6295LikesUSGT
08-12-2017, 12:28 PM - Wikipost
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-30-2014, 02:02 PM
#3241
Tech Champion
iTrader: (32)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: In a land of mini-mighty mental giants
Posts: 8,854
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
I dont know what your doing but Im racing toy cars on a toy car race track not dropping things from a tall building racing gravity....and on the toy car race track the Riley does not hold any advantage there. Perception is only out done with results....and results show its not any advantage.
10-30-2014, 03:09 PM
#3242
Tech Fanatic
I dont know what your doing but Im racing toy cars on a toy car race track not dropping things from a tall building racing gravity....and on the toy car race track the Riley does not hold any advantage there. Perception is only out done with results....and results show its not any advantage.
10-30-2014, 04:13 PM
#3243
I dont know what your doing but Im racing toy cars on a toy car race track not dropping things from a tall building racing gravity....and on the toy car race track the Riley does not hold any advantage there. Perception is only out done with results....and results show its not any advantage.
My point about dropping the wedge and a box was to demonstrate that aero advantages exist with the shape of the object, whether you think so or not, it's the laws of physics.
Understand that I love DP and LPM racing, as well as GT, so I'm not picking on the DP and LMP cars. I am however confused as to why classing is as difficult as it's being made.
Don't mean to be an a-hole about this but anyone with a lick of common sense can see a major difference in the body styles, which has to make a difference on track with all chassis set-ups, and driving skills, being equal.
Tell us, what exactly is the difficulty in classing cars based on the real world classes in real racing? (that is a serious question that begs for a serious answer) It sure would reduce the confusion and it would make the class what was intended when it began....competitive spec racing with recognizable cars that were designed for the street.
There is a place for DP and LMP cars....make a class for them! We had a 1/12 class for LMP (GTP) back in the 80s and it was a class by itself....and amazingly it worked out great.
10-30-2014, 07:19 PM
#3244
Tech Champion
iTrader: (32)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: In a land of mini-mighty mental giants
Posts: 8,854
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Hello Sheldon Cooper
Really? (again) What 'results' are you talking about? Non-scientific, uncontrolled conditions, un-equal drivers...what? I'll bet the results you're talking about have come from results at races and not a controlled experiment, where real results happen.
My point about dropping the wedge and a box was to demonstrate that aero advantages exist with the shape of the object, whether you think so or not, it's the laws of physics.
Understand that I love DP and LPM racing, as well as GT, so I'm not picking on the DP and LMP cars. I am however confused as to why classing is as difficult as it's being made.
Don't mean to be an a-hole about this but anyone with a lick of common sense can see a major difference in the body styles, which has to make a difference on track with all chassis set-ups, and driving skills, being equal.
Tell us, what exactly is the difficulty in classing cars based on the real world classes in real racing? (that is a serious question that begs for a serious answer) It sure would reduce the confusion and it would make the class what was intended when it began....competitive spec racing with recognizable cars that were designed for the street.
There is a place for DP and LMP cars....make a class for them! We had a 1/12 class for LMP (GTP) back in the 80s and it was a class by itself....and amazingly it worked out great.
My point about dropping the wedge and a box was to demonstrate that aero advantages exist with the shape of the object, whether you think so or not, it's the laws of physics.
Understand that I love DP and LPM racing, as well as GT, so I'm not picking on the DP and LMP cars. I am however confused as to why classing is as difficult as it's being made.
Don't mean to be an a-hole about this but anyone with a lick of common sense can see a major difference in the body styles, which has to make a difference on track with all chassis set-ups, and driving skills, being equal.
Tell us, what exactly is the difficulty in classing cars based on the real world classes in real racing? (that is a serious question that begs for a serious answer) It sure would reduce the confusion and it would make the class what was intended when it began....competitive spec racing with recognizable cars that were designed for the street.
There is a place for DP and LMP cars....make a class for them! We had a 1/12 class for LMP (GTP) back in the 80s and it was a class by itself....and amazingly it worked out great.
First I have never disputed the laws of physics.
Second like I have said we have tested the Riley body and it had no advantage over anything else when it was being raced and not dropped from my front porch. Results are looking at what is being raced at big events that use USGT rules. At the Scale Nationals earlier this year there was a few of them at the race but it did not hold any advantage. If it did hold this advantage you would see them in the A-main at every race but the fact is that you dont. So keep dropping things from tall buildings I will be playing with my toy car on said toy car race track.
Third there is no need to have a list of approved bodies the class was setup with the KISS method....Keep It Simple Stupid. Lists just make things overly hard and too limited. Let racers race what type of body they like as long as it fits the outline of the class. Its really not that hard its only as hard as you are making it out to be.
We will clear up some wording in the rules but there will be no list of bodies.
10-30-2014, 07:27 PM
#3245
USGT
Amen...
10-30-2014, 11:34 PM
#3246
I think I know where you are going with this statement, but if it were a rule written just like that, then a crap ton of bodies would not be allowed. The rx7, rx8, saleen, gt40, mclaren, corvette. Blah blah. Basically any body that is not this model year. So that leaves well i cant think of any. Also this "known maker" is subject to interpretation. Some people know more about real car racing than others.
I have no issue with the McLaren, Corvette, Aston Martin, Ferrari or the Saleen, all of those cars can (or could) be purchased at a dealership, so that leaves bodies like the Riley, DP Corvette and the few other LMP / Prototype bodies currently available that would form their own class.
10-31-2014, 12:06 AM
#3247
Well you see I took the Riley DP body and dropped it from my porch and timed the free fall. Then I took my NSX body and performed the same test. Guess what...they both hit the ground then I walked to my car and drove to the race track to race my toy car.
First I have never disputed the laws of physics.
Second like I have said we have tested the Riley body and it had no advantage over anything else when it was being raced and not dropped from my front porch. Results are looking at what is being raced at big events that use USGT rules. At the Scale Nationals earlier this year there was a few of them at the race but it did not hold any advantage. If it did hold this advantage you would see them in the A-main at every race but the fact is that you dont. So keep dropping things from tall buildings I will be playing with my toy car on said toy car race track.
Third there is no need to have a list of approved bodies the class was setup with the KISS method....Keep It Simple Stupid. Lists just make things overly hard and too limited. Let racers race what type of body they like as long as it fits the outline of the class. Its really not that hard its only as hard as you are making it out to be.
We will clear up some wording in the rules but there will be no list of bodies.
First I have never disputed the laws of physics.
Second like I have said we have tested the Riley body and it had no advantage over anything else when it was being raced and not dropped from my front porch. Results are looking at what is being raced at big events that use USGT rules. At the Scale Nationals earlier this year there was a few of them at the race but it did not hold any advantage. If it did hold this advantage you would see them in the A-main at every race but the fact is that you dont. So keep dropping things from tall buildings I will be playing with my toy car on said toy car race track.
Third there is no need to have a list of approved bodies the class was setup with the KISS method....Keep It Simple Stupid. Lists just make things overly hard and too limited. Let racers race what type of body they like as long as it fits the outline of the class. Its really not that hard its only as hard as you are making it out to be.
We will clear up some wording in the rules but there will be no list of bodies.
Hope you're done having fun with my aero example, it was rather entertaining....not. By having your fun you were actually disputing the laws of physics, the funny thing about this is you can see there is a huge difference between a Riley and a Camaro....yet you won't acknowledge that the wedgy shape will go through the air better than the boxy shape....to the point of making fun of it.
You must not have been paying attention to anything I posted, I was trying to simplify this classing issue with 1 simple sentence that made things clear and relatively easy to understand for anyone not trying to bend the rules.
With the current selection of available GT bodies this class is far from 'limited'.
It's really not a big thing to me, it's not going to change what I run, do whatever you guys want to do. I was simply inserting some logic into the mix....and I get a commodian making jokes.
10-31-2014, 01:36 AM
#3248
Tech Champion
iTrader: (32)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: In a land of mini-mighty mental giants
Posts: 8,854
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
So, you done testing? Why you went out and dropped your toy cars off the porch is beyond me.
Hope you're done having fun with my aero example, it was rather entertaining....not. By having your fun you were actually disputing the laws of physics, the funny thing about this is you can see there is a huge difference between a Riley and a Camaro....yet you won't acknowledge that the wedgy shape will go through the air better than the boxy shape....to the point of making fun of it.
You must not have been paying attention to anything I posted, I was trying to simplify this classing issue with 1 simple sentence that made things clear and relatively easy to understand for anyone not trying to bend the rules.
With the current selection of available GT bodies this class is far from 'limited'.
It's really not a big thing to me, it's not going to change what I run, do whatever you guys want to do. I was simply inserting some logic into the mix....and I get a commodian making jokes.
Hope you're done having fun with my aero example, it was rather entertaining....not. By having your fun you were actually disputing the laws of physics, the funny thing about this is you can see there is a huge difference between a Riley and a Camaro....yet you won't acknowledge that the wedgy shape will go through the air better than the boxy shape....to the point of making fun of it.
You must not have been paying attention to anything I posted, I was trying to simplify this classing issue with 1 simple sentence that made things clear and relatively easy to understand for anyone not trying to bend the rules.
With the current selection of available GT bodies this class is far from 'limited'.
It's really not a big thing to me, it's not going to change what I run, do whatever you guys want to do. I was simply inserting some logic into the mix....and I get a commodian making jokes.
Here ya go....YES a wedge will go faster through the air than a box....BUT that does not mean its faster on the track....which is where most racing is done. Unless there is a new class that times cars dropped from 1000ft that Im missing? There are many more laws of physics that go into making a car faster on the race track and not just in the air...or falling from a building like you enjoy. Your so focused on one aspect of having a fast race car that you are still missing the point that I have beat into the ground.....The Riley BODY is not faster on the track. Its mysterious WEDGY shape does not grant you .5 seconds a lap increase.
Again like I have said we are going to clean up the wording in the rules.
Have fun
10-31-2014, 06:32 AM
#3252
I'm just going to pop a 2012 Mustang GT body on a TC4 and go hit the carpet track a few times this winter to have some fun.
We are only racing for bragging rights or bowling trophies. I race to have fun and test my skills. Sometimes we forget these are scale cars and not the SCCA.
I think once they clear up the gray area wording a bit all will be well again in USGT land.
We are only racing for bragging rights or bowling trophies. I race to have fun and test my skills. Sometimes we forget these are scale cars and not the SCCA.
I think once they clear up the gray area wording a bit all will be well again in USGT land.
10-31-2014, 09:49 AM
#3255
I have been watching this thread lately with more than a passing curiosity. As a racer and a body manufacturer, I thought there should be more definition in the USGT body rules at first too.
So, I went back to the first post in June of 2010 when USGT was started. This is what the rules stated, with no other mention of visual intention....
Any 190mm or 200mm body….body can be any body that’s not on the ROAR T2 body list.
Nowhere does it state production based cars, nor does it eliminate exotic or prototype cars. The key words are "not on the ROAR T2 body list". I'm guessing this means no distorted, made-up shapes for RC racing bodies, but realistic bodies that represent actual cars. Also I assume the class is oriented to Touring cars, not Pan Cars. So the LMP bodies are questionable because of the chassis' they fit, not their looks.
The designation "GT" means "Grand Touring", which basically means "Pavement Road Racing Cars". We are talking about racing here, not parallel parking. The GT designation has been used in many ways over the years, even in conjunction with prototypes...example: GTP in the 80s....Grand Touring Prototypes.
Our Daytona Prototypes could easily be designated Daytona GT Prototypes. As I've stated before, we made these bodies to look like existing actual cars and fit the standard Touring Car chassis'. We had no intentions of making a more aerodynamic body for a specific class. It just happened to fit the USGT rules and spirit of a realistic scale sports car.
It also seems odd that "US" GT would not allow the Daytona Prototypes since they are true US made Sports Cars and the only RC bodies that have been mentioned in this thread that are 100% made in the U.S.
So, I think Rob and Kevin have had it right all along.
However, remember USGT is not a club you join and you are not forced to go precisely by the rules at your local races. They are guidelines for a fun class of road racing enthusiasts with a lot of variety in the style car you prefer.
Gary McAllister
So, I went back to the first post in June of 2010 when USGT was started. This is what the rules stated, with no other mention of visual intention....
Any 190mm or 200mm body….body can be any body that’s not on the ROAR T2 body list.
Nowhere does it state production based cars, nor does it eliminate exotic or prototype cars. The key words are "not on the ROAR T2 body list". I'm guessing this means no distorted, made-up shapes for RC racing bodies, but realistic bodies that represent actual cars. Also I assume the class is oriented to Touring cars, not Pan Cars. So the LMP bodies are questionable because of the chassis' they fit, not their looks.
The designation "GT" means "Grand Touring", which basically means "Pavement Road Racing Cars". We are talking about racing here, not parallel parking. The GT designation has been used in many ways over the years, even in conjunction with prototypes...example: GTP in the 80s....Grand Touring Prototypes.
Our Daytona Prototypes could easily be designated Daytona GT Prototypes. As I've stated before, we made these bodies to look like existing actual cars and fit the standard Touring Car chassis'. We had no intentions of making a more aerodynamic body for a specific class. It just happened to fit the USGT rules and spirit of a realistic scale sports car.
It also seems odd that "US" GT would not allow the Daytona Prototypes since they are true US made Sports Cars and the only RC bodies that have been mentioned in this thread that are 100% made in the U.S.
So, I think Rob and Kevin have had it right all along.
However, remember USGT is not a club you join and you are not forced to go precisely by the rules at your local races. They are guidelines for a fun class of road racing enthusiasts with a lot of variety in the style car you prefer.
Gary McAllister