GT class--buggy-based on road!
10-20-2008, 09:35 AM
#1321
as far as I can see nothing is changed; only the color of the alum parts has changed from silver to blue anodized
10-20-2008, 10:40 AM
#1322
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (32)
The current 1:8 Buggy dimensional specs are:
Wheelbase Min 270mm or 10.6299 inches
Wheelbase Max 330mm or 12.9921 Inches
Width Max 310mm or
The currently available GT Cars dimensions are
IGT width is 310mm / Wheelbase 325mm
IGT2 width is 310mm / Wheelbase 360mm
DM1 width is 335mm / Wheelbase 330mm
10-20-2008, 10:58 AM
#1323
10-20-2008, 11:36 AM
#1324
I have to throw in my 2 cents worth on the DM1 being legal or not...
It uses an off road drive line set up, off road gearboxes, and diffs, so on, and so on...So my point is this, the only thing on the car that might be construed as "on-road" is the chassis plate...That IMO doesn't take it out of class...
I forsee the DM1 becoming very popular for this class of racing, and it would be (again IMO) very unfair to eliminate it from the class...
My take on the ruling is NO Belt drive cars (true on road car) converted to GT bodies, and specs...
I'd rather the class is be a spec class, but I feel with all the different cars that are available that it'd be very hard to limit everyone to what they can run. Set base rules for everyone, and then...
Have Fun...Burn Nitro...
Rob B.
It uses an off road drive line set up, off road gearboxes, and diffs, so on, and so on...So my point is this, the only thing on the car that might be construed as "on-road" is the chassis plate...That IMO doesn't take it out of class...
I forsee the DM1 becoming very popular for this class of racing, and it would be (again IMO) very unfair to eliminate it from the class...
My take on the ruling is NO Belt drive cars (true on road car) converted to GT bodies, and specs...
I'd rather the class is be a spec class, but I feel with all the different cars that are available that it'd be very hard to limit everyone to what they can run. Set base rules for everyone, and then...
Have Fun...Burn Nitro...
Rob B.
10-20-2008, 11:37 AM
#1325
Shock pistons are the same brass pistons IG001-2
Does this help http://www.kyosho.com/eng/support/in...ogt_index.html ?
Does this help http://www.kyosho.com/eng/support/in...ogt_index.html ?
10-20-2008, 11:54 AM
#1326
The point I was trying to get across is this:
When the “only game in town” was the IGT car, everyone raced the same chassis and it was much easier to run in a level playing field. Tech was much easier too and for the most part, the racers were all happy.
I realize that many manufacturers have products that should be part of the class to help it to grow larger and it’s not fair to them to be excluded as in the past.
But let’s make this point perfectly clear to all: They were all contacted when the rules were being made over a year ago and didn’t respond then.
Now that Roar is “jumping on the “GT” bandwagon” (which may or may not be a good thing) care should be taken to make sure new chassis designs are really buggy based in nature.
If that rule is not specific and any “grey’ areas are left open in the chassis rule then it will only be a matter of time before the introduction of a chassis that will exploit the lax writing of the rules.
Someone could easily produce a “GT” with a spool or one-way set-up or a streamlined chassis that would have more in common with an 1/8 scale on-road car ( minus the belt drives ) that would offer a huge advantage over what is currently available today.
There needs to be weight limits to these chassis too and I believe the IGT are the lighter of the available “GT” car chassis today. I don’t think it would show “fairness” by Roar to the “originator” of the “GT Spec Class” craze should have their chassis penalized for producing a chassis that weighs less.
There also needs to be a hard look at engines because there are also differences in the RTR engines right now. The IGT Spec engine is a factory 3 port .28 RTR design with pull start, while the DM1S RTR is a 5 port design .28 RTR engine. What’s next 7 or 9 ports from another manufacturer that wants to introduce more of a power advantage in their RTR packaging than the established “GT Spec” chassis now? ….. See where I’m going with this?
I think Roar should have gotten into the “GT Spec Class” a whole lot sooner or at least maybe start talking to the all manufacturers wanting to be involved, so that the class doesn’t become the “R/C business as usual” of building whatever they want and looking for “grey areas” to find the upper hand in a class that sculpted to offer a “level playing field” at an affordable price for its followers & growth of our sport in a more “mainstream direction”.
Just my 2 cents as one of the guys that helped start the whole "IGT Spec Class" craze
When the “only game in town” was the IGT car, everyone raced the same chassis and it was much easier to run in a level playing field. Tech was much easier too and for the most part, the racers were all happy.
I realize that many manufacturers have products that should be part of the class to help it to grow larger and it’s not fair to them to be excluded as in the past.
But let’s make this point perfectly clear to all: They were all contacted when the rules were being made over a year ago and didn’t respond then.
Now that Roar is “jumping on the “GT” bandwagon” (which may or may not be a good thing) care should be taken to make sure new chassis designs are really buggy based in nature.
If that rule is not specific and any “grey’ areas are left open in the chassis rule then it will only be a matter of time before the introduction of a chassis that will exploit the lax writing of the rules.
Someone could easily produce a “GT” with a spool or one-way set-up or a streamlined chassis that would have more in common with an 1/8 scale on-road car ( minus the belt drives ) that would offer a huge advantage over what is currently available today.
There needs to be weight limits to these chassis too and I believe the IGT are the lighter of the available “GT” car chassis today. I don’t think it would show “fairness” by Roar to the “originator” of the “GT Spec Class” craze should have their chassis penalized for producing a chassis that weighs less.
There also needs to be a hard look at engines because there are also differences in the RTR engines right now. The IGT Spec engine is a factory 3 port .28 RTR design with pull start, while the DM1S RTR is a 5 port design .28 RTR engine. What’s next 7 or 9 ports from another manufacturer that wants to introduce more of a power advantage in their RTR packaging than the established “GT Spec” chassis now? ….. See where I’m going with this?
I think Roar should have gotten into the “GT Spec Class” a whole lot sooner or at least maybe start talking to the all manufacturers wanting to be involved, so that the class doesn’t become the “R/C business as usual” of building whatever they want and looking for “grey areas” to find the upper hand in a class that sculpted to offer a “level playing field” at an affordable price for its followers & growth of our sport in a more “mainstream direction”.
Just my 2 cents as one of the guys that helped start the whole "IGT Spec Class" craze
10-20-2008, 12:13 PM
#1327
Tech Addict
iTrader: (43)
Jspeed, all your points are sound, but the truth is that there was an Ofna GT way before the IGT craze. Kyosho is a more race oriented co. and with their involvement with 1/8th scale rockets, it was a natural progression for their version of a GT car to be run in an official sanctioned race situation. You say that the other manufacturers did not respond early in the contact process but I would say that Ofna responded well by providing a shortened version of the DM1 so it would comply with the perliminary rules that currently exist. The original DM 1 has been out and raced for quite along time, if you owned a big company like Ofna, who has had offers like this before that they got burned(1/8th scale stadium trucks based on buggys that Ofna and Kyosho produced and were raced on a world class level many years ago only to burn out in two race seasons)would you jump into it right away. My point is that we, the customers who spend the money for the cars tires servos racing fees fuel and marriages should not be penalized for liking and being familiar with one brand over another because said co. didnt jump on the rules bandwagon early enough.
10-20-2008, 12:14 PM
#1328
Tech Elite
Thread Starter
I have no problem with the DM1 from technical standpoint. There is nothing to prevent manufacturers from using the same arrangement on a buggy. It's done in 1/10 scale...
My issue is cost. If we want the class to be inexpensive, then a cap must be placed on vehicles price.
My issue is cost. If we want the class to be inexpensive, then a cap must be placed on vehicles price.
10-20-2008, 12:36 PM
#1329
Tech Addict
iTrader: (43)
I have no problem with the DM1 from technical standpoint. There is nothing to prevent manufacturers from using the same arrangement on a buggy. It's done in 1/10 scale...
My issue is cost. If we want the class to be inexpensive, then a cap must be placed on vehicles price.
My issue is cost. If we want the class to be inexpensive, then a cap must be placed on vehicles price.
10-20-2008, 01:55 PM
#1330
Hey guys I want to get into some technical question that could be answered for the Dm-1 pipe set up, if your going to put on an optional pipe which would be a one-pc. like our JP series pipes you would need to change the header/manifold to a double bend hdr/mani so it can clear the hingepin brace the part number you would be looking for would be 97505 or you can also get the 086 pipe 10056 high speed, 063 pipe 10057 low torque pipe,10077 mid range pipe or the 807 mid range pipe all these pipes offer the double bend manifold.
10-20-2008, 01:55 PM
#1331
Out of curiosity, How many of the cars, that are on the Amain 1,2,3 podium of the "Spec" class, are using the stock RTR radio and servos? I'm guessing these drivers have $200-300 invested on top of their initial IGT RTR purchase. We have no GT classes running in my neck of the woods, so I have to ask.
10-20-2008, 02:08 PM
#1332
Hey guys I want to get into some technical question that could be answered for the Dm-1 pipe set up, if your going to put on an optional pipe which would be a one-pc. like our JP series pipes you would need to change the header/manifold to a double bend hdr/mani so it can clear the hingepin brace the part number you would be looking for would be 97505 or you can also get the 086 pipe 10056 high speed, 063 pipe 10057 low torque pipe,10077 mid range pipe or the 807 mid range pipe all these pipes offer the double bend manifold.
FYI, the manifold that comes with the 807 pipe is a shorter tuned length, and will soften up the bottom end too much IMO (I tested it a bunch on the Hyper 8 Port engines, and found the 97505 to be far superior in overall power output, especially in torque, and aceleration)...The 97505 is the same manifold for all 3 Ofna pipe/(086, 053, 063) manifold sets...
Have Fun...Burn Nitro...
10-20-2008, 07:09 PM
#1333
I think its great for the class that companies have realized that the “GT Spec Class” concept has great growth potential and are starting to get involved.
This discussion should be considered a positive for all of us involved in the class, since we’ve heard no official statements on this thread from Roar as to their organization’s view-points or the actual “players” who are making the “rules”, when there have been “rules” for a while now.
True, the basic rules being followed by many tracks in North America & several other countries are derived from what Bernie @ Leisure Hours & RC Pro were for IGT only, the “spirit” of these rules are easily adaptable to many other chassis.
The engine rules need to be addressed by Roar, not only be price, but by port configuration too. Kyosho IGT RTR engines are 3 port and Ofna RTR engines are 5 port, what’s next the “XYZ Brand” chassis with a 9 port?
Since Roar has been slow to react, its obvious that there is still plenty of time for any “GT” product to get “Grand-Father-in” status until the rules are formally handed down to the rest of us.
It will be interesting to see how & what Roar decides to do with the “GT Spec” class.
I can say this, as a person that did call the R/C manufacturers over a year ago predicting the growth in popularity of the “GT Spec” class concept.....if the door is left wide open for too long it will kill Roar's new class off just as fast as it grew with the racers, tracks & shops that have supported the original "IGT Spec Class" concept to begin with.
Frankie, congrats on your Podium finish!
This discussion should be considered a positive for all of us involved in the class, since we’ve heard no official statements on this thread from Roar as to their organization’s view-points or the actual “players” who are making the “rules”, when there have been “rules” for a while now.
True, the basic rules being followed by many tracks in North America & several other countries are derived from what Bernie @ Leisure Hours & RC Pro were for IGT only, the “spirit” of these rules are easily adaptable to many other chassis.
The engine rules need to be addressed by Roar, not only be price, but by port configuration too. Kyosho IGT RTR engines are 3 port and Ofna RTR engines are 5 port, what’s next the “XYZ Brand” chassis with a 9 port?
Since Roar has been slow to react, its obvious that there is still plenty of time for any “GT” product to get “Grand-Father-in” status until the rules are formally handed down to the rest of us.
It will be interesting to see how & what Roar decides to do with the “GT Spec” class.
I can say this, as a person that did call the R/C manufacturers over a year ago predicting the growth in popularity of the “GT Spec” class concept.....if the door is left wide open for too long it will kill Roar's new class off just as fast as it grew with the racers, tracks & shops that have supported the original "IGT Spec Class" concept to begin with.
Frankie, congrats on your Podium finish!
10-20-2008, 07:49 PM
#1334
[/COLOR]
If engine ports are a concern to you, then read this, I hope it will no longer be a concern to you after reading it. please don't get offended, (just to help you understand more about engine ports)
This is from RON PARIS:
COMMON ENGINE QUESTION - HOW MANY PORTS DOES AN ENGINE NEED?
More is not indicative of being better. If more ports were the only solution to more power, all engines would have maximum number of ports. Simply put, there is only so much room for ports in any given displacement engine. Some engines with twice the ports can have less total port area. This is not good or bad - it is just different. Every thing is a combination of many variables. Some of the most powerful engines I have built were three ports! We top qualified the world championships in Holland with a three port engine while many of the competitors were using 5, 6, 7 and even 8 port engines and we had the fastest top speeds displayed on the board. It is true in most cases that within any brand of engine their power ratings go up with the amount of ports, but this is due to more than just the quantity of ports. Generally there are many other components in the engine that have more refined or modified parts than those with less ports, complementing the combination. You can only compare the quantity of ports between engines of the same manufacture. They all have their own combinations. In other words, brand A’s 17 port may or may not run equal to brand B’s 29 port.
by the late RON PARIS.
I think its great for the class that companies have realized that the “GT Spec Class” concept has great growth potential and are starting to get involved.
This discussion should be considered a positive for all of us involved in the class, since we’ve heard no official statements on this thread from Roar as to their organization’s view-points or the actual “players” who are making the “rules”, when there have been “rules” for a while now.
True, the basic rules being followed by many tracks in North America & several other countries are derived from what Bernie @ Leisure Hours & RC Pro were for IGT only, the “spirit” of these rules are easily adaptable to many other chassis.
The engine rules need to be addressed by Roar, not only be price, but by port configuration too. Kyosho IGT RTR engines are 3 port and Ofna RTR engines are 5 port, what’s next the “XYZ Brand” chassis with a 9 port?
Since Roar has been slow to react, its obvious that there is still plenty of time for any “GT” product to get “Grand-Father-in” status until the rules are formally handed down to the rest of us.
It will be interesting to see how & what Roar decides to do with the “GT Spec” class.
I can say this, as a person that did call the R/C manufacturers over a year ago predicting the growth in popularity of the “GT Spec” class concept.....if the door is left wide open for too long it will kill Roar's new class off just as fast as it grew with the racers, tracks & shops that have supported the original "IGT Spec Class" concept to begin with.
Frankie, congrats on your Podium finish!
This discussion should be considered a positive for all of us involved in the class, since we’ve heard no official statements on this thread from Roar as to their organization’s view-points or the actual “players” who are making the “rules”, when there have been “rules” for a while now.
True, the basic rules being followed by many tracks in North America & several other countries are derived from what Bernie @ Leisure Hours & RC Pro were for IGT only, the “spirit” of these rules are easily adaptable to many other chassis.
The engine rules need to be addressed by Roar, not only be price, but by port configuration too. Kyosho IGT RTR engines are 3 port and Ofna RTR engines are 5 port, what’s next the “XYZ Brand” chassis with a 9 port?
Since Roar has been slow to react, its obvious that there is still plenty of time for any “GT” product to get “Grand-Father-in” status until the rules are formally handed down to the rest of us.
It will be interesting to see how & what Roar decides to do with the “GT Spec” class.
I can say this, as a person that did call the R/C manufacturers over a year ago predicting the growth in popularity of the “GT Spec” class concept.....if the door is left wide open for too long it will kill Roar's new class off just as fast as it grew with the racers, tracks & shops that have supported the original "IGT Spec Class" concept to begin with.
Frankie, congrats on your Podium finish!
This is from RON PARIS:
COMMON ENGINE QUESTION - HOW MANY PORTS DOES AN ENGINE NEED?
More is not indicative of being better. If more ports were the only solution to more power, all engines would have maximum number of ports. Simply put, there is only so much room for ports in any given displacement engine. Some engines with twice the ports can have less total port area. This is not good or bad - it is just different. Every thing is a combination of many variables. Some of the most powerful engines I have built were three ports! We top qualified the world championships in Holland with a three port engine while many of the competitors were using 5, 6, 7 and even 8 port engines and we had the fastest top speeds displayed on the board. It is true in most cases that within any brand of engine their power ratings go up with the amount of ports, but this is due to more than just the quantity of ports. Generally there are many other components in the engine that have more refined or modified parts than those with less ports, complementing the combination. You can only compare the quantity of ports between engines of the same manufacture. They all have their own combinations. In other words, brand A’s 17 port may or may not run equal to brand B’s 29 port.
by the late RON PARIS.
10-20-2008, 07:51 PM
#1335
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (32)
I sense a bit of hostility in your comments regarding ROAR.
Considering RCP only established racing for the class in 2008, and for one Chassis, I dont think its fair to say ROAR is slow to react.
To be fair, ROAR is not about creating classes for One Design or Single Manufacturer. We will develop specifications so any manufacturer can develop equipment for use in the defined classes of thier choosing.
Discussions have take place over an extended period of time by Racing Committees, Manufacturers, Racers, Region Directors, Regional Race Series participants, etc. These take time to make sure a set of specifications do not favor one brand over another.
Many participants in these discussions have more than 20 years of racing, importing, organizing, Clubs or Events for Nitro OnRoad and want nothing more than create a Fun, Scale Appearing, Fair, Strong in Participation, and Budget Friendly racing formula for our members and Affiliates.
Considering RCP only established racing for the class in 2008, and for one Chassis, I dont think its fair to say ROAR is slow to react.
To be fair, ROAR is not about creating classes for One Design or Single Manufacturer. We will develop specifications so any manufacturer can develop equipment for use in the defined classes of thier choosing.
Discussions have take place over an extended period of time by Racing Committees, Manufacturers, Racers, Region Directors, Regional Race Series participants, etc. These take time to make sure a set of specifications do not favor one brand over another.
Many participants in these discussions have more than 20 years of racing, importing, organizing, Clubs or Events for Nitro OnRoad and want nothing more than create a Fun, Scale Appearing, Fair, Strong in Participation, and Budget Friendly racing formula for our members and Affiliates.