theproffesor

iTrader: (66)

The weight can be aggrevating, but fun to figure out. But once you get it in place its done. I added over 200g to a aluminum chassis D06. So what, its done. Havent worried abou it in months. Changed bodies, weight went up 10g. Decided not to care. If you have an xray T4 you can find custom weights on ebay for cheap.

The argument to keep the weight up to allow older chassis to compete just because lots of people still have them has more validity to the argument to keeping older chassis in for newcomers because they are cheap. The only older cheap still available kit new is the TC4. (I never base arguments on the cost of entry based on availability and price of used). To be honest though, if the TC4 was metric and had a gear diff, I would probably have one.

I used to be one of he biggest headaches on this forum about the rules. I do regret the way I came across at times. But once they started the points series, I took a new look at the class and its rules and can see the value in all of them, except driver figure? (Maybe because of cool factor, but cant get my head around it because you cant see it). But its an easy rule to follow and help to make that magical 1550g.

I only have one issue with the class, and maybe its just a personal thing. Is USVTA a beginner "newcomer" class or not. It is the easiest massed raced class to drive, but I don't believe that makesnit a begginer class. This class takes work to drive well. It takes learning your car and the way you drive. It takes having well running equipment (doesnt mean newest), and it takes practice.
My problem is 2 fold. One in the use of the "newcomer" argument as the foundation for not changing the rules. The rules should remain the way they are for numerous other reasons. A primary one is stability. Let the current rules changes take root. See the effect they have then re-asses. Maybe an annual or bi annual review is best instead doing this all the time. The other is that there are sponsored (some heavily) drivers racing in what is by some considered "newcomers" class. I have no problem with sponsered drivers. Most are good poeple that help newbees and have great attitudes. The problem is the intemidation factor they inherenlty have just by the fact of knowing theybare sponsored. It can bediscouraging for some to race the same spec equipment (sometimes even same chassis) and get lapped every fourth lap by the sponsored driver. I know there are heats and multiple mains to seperate drivers to avoid this, but it is still intimidating.

I think USVTA did a great thing by creating a pro and sportsman class at the nats. But without doing some major revamps to the program, that would most likely harm not only USVTA, but probably on-road in general, this is probably all that can be done. And it can only be done at races with larger entry numbers.

I would just like to see the class stop being considered an entry level class just because its the slowest. Maybe a better way to state it would be its the best class to begin with due to its simple rule set, and fewer broken parts. Price is also a bad argument. Only because for a new guy, everything legal in USVTA, is legal in 17.5. You can get set-up for the same low price, and a new guy wont notice the difference in a T4 15 and a TC4 in any class for the first few months.

Thanks for reading, sorry for the soapbox, keep USVTA USVTA, rant over.

bigwavedave33

iTrader: (1212)

Well said.. a little too politically correct for my taste, but well said

.crispy

This is a perfect example of what Cain was talking about one page back.

Cain

iTrader: (294)

I can see your point, however, your logic can be applied to the past motor changes that were done and I am sure people had the same arguments then. People who are saying change it aren't saying just because, framing it that way is kind of a poor way to discount there points, just like in the past people didn't say "change it just because". They have a point as to the why behind changing it, as well as people on the other side who have a point to not change it.

Discounting either as excuses and not being not true feelings on the matter is a disservice to both sides, both for and against, which I am sure was an argument had in the past on other changes.

Its odd at times that just because too people dissagree on a subject you can't have a frank discussion without resorting to the various forms of insults that seem to get lobbed around on a variety of threads for a variety of hobbies.

Personally I think that is what is being missed in the discussion, that changes did happen before when identified to the benefit of the class and there were people in the past against the change.

However, it was decided it was a benefit and it happened. Were those people at the time on the other side just creating excuses to not change it, or having an honest discussion of their opinions as to why they were against?

Probably less than the amount of people who had to buy new motors when the class changed in the past from what was previously legal I would assume under the same circumstances. Though, I am not sure why it would need to be overnight without proper examination of the situation, similar to what I am thinking happened to the rule allowing in blinky escs. I don't beleive these were taken into the fold overnight based on past efforts I heard about allowing escs in via testing, etc. I am assuming the same process was done to certify that ROARs standards were sufficient for USVTA. If not, they you can fairly assume if ROARs standards are sufficient, it would be the same for the 25.5 motors once that is finalized.

The assumption that more people are into this cause of the one motor I am not sure can be honestly said either way unless you have a true poll of people running the class saying "I am here because of the one motor".

It could be that to be able to play they went with the rules as such as before, or that they found the slower speeds a benefit which can be achieved with a any motor that is similar in spec. Could be a variety of reasons outside of the one motor rule.

However, if it was possible to poll both USVTA drivers and potential drivers, I think these would be good questions:

- If the motors were cheaper by offering more options would that affect your decision to run the class if you don't already.

- If you current run the class and the motor limit requirement was opened up to motors that USVTA certifies for its competition than the current novak motor, would continue to the run the class?

- For those running the class, do you feel the change to allowing more esc options will bring more people into the class or send those away already invested in non-timing escs?

- For those running the class, would you stop running it if you had to buy a specific novak spec esc, similar to the motor rule that is felt is a benefit of the class. Same question with 1 spec battery.

That's a valid point, however you have to also look at the counter arguement to that logic, if the rule set in the past worked well which I am sure people felt were sufficient at the time, why did it change? why allow more escs, why allow more variance in the timing allowed on the current motor?

At some point, the honest answer for both sides is that a mix of change or at least examining change isn't necessarily a bad thing. And sometimes, you will find that at the time sticking with what is current rules works, others as time goes on, modification of the rules works too.

But a frank hones examination of the concerns is still a valid exercise to undertake.

Thats true there are people who will feel that way, just as there are people who will want only the Novak 25.5 motor in, both with there own variety of reasons. At least both sides have something in common,

They both pom pom till the cows come home for there side.

This is pretty much no different than any of the people who were in the camp previously of not allowing the changes to different motor spec than what was done previously, the new ESC allowances, or the new timing label issue that effected a change in the rules from what I am reading.

Personally, I think I would be more concerned with people that roll over too easily on an issue regardless of what side they support. I rather you stick to your points if you truly believe in them unless a valid argument is raised for a change, probably like what was done in the past when rules for USVTA changed and evolved.

And have a cordial discussion of your points without it having to turn into a deathmatch of views. Just because people dissagree, doesn't make them bad people, or good for that matter.

Just people.

Based on the changes of what was allowed into the class, in my opinion there was a level of peer pressure from people and probably companies alike for various allowances done to allow certain gear in or change specs on motors. But some level of this I feel is normal and common, on both sides.

I am sure those who signed off on the changes were still being loyal to the class and wanted to help it grow, even though the change was most likely not accepted by a variety of people who were fine with USVTA from the beginning, as well as those in the middle, or even as recently as last year.

Their level of importance to the class is in my opinion equal in value across the board as ultimately they count as 1 entry, 1 USVTA driver, and there opinions both old and new should be valued, regardless if disagreement is seen.

jiml

iTrader: (3)

Did you just call me politically correct???

I've learned that making provocative statements don't add anything to the conversation. Please reference any thread involving ROAR.

Is VTA an entry level class? No it isn't. At least not any more. The class started as a way of keeping racers in the hobby that were tired of the car/motor/speed control/battery-of-the-month chase. These racers could still drive, but couldn't keep up with the changes in "stock" (I hate that word) touring car. VTA is somewhere between entry level and 17.5.

Entry level classes are better off when they're track specific. Each track needs to come up with the ideal set of rules for entry level that fits the entry level racers they have. And that's going to be different for each track. You can use VTA as a guide, and just put in some tweaks.

Cain

iTrader: (294)

Personally find VTA in either a USVTA or open VTA variant to be a challenging class as taking proper lines and setup are very important versus trying to out motor someone.

Other than a few people with wonder motors down the straight who's driving was still excellent too, it was all very close racing action, but with speeds that were still inviting to a new driver. Its why I started my daughter in VTA with her own vehicle, though I wish I had gone with a stronger body even though she really liked the one she picked, its taking a beating lol.

Right now I want to get her used to working on her vehicle more, and hopefully her disdain for dirt will change so she can do some offroad in the summer too since onroad is pretty much indoors affair in the winter here.

mooby64

iTrader: (3)

I have been to a few different tracks, that have had different "rookie" classes. 12th scale w/ spec motor, tires and gear ratio, Mini, TT-01 and even Traxxas Slash. I have even seen VTA split as to give the newbies the chance to "learn" to race in class.

p.s. Leave USVTA alone and if ROAR want's to have it's own rules for VTA, fine. It's their ball and they can take it home if you don't want to play by their rules.

hairless_ape

iTrader: (3)

Claiming that the Novak motor made the class popular is a fallacy. What made the class popular was the slow speed racing. The manufacturer is irrelevant.

Do you honestly think USVTA would have tanked if it were a Reedy Sonic motor instead of Novak? I didn't think so.

CSeils

iTrader: (54)

After reading the past couple of days posts, I'd like to contribute my 2¢. I think the rules are good as is. I have used the same motor since VTA went to 25.5 on my TC3. I have been beaten and have beaten newer/older chassis driven by some real good drivers.

In order to use the K.I.S.S method, I'd like to use a simple analogy.

To me USVTA rules are like a cooking show. You know the one, the judges give the ingredients and the contestants have to create a dish with what they have. That is the rule, how and what they make are up to the cooks. They can not add to or change the main ingredients (rules), but they can chose how to mix and cook the dish.

Here is the similarity....Look at it this way.

Cooks = Racers

Ingredients are the same for everyone and should be used as such.
Ingredient 1 (Squid) = One type/mfg motor that all use. The important part of this rule is that everyone is equal
Ingredient 2 (a head of cabbage) = Max. Size MAH Battery
Ingredient 3 (Ketchup) = Tires (Everyone is equal)

Here is what the cook has to work with that might change at any time but has no bearing on the main ingredients.

Pots, skillet or pan? = ESC
Grilled, boiled, baked or flambe = Chassis
Spices = Body

If you start allowing other main ingredients into the mix, you don't have the same competition. You can't replace squid with beef or chicken, the "taste" will be not be the desired outcome the Judges envisioned.

USVTA rules are simple. Use what is listed and have fun racing door to door, instead of worrying about which motor of the week is the fastest. I don't think this class was based on how fast the cars should go, it was based on scale appearance and fun (I could be wrong on that last part).

On a recent vacation out of town, I decided to race VTA at one of the stops we made with the family this past summer. At the track, the local rule had a RPM limit. I had to gear down, change the timing and limit my transmitter to slow the car down. Not once did I complain about the rule, I changed the car to comply to the rules. Yes, the speeds were slower, but the racing was very close and fun.

I love this class. Most of you writing know me as "The Sticker Guy". I have supported this class for years and would hate to see any decline in racing, I have too much invested in decals. What Rob has done for this class, keeping the rules simple, should be commended and supported. A healthy discussion is great, insisting or demanding a change is anti-productive.

rcpaintinpete

iTrader: (16)

great now im hungry ...
thanks
very good analogy

k_bojar

iTrader: (30)

pretty much sums things up....

nothing is broke with the class, outside certain people's opinions on how 'it can be better'...but I betcha a USVTA spec'ed car will be just as competitive as a ROAR spec'ed (or un-spec'ed) VTA car..

just sayin

Cain

iTrader: (294)

CSeils: I have a variety of your work on my cars, you have always been most helpful even with off the wall requests and am happy to to pass along word of your work.

Your analogy has a lot of merit.

I think the only part of it that i would have a slightly different take on is the statement concerning is the ingredients being equal.

My take on it however is that by the rules as stated, they aren't. If say the class said we spec on a specific ESC, and a specific battery, I would think it would apply more.

For example, I want you to use salt as your ingredient, but I didn't say use Mortons as another brand that is "salt" we find okay to use as, well, salt But its still okay as it is, wellk, "salt".

darnit, now you got me hungry

CSeils

iTrader: (54)

But isn't salt still Sodium Chloride?

In this case the rule states that a Novak motor be the main chemical element.

user1

Since we are discussing rules. The one rule I think is a complete joke is the driver figure. It does nothing for the "look" of the class and is just a pain in the arse. Since there is not clear black and white rule as to what the driver figure has to look like, we get people putting in toy space alien heads with
antennas. Or doll heads or even paper with pencil drawings. Plus, since there is nothing saying you have to be able to see the figure, there is nothing stopping someone from putting it up on the front bumper foam. The car would still be legal; it has a driver figure. I personally put it where it would be in a real car and use a pre-painted, realistic looking driver figure so as to follow the mythical "spirit" of the rules. But since it adds nothing to the class, imo, it should just be dropped.

Cain

iTrader: (294)

True, but in the spirit of ingredients being equal for everyone, if I am able to use brand A versus Brand B in another ingredient that makes up the overall dish, its possible brand B is better unless you spec out that all brands must meet the same requirement, the esc and battery situation for example spec'd to be equivalent for your dish so to speak.

And if you are able to do that in one area, chances could be good that you can in another. Or who knows, it isn't. But, in the spirit of the dish, if the attempt brings more customers to the restaurant as other changes have in the past to a different ingredient, say the motors for example from what they were to what they are now, it may be worth a fair look.

Which, I think is the basis of the discussion at that point when it comes to the motor relative to the other items that aren't limited in the manner currently done.