rctrackman

iTrader: (9)

Didn't want to ignore the comment. As for comparison....really don't know for sure until we try it out. ( Woops...looks like Howard answered that. )
You know, That whole thought about "if people don't have to buy new equipment they might get involved" always gets me. God knows you're not the only person to have said it. I'm not saying it's a bad thought or in any way saying it's "wrong" thinking BUT....I've always wondered why we concentrate SO much on the people who are already racing rc. We're such a small minority. You're right though....for those people already racing....and the smaller number of those who might like this class....buying new equipment may be considered a PITA. But what's really so different ? If you're a WGT racer then you only have to get a 17.5 motor. Tires are a rotating need item. You're always going to be buying them whether they're WGT compound or not. Now if you're a 17.5 TC driver; Yes, you're looking at a different chassis, esc, batteries.
Not an easy choice !!
There just isn't an easy way to bridge that problem.

NutDriver

iTrader: (30)

For those of us with WGT cars, just needing a motor is pretty easy (as you said). If you have to get a car, body, 1s ESC, 1s battery, tires, etc, it can be prohibitively expensive to add a class. I was wondering about the expense of 1s battery and 1s ESC versus 2s with a slower motor as a cost comparison as well as performance comparison.
If you want to toss cost out of the window, I want a full-option FG 1/5th scale F1 car!!
:-)

rctrackman

iTrader: (9)

I agree with you but that's the reality of getting involved in just about any class. Every class is searching for a niche. So just how do we create a class with it's own identity and yet make it able to share equipment requirements with other classes. I think you're better off concentrating on the class and making it a viable choice.
I'll also agree that this situation is even more difficult because you're dealing with pancars...which makes it that much harder to have any commonality with mainstream. Let's face it, we're talking pancar class. Only comparison can be with other pancar classes. In that respect we're not talking about any real differences other than body and motor choice.

BTW. did anybody notice my question about the class name ??
I'm having a hard time with the 'Historic Sportscar" part. That really makes this a vintage body oriented class. Look at how hard it is for VTA to have a larger selection of bodies. This should be about the general LM style body and encompass any of them from old to new.

NutDriver

iTrader: (30)

I thought we (at least Ed and I) had a preliminary agreement on "WGT-P" or something simliar.

There had also been mention of allowing 235mm bodies as well. Here is one of the reasons why.
http://www.stormerhobbies.com/cgi-bi...cs&pn=PAR10233

Check out the chassis under this body. Is that a Lynx II?

NutDriver

iTrader: (30)

and DeltaPlastik now has a USA distributor. Gonne see if I can get my hands on one of these:

http://www.deltaplastik.it/index.php...i&l=ita&id=168

RoyU

iTrader: (2)

is 17.5/1s blinky? I like the blinly better. I have board magnets in my car and tend to hit everything else.

RoyU

iTrader: (2)

Remeber the RokStock Capris?

LonnyJ1950

Hard to see, but I think you're right.

terry.sc

Soon the body set for this will be available. Or you could try and find one of these old Carson bodies.

terry.sc

Here in the UK we have created a 1/12th scale feeder class using basic 1/12th cars with GT shells, like a 1/12th version of WGT. We named it GT12, and to differentiate it from normal 1/12th scale, for pan cars we have started calling the class LMP12. So how about LMP10 to go with the GT10 for the current WGT class.

Dropping the Historic part would then include modern bodies like the new Speed Passion LMP car.

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

1s LiPos generally are less expensive than 2s. I think the economics are more a question of which one the prospective racer already owns, and there's no predicting that. It's one of the reasons I have both 1s and 2s combos in the suggested rules:
http://www.rctech.net/forum/12571732-post65.html

Personally, I see no problem with specifying 1s only. Actually, it has an advantage in that it's easier for a track to change their local rules to whatever motor fits the size of the track without having to come up with a new equivalency formula between 1s and 2s.

As for ESCs, there really isn't any cost difference, or need to purchase a new ESC, as almost all ESCs currently available will run 1s with the addition of a voltage booster or receiver pack, either of which can be had for under $10.

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

Agreed. We should eliminate anything that makes it sound like a "vintage" class. We have mentioned VTA as a successful class from which we can borrow ideas, but I don't think the bodies should be just oldies.

WGTP is fine with me. It's catchy, but perhaps has too many syllables?

LMP10 would be okay, too. Maybe we could shorten it a little. How about P10? It's also catchy, and by leaving "LM" out, doesn't give the impression that only LeMans cars are allowed. It's also only two syllables, which I can handle even on my bad days.

When we have decided on a name (and have the rules tied down a little more), let's ask Ed if he can change the name of this thread. Or we can start a new, "official" thread, with the official name.

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

Yes, blinky (non-timing) ESCs. The simpler, the better.

I installed those board magnets in my cars many years ago. Despite my best efforts, I have never knocked even one of the magnets off of any of my cars.

rctrackman

iTrader: (9)

I like WGT-P also. If we're adopting wgt chassis as the standard then there's no reason to dismiss the connection.
I actually like LMP10 but it's a bit close to Pro10 which is actually quite different.

I'm curious....what drives the continued production of 235mm bodies?? Am I wrong that Pro10 is a very,very small class worldwide?
It seems body availability for 235mm is better than 200mm ?
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(Hey Look...it's LMP10 !!). God knows the extra stability and overall handling capability sounds great too.
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. Gotta wonder if the learning curve wouldn't be a little faster also. If the cars' not spending as much time on it's roof then the racer is getting laps and those are critical to learning.
Thoughts??

BTW, BOb Stormer might be a REALLY good guy to make contact with, especially if we go 235mm. He's got massive experience, loves pancars AND he obviously has contacts in the business. Notice they had those Osella bodies made even after being discontinued for some time. Now that's pull !

If I haven't said this already...This is a great conversation Folks ! We're narrowing things down , spitballing some thoughts and getting good feedback. That's the hard part. If it seems disjointed right now.....It's not.
We're decided that scale looks are important.
We're narrowing down power requirements
It sounds like open foam tire is a no brainer.
We're a heartbeat away from establishing a good ,simple, effective name.
We're ALL learning from each other. Knowing what support items are on the market and available is critical to the idea of a new class. Keep sharing !!
And THANKS !!!!

NutDriver

iTrader: (30)

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