Evoracer

iTrader: (24)

beemerfan, you've got a point and many will agree. The biggest problem with actually doing it has already been mentioned......not enough people in one place at one time to physically run the class. As a club director I can tell you that our group attempts to keep things on the cheap as much as possible but there's only so much we can do with only so many bodies.
The thought of a "box stock" class is great and should be incorprated whenever and where ever possible but as a defined "class", RCGT has to have a standard. Smart marketing would tell any group that, if they can and if they have the need, they should set up a "box stock" race. Isn't RCGT a perfect venue for that ??? Realistic bodies, any 4 wheel touring chassis, most RTR's come with some form of can motor and simple esc.....PERFECT !!!

M-Technic

iTrader: (15)

I was trying to make a point. A fast digital servo can make a big difference in a basic car. There are RCGT bodies that have clear handling advantages over other bodies. We want to make a level playing field, but how far do we take it?

TimPotter

iTrader: (15)

Dino,

I respectfully disagree with some of your perspective. We are moving forward with the Cirtix 17.5 spec combo. It is inexpensive, and levels the field where we have the biggest concerns... While experienced racers understand that slower does not mean less fun, newer racers still want to go FAST, and the Citrix combo, IMHO, is fast enough to get people interested.

Novak has shown some great support of the VTA rules. I am sure they will show support of RCGT or whatever we will end up calling it, as HPI owns the trademark. I do not know what the cost of thier combo is, but at +/- around 75 bucks for a motor and speedo from SP... that is really a great deal to get people into the hobby...


We are most likely going to run in support of the State Series, with the Cirtix.

The primary reasons our class has suffered a small setback are...

1. Speedo war < Fixed
2. Tires - 3 options are too many < Working on a fix
3. Too many fast guys in the class.. < not sure about this one, but split classes deals with it.


We still have a full class of RCGT at our club races... but it can be MUCH better.

Rick Hohwart

http://www.hpiracing.com/rcgt/

What is wrong with these rules?

Evoracer

iTrader: (24)

HarryN, SCREW the battery discussion !! No rudeness intended at all and I understand the thinking. Problem is....thats TC thinking. Look, if I have 35c and you have 25c but you're a better DRIVER with a better SETUP, it's highly unlikely that I'm going to beat you based on the battery. I always tell new drivers " Speed doesn't mean a thing unless you can get it around the track"
The standard should remain 2S Lipo/5000mah max.
TC thinking is worrying about the potential micro second you might lose or gain by having that extra little bit of perceived performance. Ahhh, the good old days.

TimPotter

iTrader: (15)

Rick, for the most part they are good... but where they fail ( IMHO )

Is...

- 27T/17.5 Motor Limit. < No speedo limits here...

With the newer speedo's you are required to run them to be competitive, and running them makes the class pretty close to 17.5 Pro

Rick Hohwart

I agree there. But like Scotty has done with the IIC, no boost/timing for the "regular" class and anything goes for the "expert" class.

What I love about RCGT the most is the concept. You take the current TC, run a realistic/scale body with realistic looking rims with tires that provide decent traction and long life resulting in cars that look like real cars that are identifiable to spectators and those interested in cars and racing in general.

This is how TC started and what made it so popular. People could identity with what they were looking at. This in my opinion is what makes short course trucks so popular (compared to other form of R/C off-road).

I don't think that racers and clubs necessarily need to go full RCGT. Taking some of the concepts on their own and implementing them would be a step in the right direction.

Evoracer

iTrader: (24)

Tim,
Unfortunately, one club's efforts and successes aren't going to save RCGT. I'll throw in what I've seen in our group and why we're currently NOT offering RCGT.
We have a very small group comprised of 98% newbies. For them, it was obvious that the learning curve with 17.5 was too great. Breakage, crashing, lack of setup knowledge, lack of driving ability all made for a dismal day at the track.
VTA is proving you wrong everyday. Although i can appreciate the allegiance to Speed Passion, I simply can't agree that 17.5 is the way to go. I believe if we slow things down this class has a chance at being what it was supposed to be. If any individual group feels the need and has the user base to provide a "expert, advanced, or whatever class using 17.5, go for it...but the Standard should be for the greater good.

Rick, it may not be as noticeable out your way but in many other areas RCGT is dying. Many of us would like to try and save it.
Need to elaborate...It's not so much the rules....It's not having anyone guiding the program and adjusting the rules for the constantly changing technology. As I said earlier, those rules were written BEFORE the newest motor/esc tech boom. Personally my biggest issue is that RCGT is way to close to TC. Looking at the original intent of RCGT as written by HPI.....that doesn't seem to be what they had in mind.

HarryN

iTrader: (2)

Yeah but it is a difference that counts bud. I have a 4200 pack that puts out 25C, a 4300 at 30C, and a 5200 at 40C. Guess what? between the 40C pack and the others, my lap times improve by an entire second.

I am no master at driving R/C cars, but an entire second improvement says a lot right there.

TimPotter

iTrader: (15)

Scotty had the right idea... for sure.. We have been following that guidance for a while. But to take the questions out of the picture, we are going with a spec speedo/motor.

And Dino, no allegiance... If there was another manufacturer offering a spec combo for similar pricing... We would have been all over it. And while your opinion that I am wrong is ok with me... the thing is.. VTA fits another need. VTA and RCGT are not the same, and do not necessarily appeal to the same group, so why the same rules ?

gashuffer

iTrader: (48)

Your over thinking. The main point is esc/motor/tire

Evoracer

iTrader: (24)

I get your point. But is it worth trying to spec batteries over ? Fast guys will always be fast because of many factors. Do you think it would benefit RCGT if a newer driver who really learns to drive well and learns how to set it up can compete against you and make up for that 1 second gap even though he only has a 25c battery ?? Honestly, we all need to get away from all this numbers garbage. So few of us are top level drivers or team drivers or major competitors. I think thats part of why we're all talking......to many people went out and spent big money on crap that offered big numbers when the class really should never have been allowed down that path.

HarryN

iTrader: (2)

And that is what I am supporting!

Instead of spending big money on the best battery around, choose a 30C or 25C battery that is affordable and keeps the playing field equal with everyone.

Either that or set a FDR like VTA used to do. The way the hobby and class is to succeed is by showing that with little money spent and more on practice, you can keep up and possibly defeat others in your class.

Once everyone starts improving then slowly start bumping them up to the next class. It's all I am saying.

Look at how SCCA and NASA do their spec racing. They have spec chassis, spec tires, spec engines, etc. Keeps the field level so that the person with the best setup and driving skills is the winner. I think there in lies the secret to creating a sanctioning body that governs RCGT. If we run realistic bodies, wheels, and tires, let's try adopting similar rules to the Spec Racer Ford community, the Mazda Speed Cup community, or what have you.

Apex

iTrader: (51)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the rules. We've implemented a different weight and esc rules to the series at my local track for the summer.

Here are the RCGT 2010 Summer Points Series rules for The Track...

http://www.rctech.net/forum/7390847-post15899.html

I think some feel the RCGT class should just be one class rather than having a sportsman and expert class. Another thing is that tracks\clubs are having a tough time trying to find the right blend of esc rules to fit their one RCGT class.

Evoracer

iTrader: (24)

Tim, not expecting the same rules as VTA....in fact, I think RCGT MUST have its own identity and SHOULD be a bit faster as I've previously noted. I am curious how you envision RCGT though? And just how different is RCGT from VTA?? To me , they're supposed to be accomplishing the same goal with a very similar vision. Realism, less expense, closer competition. My reasoning for the 21.5 is simple. It takes slightly less to go faster with it than with the 17.5. You're probably noticing the fast guys being really fast because the performance bar is high....when a lesser capable driver can't meet it, the disparity is usually pretty large. We had the same thing.....the minute we slowed things down we noticed fewer accidents, accidents that happened weren't as bad, driver skill increased exponentially and confidence went up. The 17.5 was just to much for MOST.