Speyederjedi

iTrader: (1)

Rumor has it that Kyosho will be releasing another version of the IGT2 with upgrades, including a new 2-speed trans. January or February. We'll have to wait and see. I myself have run the OFNA DM-1 Spec and now run the Kyosho IGT with plenty of upgrades. The car is way better than my DM-1 was. Love the car but may have to switch over to the Cobra GT.

*1speedy

iTrader: (12)

Lack of the reigning president’s courtesy to respond to many inquires over the last year and a half should make the answer Very Clear


Silence is roars way not to offend but roar has been offending for years. Obvious why so many use another four lettered word to describe roar I believe it starts with S and ends with T. The Smell attracts flys

mikemyers

There's a similar discussion going on at SGRID:
http://www.sgrid.com/forum/showthrea...=8118#post8118

Chris K suggested I look at the discussion here, and I just found it.


As I said on SGRID, anything's easy to do when you're not the one who has to do it. Rather than complain to ROAR about what's not done, maybe the racers themselves should put together a set of rules, and submit it to ROAR for consideration?

That's how the discussion on SGRID got started. It's also how the 1/10 on-road class came to be, so many years ago. ROAR listed the rules for a 1-year "provisional class rules" evaluation before making them official.

Anyway, I spoke to Ted Hammer about this last night. Ted tells me that the Midwest Series already has a set of rules, and they're going to be used at the upcoming Great Lakes Challenge race this coming August. I copied those rules to the above discussion on SGRID, and added a few suggestions (in red) to allow them to include a GTE class so electric cars can also compete. It's all in response #8 in the above discussion.

mikemyers

Think about it - if you were volunteering for something, and people coming to you with a request had that kind of attitude, why would you bother to even respond?

Instead of asking ROAR to provide a set of rules, which a huge number of people will probably argue against, whatever the rules might be, why not communicate with others and come up with our own set of rules to submit to ROAR?



Once you've read the (very simple) set of rules that got posted on SGRID, including the wording for electrics, please respond if anything needs to be changed or added. The goal was to submit the final result to ROAR in a few weeks.

C-Trickle

iTrader: (2)

http://www.rctech.net/forum/nitro-ro...p-sharing.html

*1speedy

iTrader: (12)

Since you quoted me I will reply,

As I posted, it has been over a year with NO REPLY of any kind. Not sure why you singled my post out but if you are referring to my sarcasm as attitude so be it. GT8 racers waited well over a year B4 this thread was posted, but obviously still are in hope but just disgusted in the time frame that has exhausted.

After ample amount of time others have waited for nothing done this type of sarcasm often follows incompetence. This is my personal theory.

If it offends you forgive me.

The GT8 community has begun rule making hopefully to share with roar and whoever wants to join in.

Clete would have his fingers on the pulse I suggest you speak to him; I am just an observer & a GT8/Enthusiast.

Clete can be found on the link below.

As to what is happening in the Midwest that’s great!!

Might be some wisdom to have them speak up on the rules and setup thread that is ongoing with GT8 racers across this country and others here on RCTech. Positive discussions have been going on for some time now and the more that help with input the better, here is the link.


http://www.rctech.net/forum/nitro-ro...p-sharing.html

mikemyers

C-trickle, thanks, I'll check out that thread. Is there a summary there for what rules people finally came up with? If so, what is the "response number"?

1speedy, I'm not offended, but remember, the guys at ROAR are volunteers. They've probably got a huge list of things to do, and for whatever reason, they haven't gotten to this yet.

"Anything is easy to do, when you're not the guy that has to do it." Specifically regarding ROAR, there's an election coming up. Maybe you guys should support someone who you feel will be more helpful to what you're asking for. As I said, I'll check that link, probably later this afternoon.


If you'd like to do so, go to the thread on SGRID, scroll down to the latest version of the proposed rules (which right now are slightly modified rules from the MWS), [copy] it and [paste] including any changes or additions you think would be helpful.

For example, if you think there should be a spec for maximum width, and don't know what exact dimension you'd want, just write "maximum width: ?????" and leave it for someone else to fill in.

There's no advertising on the page, and no preference for any brand over another.

If you'd rather discuss it on the link you posted for RC Tech, just do the copy and paste to that thread.



A bazillion years ago, that's how the 1/10 on-road rules got developed - this at a time when the only car for sale in that category was the Serpent Impact 10, and if I remember correctly, the Delta Fireball. The racers came up with rules, ROAR listed them as a "Provisional Class", and the following year an official set of rules was posted, based on that year's experience.

If we all more or less agree on it, we can try to get ROAR to accept the MWS rules (possibly with the electric class additions) and use that for the 2013 "GT and GTE Provisional Rules".

(I'd also like to be able to copy the latest version of whatever we're coming up with, and send it to Ted Hammer in the next week or so, for possible use at the 2012 Great Lakes Challenge race. That could be a test, before sending it on to ROAR.)

scary_jerry

Mike Myers.....

I was enjoying some measure of 'progress' with some Nitro GT8 enthusiasts that do recognize there is a set of 'midwest' GT rules of sort. Good start.

Some people get tired of 'inaction' and take charge. May they have wind in their sails!!!!

How long should it take to 'strike' the "kickup"chassis rule, Ofna has been allowed 'forever'....TeamC is flat....

But please Mike....let the electric guys do their own 'due diligence' and not hinder the racers that are trying to get organized to have nitro rules for GT8.

I've even pictured an 'invitational Kyosho' like Tamiya does....by darn.....everyone will run 'kickup' at that one!!!! (just no electrics!!!)

( yep...Jlock, I had been given bad info on CobraGT...correction made)

JLock

iTrader: (4)

You might want to recheck this one again. The Cobra GT is not a flat chassis as it is the same chassis from their offroad buggy. It has a lower degree of kickup but nevertheless, there is kickup in their chassis.

mikemyers

Scary_jerry, if you look at the modified (to include electric) MWS rules now posted in response #10 at:
http://www.sgrid.com/forum/showthrea...ull=1#post8120
....how would you revise them because of your concerns?

Also, in one sentence, can you explain why there is a big fuss either way about "kick up"?


I'm not trying to hinder anyone. If anything, it's the opposite. Starting with the MWS rules as now posted, I'm asking how you guys would prefer to see things modified (and why).

C-Trickle

iTrader: (2)

Not really a big fuss about kick up. But most clubs had a rule of that the chassis had to retain factory kick up. So no flattening out your chassis. However with the DM1, GTP, and now the Team C all having flat chassis's. I dunno. Guess that would another rule that would have to be put to a vote.

scary_jerry

No fuss about the 'kickup', just trying to indicate that the verbage should be fixed in the rules process because there have been allowances made for the 'non-complying' chassis to date.

Just like the technical nature of the $200.00 engine cost bracket. Please let that state.....$200.00 or less (ignoring taxes and shipping)

I still get a chuckle out of the question I saw once about 'working tail-lights' being required. Look at the way these are written. Maybe this go-round we can clear all these up.

And for 'azeroth', I saw no intent on my part to be involved in a 'limiting' on any one using, owning, or enjoying a chassis that doesn't have 'kickup'. The 'kickup' is a non-issue but it's mention needs refinement to better fulfill the total understanding of the 'nitro GT8 race class'.

As for putting the electric GT and nitro GT classes together, I'm wondering if anyone can say how that is a good thing. There are very different power outputs. I don't think I've seen 1/10 nitro class have to fit in 1/10 electrics.

Again, for clarification....This effort is to GET a set of widely accepted rules that can be used far and wide as a base. Yes, areas would be able to adjust as needed....I would seek to make engine pre-heaters mandatory in the Arctic and maybe 'spikey tires' for ice tracks.......... But to date, this topic has been like pulling teeth and too many 'nay-sayers' can't get with the flow.

If someone OWNS these basic rules because they have 'squatter rights'...step forward. Otherwise, let the common use proceed.

Yes, elections for ROAR will be coming up. Does anyone know of a 'nitro' friendly GT8 type in existence that could further, not hamper the 'nitro GT8' cause???

(nitro GT8 thread)

C-Trickle

iTrader: (2)

I dunno about the working tail-lights jazz. But I do agree that when cutting material from the rear of the body, that the tail lights must be left intact.

scary_jerry

re-read

C-Trickle

iTrader: (2)

Re-read what? Doesn't really explain your thought.