Ernest Provetti Open letter to RC Industry
03-21-2010, 10:51 AM
#301
My point was made in my first post. Threads like this keep popping up. New classes keep popping up. At the end of the day they all end up the same.
This thread is a great idea on paper, will it ever makes it to fruition? I doubt it... Someones personal interest will be served and another thread / class will be started.
This thread is a great idea on paper, will it ever makes it to fruition? I doubt it... Someones personal interest will be served and another thread / class will be started.
03-21-2010, 11:22 AM
#302
LHS have a prefernce to stock HPI versus Tamiya / Kyosho because of a lower price point, that doesnt make them better distributed. In the end I do think that it all depends as to where you're located. Lhs in Los Angeles area stock traxxas, xtm... In these times even HPI's price point is too high for them.
03-22-2010, 08:54 PM
#303
Lemme get this straight about the point in your first post: you never raced before, tried RCGT with an antiquated ESC expecting to do well but got your arse handed to you and are now bubu about it, bemoan manufacturer support and ideas, and announce your indefinite retirement until someone creates a spec class for you with no specs. (psst...some people call that touring car)
No I didn't get my arse handed to me because I never raced, remember!
I didn't bother to enter, because as you mentioned my ESC is already antiquated. So the idea of entering a low budget, entry class for newcomers (which was RCGT) is mute, I need to invest in a $200 ESC before getting started!
03-22-2010, 09:20 PM
#304
As for Kamikaze, you obviously don't know what you're talking about! I get all my Serpent parts from Sam and he's the best source for Kyosho as well. The place that stocks mostly Mugen and OFNA is Nitrohouse. Get your facts straight before you mouth off like a total idiot.
Last edited by Raman; 03-23-2010 at 12:32 AM.
03-22-2010, 11:57 PM
#305
Wow Morbo you should be at the fore front to bring in newcomers.
No I didn't get my arse handed to me because I never raced, remember!
I didn't bother to enter, because as you mentioned my ESC is already antiquated. So the idea of entering a low budget, entry class for newcomers (which was RCGT) is mute, I need to invest in a $200 ESC before getting started!
No I didn't get my arse handed to me because I never raced, remember!
I didn't bother to enter, because as you mentioned my ESC is already antiquated. So the idea of entering a low budget, entry class for newcomers (which was RCGT) is mute, I need to invest in a $200 ESC before getting started!
I also find it funny that you say "People make mistakes and those of us that are adults admit to it" and never admit to making a mistake. Mouthing off indeed.
03-23-2010, 12:31 AM
#306
Isn't writing it a form of admittance in itself? To satisfy you, I edited my post.
That's the way RCGT was presented to me. Guess I better go shoot the messenger for misinforming me.
My manufacturer argument: To you it may seem crazy, to me it seems someone is picking and choosing certain products for the class which do an outsider does not make sense since its being called a spec class. Oddly enough its the ESC that's causing the class to not be level playing field.. not the spec'd x pattern tyre!
That's the way RCGT was presented to me. Guess I better go shoot the messenger for misinforming me.
My manufacturer argument: To you it may seem crazy, to me it seems someone is picking and choosing certain products for the class which do an outsider does not make sense since its being called a spec class. Oddly enough its the ESC that's causing the class to not be level playing field.. not the spec'd x pattern tyre!
03-23-2010, 07:16 AM
#307
If you want strategy, how about 8 minute races...
but 5 minute marshalling?
but 5 minute marshalling?
03-23-2010, 09:35 AM
#308
/ˌspɛsəfɪˈkeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[spes-uh-fi-key-shuhn]
–noun
1. the act of specifying.
2. Usually, specifications. a detailed description or assessment of requirements, dimensions, materials, etc., as of a proposed building, machine, bridge, etc.
3. a particular item, aspect, calculation, etc., in such a description.
4. something specified, as in a bill of particulars; a specified particular, item, or article.
5. an act of making specific.
6. the state of having a specific character.
03-23-2010, 01:21 PM
#310
Tech Adept
Why bother with 17.5 and 13.5 classes if the Tekin is that much quicker, might as well just have one open class.
03-23-2010, 02:08 PM
#311
Tech Adept
iTrader: (1)
Getting Newcomers
I think this thread started as something about attracting newcomers. Truth be told, without new blood, any activity dies. So what are the opportunities for RC racing?
I've had an advertising business for over 20 years and I'm a casual racer. I got into on-road last year because of VTA -- with my initial attraction being the look of the bodies. Turns out that the "realistic" look is a big reason why a lot of newcomers are interested these days. RCGT, Mini and F1 all fit the category and they seem to have grown in popularity around these parts.
The ad guy in me sees a motivating factor in the realistic look. Guys like the idea of little versions of their favorite cars going round and round and banging into each other. So let's look at the obstacles to somebody who has an idea to go RC racing. Cost is a big factor, but complexity is also a biggie -- nobody wants to look stupid and if you need an engineering degree to race toy cars, 90% of potential participants will count themselves out.
So an affordable spec rules package can reduce both cost and complexity and open the door to more participants. USVTA has done a good job and the new 2010 rules make outfitting a car even easier. RCGT is on the verge of screwing the pooch by turning into 17.5 touring with a spec tire and different body.
Some racers will get more serious and want to go faster and have the latest gear. That's perfectly fine, just don't mess up the spec classes on your way out. As a casual racer, I'm not going to get into the technology race. I'm perfectly happy bashing a VTA car for the rest of my "career."
If I were the king off all things RC, I'd draw a line in the sand. The realistic classes would all be spec classes designed to keep cost and complexity down for newcomers and casual racers. That leaves 1/12th, pan and Touring Car as the places to go when you want to jump into the deeper end of the pool.
I've had an advertising business for over 20 years and I'm a casual racer. I got into on-road last year because of VTA -- with my initial attraction being the look of the bodies. Turns out that the "realistic" look is a big reason why a lot of newcomers are interested these days. RCGT, Mini and F1 all fit the category and they seem to have grown in popularity around these parts.
The ad guy in me sees a motivating factor in the realistic look. Guys like the idea of little versions of their favorite cars going round and round and banging into each other. So let's look at the obstacles to somebody who has an idea to go RC racing. Cost is a big factor, but complexity is also a biggie -- nobody wants to look stupid and if you need an engineering degree to race toy cars, 90% of potential participants will count themselves out.
So an affordable spec rules package can reduce both cost and complexity and open the door to more participants. USVTA has done a good job and the new 2010 rules make outfitting a car even easier. RCGT is on the verge of screwing the pooch by turning into 17.5 touring with a spec tire and different body.
Some racers will get more serious and want to go faster and have the latest gear. That's perfectly fine, just don't mess up the spec classes on your way out. As a casual racer, I'm not going to get into the technology race. I'm perfectly happy bashing a VTA car for the rest of my "career."
If I were the king off all things RC, I'd draw a line in the sand. The realistic classes would all be spec classes designed to keep cost and complexity down for newcomers and casual racers. That leaves 1/12th, pan and Touring Car as the places to go when you want to jump into the deeper end of the pool.
03-23-2010, 04:26 PM
#314
I think this thread started as something about attracting newcomers. Truth be told, without new blood, any activity dies. So what are the opportunities for RC racing?
I've had an advertising business for over 20 years and I'm a casual racer. I got into on-road last year because of VTA -- with my initial attraction being the look of the bodies. Turns out that the "realistic" look is a big reason why a lot of newcomers are interested these days. RCGT, Mini and F1 all fit the category and they seem to have grown in popularity around these parts.
The ad guy in me sees a motivating factor in the realistic look. Guys like the idea of little versions of their favorite cars going round and round and banging into each other. So let's look at the obstacles to somebody who has an idea to go RC racing. Cost is a big factor, but complexity is also a biggie -- nobody wants to look stupid and if you need an engineering degree to race toy cars, 90% of potential participants will count themselves out.
So an affordable spec rules package can reduce both cost and complexity and open the door to more participants. USVTA has done a good job and the new 2010 rules make outfitting a car even easier. RCGT is on the verge of screwing the pooch by turning into 17.5 touring with a spec tire and different body.
Some racers will get more serious and want to go faster and have the latest gear. That's perfectly fine, just don't mess up the spec classes on your way out. As a casual racer, I'm not going to get into the technology race. I'm perfectly happy bashing a VTA car for the rest of my "career."
If I were the king off all things RC, I'd draw a line in the sand. The realistic classes would all be spec classes designed to keep cost and complexity down for newcomers and casual racers. That leaves 1/12th, pan and Touring Car as the places to go when you want to jump into the deeper end of the pool.
I've had an advertising business for over 20 years and I'm a casual racer. I got into on-road last year because of VTA -- with my initial attraction being the look of the bodies. Turns out that the "realistic" look is a big reason why a lot of newcomers are interested these days. RCGT, Mini and F1 all fit the category and they seem to have grown in popularity around these parts.
The ad guy in me sees a motivating factor in the realistic look. Guys like the idea of little versions of their favorite cars going round and round and banging into each other. So let's look at the obstacles to somebody who has an idea to go RC racing. Cost is a big factor, but complexity is also a biggie -- nobody wants to look stupid and if you need an engineering degree to race toy cars, 90% of potential participants will count themselves out.
So an affordable spec rules package can reduce both cost and complexity and open the door to more participants. USVTA has done a good job and the new 2010 rules make outfitting a car even easier. RCGT is on the verge of screwing the pooch by turning into 17.5 touring with a spec tire and different body.
Some racers will get more serious and want to go faster and have the latest gear. That's perfectly fine, just don't mess up the spec classes on your way out. As a casual racer, I'm not going to get into the technology race. I'm perfectly happy bashing a VTA car for the rest of my "career."
If I were the king off all things RC, I'd draw a line in the sand. The realistic classes would all be spec classes designed to keep cost and complexity down for newcomers and casual racers. That leaves 1/12th, pan and Touring Car as the places to go when you want to jump into the deeper end of the pool.
). someone will complain that Company "X" is preferred over Company "Y".oh wait.. someone already said that earlier since RCGT uses a spec tire (HPI X-Patterns).
great idea
too many haters and too many agendas to make it work.
03-23-2010, 04:55 PM
#315
say... in a perfect world..... RCGT adopts the VTA motor rules (i think they use the Novak system with the 25.5, not sure. someone will correct me. ). someone will complain that Company "X" is preferred over Company "Y".
oh wait.. someone already said that earlier since RCGT uses a spec tire (HPI X-Patterns).
great idea too many haters and too many agendas to make it work.
). someone will complain that Company "X" is preferred over Company "Y".oh wait.. someone already said that earlier since RCGT uses a spec tire (HPI X-Patterns).
great idea
too many haters and too many agendas to make it work. Really, I have to agree with jhberger, RCGT "already" screwed the pooch. At first it was noble to start the class with "D" compound tires only which meant that you couldn't over power the tires due to limited traction but once the flood gates got opened to allow pro-compound and belted X-patterns, traction was no longer a limiting factor when there are no limitations on speed. Really RCGT is no different than just regular 17.5 TC so why bother having that class distract from the regular TC racing.
However, the ABC Truspec is exactly how RCGT was originally intended, but it would be nice if that would allow other "scale" bodies made by Tamiya and others.