GT class--buggy-based on road!
11-09-2007, 04:16 PM
#106
Tech Adept
The very rules you posted above are going to allow this to happen. I really cant wait to sit back and watch this happen. This is going to be .12 Touring class all over again. Touring started with rubber tires, 3 port motors no mods and gear diffs. Anybody with a HPI RTR could get out there and go. Now .12 touring has been allowed to morf into small 1/8 scale cars with coupe bodys and insanely priced engines. Everybody comes on here carping what worked in the past doesnt apply today yet the fail to LEARN from the mistakes of the past. They just reinvent the wheel and call it the savior of the sport and wonder whut happened 5 years down the road. I would wish for nothing more than IGT to be a hit and a spring board for moving people up to 1/10 touring and or 1/8. But trust me, someone WILL put a $700 Mario in their IGT and they will be a GOOD driver and they will hand heads to all the $400 IGT guys and then it turn to a $1000 class instead of $400 and every one will retreat back to Gameboy or Gran Turisimo.
11-09-2007, 04:34 PM
#107
You must be reading it incorrectly.
Stock means = stock engine, pipe & clutch.
Modified means = not stock engine, pipe & clutch
Open means = It’s a free for all.
If somebody has a Kyosho Inferno GT with any engine other than the factory unit, they can only race in the RC PRO “Super Stock” or “Open” classes.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Don’t worry, we will “Tech” to stop “cheaters”. Maybe we should post their names when they get busted, just like NASCAR does.
Stock means = stock engine, pipe & clutch.
Modified means = not stock engine, pipe & clutch
Open means = It’s a free for all.
If somebody has a Kyosho Inferno GT with any engine other than the factory unit, they can only race in the RC PRO “Super Stock” or “Open” classes.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Don’t worry, we will “Tech” to stop “cheaters”. Maybe we should post their names when they get busted, just like NASCAR does.
11-09-2007, 06:45 PM
#108
Since you are so good at pointing out what won't work, perhaps you could enlighten us all on what you think will work to get new people into the sport?
11-09-2007, 07:17 PM
#109
recently dropped in.
11-09-2007, 07:48 PM
#110
Again.... my question.... What is the purpose of limiting the rear window to 2 x 2?
11-09-2007, 09:30 PM
#111
11-09-2007, 09:37 PM
#112
11-10-2007, 08:09 AM
#113
^i've never ran it with the .28 yet.
lookin forward to it.
lookin forward to it.
11-10-2007, 08:33 AM
#114
There are several HUNDRED Kyosho Inferno GT cars across the USA that have already aftermarket modified engines in them right now. We want them to start racing on Americas tracks.
Stock Kyosho Inferno GT cars will race in “Stock Class”
Modified Kyosho GT Cars will race in the “Super Stock Class”.
Everyone else’s chassis will race in the “Open Class”.
RC Pro Series rules for these cars are done. There may be some changes and the 2 modified classes may run at the same time during a race, they’ll just be scored differently according to their class.
The rules are simple and intended to try to offer a “level playing field”. That’s all, easy.
Stock Kyosho Inferno GT cars will race in “Stock Class”
Modified Kyosho GT Cars will race in the “Super Stock Class”.
Everyone else’s chassis will race in the “Open Class”.
RC Pro Series rules for these cars are done. There may be some changes and the 2 modified classes may run at the same time during a race, they’ll just be scored differently according to their class.
The rules are simple and intended to try to offer a “level playing field”. That’s all, easy.
I think you kind of missed the point. As many of us know, there are few of us that like to run a car in its stock form. Many that buy kits look for the coolest hop-ups and fastest engines to deck their cars out. There was some foresight here in the fact that with some that want to go that route, there will be a class for you. But, don't get mad when someone spends even more money on their car to go faster and win races. But, if you choose to not invest a ton of money in the car, you will have a class to run it in and still be competitive because the playing field will be level (almost like the IROC series in NASCAR back in the day).
No, you guys are missing the point of this thread completely. I'm well aware of the national base for these cars and the existing classes in RCPro. This isn't what this discussion is about.
It was originally posted by the new Director of the Midwest Series, for open discussion as adding ONE new GT "buggy-based" on-road class (to replace the vanishing 235mm "Outlaw" class) for next years MWS races. Go back and read the original post again. It's not a discussion for a national collection of 3 classes to suit these cars, RCPro Series or otherwise. It's not about everyone else's rules and allowances.
Once again, my casual observer input for the proposed MWS "GT" class is to keep it simple (read: spec or close to it), and don't get in over your head right off the bat. If the class is popular and warrants stock, open and other divisions of buggy-based on road cars, then worry about that down the road. Until then, it's an experiment in increasing car counts and participation. I think it could really work if it wasn't allowed to spiral out of control into an open pit for spending.
Just my two cents.
11-10-2007, 08:35 AM
#115
The very rules you posted above are going to allow this to happen. I really cant wait to sit back and watch this happen. This is going to be .12 Touring class all over again. Touring started with rubber tires, 3 port motors no mods and gear diffs. Anybody with a HPI RTR could get out there and go. Now .12 touring has been allowed to morf into small 1/8 scale cars with coupe bodies and insanely priced engines. Everybody comes on here carping what worked in the past doesn't apply today yet the fail to LEARN from the mistakes of the past. They just reinvent the wheel and call it the savior of the sport and wonder what happened 5 years down the road. I would wish for nothing more than IGT to be a hit and a spring board for moving people up to 1/10 touring and or 1/8. But trust me, someone WILL put a $700 Mario in their IGT and they will be a GOOD driver and they will hand heads to all the $400 IGT guys and then it turn to a $1000 class instead of $400 and every one will retreat back to Gameboy or Gran Turisimo.
Very well spoken. THAT was my point. In order for an entry level class to function well for new racers, it has to be KEPT ENTRY LEVEL, and that means NO open or modified classes. Period. End of story.
All an open or modified GT class does is create another class to divide and conquer the already thinning other advanced level on road classes that exist. Why dilute existing classes down more? You want to ADD to the car counts, not subtract from existing ones by moving racers from one class to another.
RTR, Spec, Limited or whatever you want to call it, if you want new blood racing gas on-road cars, you have to offer a simple, uncomplicated and inexpensive way to get their feet wet. Allowing guys to use open or modified motors completely defeats the purpose of this particular class for the MWS.
11-10-2007, 10:36 AM
#116
Very well spoken. THAT was my point. In order for an entry level class to function well for new racers, it has to be KEPT ENTRY LEVEL, and that means NO open or modified classes. Period. End of story.
All an open or modified GT class does is create another class to divide and conquer the already thinning other advanced level on road classes that exist. Why dilute existing classes down more? You want to ADD to the car counts, not subtract from existing ones by moving racers from one class to another.
RTR, Spec, Limited or whatever you want to call it, if you want new blood racing gas on-road cars, you have to offer a simple, uncomplicated and inexpensive way to get their feet wet. Allowing guys to use open or modified motors completely defeats the purpose of this particular class for the MWS.
All an open or modified GT class does is create another class to divide and conquer the already thinning other advanced level on road classes that exist. Why dilute existing classes down more? You want to ADD to the car counts, not subtract from existing ones by moving racers from one class to another.
RTR, Spec, Limited or whatever you want to call it, if you want new blood racing gas on-road cars, you have to offer a simple, uncomplicated and inexpensive way to get their feet wet. Allowing guys to use open or modified motors completely defeats the purpose of this particular class for the MWS.
According to your suggestion of a “Single Class KISS System” a converted GT buggy owner with a RB S7 engine for example, would be racing against an “RTR” engine or else he’d be forced to purchase an “approved” engine in order to race in your “Single Class KISS System”.
Your “Single Class KISS System” will give the RB S7 powered GT car owner a power advantage or the financial disadvantage according to the “Single Class KISS System” system.
If the intention is to attract as many new racers to on-road racing as possible, then the “Single Class KISS System” for GT cars is engineering failure of the new class even before it starts in your area.
Before you start saying “this is our thread” or “you don’t belong here” or “this thread is for MWS only” just answer the questions I’m presented to you, I’m sure the entire RC racing world of RC Tech that has been reading this thread might be interested in your views. OK Good, here we go!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know very well that when the RTR engine gets tired the owner usually wants to replace it with something a little stronger. What about the engines in the hundreds of these cars in your area, do you want them to race with your series too?
Is your single system going to allow the guy with the Ninja .28 & JP3 pipe to race against a “Factory Stock” Kyosho Inferno GT?
What if Mr. Ninja gets a “Centax Clutch” for that bad boy down the road, still only one class?
The thought of “thinning” or “diluting” existing classes of on-road racing could be a genuine fear for some, but isn’t that already happening now?
Would you rather a racer live beyond his means to remain competitive in the current on-road system that exists, when we can all offer different levels of financial investment with these classes?
Do you think the current “foreclosure crisis” situation across America is going to affect our sport in 2008 in a positive manner?
Do you want to attract new people and keep more people involved in on-road RC racing or not?
11-10-2007, 11:19 AM
#117
The opinions solicited here are for the Midwest Series, and your experiences with the class are fine to do with whatever you want. This is NOT the RCPro Series. If you want to continue ranting about the foreclosure rates in the U.S and how they effect the hobby world, go right ahead. I won't stop you, but I have better things to do with my time.
If the MWS wants an entry level class, then make it an entry level class, and don't give wiggle room for experienced racers to cherry pick and turn it into a cubic dollar class. Go look at 'stock' electric touring cars if you want to see what happens to an "entry level" class when the rules are lax. If you want to appeal to crossover racers from off road buggy racing, then tailor it to be for them, but I think the MWS would be missing the boat with that plan. I just don't see the potential for a large influx of dirt buggy racers converting their cars to race on-road instead of what they were made for. That's just me, I could be wrong—it's just an educated guess there.
In the end, adding classes adds time to the race day, dilutes other known classes, and spreads a known user-base thinner than it already is. Any serious off road racers who want to cross over will likely do so with an on-road specific race car built for on-road racing. Your pool for new racers to fill the class are likely other R/C racers who are looking to wade into the shallow end or new R/C hobbyists looking for something less intimidating to start out with. By the time they have worn out their engine, they will step up to something faster, or choose to stay in the class and replace the engine with an OEM lump. Don't give anyone the chance to buy a Centax clutch, and they won't. If they do, they can't use it in this class. Pretty simple. That's what rules are for.
The GT class idea for MWS is a good one. Just make sure that you aren't trying to be all things for everyone, and you'll have a successful formula. If you'd like to see a real life example of where too many classes hurts the overall good of the hobby/sport, have a look at the direction the SCCA has been heading for the last 4 years. My comments aren't based in hypothesis, but from experience.
I'll leave it there. The powers that are making the decisions in the MWS will take everyone's comments for whatever they are worth.
Carry on.
Doug
If the MWS wants an entry level class, then make it an entry level class, and don't give wiggle room for experienced racers to cherry pick and turn it into a cubic dollar class. Go look at 'stock' electric touring cars if you want to see what happens to an "entry level" class when the rules are lax. If you want to appeal to crossover racers from off road buggy racing, then tailor it to be for them, but I think the MWS would be missing the boat with that plan. I just don't see the potential for a large influx of dirt buggy racers converting their cars to race on-road instead of what they were made for. That's just me, I could be wrong—it's just an educated guess there.
In the end, adding classes adds time to the race day, dilutes other known classes, and spreads a known user-base thinner than it already is. Any serious off road racers who want to cross over will likely do so with an on-road specific race car built for on-road racing. Your pool for new racers to fill the class are likely other R/C racers who are looking to wade into the shallow end or new R/C hobbyists looking for something less intimidating to start out with. By the time they have worn out their engine, they will step up to something faster, or choose to stay in the class and replace the engine with an OEM lump. Don't give anyone the chance to buy a Centax clutch, and they won't. If they do, they can't use it in this class. Pretty simple. That's what rules are for.
The GT class idea for MWS is a good one. Just make sure that you aren't trying to be all things for everyone, and you'll have a successful formula. If you'd like to see a real life example of where too many classes hurts the overall good of the hobby/sport, have a look at the direction the SCCA has been heading for the last 4 years. My comments aren't based in hypothesis, but from experience.
I'll leave it there. The powers that are making the decisions in the MWS will take everyone's comments for whatever they are worth.
Carry on.
Doug
11-10-2007, 11:57 AM
#118
Tech Elite
Thread Starter
I have no problem with hearing from the RC-pro people (or anyone else), on this topic. One of the reasons I started this as a seperate thread from the MWS, is to hear from a wider base...
For the MWS, several different classes of the same type of car, will not work.
As mentioned, this class is intended as a possible replacement for the extinct 235 class.
The MWS is a somewhat different operation than a 'static' facillity (be it club or commercial track). Since we move around to different sites throughout the season (and other reasons), our thrust must be--to appeal to existing racers. Whereas, the club or commercial track must be concerned with getting new people into the hobby.
If we are to add this class, I want it to have as broad appeal as possible. I would like to see it as a less expensive class, but we are not usually in a position to do a lot of 'tech'. Limmiting it to buggy-based cars like the IGT or OFNA Ultra GTP, or even self-converted buggies, helps. The biggest problem is engines. I like the idea of limiting it to .28 (maximum) sport engines. The likes of which are included in RTR truggies and monster trucks.
More later... people comming in the store..
For the MWS, several different classes of the same type of car, will not work.
As mentioned, this class is intended as a possible replacement for the extinct 235 class.
The MWS is a somewhat different operation than a 'static' facillity (be it club or commercial track). Since we move around to different sites throughout the season (and other reasons), our thrust must be--to appeal to existing racers. Whereas, the club or commercial track must be concerned with getting new people into the hobby.
If we are to add this class, I want it to have as broad appeal as possible. I would like to see it as a less expensive class, but we are not usually in a position to do a lot of 'tech'. Limmiting it to buggy-based cars like the IGT or OFNA Ultra GTP, or even self-converted buggies, helps. The biggest problem is engines. I like the idea of limiting it to .28 (maximum) sport engines. The likes of which are included in RTR truggies and monster trucks.
More later... people comming in the store..
11-10-2007, 04:16 PM
#119
Tech Adept
The opinions
In the end, adding classes adds time to the race day, dilutes other known classes, and spreads a known user-base thinner than it already is. Any serious off road racers who want to cross over will likely do so with an on-road specific race car built for on-road racing. Your pool for new racers to fill the class are likely other R/C racers who are looking to wade into the shallow end or new R/C hobbyists looking for something less intimidating to start out with. By the time they have worn out their engine, they will step up to something faster, or choose to stay in the class and replace the engine with an OEM lump. Don't give anyone the chance to buy a Centax clutch, and they won't. If they do, they can't use it in this class. Pretty simple. That's what rules are for.
Doug
In the end, adding classes adds time to the race day, dilutes other known classes, and spreads a known user-base thinner than it already is. Any serious off road racers who want to cross over will likely do so with an on-road specific race car built for on-road racing. Your pool for new racers to fill the class are likely other R/C racers who are looking to wade into the shallow end or new R/C hobbyists looking for something less intimidating to start out with. By the time they have worn out their engine, they will step up to something faster, or choose to stay in the class and replace the engine with an OEM lump. Don't give anyone the chance to buy a Centax clutch, and they won't. If they do, they can't use it in this class. Pretty simple. That's what rules are for.
Doug
11-10-2007, 05:50 PM
#120
I have no problem with hearing from the RC-pro people (or anyone else), on this topic. One of the reasons I started this as a seperate thread from the MWS, is to hear from a wider base...
For the MWS, several different classes of the same type of car, will not work.
As mentioned, this class is intended as a possible replacement for the extinct 235 class.
The MWS is a somewhat different operation than a 'static' facillity (be it club or commercial track). Since we move around to different sites throughout the season (and other reasons), our thrust must be--to appeal to existing racers. Whereas, the club or commercial track must be concerned with getting new people into the hobby.
If we are to add this class, I want it to have as broad appeal as possible. I would like to see it as a less expensive class, but we are not usually in a position to do a lot of 'tech'. Limmiting it to buggy-based cars like the IGT or OFNA Ultra GTP, or even self-converted buggies, helps. The biggest problem is engines. I like the idea of limiting it to .28 (maximum) sport engines. The likes of which are included in RTR truggies and monster trucks.
More later... people comming in the store..
For the MWS, several different classes of the same type of car, will not work.
As mentioned, this class is intended as a possible replacement for the extinct 235 class.
The MWS is a somewhat different operation than a 'static' facillity (be it club or commercial track). Since we move around to different sites throughout the season (and other reasons), our thrust must be--to appeal to existing racers. Whereas, the club or commercial track must be concerned with getting new people into the hobby.
If we are to add this class, I want it to have as broad appeal as possible. I would like to see it as a less expensive class, but we are not usually in a position to do a lot of 'tech'. Limmiting it to buggy-based cars like the IGT or OFNA Ultra GTP, or even self-converted buggies, helps. The biggest problem is engines. I like the idea of limiting it to .28 (maximum) sport engines. The likes of which are included in RTR truggies and monster trucks.
More later... people comming in the store..
Thanks Duneland!
It seems old “Apex” & “Mr. My Leaky Diff” are suffering from that nasty anti- RC Pro Series virus.
As far as people putting Mario sleeves in “factory” Kyosho engines in our RC Pro Series “Stock GT” class, you don’t have to tear every motor apart, no that would be ignorant. All that needs to be checked is the winner’s car.
The best thing will be when someone is caught, that their name & picture be posted so they can be marked as a “low life cheater” and barred from future events.
Jack Nicholson that said it best: “This town needs an enema!”