R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Nitro On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-31-2005, 01:42 PM   #361
Tech Master
 
ROBBIE C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sunny Cali race land.
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via AIM to ROBBIE C Send a message via Yahoo to ROBBIE C
Default

Hey John i just want to get this thing off the ground I no there will be problems but I rather deal with them as they come instead of talking about them.
I feal talk is cheap I don't want to look back and this be lost in conversation.
ROBBIE C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 02:04 PM   #362
Tech Elite
 
duneland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NW Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,403
Default

Let's keep the dialog going & as positive as possible.
I have reservations about making the engine limitation based on porting as opposed to price. If the idea is to keep costs down (after identifying high price as the cullpret responsible for dwindling participation), why use port count as the criteria? I don't see the number of ports to have much to do with either price or performance. It is but one variable that affects performance & has little to do with price. It makes more sense to me to take a long look at what engines are available in the target price range, and make up a list of those engines. It can be ammended to keep up with factors such as, inflation, new engines, etc.
I don't know about a spec tire either, market pressure is bringing down the price of tires now. Hopefully that will continue.
My fear is; If our regulations don't directly reduce the cost (even if it is just the engine), all we would accomplish is to split the existing participants, as opposed to increasing participation.
duneland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 03:37 PM   #363
Tech Master
 
ROBBIE C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sunny Cali race land.
Posts: 1,217
Send a message via AIM to ROBBIE C Send a message via Yahoo to ROBBIE C
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duneland
Let's keep the dialog going & as positive as possible.
I have reservations about making the engine limitation based on porting as opposed to price. If the idea is to keep costs down (after identifying high price as the cullpret responsible for dwindling participation), why use port count as the criteria? I don't see the number of ports to have much to do with either price or performance. It is but one variable that affects performance & has little to do with price. It makes more sense to me to take a long look at what engines are available in the target price range, and make up a list of those engines. It can be ammended to keep up with factors such as, inflation, new engines, etc.
I don't know about a spec tire either, market pressure is bringing down the price of tires now. Hopefully that will continue.
My fear is; If our regulations don't directly reduce the cost (even if it is just the engine), all we would accomplish is to split the existing participants, as opposed to increasing participation.
Being on both ends of the hobby I no about what cost what, example JP stock 5 port off road compeditive motor is $279.99
JP stock 7 port on road compeditive motor is $462.99..........$213.99 difference.
Modify motors are even more add another $150.00 if you want modify.
I checked the prices on different 5 port engines and found the majority of them are priced under the $300.00 range.
The reason why 5 ports were chosen was because we felt 3 port were simply to slow for on road.

Here are some of the 5 port off road brands that are priced under $300.00
Navarossi P5
JP
Top
O.S.
RB
Rex
PICCO
ROBBIE C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 04:11 PM   #364
Tech Elite
 
Carl Giordano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upper Saddle RIver, NJ
Posts: 2,301
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duneland
Let's keep the dialog going & as positive as possible.
I have reservations about making the engine limitation based on porting as opposed to price. If the idea is to keep costs down (after identifying high price as the cullpret responsible for dwindling participation), why use port count as the criteria? I don't see the number of ports to have much to do with either price or performance. It is but one variable that affects performance & has little to do with price. It makes more sense to me to take a long look at what engines are available in the target price range, and make up a list of those engines. It can be ammended to keep up with factors such as, inflation, new engines, etc.
I don't know about a spec tire either, market pressure is bringing down the price of tires now. Hopefully that will continue.
My fear is; If our regulations don't directly reduce the cost (even if it is just the engine), all we would accomplish is to split the existing participants, as opposed to increasing participation.
Really its not just port counting...we also said non-modified engines and figured that up to 5 ports gives the racers viable options...You can run a 3-port if you want, so long as its not modified....were allowed turbo plugs so existing racers can have one type of glow plug...

John...this will be implemented over a period of time...its going to take a while for it to catch on....if we feel like its not working we can look at the reasons why and modify the guidelines...nothing is ever set in stone, especially at the club level....our goal is to minimize the cost...

I already know I get 3mm of rear tire wear (each qualifier) at my local club with a JP modified...if over the life of a season I can spare 2-3 maybe even 4 sets of tires, that will go a long way. I'm sure there are other club racers out there who may experience the same results.

The one thing that is going to be impossible to measure is the fun factor...if only 1 club has success with a SPEC class, than it was all worth it...

When I say
__________________
Mugen Racing / OS Engines / KO Propo / Byron Fuels / Schuur Speed Motors / AKA / Bruckner Hobbies / Tamiya M-Chassis / Kyosho / Yokomo / 360v2 Raceway / Cruzin with RC
Carl Giordano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 04:35 PM   #365
Tech Regular
 
jrabbito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Giordano
The one thing that is going to be impossible to measure is the fun factor...if only 1 club has success with a SPEC class, than it was all worth it...
This is all that matters
jrabbito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 09:04 PM   #366
Tech Master
 
Tire Chunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,241
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default 1/8th Cost BS Discussion

This whole discussion is pointless!!! There is now a RTR for $400. I don't know if it is crap or not but any spec class should just use this car out of the box.

But if we are looking to set a SPEC class so that the A-Main is attainable, since the rich have a unfair advantage this is bunk. Screw the SPEC class and practice more, pissing and moaning about not being able to win due to motor pricing is foolish.

I run a MRX-3 bought used with a used motor, I am not a A-Main racer and never will be. I love racing in my main with the racers of my own caliber. The more we race the more we improve-period.
Tire Chunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 10:22 PM   #367
Tech Master
 
theRED5's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: near Athens,GA
Posts: 1,022
Default

I've come up through the ranks, too. Started with electrics, moved to nitro TC tried 235's ran them a year, went back to TC's, and now run a MRX3 I bought used, running an engine I bought used, and win every once in a while.

If you're gonna make a spec class, make it different from the full on 8ths, with Lola's....What about using TA or GT bodies, like your not allowed to run in the TC's, Corvettes, or whatever, just so, since they'll probably be running with the other 8ths, anyone can tell the difference.

Okay, let me have it, I'm ready.
__________________
I [I]AM [/I]the Driver !

Murnan Modified Motors

Mugen MRx4

Rocket Science Fuels

Auto Racing, Mountain climbing, and Bull fighting are the only true sports, all the rest are just games.
theRED5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 10:46 PM   #368
Tech Elite
 
Francis M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 4,719
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

I don't think this discussion is pointless. We got the roar prez in here with some input. Mugen, Crystal park and Rev race is already gonna start something locally. I don't know about you guys but most of the RTR motors ive seen don't last long so how is that gonna help lower costs.

I commend mugen for helping this class get off the ground and making it simple and practical so it can actually be done.

Like Robbie stated There are already a list of low cost high quality engines that will qualify in this class.

I know that the tire could be cheaper, fuel, etc. etc. but it has to get started somehow.

Francis M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 11:04 PM   #369
Tech Initiate
 
Tzadkiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 35
Default

Actually it doesn't have to get started somehow

If someone wants to save money, they shouldn't run 1/8. 1/8 is an expensive class; the cars have lots of power and are heavy.

I really don't like the idea of a spec 1/8 class. We have too many classes as it is. Remember super 10? 235mm 2WD, then 4WD outlaw? Every time we get a good thing going we split up the classes based on car specifications. It makes more sense for everyone in 1/8 to run with the same rules and split up the drivers based on skill (we've had GREAT luck with a self-declared Sportsman class here at RAMS). It's simple economics -- we don't have a billion racers showing up every race day, and it's a lot more fun to race against 40 other racers than it is to race against 10 other racers. That's one of the problems (IM not-so HO) with electric. Are you running brushless or mod? Stock? 19T? The classes are so fractured it's ridiculous.

We need to keep 1/8 monolithic. It's small enough as it is today; we don't need to be breaking it up in the interest of cost. If we break it up, then the clubs that have only 18 people showing up will now have two different groups -- maybe a group of 10, and another group of 8. How much fun is that? During a 15-minute main, maybe three guys have problems, and 5 guys finish the race. Whoop-de-doo, you ran against a total of four guys in your main.

I just really believe that we aren't big enough to fracture our class.

Tz
Tzadkiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 06:40 AM   #370
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 7,211
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Here's some interesting info,

Last weekend I was at the Region 1 Touring Car Championships. We ran 3 classes of electric and 1 nitro class. There were 15 in stock, 20 in 19t and 5 in mod. Some of those were in 2 classes.

There were 34 nitro TC entries. Although TC is limited to 3 port engines, there are some expensive 3 port engines out there. Everyone knew this, yet they raced anyway.

A spec engine for 1/8 may be a good idea to try and contain costs, but I don't think it's what the racers want.
jiml is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 07:01 AM   #371
Tech Regular
 
jrabbito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 265
Default

This has all been hashed out alread guys. One person gives their opinion another shoots it down etc...and so on.

I was thinking alot about this and I am still on the same train of thought as others that a SPEC class with similar rules just wont work.

1/8 Onroad in essence is about the extremes. Motor, car, tires, etc...

If everyone is looking at a spec class I suggesting taking a look at something similar to Serpents Porsche Cup 235 series. I am not saying that this is the answer but a spec class with International competition, supported by a manufacturer is the only way I see this happening.

1/8 insn't cheap, its isn't affordable for everyone.....and nor should it be. As someone mentioned previously you can get used equipment at excellelent prices. It may not be the best but have fun running in whatever main that takes you.

If we limit 1/8 to a "spec" class in my opinion (worth all of a penny) we are taking away the core essence of what the class is all about...extremes.

John

P.S. Remember also that if you begin a spec class locally that those people who invested in it would not be able to run at any major events. They would have to RE-INVEST in other equipment.

I also agree with the comment that the class isnt big enough to support a fracture like this.
jrabbito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 07:41 AM   #372
Tech Elite
 
Carl Giordano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upper Saddle RIver, NJ
Posts: 2,301
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

This has gotten to be a waste of time...good luck guys continuing to spending big $$$ on engines and inflating your racing budgets more than needed....

Hoepfully a few clubs will read into what was discussed here and establish some sort SPEC guidelines to help control the rising costs of 1/8th racing...
__________________
Mugen Racing / OS Engines / KO Propo / Byron Fuels / Schuur Speed Motors / AKA / Bruckner Hobbies / Tamiya M-Chassis / Kyosho / Yokomo / 360v2 Raceway / Cruzin with RC
Carl Giordano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 07:56 AM   #373
Tech Regular
 
jrabbito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 265
Default

Carl,

I don't think that a viable 1/8 alternative is a waste of time. You are to be credited with at minimum starting this discussion. In an open discussion you will always hear both sides, and many opionions you will disagree with.

I am talking from personal experience in other forms of motorsport, where spec classes have been COMPLETE failures. Maybe it is applicable, maybe not. But because people do not agree with your opions doesn't mean you should stop what you have started.

I think at the core you have 2 sides. One made of people (like myslef) that worries a SPEC class will only steal people from an already thin 1/8 Open class in certain areas. The other side beleives that spec engines, and a few other tweaks are all that is needed.

No one in here has said (I beleive) that some "form" of a spec class is a bad idea.

Even though others and myself disagree with viability of a spec class based solely on "motors" doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that it wont work if done properly. But I state again to please listen to people who have been through this process already. Starting a spec class and then adding rules as you go is a COMPLETE waste, and might damage what could be a great idea.

If you ever want to talk about SPECIFIC instances that I have been involved with please do not hesitate to pm me. I would be more than happy to share them.

John
jrabbito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 08:20 AM   #374
Tech Elite
 
jeffreylin's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Traction Roll!
Posts: 2,564
Default

I see a Nova Max ad in XRC magazine that shows John Rabbito to be the sales contact for Max--is that you jrabbito?

If so, I'd say that your opinion might be biased.

The spec engine idea, however implemented, is to encourage people to join this class of racing, and not take people away from the existing 1/8 class. Even though the saving might not be great when all considered it still will be perceived as costing less, lowering the barrier of entry.

The more people running 1/8 the better it would be for 1/8. The healthy 1/10 TC market attests to that. Ultimately, if we can get more people to join the rank, then more people will eventually be racing 1/8 open class.
jeffreylin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 08:26 AM   #375
M7H
Tech Elite
 
M7H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,196
Default

I totally agree on that.....

Even though the 1/8 "spec" class might be slower then the 1/10 class, it might just be that people do start again with 1/8 scale racing only for the fact that it is a 1/8 scale car you are running, and the excitment of the cornering speed of these babies is incredible.......
__________________
Serpent
M7H is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inferno GT Popularity Bob Malphurs Georgia Racing 4 08-09-2008 07:57 AM
Popularity of 4WD Drift_Buggy Electric Off-Road 86 11-20-2007 01:05 PM
Is electric off-road on its way back to popularity?? Speedyjay Electric Off-Road 23 03-03-2007 04:24 PM
Buggy popularity igkyoa Electric Off-Road 4 10-31-2003 10:58 AM
What do TCs mean for 2wd/4wd Class Popularity Offroad? Radio Active Australian Racing 14 09-15-2003 04:36 PM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 06:37 AM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net