R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-03-2013, 08:44 AM   #121
Tech Elite
 
howardcano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 3,623
Trader Rating: 35 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NutDriver View Post
Another question to kick around for you. With the current rules (1s/17.5/blinky/open tire/200 OR 235), is there a need for a body restriction? I keep referring back to VTA and USGT because they seem to be working, but they have body rules. I am particularly fond of the USGT's "anything but ROAR T2-listed bodies" rule (I think I'm pretty close on that quote). I'm not a fan of the "doorstop" bodies. I am not a fan of it being so restrictive as the VTA's "if it's not on the History Trans Am Registry, it's not legal" but the USGT's "anything but" rule might be too open. Ideas? Opinions?

Scott
I believe we should maintain a list of acceptable bodies, like VTA does. The approvals can be done by simply voting here on RCTech, by a committee, or by one person (which works well if that person is fair-minded). I (and others) have asked Rob King on the USGT thread for simple yes/no decisions on questionable bodies, and that works fine (and reduces whining).

There's not so many prototype bodies available that we couldn't make and maintain a comprehensive list.
__________________
Howard Cano
When race results are re-calculated using the IOF (Index Of Fun), I always win.
1993 ROAR 1/8 Pan National Champion
howardcano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 08:51 AM   #122
Tech Elite
 
howardcano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 3,623
Trader Rating: 35 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
Should we consider carving out a more significant niche by making this a 235mm class and drop 200mm??
I must admit...the idea of an Americanized Pro10 class sounds cool.
There's no reason to drop 200mm. If we just call out 235mm maxmum, drivers are free to use 200mm cars. That's what is currently done in Pro10 in Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
Can you imagine someones first try at a 235mm car running 17.5/1s?? The instant gratification would be worth it's weight in gold.
I don't need to imagine this. It happens almost every weekend for me, when I loan cars to other drivers to race in our local Breakout class. There is no better car type to introduce someone to RC, or to onroad racing. I am regularly defeated by an off-road guy that I grabbed off the adjacent driver's stand and "forced" into trying onroad!
__________________
Howard Cano
When race results are re-calculated using the IOF (Index Of Fun), I always win.
1993 ROAR 1/8 Pan National Champion
howardcano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 10:12 AM   #123
Tech Elite
 
NutDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,211
Trader Rating: 19 (100%+)
Default

I think it would be cool to have a turn-key kit. With the SpeedPassion LMP car coming soon, it would be awesome (but probably a pipe dream) to have a car with body and foams, an ESC/motor combo, and a battery for those looking to get in. Hmm.........maybe I'll talk to Solara about putting this together.
__________________
"Racing makes heroin addiction look like a vague longing for something salty" - Peter Egan

USVTA member #111
NutDriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 11:14 AM   #124
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 118
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Pro10 allows 200mm chassis and bodies ??!! I did NOT know that. Thanks for the info.
Have we come to an agreement that the 200mm cars wouldn't be at any distinct disadvantage to the 235mm cars ??

Bodies: As Howard said...There's a good number of 235 and 200mm gtp style bodies out there and thats what the focus of this class is. Allowing anything but gtp bodies would defeat the purpose. VTA is tough because they're dealing with a pretty short time span regarding the original Trans Am race series. We're lucky in that gtp and other similar forms were around for a good deal longer.

I made a call to Steve Pemberton from Pemberton Raceworks. Steve manufactures oval chassis. As you guys know, my club is currently planning on using the Rj Speed 3.2 chassis for our entry level class. Thats not really by choice. It's a $100 chassis and VERY basic. A little too basic for my taste but it's the only one around......so far.
Steve is interested in making a "spec" chassis for this class using the associated block front end (10L), a fiberglass no frills t-plate chassis and a IRS rear axle assembly. This could be done in 200mm (easiest) or 235mm (a little harder due to the availability of rear axles).
The second option is the Speedmerchant Speedspec 200mm wgt chassis. Advertised on their website for about $170 bucks with a center spring and alloy rear hubs. Take a look if you get a chance. www.teamspeedmerchant.com. I'm still trying to find out if this chassis is even still available. Steve is going to call the owner of SM and pass on my phone number.
Do you guy's think a proposed "spec" chassis would be better in 200mm or 235mm ?

This is a link to the TOUR SPEC oval chassis made specifically for the new TOUR SPEC class in oval racing. http://www.tour.pembertonraceworks.c...product_id=171
If we had the same type of budget oriented class I think it would be great. Pay attention to the fact that TOUR is marketing this as not only a newbie class but also a class for ANYONE that simply wants a budget oriented, less complex, competitive class to stay involved in for the long haul. A bold move on their part and very smart in my opinion.
rctrackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 11:49 AM   #125
Tech Elite
 
howardcano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 3,623
Trader Rating: 35 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
Have we come to an agreement that the 200mm cars wouldn't be at any distinct disadvantage to the 235mm cars?
On low to medium traction, like most asphalt tracks, there is little performance difference between the two car widths. But on asphalt tracks sprayed with VHT, or on high grip carpet, the 235m car is quicker and easier to drive because it has less of a tendency to lift the inside tires. A good driver can still be competitive driving a 200mm car, but in almost all cases he would be faster with the 235mm. In my experience there is much more variation in driver ability than in performance difference between the two widths.

If this is a point of contention, then we can spec a different minimum weight for each width. The rule can be changed as necessary without anyone needing to purchase anything, or change anything other than some stick-on chassis weights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
I made a call to Steve Pemberton from Pemberton Raceworks. Steve manufactures oval chassis. As you guys know, my club is currently planning on using the Rj Speed 3.2 chassis for our entry level class. Thats not really by choice. It's a $100 chassis and VERY basic. A little too basic for my taste but it's the only one around......so far.
Steve is interested in making a "spec" chassis for this class using the associated block front end (10L), a fiberglass no frills t-plate chassis and a IRS rear axle assembly. This could be done in 200mm (easiest) or 235mm (a little harder due to the availability of rear axles).
The second option is the Speedmerchant Speedspec 200mm wgt chassis. Advertised on their website for about $170 bucks with a center spring and alloy rear hubs. Take a look if you get a chance. www.teamspeedmerchant.com. I'm still trying to find out if this chassis is even still available. Steve is going to call the owner of SM and pass on my phone number.
It's exciting to have a chassis manufacturer interested, but personally I would not want the class to require any particular brand or model of chassis. We have been concerned with drivers needing to buy a new LiPo to participate in the class; having to buy a new car is a far greater expense. That's going to turn off a bunch of guys.

If someone doesn't already own a suitable pan car, buying a new car is always an option, but isn't absolutely necessary. There are plenty of used cars available at very low prices, and they can still keep up with the new ones.
__________________
Howard Cano
When race results are re-calculated using the IOF (Index Of Fun), I always win.
1993 ROAR 1/8 Pan National Champion
howardcano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 02:01 PM   #126
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 118
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Just got off the phone with Gary McAllister. He's a wealth of information and experience. I also plan on getting in touch with Bob Stormer.
After talking with Gary and reading more old threads and old articles than anybody should, I've come to some conclusions.
Howard, I couldnt find anything citing 200mm and 235mm racing together in Pro10. There were numerous comments regarding a Pro10 200mm class back around 2008. The concept was that Pro10 was fading because of the speeds involved. Bob Stormer asked Mike Reedy once why Pro10 was dying and Mike related a story about a pro10 race where turn marshals actually had to have shields to protect them from the cars that went off track.
Pro10 200mm was the original form of what became WGT. The 200mm chassis size was chosen so that more available 200mm GT and TC bodies could be used. Pro10 235 usually uses 2 cell batteries. The 13.5/1 cell choice was made to bridge the gap between other american pancar classes, most of those being oval.
Gary noted that his 235mm bodies weren't actually made specifically for Pro10 class but simply because most onroad pancar chassis of that time were indeed 235mm or something close to it.

In light of my further education I'd like to propose that we settle on 235mm as the standard for WGT-P. Gary manufactures bodies and knows the market. He also agrees that 235mm GTP bodies are more available than 200mm gtp bodies. He also said that he would support the idea of more new bodies if the class has a future. He did the same with VTA.
I would also like to amend my thinking about 1s or 2s use. I'm reverting back to my original thought that 2s is simply more accesible than 1s AND will always have more appeal for those that race other 2s classes. Unlike most oval chassis, the wgt chassis already allow for 2s use.

To summarize:
RCHSR (or whatever we finalize) will be the name of the national organization. WGT-P ( Or? ) is the class name.
The purpose is to promote electric powered 1/10 scale GTP racing.
WGT-P chassis rules:
A. Any WGT chassis with 235mm conversion or Any 235mm factory available chassis of any vintage.
B. Any compound Foam tire/wheel combo with minimum size limit.
C. Any appropriate 235mm GTP style body. Scale appearance is suggested. ( a list will be made )
D. Any ROAR legal 2s hardcase battery.
E. Any ROAR legal 21.5 brushless motor (or 25.5. testing can be done before we settle)
F. Any ROAR legal ESC with 0 timing or progammable in "blinky" mode.
G. WGT-P is a scale oriented class. Bodies should have race oriented paint work and race numbers.

As you know, I've mentioned a "spec" class a few times. That idea is a secondary class designed for entry level or budget oriented racers. Each club or track has the choice to offer it or not. The organization could suggest a ruleset for that class (including which chassis would be suitable) but the emphasis of the organization would be to promote WGT-P. With the 21.5/2s combo, ANY racer could jump into this class with reasonable results. Monetarily it's little different from commiting to any other mainstream class (VTA, F1, USGT, TC.)

Well, there's my proposal. I think it's a good one. How crazy am I ??

Last edited by rctrackman; 10-03-2013 at 03:53 PM.
rctrackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 03:58 PM   #127
Tech Elite
 
howardcano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 3,623
Trader Rating: 35 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
Howard, I couldnt find anything citing 200mm and 235mm racing together in Pro10.
Here are two posts from the Pro10 thread. Both drivers are located in the Netherlands:

http://www.rctech.net/forum/12233316-post1127.html
http://www.rctech.net/forum/10443541-post640.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
In light of my further education I'd like to propose that we settle on 235mm as the standard for WGT-P.
Is there any reason to not also allow 200mm cars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
D. Any ROAR legal 2s hardcase battery.
E. Any ROAR legal 21.5 brushless motor
Sounds fine to me, but that power to weight ratio on a small-to-medium indoor track is going to be a handful for most of the drivers I know, myself included. The cars will be much faster than a 17.5 TC.

I assume "ROAR legal 2s hardcase battery" includes saddle packs, as many 235mm cars require them.
__________________
Howard Cano
When race results are re-calculated using the IOF (Index Of Fun), I always win.
1993 ROAR 1/8 Pan National Champion
howardcano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 04:42 PM   #128
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,588
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howardcano View Post



Sounds fine to me, but that power to weight ratio on a small-to-medium indoor track is going to be a handful for most of the drivers I know, myself included. The cars will be much faster than a 17.5 TC.

I assume "ROAR legal 2s hardcase battery" includes saddle packs, as many 235mm cars require them.
FYI the narrow F1 (190mm) on rubber tires do almost exactly the same lap times on 2s/21.5 as a 21.5 sedan on rubber tires. A wide pan car on foams should be faster, but it should be within reason.
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 05:04 PM   #129
Tech Addict
 
Ed Delgado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Satellite Beach
Posts: 500
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
Just got off the phone with Gary McAllister. He's a wealth of information and experience. I also plan on getting in touch with Bob Stormer.
After talking with Gary and reading more old threads and old articles than anybody should, I've come to some conclusions.
Howard, I couldnt find anything citing 200mm and 235mm racing together in Pro10. There were numerous comments regarding a Pro10 200mm class back around 2008. The concept was that Pro10 was fading because of the speeds involved. Bob Stormer asked Mike Reedy once why Pro10 was dying and Mike related a story about a pro10 race where turn marshals actually had to have shields to protect them from the cars that went off track.
Pro10 200mm was the original form of what became WGT. The 200mm chassis size was chosen so that more available 200mm GT and TC bodies could be used. Pro10 235 usually uses 2 cell batteries. The 13.5/1 cell choice was made to bridge the gap between other american pancar classes, most of those being oval.
Gary noted that his 235mm bodies weren't actually made specifically for Pro10 class but simply because most onroad pancar chassis of that time were indeed 235mm or something close to it.

In light of my further education I'd like to propose that we settle on 235mm as the standard for WGT-P. Gary manufactures bodies and knows the market. He also agrees that 235mm GTP bodies are more available than 200mm gtp bodies. He also said that he would support the idea of more new bodies if the class has a future. He did the same with VTA.
I would also like to amend my thinking about 1s or 2s use. I'm reverting back to my original thought that 2s is simply more accesible than 1s AND will always have more appeal for those that race other 2s classes. Unlike most oval chassis, the wgt chassis already allow for 2s use.

To summarize:
RCHSR (or whatever we finalize) will be the name of the national organization. WGT-P ( Or? ) is the class name.
The purpose is to promote electric powered 1/10 scale GTP racing.
WGT-P chassis rules:
A. Any WGT chassis with 235mm conversion or Any 235mm factory available chassis of any vintage.
B. Any compound Foam tire/wheel combo with minimum size limit.
C. Any appropriate 235mm GTP style body. Scale appearance is suggested. ( a list will be made )
D. Any ROAR legal 2s hardcase battery.
E. Any ROAR legal 21.5 brushless motor (or 25.5. testing can be done before we settle)
F. Any ROAR legal ESC with 0 timing or progammable in "blinky" mode.
G. WGT-P is a scale oriented class. Bodies should have race oriented paint work and race numbers.

As you know, I've mentioned a "spec" class a few times. That idea is a secondary class designed for entry level or budget oriented racers. Each club or track has the choice to offer it or not. The organization could suggest a ruleset for that class (including which chassis would be suitable) but the emphasis of the organization would be to promote WGT-P. With the 21.5/2s combo, ANY racer could jump into this class with reasonable results. Monetarily it's little different from commiting to any other mainstream class (VTA, F1, USGT, TC.)

Well, there's my proposal. I think it's a good one. How crazy am I ??
I think if you want WGTP be more true to scale, and with more realistic bodies then you have to stay at 200mm. Why, because most full size GTP cars were 2000mm wide-that's why Tamiya's GTP cars (the most true to scale 1/10 GTP cars) are 200mm wide. Most Tamiya GTP's are also longer at 270 and 280mm. The current WGT cars are actually shorter at around 260mm so that they will fit 200mm TC style bodies, or rather GT bodies made for TC cars. If on the other hand you just want to bring back 1/10 pan cars like we raced in the eighties and nineties then forget 200mm and by that token forget any semblance of realism. If you go that route (235mm, 2s batteries and the old style wedge body-like the RJSpeed/Bolink 962) then you are just re-living the past instead of creating something better.

I say keep WGTP at 200mm, with realistic looking bodies, and WGT spec electronics. WGT spec electronics work, are proven and will keeps speeds from getting crazy. Let the 235mm guys run in their own spec class, an "unlimited" class if you will.

And since I began the discussion, I will gladly nominate myself to be the arbiter of scale realism in regards to 1/10 WGTP bodies. I speak as a lifelong fan of GTP, Group C, WEC, WSC and a dedicated Porschefile and Tifosi. I think that if we had a "pub quiz" (that's an British thing) on GTP I would do pretty well. The day I finally produce my first body and start my own body company (which will hopefully be sooner rather than later) I will gladly step down to a strictly advisory role.

Last edited by Ed Delgado; 10-03-2013 at 05:06 PM. Reason: Speling chek
Ed Delgado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 05:15 PM   #130
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 118
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

WOOPS...SORRY ED. I was typing as you were posting and didn't see it until just now.
rctrackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 05:47 PM   #131
Tech Elite
 
howardcano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 3,623
Trader Rating: 35 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robk View Post
FYI the narrow F1 (190mm) on rubber tires do almost exactly the same lap times on 2s/21.5 as a 21.5 sedan on rubber tires. A wide pan car on foams should be faster, but it should be within reason.
Hi Rob,

What is within reason for a driver of your calibre can be way too much for a driver like me!

Here are the fastest laps of drivers in three A mains of the 2012 IIC:

Expert World GT 10.5:
Cyrul, Josh 9.240
D Agnolo, Pete 9.242

World GT 13.5:
Bohlman, Brian 9.845
Berger, Dave 9.980

Stock 17.5 Rubber Tire Sedan:
Xavier, Craig 10.269
Harrison, Austin 10.270

A 21.5/2s car will have a power-to-weight ratio in between WGT 10.5 and WGT 13.5. If that gives a lap time of somewhere in the 9.6 range, it's nearly 0.7 seconds (7%) faster than 17.5 TC.
__________________
Howard Cano
When race results are re-calculated using the IOF (Index Of Fun), I always win.
1993 ROAR 1/8 Pan National Champion
howardcano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 05:52 PM   #132
Tech Addict
 
Ed Delgado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Satellite Beach
Posts: 500
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
WOOPS...SORRY ED. I was typing as you were posting and didn't see it until just now.
No prob.

If I were to produce a WGTP body for example, and since I'm really considering it I won't discuss production plans (like body lists) but it would be 200mm wide, 260mm wheelbase to fit WGT chassis as well as Tamiya GTP car owners. "If" that body had tail fins, like let's say a 962, it would have a true to scale wing inserted between the fins, not a wedge style tail with the curved or angled spoiler kick-up between the fins. There are some adjustments that can be made on any body to make it handle better without compromising scale realism: the original form and proportions. You want to stay away from "aerodynamic liberties" as I call them in the sake of performance over realism. Aerodynamic liberties such as shrinking or lowering the roofline (Andy's Mercedes C11), lengthening or making the nose steeper or shallower (Bolink Porsche 962), extending or raising the rear tail-fins or putting some there where they never existed (Andy's Mercedes C11 and Jaguar XJR10). Acceptible liberties for instance are like shallowing the deep side radiator/intercooler openings in the Porsche 962's doors-this wouldn't detract from the overall dimensional relationships. Another acceptible liberty would be to blank of the front brake cooling ducts on the later, longer nosed Lancia LC-2-wouldn't detract from the original shape and would clean up the aero.
Attached Thumbnails
RCHSR: Radio Controlled Historic Sportscar Racing-image.jpg  

Last edited by Ed Delgado; 10-03-2013 at 05:56 PM. Reason: Added pic of Lancia
Ed Delgado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2013, 07:50 PM   #133
Tech Elite
 
NutDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,211
Trader Rating: 19 (100%+)
Default

I second Ed's nomination as the Decider-in-Chief.
__________________
"Racing makes heroin addiction look like a vague longing for something salty" - Peter Egan

USVTA member #111
NutDriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2013, 01:38 AM   #134
Tech Master
 
2wdrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rctrackman View Post
Bob Stormer asked Mike Reedy once why Pro10 was dying and Mike related a story about a pro10 race where turn marshals actually had to have shields to protect them from the cars that went off track.
I wasn't driving pro10 at that time but no one is marshaling with protective gear overhere. I am only guesing but it might be a single occasion where someone did that in the US on a tiny track and the story stuck.

Someone remember if that was standard practice in the US?
__________________
www.rc-lemans.de
2wdrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2013, 01:53 AM   #135
Tech Master
 
2wdrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Delgado View Post
Another acceptible liberty would be to blank of the front brake cooling ducts on the later, longer nosed Lancia LC-2-wouldn't detract from the original shape and would clean up the aero.
Actually that is what I did with the backwing of the Nissan P35. I left part of the wing blank so it lookes like it has a separate wing. I didn't know beforehand how it would look but I am happy I tried it as it really looks good without effecting the aero. I will be doing that with all the bodies from now on. I will post a pic later.
__________________
www.rc-lemans.de
2wdrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 11:53 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net