oeoeo327

iTrader: (75)

Getting more first-timers involved might mean that the platform needs to be standardized as well. Years ago, our club ran a "box-stock" nitro sedan series that was very successful, until the manufacturer drastically changed the car (and killed off local interest in the process). While the motor issue in an electric spec class can't be overlooked, that might be a subject best handled locally at each club's discretion until a clearly superior solution is revealed. The suggestions concerning this class being based on slower speeds and a restriction on legal equipment should be of paramount importance.

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

Both of these would be more horsepower than 17.5/1s. 21.5/2s is almost exactly the same power as 10.5/1s, which is pretty darn quick.

hanulec

iTrader: (28)

http://erniesblog.com/my-vision-for-17-5-spec-racing/

oeoeo327

iTrader: (75)

Personally, I think we (the racing community) need to dictate what we want to the manufacturers, and not allow the manufacturers to dictate to us what they think we want... Whatever decisions come from this discussion, we need to make them.

patorz31

Howard it is already being run (21.5 2s) in Japan. When I was there last year watching a race, I was told the laptimes were the essentially the same as 13.5 1s.
I know there is more horsepower with 2s but there are people out there that don't want to buy extra electronics that they can't use in any class but pancar.

wwddww34

iTrader: (9)

Good point. So when you ask Mr. Joe 'Rookie' Racer what he wants, the answer is "more speed!"

Magnet Top

iTrader: (4)

Thanks Chris!

We just had our big race to finish up our club's carpet racing season. ( The Emerald City Classic )

A C-main for our scale spec class. At the end of the A main 7 of the 10 drivers were on the lead lap. less than 5 tenths between the top and bottom of the A main ( for fast lap ). IMHO, The close racing is mostly due to the use of a true spec motor and its a 25.5.

https://youtu.be/A6msv66_BXw

howardcano

iTrader: (37)

Yes, the lap times are similar because the limiting factor is mainly cornering speed, not power.

I was also an early proponent of 2s (along with smaller motors) for 1/12 scale. But now that almost any ESC will run on 1s with the addition of a $10 voltage booster, I don't think it's a deal-breaker.

My apologies for the tangential comments to the thread!

Chaz955i

iTrader: (5)

What exactly does this mean? Specifically, what do the manufacturers not make that you think would change things? Do you think RC manufacturers stay in business by making products people do not want? Aren't we dictating what we want by purchasing overly expensive complicated touring cars when there are options like TC4s and Sprints and TB02s on the market that are available for little money? I fail to see how we as consumers are being victimized.

jiml

iTrader: (3)

A line from one of my favorite TV shows, Black Sails:

"A man who tries to change the world fails for one simple and unavoidable reason...everyone else."

The RC masses have spoken, and 17.5 touring car is the main class for just about the entire country. All this discussion about other classes or different motors or spec rules out your ears isn't going to change anything because not enough people are going to run it. I have seen this time and time again where a new class will start up, then fade away as participation wanes. This is what RC car racing has become, and no one here is going to change it.

The best answer is for each local track to come up with a formula for a starter class that works for them. Then introduce them to 17.5 and encourage them to keep at it. A national start up class will never work.

oeoeo327

iTrader: (75)

Let's dissect the question...

Specifically, what do the manufacturers not make that you think would change things? It isn't what they're not making that's the problem - it's what they ARE making - manufacturers persuading the masses that they need the latest and greatest to compete. It's probably the single greatest reason that this hobby doesn't retain too many racers on a long term basis, long term costs eventually win out over interest in the hobby...

Do you think RC manufacturers stay in business by making products people do not want? Most of the successful R/C companies are smart enough to avoid this very small niche market altogether - those that are involved are most likely tied to other business efforts that make developing RC racing products a financially feasible endeavor. Whether specific companies fail or succeed is not my concern; whether or not on-road racing survives and thrives is my concern...

Aren't we dictating what we want by purchasing overly expensive complicated touring cars when there are options like TC4s and Sprints and TB02s on the market that are available for little money? Yes - to a point... We're dictating that to each other, as one racer upgrades, his fellow racers feels the need to do the same at the risk of "falling behind" and perceiving that there's no way to compete. Manufacturers then noticed this trend, and started updating their models yearly, at a greater cost to racers of all levels. Again, that cost is driven by perception (fact of the matter is, most of us aren't talented enough to fully utilize what we bought 5 years ago, let alone learn how to best utilize kits that we have no time to learn thoroughly each year), but reselling an updated version for 2 years instead of 1 year would probably keep costs lower, and more racers involved.

I fail to see how we as consumers are being victimized. - Agreed - we're free to make our own choices, and I never stated that we are victims. However, it's pretty clear when looking at our declining attendance figures, we aren't making very good choices as we blindly flock from product to product, often without tangible results to justify switching brands or updating equipment. While it's only one of several aggravating factors, having 10 "new and improved" 17.5 motors to choose from each year isn't helping us keep new racers interested. We don't need to buy each new offering, however, our culture has supported that belief for a very long time. Hence, manufacturers keep feeding the demand we've created. The manufacturers aren't entirely to blame - but we need to start developing/supporting classes that aren't entirely driven by technology.

dc661

iTrader: (156)

I believe people have the power to change what stock touring car is. The oval industry all formed their own racing organization a few years ago and switched the main class to a spec tire, body combo and changed their esc rules. The class took off nationwide and is the biggest thing they race. They actually had an I main at the snowbird nationals this year. So to say that "no one here is going to change that" isn't really a true statement.

Maxxican

iTrader: (67)

At my local track we have run the following format for many years and seems to be working. These are only the TC classes we also have Mini GT VTA and Pan car.

But i do agree that 17.5 is way too fast now... if it was up to me i would change all the 17.5 classes to 21.5. That way there is more of a gap in lap times.

Novice TC [17.5 Blinky]

Sportsman TC [17.5 Blinky No Sponsored Drivers.]

Intermediate TC [17.5 Blinky Open Drivers]

Expert Super Stock [13.5 Blinky Expert Drivers Only]

MOD [Expert Drivers Only]

Not to open another can of worms but i think we should have spec tires and tire rules for ALL TC Racing. The manufacturer does not matter as long as its a pre-mount and anyone can get it. One new set per race day. i see the fast guys spending $$$$$$ and running a new set of tires every run.

wwddww34

iTrader: (9)

One thing is certain. This topic has certainly struck a chord with racers all around the world.

It sure makes for a good thread to watch.

Chaz955i

iTrader: (5)

So in essence a lot of vague statements with nothing actionable to go with.

Here is my contribution: We need world peace. We need to end hunger.