" drivers going to national events amd returning home with sponserships. IMO, the success of amateur racing is the appeal of competing on a level field with others that have the same goals. Thiis means racing in close competion, not testing equipment for an upcoming "national" event.
01-15-2010, 08:50 AM
#87
HERE IS THE FIX:
Instead of VTA, run RCGT with spec ESC (no advan timing/boost) and 21.5 motor w/ fixed timing and spec wheels and tires for the NOVICE SPEC CLASS...
this will draw in newcomers because in RCGT the bodies that are run are realistic and good looking and are what the majority of people can relate to and see being run in Touring car races around the world...
Keep 17.5 as just STOCK, with the same rules that apply now and so forth with 13.5 and mod...
In the RCGT class, if you consistantly place in the 5 or so at large national events, then that racer should get bumped up out of the class, and required to race Stock or better from that time being...
at this point, he can see his motor and ESC to another Novice racer and the cycle continues....
Instead of VTA, run RCGT with spec ESC (no advan timing/boost) and 21.5 motor w/ fixed timing and spec wheels and tires for the NOVICE SPEC CLASS...
this will draw in newcomers because in RCGT the bodies that are run are realistic and good looking and are what the majority of people can relate to and see being run in Touring car races around the world...
Keep 17.5 as just STOCK, with the same rules that apply now and so forth with 13.5 and mod...
In the RCGT class, if you consistantly place in the 5 or so at large national events, then that racer should get bumped up out of the class, and required to race Stock or better from that time being...
at this point, he can see his motor and ESC to another Novice racer and the cycle continues....
01-15-2010, 09:34 AM
#89
If the intent from ROAR and other manufactures is to bring in new people then changing how a National event is run and or the rules isn't the fix. It might be a step in some direction, but it has to start at the local hobby shops and or the local tracks. This is where the new racers are showing up and getting hooked into the hobby.
To bring in new racers I offer the following:
Lower the cost of entry fee's for new racers
Lower the cost of entry fee's period
Give the racers something.. a shirt, car stand, a set of tires or something
Give the A-main guys something for making the A and give the top 5 in the B something and then the top 3 for the rest
Offer a discount for the second class... If one exists
Make it fun!!
Have raffles
Give away door prizes (usable products like bodies, tires, motors, receivers, etc..
Cater food
Take a look at what other large races are doing and learn why they are succesfull and why they attract so many racers from new to old
Have consistency in the race schedule so that racers can budget and plan for the bigger events. Example: All Carpet Nats will be held in the month of March, all Electric On-Road is going to be held in July, etc....
Bottom line: It has to start where the new racers are racing, and it's great to see that manufacturers are looking to help, and give support and guidance.
Mark
To bring in new racers I offer the following:
Lower the cost of entry fee's for new racers
Lower the cost of entry fee's period
Give the racers something.. a shirt, car stand, a set of tires or something
Give the A-main guys something for making the A and give the top 5 in the B something and then the top 3 for the rest
Offer a discount for the second class... If one exists
Make it fun!!
Have raffles
Give away door prizes (usable products like bodies, tires, motors, receivers, etc..
Cater food
Take a look at what other large races are doing and learn why they are succesfull and why they attract so many racers from new to old
Have consistency in the race schedule so that racers can budget and plan for the bigger events. Example: All Carpet Nats will be held in the month of March, all Electric On-Road is going to be held in July, etc....
Bottom line: It has to start where the new racers are racing, and it's great to see that manufacturers are looking to help, and give support and guidance.
Mark
01-15-2010, 09:35 AM
#90
+1, Totaly agree
There does not necessarily have to be a motor tied to the classes. Everyone thinks motor=class, but if you say "sportsman", that's what it is, a skill level. Whether it's 17.5, 21.5, or 3.5, the idea is a skill level. In the past, it has been a motor class, but generally, that just encourages sandbagging at some point.
The other consideration is that sportsman off road buggy could be 17.5, and sportsman touring car could be 21.5, offering a more appropriate power plant for each style of racing. Even within onroad, a sportsman motor might vary in consideration of a 150 x 80 asphalt track vs. a 80x40 carpet track.
Just consider what positive changes can be made besides what an inconvenience it may be. I know personally what an uproar may rise over changes like this
but sometimes you have to try something different. Maybe this move and a national points system (*cough* *cough*) and we might actually have a ladder that makes sense to drivers.
The other consideration is that sportsman off road buggy could be 17.5, and sportsman touring car could be 21.5, offering a more appropriate power plant for each style of racing. Even within onroad, a sportsman motor might vary in consideration of a 150 x 80 asphalt track vs. a 80x40 carpet track.
Just consider what positive changes can be made besides what an inconvenience it may be. I know personally what an uproar may rise over changes like this
but sometimes you have to try something different. Maybe this move and a national points system (*cough* *cough*) and we might actually have a ladder that makes sense to drivers.