Touring Cars/Latemodel Oval Class Structure [Archive]

Doug Carter

June 30th, 2005, 5:02 PM

In the other thread about Dominators and TCs running in the same class, a few parts of the discussion turned to the class structure for TCs on dirt ovals, and how we as a group can help contribut to the growth of dirt oval in general. Gas and electric touring cars with the new wave of late model bodies is a great way to get a lot of racers who don't want to buy new expensive dirt oval-specific race cars to try out dirt oval racing.

The key is to get the class structured before it gets too far away from every track on the national scale. Make it set up so that anyone can bring a car to the races with minimal add-ons and changes to compete anywhere in the country.

This is a good place to try to develop a collection of ideas and rules to at least allow tracks to have a foundation of a class they can run at their facility. I'd be interested in seeing what you guys think are needed rules for this class, both gas and electric, as well as what your exisiting track's TC class rules might be.

Here's a start:

Gas TC Latemodel
Any touring car chassis, 4wd, shaft or belt drive
Any .12 3-port gas motor allowed (carb inlet smaller than 5.5mm)
Front and rear drive axles open (spool, one-way, differential)
31mm wide tire maximum, foam or rubber
Bodies limited to 210 mm Factory Works, McAllister, Bolink or Parma late model styles. No hand-made bodies
No side dams allowed
Rear spoiler chord and side panels to be scale appearing (sizes to be determined)
Window cutouts 2" maximum front window, rear and side windows may be cut out inside trim lines.

No gear limitations
Tire limitations are track-specific
No fuel limitations

Cars must be scale in appearance and looks like real late model race cars

Electric TC Latemodel
Any touring car chassis, 4wd, shaft or belt drive
Any motor, no cobalt or rare earth magnets
Batteries are 6-cell maximum, no maH limit, no lith poly batteries
Front and rear drive axles open (spool, one-way, differential)
31mm wide tire maximum, foam or rubber
Bodies limited to 200 mm Factory Works, McAllister, Bolink or Parma late model styles. No hand-made bodies
No side dams allowed
Rear spoiler chord and side panels to be scale appearing (sizes to be determined)
Window cutouts not allowed

No gear limitations
Tire limitations are track-specific

Cars must be scale in appearance and looks like real late model race cars

------------------------------------------

Just a suggestion and a place to begin. What do you guys think?

93TA

June 30th, 2005, 5:17 PM

i could go along with all those rules. we happen to run side dams on the nitro cars here(not the electrics though) and i like running them but i dont like the way they look.

Doug Carter

June 30th, 2005, 5:22 PM

I think I would make an update to the nitro rules for .15 RTR motors. Let's say any small block .12 to .15 motor for gas class. Is there something there that could be considered a potential problem, like availability, tech, costs, etc?

bolognarc

June 30th, 2005, 5:30 PM

When you open it up to any .12 and joe racer has a stock ntc3 and magazine racer has a RB .12 it's not really a level playing field. We had a racer shop up just last week that ran laps of .3 faster than our "stock" cars upon inspection he had a picco .12 on it.

big mac 72

June 30th, 2005, 5:37 PM

I like the idea's you have there. The only thing I would change is the electric body size. With McAllister making the new 210mm body I would suggest that would be allowed.

I run electric TC at Jacksonville Il. Rules say there is a minimum weight to meet. Although they have never checked weight.

DrOlds

June 30th, 2005, 6:17 PM

I think it's a great start! I don't run gas so I'll leave that to those of you that do,but obviously whatever motors come in the RTR's should be allowed.

Rules should always be as open as possible-if doesn't need to be mentioned-don't! If it doesn't make any real difference-don't mention it.If someone steps way out of line it's the race director's job to tell them to play within the spirit of the class.Also it is really important to not be STUPID like roar and lock out any advances that may come in the future that will be good for everybody.Example-if someone comes out with a new motor with cobalt or rare earth magnets that makes power COMPARABLE to the current crop of commonly available motors but the brushes last 10 times longer I'm buying it and I'm running it.I also see no problem with Li-Po's-there is no performance advantage to them and they are the future.

Motors-Make it any 19 turn.They will be plenty fast anywhere,and still plenty drivable for new racers.Don't lock it in to "spec"19's.Give everyone a chance to have a low maintence motor.

Front and rear drive axles open-no need to mention it.

Tires? Track specific-leave it open.

Bodies? Any commercially available,scale appearing current Late Model style molded body.Don't make a rule that restricts Daryl or Gary or anyone else from continuing their great work of bringing out more products for us to use.Width? doesn't make a significant difference so leave it open.Remember that the idea is to have a class structure that will work everywhere.

NO SIDE DAMS-YEAH!!!!!!!

What the heck is spoiler chord?

Window cutouts? It's only going to slow you down in electric so if someone wants to let 'em.

Gears? Track specific-no reason to bring it up

If anything minimum weight might be an issue but I kind of doubt it.

Not meaning to pick on you Doug-I just hate rules.Rules are necessary for 2 kinds of people-those who would rather win than compete,and those who are too lazy to put forth any effort and want to bring everyone else down to their level.A class that you could run anywhere would be really,really cool.

Doug Carter

June 30th, 2005, 6:45 PM

All suggestions are welcome, no matter what. That's why this thread is here. I don't take any offense to anything so, have at it. It's the reason why we're talking about it.

.If someone steps way out of line it's the race director's job to tell them to play within the spirit of the class.Also it is really important to not be STUPID like roar and lock out any advances that may come in the future that will be good for everybody.Example-if someone comes out with a new motor with cobalt or rare earth magnets that makes power COMPARABLE to the current crop of commonly available motors but the brushes last 10 times longer I'm buying it and I'm running it.I also see no problem with Li-Po's-there is no performance advantage to them and they are the future.

Well, the reasons to limit things is to keep it from becomming too much of a "have to have it" kind of class. You can buy cobalt motors and rare earth nonsense that makes everyone else feel they need it to compete. Probably not necessary, but it was thrown out there from past experiences.

Motors-Make it any 19 turn.They will be plenty fast anywhere,and still plenty drivable for new racers.Don't lock it in to "spec"19's.Give everyone a chance to have a low maintence motor.

I disagree completely, and here's why. A 19t works best with VERY high voltage batteries. 1.18+ batts and higher, and that forces racers to spend lots to be up front. An open motor rule allows you to put as much motor as you want, to try to get it hooked up. Stock and 19t motors just negatively effect the battery wars. Mod motors, and make it last. Anyone who has run stocks or 19t motors knows that they get cut and maintained as much or more than mod motors, so there is little benefit to them, other than sticker price. Just one guy's opinion... if the class succeeds, a 19t and mod class are sure to follow, like the big block and small block EDM classes out east.

Bodies? Any commercially available,scale appearing current Late Model style molded body.Don't make a rule that restricts Daryl or Gary or anyone else from continuing their great work of bringing out more products for us to use.Width? doesn't make a significant difference so leave it open.Remember that the idea is to have a class structure that will work everywhere.

Width rules are there to prevent 9.5" wide Intimidator bodies from filtering into the class. No need to add unfair downforce area. 200mm for electrics, 210mm for gas is 10mm more than sedan bodies, so there is plenty of leeway. McAllister makes one for each width, and I believe Daryl is working on a nitro version of his body, too. No limits to those guys, but the cars should look like real late models and not Batmobiles or door stops. I've seen that game, and it ruined racing for a long time.

What the heck is spoiler chord?

Total length of the rear spoiler straight, front to back, including the wickerbill.

Window cutouts? It's only going to slow you down in electric so if someone wants to let 'em.

If you cut out the windows, and insert a flat piece of Lexan under the cockpit, you can direct air more cleanly. It keeps people from expanding the "limits of fair play."

I just hate rules.Rules are necessary for 2 kinds of people-those who would rather win than compete,and those who are too lazy to put forth any effort and want to bring everyone else down to their level.A class that you could run anywhere would be really,really cool.

Without some rules structure, there will ALWAYS be someone who pushes the limits and takes the fun out of racing (see Batmobile comment). In racing, lots of people would rather win than compete, and that's kind of what drove a stake into the heart of DO racing 15 years ago. I think to keep the playing field relatively level, some structure is necessary. Without it, you have the same problems being faced with the gas sprint cars all over the country. Who's to stop me from building a HPI Super Nitro car and running it under a CW Bullet wedge? Then all of a sudden everyone is clammoring for a car that has limited parts support and even more limited availability. Bad for the class.

Rules are always capable of growing with the sport, and with technology. But you have to start somewhere. I'd love for the day to come when I can pack up my nitro or electric TC3 with the late model body and a box of tires, and go on a road trip to hit 6 or 7 different tracks, and not have to worry about if my car will be legal there or not. It reminds me of electric sprint cars, circa 1988.

:D

radikarz

June 30th, 2005, 6:46 PM

Doug Carter

June 30th, 2005, 6:52 PM

There's a heck of a lot more nitro 2wd buggy/truck owners out there than TC's. You're leaving out a huge number of want to race dudes, on the outside looking in. GUYS THAT DON'T or can't afford to get the mods to convert their cars to LM. And what about the 1/8th scale buggy guys?? Are they doomed to a life of bumps and jumps?

Well, that's not really what this discussion is about, Scott. I agree, there should be an easier way for off road guys to come race dirt oval, but that's a different topic.

And the mods to convert a TC to a late model, include a $18 body... and that's about it. There are hundreds of thousands of touring cars out there just waiting to be dirtied up with dirt and clay. I just quickly found 4 used AE factory team TC3s for under $160 with all the trimmings. I'd say it probably doesn't get any easier or cheaper than that.

;)

DrOlds

June 30th, 2005, 7:12 PM

You're right it does need to be open mod.(I think I have gotten up on my high horse about that very thing on here before!) And I see what you mean about the bodies.

So is spoiler chord measured on the straight horizontal plane? As in the more it is laid down near flat the shorter it has to be?

Daryl Lane

June 30th, 2005, 7:53 PM

Chord by roar definition and others is the length of the spoiler surface no matter what the angle, same as in NASCAR, from the start where it leaves the body to the tip.

I think width rules are very important and really need to be watched, cars well just keep getting wider and wider.

Another big rule for the starter classes is:

The chassis should be a stock touring car chassis' no special LTO parts, remember this is for parking lot racers to get a start in dirt oval and have our ranks grow.

I like the old school rules from ORRCA days before mod motors were created

Shock was a box stock Chassis

Modified was run what you brung home made or bought.

Need to settle on motors but the chassis should not be open to super tech oval parts = BIG Bucks.

Have a Super Touring Car class for the Dirt Oval chassis' mods and parts. This is where all the old time dirt oval guys can play and build and work on losing another 1/10th.

We have not forgot about you Scott - it's just this thread is targeted to bringing some of those Touring Car guys into Dirt Oval.

The same should be done for the 1/8 scale guys the trucks are already moving on in to dirt oval.

Doug Carter

June 30th, 2005, 7:54 PM

Nope, chord measures from tip to tip, so that regardless of the angle of the wing or spoiler, you will always get the same measurement. It includes the flap or wickerbill (Gurney flap). Example: a 6" x 6" sprint wing with a .5" wickerbill is a 6.5" wing chord.

I like your ideas, Daryl. I think that the chassis should be stock to start out with. Eventually, a super late model class could run a more open rule base. No aftermarket chassis, either, as there are a few that could join the fray and ruin the idea and concept of the class.

A starter class is a great idea, however, if you make it too beginner oriented, you take the risk of the class not being very popular with anyone (read: not sexy enough for beginners). From my perspective, a stable class for EVERYONE, vets and beginners alike, allows new racers into a class that they have to TRY to improve and learn, as well as giving someone with a spare TC a place to run a nation-wide class. The best part is, you don't need any special equipment to compete.

The biggest key is: no specialty dirt oval cars allowed. This will prevent companies like CW, OFF or Dynotech or anyone else from producing a TC-sized and shaped car specifically to win in this class. Marcus eluded to this issue in one of his posts in the Dom/TC thread.

Daryl Lane

June 30th, 2005, 8:06 PM

The problem with no width rule is cars will keep getting wider and wider and then the call to the body manufacture saying "hey your bodies are not wide enough, can you pop out a wider one?"

I really do not care what the width rule is; I just know there needs to be one.

I myself do not believe that wider is always better when it comes to oval or on road racing. Every from of full scale motor sports is full of width and height rules. It gives builders an area to work with in and adds to the creativity of a product looking for that added advantage with in the set parameters.

"hey Doug we've been typing at the same time!!!":o

I agree it needs to be attractive to oval racers but not geared to being an expert level class. Maybe the ticket is, that as the class grows have stock and expert stock. or mod or 19turn what ever the motor turns out to be.

Daryl Lane

June 30th, 2005, 8:23 PM

sltrce2

June 30th, 2005, 11:36 PM

The only thing I would suggest different is to allow the windshield and backglass be allowed to be cut out and a flat sheet of lexan be put in as an interior.Having raced both a nitro and and a electric tc3 it is much easier mounting the rear of the bodies.I know it does help setting up the cars a little as it will tighten the car up.Maybe the body makers could include a piece already cut to fit instead of a piece to make a billboard as Mcallister does.

K Stevens

July 1st, 2005, 2:43 AM

What I've seen over the last 17 years in R/C locally, is that as a track started focusing on keeping the cream of the crop drivers happy (- i.e. national champs so they would race at the track weekly), they started losing their novice and stock racers. We all lost the tracks!

MOST IMPORTANT:
The first time Dirt Oval racer has to go home having had fun and not having been bashed around by the local hot shoes. and this needs to happen in all the entry level classes - Truck Touring Car EDM what ever your track runs for beginners.

This is probably the most insightful and important post I have seen here...it is a must-read for every track owner out there. If you want your track to be successful, focus on the entry level racers. They are the future of the hobby, and without them nothing else matters.

fletch

July 1st, 2005, 8:27 PM

This forum is a good start, but I see old habbits creeping in. Some people wanting what would benefit them. This started off about getting newbies in and keeping them in. There has also been mentioned a few more classes that should be started because they don't fit the criteria. And thats what we don't need MORE CLASSES. You got ten racers and five classes and everything suffers. I'm sure we've all been a part of that. For this to have worked it would have stopped after the first post. These are the rules, now go race. nothing more nothing less, and thats when you have fun. Sure everyone wants to win but if you have to get the hi zoot wiz banger to do it and start whoopin people, then they have to have it and so on and so on pretty soon your right back where you started. When I started the same thing was happening, losing newbies. Only difference was the cars. Back then it was bring your rc10 or whatever with a dirt oval body (a DO body wasn't even necessary at most places)and race. FUN. Now we're disscussing window cut outs, how much chord to run (before this who the heck know what chord was,lol) how wide the body should be and yada yada yada. Stuff a rookie has no clue about. Wasn't this supposed to be about them? Too many rules will kill this great idea, and we've all seen the tide of racers go out on DO racing and I'm sure we don't want that again before it even starts to come back.

Oldschool

July 2nd, 2005, 12:02 PM

Your ideas are a good start but I find them way to restrictive. We run side dams and have a motor rule that includes any small block! This allows the .18 motors that are so cheap to even the playing field with the high dollar 12s. The TC3 is easily widened with GT axels and a spacer to fit nicely under the CW bodies made popular by the Dominators. There is no real reason for seperating wide from narrow in my view. The two run together at our local tracks with little difference in performance. Why exclude home made bodies if you are trying to keep costs down? Latemodels by their nature should be an unlimited class though I know some rules have to be, I feel that there should be as few as possible. The rules for our Florida Dirt Oval Series are just fine for us!

racerrandy

July 2nd, 2005, 8:49 PM

I don't beleive Doug was suggesting, that everyone change their rules to the suggestions he outlined. I believe the intent was to give some idea's for a simple class, that was easy to get into. By running a molded body, a cheap to buy touring car and some rally tires, you have yourself a dirt oval car. If you find you don't really like dirt oval, you can go race touring car oval, or on-road, and not be out a bunch of money.

I just don't understand why everybody get so tweaked out of shape over a few suggestions. If you have a great race program going then there is no need to change. But there are some tracks out there, that may be struggling, that may appreciate the help.

My local dirt oval just took the dirt out. Had we had some help in the begining, with a late model class, it might have made things different. Who kwows? But why be a killjoy.

Hell, with a touring car, I could run 3 classes with the same car, in different seasons. Pretty versatile if you ask me.

Well thats my .02

Later,Randy

Doug Carter

July 2nd, 2005, 9:11 PM

The point of any restrictions, as in real racing, is that it not only keeps the playing field level, and allows new blood into the sport (read: both non dirt oval guys and new racers), but it also allows me to take my NTC3 from my home track to ANY other track around the country and race without worrying if I have the right body, motor or chassis to compete. That's the whole idea.

If you'd like an example of what is wrong with unlimited motors, sizes and rules, take a look at the problems the Texas "big" sprint cars are having racing on a national level with the DODC legal cars, tracks and races. Sides dams, .18s, and unlimited body ruies are absolutely the wrong way to go for a class like this. You'll kill the class before it ever gets off the ground.

That's not a guess, that's first-hand experience.

And yes, these are suggestions as a guideline for a potential nationally-raced class. Get too far away from the core of the rules, and you won't have any racers from other tracks who venture to your track. The reason that 10th gas sprints have grown so much in recent years is DIRECTLY related to the DODC tour and the rules that allow the cars from all over the country to be similar. It's not a coincidence.

Example: if you have 4 tracks within one hour from each other, and they all have different rules for modified electric EDMs, you will fraction the racer base into quarters. If those tracks work together to come up with a standard class with common or at least similar rules, you allow 100% of the racers in the area to attend MANY different tracks and races with the same cars. If those tracks go as far as working together on scheduling, you'd see a dramatic rise in overall attendance, and a healthy growth in the sport. That benefits tracks, racers and manufacturers of products everyone uses.

The key to this class is to not overwhelm new racers so that they aren't intimidated right off the bat. It's also key to allow an asphalt racer with his weekend touring car to slap on a late model body to his TC (which already has national rules, that are not coincidentally similar to the basis of these), and try something very fun and very exciting. Whether you are talking about a $500 piece of on-road craftsmanship or a $300 RTR Associated car, everyone has the same chances to compete because of the way that the rules are built. Learn chassis setup, learn to drive in traffic, and enjoy the growth of dirt oval racing.

Sorry, but unlimited DO classes do NOTHING for the growth of the sport.

Been there, done that. No thanks.

RCB3

July 3rd, 2005, 1:49 AM

Doug- I agree about most of what you say, but unlimited motor opens up the class for travelers. The car/body dimensions are definately in need of rules.
Tires should be about the only thing that needs to be purchased at each individual track that you visit. Most times you can call ahead and find out what tires work and availability.

-==MMackey27==-

July 3rd, 2005, 6:27 AM

Okay here's my suggestions for rules:

I know Doug specified certain bodies by certain mfg's, but I think the best solution is to specify a set of dimensions to meet for any and all interested manufacturers and do-it yourself'ers to build bodies within the confines of. This is how the full scale sport handles the situation, and the unified body rules are often decided to be as one of the better rules packages that the full scale sport has come up with. I think this could also make Daryl and Gary and any other body manufacturer's lives easier so-as to have a set of rules to meet that prevents the crazy Batwedge (etc.) phenomenon to happen again within this class, and could allow those that wish to make the bodies themselves to do as they wish as well and have all sides be amicably pleased.

These could best be devised by the following:

Anyone with a Factory Works, Bolink, McAllister, etc. body... provide the dimensions of your body in full in as great a detail as possible, as since these bodies are prominent, we'll use them as the driving baseline for all future bodies. If necessary, feel free to include a diagram of your bodily dimensions in a traditional drafting multiview drawing if you're capable. If not, at least the basic dimensions and respective and corresponding labels of where they were taken (i.e. deck height of body [unmounted] = ##, spoiler height = ##, spoiler width = ##, body width = ##, etc.) in list form will do. I'm sure Daryl or Gary could potentially hash out any further numerics as necessary from their bodies to better clarify everything.

Once these numerics are established for the various 1/10th scale touring car bodies out there, you can set a set of guidelines that all future bodies for the class must adhere to. If said car does not adhere to these guidelines, depending on the infractions of said body... the pilot will be assessed a weight penalty (assessed by severity) or will be asked to fix the minor infractions to be qualified as competitive with no penalty.

I feel this is a better solution than a specified body set of rules, because that type of rules package ultimately limits the freedoms and opportunities for greater choice, and ultimately makes it an uphill climb for any future body mfg's to get in without facing hurdles that others weren't required to face. It also adds more bureaucracy and restriction than is ultimately needed to the rules system and gives a defined set of constraints that any and all future RC body mfg's for the class will have to adhere to or be found illegal with regards to not meeting. To screen a body for acceptance requires a thorough examination process and then agreement to include said body within the rules without any real set guidelines as to what is and what isn't acceptable for them to go by to start with, while a more lenient process is to define a specification and have anything that is devised in the future to be geared to fit within those min/max restraints. It's a much easier and smoother process with less waiting and hemming and hawwing and it tells the body mfg's what they can and can't do out of the gate, saving them costly expenditures in body design only to be said "illegal". I think this is exactly what Daryl is asking for, and I think it'll help make a more competitive class.

These dimensions should include:

Min/Max body width =

Min/Max body height at top of roof =

Max length of body from nose to tail (including mounted rear spoiler & spoiler endplate overhang) =

Min/Max deck height (taking into account the need for ride height adjustments) =

Min. ground clearance of body to ground =

Min/Max length from nose to end of hood/base of windshield, or firewall =

Min./Max front roof post (a-pillar) angle in relation to deck =

Min. cutout around wheel openings (no fender skirts) =

Max spoiler height =

Max spoiler width =

Max # of spoiler endplates/supports =

Spoiler endplate maximum size/dimensions =

I'll add to this later but I'd like to see what Daryl and anyone else can provide as dimensions for the class. I'm not against unifying everything to one set of baseline dimensions so that rather than have Daryl and Gary building 2 separate touring car LM bodies, in the future we can rely on everything being based on the 210mm bodies for nitro and used on electric, because most full-scale late models actually have the wheels tucked in at least on one side if not both (usually the left side hangs out if anything behind the LR wheel). There's no point in 2 separate body designs for a similarly sized car when their main focus and area of competition will likely be the dirt oval class at many tracks. This can focus Daryl and Gary and other mfg.'s energies onto one set of dimensions to work within and produce the best quality bodies they can for these set dimensions for the future for electric and dirt alike.

I'd like to add that I prefer the open pass-through decklid too (i.e. Bloomquist Wedge). I do fully understand the concerns, but as this is a dirt oval late model class and no real late model cars have windows other than in the rear sail panels, I'd like to see some amicable solution to allow these style bodies to be potentially made in the future, rather than outlaw them based on what is currently available today so that the creative freedoms and options don't exist. If this means the pass-through cars are required, in at least the near-term, to run with some form of weight penalty... then I'd be okay with that. If the minimum weight of open deck cars isn't enough, we can always add more weight after seeing the cars run and determining the advantages of said cars, if any.

This could include the added dimensions of:

maximum drop of decklid at Firewall/end of hood:

maximum angle of decklid from firewall to max deck height (see above) at any one point:

No adjustable/tunable decklids allowed.

note: all decking must meet flush with top of body at body sides, and rear decking at rear deck height measurement must be flat straight across with no concavity.

I also think it should be mandated that any car with a flat inner deck, should have a cockpit shroud and driver figure. This can either be a molded into the body from a body mfg (i.e. Factory Works/McAllister, etc.) or be a aftermarket piece (likely from a body mfg.) that you cut out a hole in a flat plastic decking and add this in. This will muddy up some of the aerodynamic effect a flat decklid design can and will have and help provide added realism to the look. No pass-through deck bodied cars without the driver figure will be allowed unless there's a legitimate reason as to why they can't be (i.e. gas engine cooling).

Additional rules with regards to driver figure:

Driver figure and cockpit must be mounted adjacent to the lefthand driver door, under the roof positioning dimensions of above, and must fit under the roof height dimensions provided above.

In gas classes, the driver can be cut to allow exposure to the engine's Heat sink as necessary depending on engine placement.

I also think that with the roofs, there should be a min/max angle for the front roof posts of any molded or custom fabricated body, regardless of flow-through or windowed. There should also be a maximum sail panel (b & c posts + rear quarter windows) dimensional breakdown to prevent them from becoming mini-side dams. For those unaware of what a sail panel is, I'll try to specify via some form of a diagram later on, something that we can perhaps set the defined dimensions to.

Just something to get it all rolling. I figured this might be a better solution, but as always... feedback is warranted and accepted. :)

Dlan44

July 3rd, 2005, 2:36 PM

We are going to try it here in Texas since we don't have as many EDM's here as you guys in the East have, but we DO have a BUNCH of touring car racers (ROAR NATS here this month) that don't have a place to race in the winter (our 295' oval is indoors). We have limited it to shaft drive cars since they are cheaper, and work better on the dirt here (belts pack up in one heat and require mucho maintainence).The rules are written so the ROAR touring cars can fit right in, you have optimum body selection, room for being creative without going overboard, and have some fun. I am sure as we get these cars going some rules will have to be tweeked.
As far as 2wd cars, maybe they can run fairly equal with the 4wd cars if they have side dams, or possibly other considerations. We are going to try it on the club level, and if there is interest possibly include them in our November race.

HERE ARE OUR RULES:

4WD Limited Latemodel:

Chassis:
(1) Any 1/10 scale 4wd shaft drive touring car/sedan chassis.
(2) Chassis must be stock OEM or aftermarket aluminum or titanium, with stock wheelbase, and stock fuel tank/engine/suspension mounting locations.
(3) Chassis may not be drilled out for the purpose of lightening.
(4) ANY suspension components may be used (including shock towers) providing car does not exceed maximum width, and wheelbase isn't altered more than .250" from stock.
(4) Any top plate.
(5) STOCK fuel tank in STOCK location.
(some of these rules may sound strange, but they were incorperated to make current on road sedans easily convertable in their current configuration)

Body:
(1) ANY molded 1/10 scale latemodel body.
(2) Bodies MAY NOT be chopped or sectioned.
(3) NO "home made" bodies.
(4) NO SIDE DAMS (this may be altered once we see how the cars drive.....this will be a simple change)
(5} Molded rear Latemodel wing or 1.5" chord rear spoiler with 1.5" side panels not to exceed cord of the spoiler. (also subject to change)
(6) Windows may be cut out, but roof, A, B and/or C roof pillars must be left intact.
(7) Cut outs for fuel tank, carb tuning, and glow plug access are allowed.
(8 ) Tire tread/surface must be COMPLETELY COVERED when viewed from above the car.
(9) NO MATERIAL may be added to the body for the purpose of covering tires.
(10) MAX WIDTH........10.125"

Engines:
(1) ANY Small Block 3 PORT .12, or Small Block .15 RTR engine.
(2) Any exhaust providing it does not exceed track noise limitations.

Tires/Wheels:
(1) ANY TIRE EXCEPT SILICONE COATED OR CAPPED TIRES.
(2) ANY 1/10 WHEEL with a maximum diameter of 2.2".

That's it. It may have to bee tweeked a bit to improve drivability as required, but I don't see any changes that will cost $$$$. The intention is to keep it simple, reliable, cheap, competetive, easily convertable for the existing on road guys, and most of all fun.

Doug Carter

July 3rd, 2005, 4:52 PM

-==MMackey27==-

July 3rd, 2005, 5:45 PM

Those rules look REALLY solid to me. Marcus' body "details" might be so overbearing that it takes the simplicity out of the class. I think if the body makers stick to rules like he has proposed, everyone would be better off for it.

I'm for open windows if the roof stays intact and unaltered. Wheels should stay under the body, regardless of how the real cars look. Del, your rules system looks just about perfect to me. Small block motors and RTRs keep things even. I can show you some road racers running .15s in their 235mm wide cars that will water your eyes, and there is no need for .18s in a grassroots class. Keep it simple.

These rules so far look to be really strong. The big hurdle is to convince tracks around the country to adopt them closely to keep the outlaw classes from spreading like weeds. i know that if there was some interest nationally, that a DODC Nitro Tour class could possibly arise. It would be great for everyone if this took off and became popular.

doug

After I wrote it I tended to worry about the same thing Doug as I ultimately don't want tech inspections to be a long and drawn out thing full of nailbiting and aggravation, and obviously some simplified method of enforcement should be the call of the day on race day. I think of it as being done as a set of constraints to work within that keep people (i.e. body mfg's and the hobbyist who has a hankering to build his own body from scratch) mindful, rather than something where it's always the final word and where it's so rigid that people are parked for it left and right. Hence my idea that if you can't meet the more basic guidelines, there'd be some weight penalty of record rather than an outright DQ. The idea is to keep it simple in the foremost, while giving people like Daryl, Gary, and others an affirmed set of guidelines to work within so that stuff like the Batwedge and other radically high downforce bodies don't reappear and muck things up and cause them to scrap their current body molds due to lack of sales caused by the high downforce monstrousities we all intend to avoid. You want to be lenient to a point, but if you're too lenient then it's like opening Pandora's box too.

Think of the above like the IMCA claim rule in modifieds... noone ever expected you could build a competitive and keyword: "reliable" IMCA modified engine for $300, but it was done as a very lowball pricepoint as preventative maintenance to keep people from building $20k wet sump steel block late model engines for the economy modified class. If you spend $20k and someone can buy it for $300... that's a lot of "deterrent" to lose. Most typically built $5k motors that while still a chunk of change, were basically a reliable equivelant to a junkyard motor vs. a outright torque and horsepower monster. NASCAR doesn't so much have a defined set of rules in all areas (as anyone who has read the articles in magazines with regards to Toyota's CTS engines) but they do expect you to keep your stuff "similar" in many ways to what is already out there; which you could surmise as "unwritten rules" I guess. I see the above ideas for body rules as a deterrent to building anything wildly radical moreso than a set of handcuffs to invoke snarling and gnashing teeth. Rather than lock a handful of bodies and body mfg's in, I'd rather see a set of guidelines for body design/mfg put in place to make things easier to commit to and ultimately more fair. It should be more about the detail levels and preferences between said bodies moreso than tremendous performance advantages IMHO. Raceday rules would/should be more of the "if it's smaller than this but larger than that and we don't visibly question anything on a glance, you're legal" mentality moreso than whipping out the micrometer and slideruler. ;) I agree with Doug 100% there.

Dlan44

July 3rd, 2005, 7:07 PM

Thanks Doug. The rules I came up with are after discussions with both On Road, and Oval Racers. It is kinda obvious where I am heading. I am trying to attract some of the On road guys in their off season, and the guys frustraited with the ROAR engine wars. On a smooth high bite track, basically all you do is drop a body on. On rougher or fluffy tracks you can play limited tire/wheel/suspension games. I chose the shaft drive cars for obvious reasons. They are cheap, competetive, fairly equal, and a WHOLE LOT less hassle in the dirt with maintainence. As far as bodies, any molded body should be legal. Factory Works, McAlliater, CustomWorks, and even some old Dahms. As far as tech...........most can be done visually. If there are any engine games played........just pop the winners sleve out.......simple enough. Width is easy, In most cases you can tell by the body and if the tires stick out.....they're done.

Oldschool

July 3rd, 2005, 10:16 PM

I for one hope that those "weeds" that you refer to do spread too fast for your more restrictive set of rules to be presented. The very nature of the class is "outlaw" and therefore should remain so. What would happen if the Texas problem were reversed and the larger sprints became the most popular style of vehicle for that class? Would there be a new set of rules and the smaller sprints then have trouble complying with them? The big sprints happened for economic reasons. The GT was handy, everyone who had one and access to a Home Depot could build their own sprint conversion. That's what happened and they raced them at their local tracks until they tried to enter larger events and found that they couldn't play because their homemade cars didn't fit the rules! And this is what you consider to be promoting the sport? Sounds like you are in a hurry to stifle a rapidly growing natural class (nitro latemodels) before your national control slips away. Here's a news flash, this class ,as you can tell by new interest, has awakened a lot of oldtimers that had more or less given up on dirt oval and now we are back!

Daryl Lane

July 3rd, 2005, 11:33 PM

Oldschool

Please note no offence intended just an explanation of some of the posts:

Not sure you get the jest of what we are talking about. Not taking away your class but having a class for first timers to come and try out dirt oval, and not race with long time oval racers. It's a class for them to race with each other not feel the need to spend allot more money, and watch you guys race and dream and plan on stepping up to your out law class when they feel ready to.

We're not talking about rules that would come in play in your racing at all - there is stock and expert stock at almost every race in off road and on road. We ware talking about the stock touring car class and you are talking about the expert class. Two different things as I see it. There is always room for more racers at the weekly club race or your track is already on its way out, if history is real and to be studied.

Even in an outlaw class you have to have some rules – I show up with a 3 port 15 one week, the next you show up with a 3 port 18, the next I show up with a 21 and so on and so no – finally we both show up to race one week and we’re the only two in the class because the rest decided they did not have or want to spend the money to keep up with our endless money trees. That’s all we’re talking about here, your class sounds like great fun and if I lived in Florida I would most likely be racing in it. But then with my able to make almost any special part I can dream up [chassis, suspension arms, towers, spindles, motor plates, gear boxes], I would most likely not be in good standings with the other racers for long.

Some of the best bench racing I've had has been with; make it yourself, kit bashing experts who race parts they make for them selves. I am one – I’ve never raced a totally shock kit – I never driven a totally stock car expect for my wife’s. She won’t let me play with her car says I make them too load and rough riding. LOL

Anyway Oldschool your point is noted and respected; we’re just trying to think of the future and new blood in the mix, not limiting your fun. I really do not see the class we are talking about being included in any big races or series, just weekly club races, remember we are talking about entry level racing not seasoned dirt oval racing. - At least I was.

Dlan44

July 4th, 2005, 3:01 AM

Thank you Daryl. I am a old timer myself, and have been this game longer than most. Now days these let er rip outlaw classes are mostly for the younger guys. Us old timers may do better in a class where the cars aren't so twitchy as well as some of the new guys. Many of the rules ideas came right out of Florida.........so Texas or any other state, has little to do with it per se. Outlaws being cheaper than a class with "rules" is a farce. Even WOO has about figured that one out......and "rules" can generate more cars and a better show.
The only pure RC "outlaw" kit is the OFF. They are here in Texas, but very few elsewhere. I got in this large/small/outlaw debate once before and got bloody. My comments were similar to yours, but my point was missed. I just wanted some relief on width. What resulted was the "outlaw" cars here are now 13.5" wide X 12.5 wheelbase, an 8"X8" wing, weigh 5+lbs, and run .18TZ's and .15 Nova Mega big blocks. Throw a Klein, CW, or home Depot GT out there with 8 of those and see what happens. You can build a pure GT based home built car with a 12"x11.125" footprint that is under 5lbs and run a .12 small block in it economically. But the "no rules" "outlaw" being cheaper is not true. To build the "true outlaw" OFF car, the basic kit is $300, plus a RTR GT. That alone is equal to or greater than a Klein roller, or CW kit. OK......you do have a radio, servo's and an engine, but they are substandard. You will have to replace them just to have a chance at a B main at a club race. Then there are the RPM arms and carriers, larger bearings, and all steel/aluminum/titanium gears for the trans just to get it to survive a night or two. Now you are into the BMS price range. Don't forget about tires. With the big engines those monsters are FAST. On a dry blue grooved track expect to trash a pair of rears every 1-2 heats. Guys.......don't get me wrong (again). Outlaw racing can be fun......but it isn't "cheap" racing. If you can race those monsters......go for it. But just because you can/do.........never think for a minute someone is a substandard driver because he runs what you might perceive to be a lower class. Just maybe that lower class had better competition, at a lower cost and is FUN!

One final thought/question. Just how many "outlaw" sprints/latemodels do you have running in your area? I know Larry Rarer is in Fla........and I believe the latemodels he runs has rules to follow. If you guys run "outlaw".......can I race my 4wd 1/10 sprint car with a Nova Mega BB .15, and my 4wd 1/8 scale violator latemodel adapted to 1/10 scale (wheels etc) that is smaller than the OFF, powered by a Rody S7? If I can't.......then you ain't runnin OUTLAW.....period.

BTW...........I would like to see the LateModels (with rules) be a Nationally accepted class eventually. In the old days there were more Latemodels than Sprints.........before Nitro. And they had the biggest turn out in Stock Class.
Furthermore.......there is no "Texas Problem". Both DODC and Outlaw Sprints are raced here.....and BOTH classes have "rules" to follow for series races, and major events. Club racing isn't as formal, but most of the guys run legal series cars.

antilley

July 4th, 2005, 6:18 AM

Maybe we need a bit of clarification --I have not seen a nitro Latemodel run in Texas in over 3 years. A group of guys decided to build Latemodels to try and see if we can get a class started. (if you call throwing a body on a LD3 or NTC3 building a car :)

The thought was to create a class for the on-road guys to race in..... --why the rules? Because we are also blessed with some of the most innovative guys in dirtoval racing --- and if we don't start the class with some rules before long they will continue to tweak the cars to a point that we have another class of very intimidating rocketships that a newb cannot feel comfortable in. (I don't think we have to prove how fast a GT that has a few Home Depot modifications can be made to run :) ---- no offense to the OFF crew as there stuff is certainly not made at Home depot)

Will it slow Latemodels down? Sure it will --- but, the intention is to create a class to find new racers ....not create an elite class that only a few can handle. Do our rules fit in other parts of the country that have an established program... NO, Probably not...... I would also guess that the guys running 2wd latemodels would have a valid point of not wanting 4wd cars included at all.

I applaud Doug for starting the thread --- it will ease the pain down the road. (being a veteran of the BFSC and DODC sprint arguments :) )

Oldschool

July 4th, 2005, 10:27 AM

Whoa guys! I never intended a class without rules! Its just that I think that the ones proposed are too limiting. We have rules in the F.D.O.S. and so far they seem to be working. If they get out of hand we can always add more. As to the spiraling horse power, we added small block to the rules because some were running .25 motors. That usually took care of itself however as there is a limit to what the TC3 diffs will take. They will not take the abuse of .18TZ and an .18CVR is marginal. Some local racers run altered width cars and wide bodies and some run stock width bodies,tires and .12 motors. Larry Rarer for one. There seems to be little or no advantage to the bigger motors and wider stance on the short tracks, so we run them together. If there is an advantage it would be on the longer tracks, and then not much. A typical newbie here has a ready to run TC3 with a side dam and a latemodel body,rally or foam tires and a single speed. If he opts for a hotter motor its usually the .18CVR (less than a hundred bucks). Thats an easy way to join oval racing , cheap and he doesn't feel stifled by too many rules such as the specific list of bodies that are "authorized". If it looks like a latemodel and he made it himself, run it.

Doug Carter

July 4th, 2005, 10:52 AM

I'm glad there are a lot of ideas and opinions on this subject. It means there is interest. My biggest worry was than no one would respond at all. I think this is a very important step forward, and a great discussion to be a part of.

Dell, just for clarification, the "Texas Problem" I mentioned earlier specifically was the 12" x 12" square monster sprint cars you described. I think we all saw our blood pressures rise when arguing the points of the sprint car rules before, and in some way, you guys needed to see first hand how an unlimited open class could wreak havoc, break parts and cost more money than anyone could imagine. There will always be room for outlaw and open classes in fractions around the country, but it should not be the norm if we want dirt oval racing as a whole to grow and prosper.

Oldschool, I am an old timer, just like you. I have been doing this since '83, and off and on in the last few years. Every time I return to whatever class, be it carpet TC or dirt sprint cars, something beats down my enthusiasm. More often than not, it is the effort and equipment needed to compete when starting from scratch.

Locally, the track runs a rubber tire rule, which is fine. The tires that work best are harder to find than hen's teeth, so if you are on the outside looking in, you will never get up to speed. This held true for certain electric classes as well as nitro. The effort needed for a beginner (or returning racer) to get up to speed before they even get to the track is overwhelming. Honestly, it was less stressful to buy an electric touring car and go race with 70 other cars in the same simple class than it was to hunt down 10 year old out of production tires or belted slicks for an oversized car not even made anymore. It's an odd circumstance for a track with a tire rule to be hindered by the available tires.

What is the byproduct? Your car count stays the same, or shrinks, as the existing crop of racers can't welcome in new blood as easily. Honestly, it is the single thing that has kept me from putting my new CW sprint car on this track as of yet, and may never allow me to do it with much enthusiasm. I found a single set of these tires, after searching for a few months. How does that make for better racing? I'm not saying that a spec tire is the answer (maybe I am), but without a defined rules set or guideline of what can and can't be done, you are putting up big fences before anyone even buys or builds a car. You and I both know that dirt oval racing is intrinsically intimidating to newcomers, just by it's very nature.

What this TC/latemodel class is intended to do, for both nitro and electric, is not add another aimless class for the same 45 guys who are racing every week to drop another car down on the track. The intent is to open dirt oval racing up to a larger and broader audience, without needless costs or overwhelming DO-specific items to find/buy. In 1988, you could take your off road RC10 and with a wedge body over a McAllister or JG lowering kit, go race on the dirt oval. I did in 1985 as a kid, and I got hooked for ever.

You can't do that today, as a 2wd buggy is instantly outclassed by specialty-made dirt oval cars like the Intimidator. As much as I love Custom Works products and cars, the Intimidator and Enforcer absolutely killed the classes to anyone who didn't have their kits. It really ruined the grassroots concepts that built DO racing to begin with. That 15 year old kid cannot come out to the local dirt oval track with a car he bought at the local hobby shop and race anymore, unless his dad's wallet is open and deep.

Today, there are more touring cars and monster trucks sold than any other type of kit, including off road buggies. What this class proposal hopes to fuel is the re-growth of bringing new racers into the fold, by using cars they already probably have, with tires, batteries and motors they already have, and a single purchase of a body that is easily available, and race in a class where they can compete right out of the box, and learn how to do it while they are at it. What it does is allow ANYONE to come out to the track and race, without feeling intimidated or worried that if they don't have a $500 hyper-specific dirt oval car, that they cannot compete.

Below are some photos of what I am talking about, and what is driving this topic for me. It's an out of the box Associated Factory Team nitro touring car. The street cost of a new kit is about $315 if you don't have one, but some searching can find them cheaper new, and much cheaper used. I bought it to race asphalt road racing with my brother who also bought one. The ulterior motive was to race it on dirt ovals, as well. With a set of everyday rubber tires, a single speed tranny and a late model body, this car just takes on the role of a dual purpose race car, just like my RC10 did in 1985. And I can go back to turning right the very next weekend with little effort, and be competitive in both classes.

doug

Doug Carter

July 4th, 2005, 11:02 AM

Oh and for what it's worth, like Del's rules, my foundation was taken from ROAR/NORRCA-ish standard nitro and electric touring car rules. For obvious reasons, if you want to bring new blood onto the track, you have to make it easy. The best way is to allow existing racers in other classes to use the equipment they already have, and can easily buy at the LHS. If I raced touring cars at the local carpet or paved track and saw that your rules allowed for unlimited small block engines (not allowed in TCs) and unlimited bodywork (usually made by guys who know what they are doing on a dirt oval track), I might be less inclined to dip my toe in to test the waters.

The rules aren't restrictive to cause pain and grief to seasoned dirt oval guys, they are there to really allow a grassroots attitude into dirtoval again, where you don't have to race against a guy with a one-of-a-kind or specialty car.

It may take some time and effort, but I know it will work.

Oldschool

July 4th, 2005, 11:29 AM

I too have been devoted to dirt oval since the early eighties. It appears that we want to see the same things, it's just that ,as they say "the Devil's in the details". What makes these little cars such rockets and therefore appealing to new blood is their amazing corner speed which is definately enhanced by the side dam and the straight stability of the late model wedge aerodynamics. The fun factor is high and the speeds are beyond the capabilities of most new drivers unless they have at least some experience. Anything which keeps the cost down will help,as well. I think specifying things such as tires to such a degree is befuddling to a newcomer and lets face it the rules are only for the elite anyway. Nobody cares what tires the newbie has on ,he's not a contender! Would it be so bad if the factory sponsored elite got their doors blown off by local hot shoes on occasion? I love to tinker and make my own stuff so I naturally get rubbed the wrong way when the rules say you have to use this manufactured item or that and then prohibit home made anything and then say that it is nescessary to cut cost?;)

DrOlds

July 4th, 2005, 1:20 PM

I love to tinker and make my own stuff so I naturally get rubbed the wrong way when the rules say you have to use this manufactured item or that and then prohibit home made anything and then say that it is nescessary to cut cost?;)

I am the same way and my first post on this thread was a knee jerk reaction.After reading all the discussion about bodies I can see that I was wrong and that Doug pretty much nailed it right at the first.If bodies can be that big of a deal then it would probably be better for the good of the class to limit it to the currently available bodies from Factory Works and McAllister.To make a class appealing to newcomers it needs to LOOK simple as much as BE simple-and the body is the first thing you see.It does need to be open to any stock TC chassis.The neat thing about touring cars is that they become "obsolete" for on-road so fast-last years "hot car" is dirt cheap is because a newer better one comes out every 6 months and most of the advances don't make any difference on dirt.

Daryl Lane

July 4th, 2005, 2:01 PM

I hope someday that there are Dirt Oval tracks around my part of So Cal again. That I can run in an open TC based Late Model class, or a limited TC entry class. You see we in Southern California are suffering for any kind of track due to raising land and rental prices, where I once had (offroad) 6 tracks within 45 mintues and 10 within 60 to 70 min, racing three nights a week each, I'm down to 2 (from my home), tracks need the newbes or novice to stay afloat. Sorry this has been my 15 year soap box.:confused:

Anyway I do not think late model bodies need to be limited to being made by any companys or person, a simple rule that states - xx" max width - xx" min hieght, xx" max length, will do the trick and then anyone producing bodies can make one with in that rule. If you have that rule then the chassis' will follow, because racers want the tires inside the body.

;) One rule and you have controled chassis wide & length, wheel off sets and widths and maybe more.:D

All Touring Car drivers most likely have a bunch of aftermarket parts on their cars already, aluminum arms, spindles, carriers and the list goes on. Parts that make the cars stay to gather on the track, so these will have to be figured into the mix and allowed as I see it.

Again the limit is on "LTO only" specialty chassis' and parts for this class, as I see we are talking about. ?? Look, I am manufacturer and have parts on the drawing broad already, but will they help Dirt Oval grow and make it more attarctive for new comers. No! I do not believe so, once they are in and want to go faster, maybe.

Oldschool

July 4th, 2005, 5:45 PM

In retrospect I guess that my main objections are with the bodies and motors. I feel that the high dollar small blocks give an advantage to those who can afford them. The NTC3 can easily be widened by changeing the axle portion of your CVDs for those intended for the GT. An eighth spacer is then added behind the axle pin. This gives you a set up that fits very well under CW bodies that were used on the Dominator and allows the use of most 2.2 wheels thus enabling you to run on outdoor tracks that may not be smooth or hard enough to run the touring car at its normal ride hgt.(there are dirt ovals springing up all over) I have one of each and I run them interchangably. The real latemodels have no windows. The tunnel effect you get from a flat deck and a folded cab is very efficient for cooling. In fact I would like to see the body manufacturers produce a front clip in possibly three widths that would allow us to produce our own folded bodies from there. A molded tunnel style bolt on cab might also be more realistic. Real latemodels have a plastic bolt on front clip and from there are just folded sheet metal. As to the side dam, you've got me there. Idon't like looks but it sure helps the corner speed and thats the big thing with these cars. Also I've been using them for over twenty years so if that makes me a sissy then I've got lots of company!

Brad Ferks

July 5th, 2005, 4:15 PM

I have to say again I think DC hit on another issue that it surprises me that nobody has jumped on the bandwagon for. Spec Tires! Its never a good situation when you end up with haves and have nots ESPECIALLY in the tire department. If you dont have a tire that grabs the track well the rest of the chassis setup becomes somewhat of a non issue. There are an awfull lot of full size race cars that run a spec tire at the local track. Why not have the track owner say "this is our tire" and have everyone tune your car to the tire? I know with the full size late model I crew on that when we go to a track what tires will be on the car before its even in the hauler. I know that for cost reasons many full scale dirt tracks specify only certain compounds (even if only the right rear) which is a HUGE releif on a teams budget for tires. It sucks when I want to go to a big RC race that I end up mounting and prepping a slew of compounds hoping to hit on the magic one that I'll have that nobody else will in an attempt to gain that advantage. I've been on the loosing side of that battle more than the winning one. We all have certain things we will buy for a race or for a points season regardless that wear out. Batteries, motors, bodies etc. The biggest expense I always have though is tires... and all too often I end up with a box of stuff that doesnt work! They have started doing spec tires at the off road worlds, several off road nats too. If the idea is to keep costs down and racing close, tires are a great place to go after cutting extra expense.

BF

Doug Carter

July 5th, 2005, 4:49 PM

Brad Ferks

July 5th, 2005, 5:07 PM

Certainly the tires would need to be track spacific, but again keeping in mind that the idea being to keep the initial investment to a minimum for a non dirt oval racer to get started, I'd sure rather buy my wedge body and 1 set of tires that I know everyone has as opposed to rolling the dice on what is the good tire and leaving that open for a potential new racer. Keeping in mind that this is someone converting from road course racing they will probably need a set of tires anyhow to get going, the problem being that the number of tire options that are out there for a touring car are STAGGERING. Its never good for a newcomer to walk through the pits and see someone with the "Big box o' tires" and think "wow thats what I need to go racing" Same with the Dyno's and having 2 or 3 $400 a shot chargers.

BF

-==MMackey27==-

July 5th, 2005, 5:23 PM

I for one have no interest in seeing another open-ruled sideboarded late model class in RC. If the touring cars go this route, I won't apply. Sheer speed doesn't interest me, and I don't want a car that uses a piece of lexan for a crutch to go faster. I want a car that's modern in looks and appeal, and that can correlate to the full-scale cars that actually still run. Not be caught in the past on a full-scale division that died for a 101 reasons that made the cars highly impractical and extremely expensive. It's not of interest to me at all. Period.

I, an outsider and full-scale and online racing fan (your argument about rules being strictly for the experienced is condescending in the utmost), created the idea for rules baselines for bodies (similar to full scale) above so that not only could people like Daryl and Gary make bodies and have a comfort level in knowing what would and wouldn't be legal rather than have to be ruled by committee after they spent time and effort and $ on building a mold, but also so that any backyard tinkerer could build their own body within those specified constraints and not be "ruled" out, whether they use one of Daryl's or Gary's bodies as the base, or buy some lexan from Menards (gotta plug my online racing sponsor ;)) and cut the nose off of an asphalt NASCAR body or cobble up some sort of nose themselves. You aren't precluding just anyone from building a body, you're not pigeon-holing them into a handful of available bodies (i.e. what Doug posted above mine) and setting up a bureaucratic round-table discussion with hemming and hawwing on what new mad scientist creations from the underground lab should be added next, while said body mfg's or tinkerers sit in limbo hoping to get the okay to run what they've spent time and $ on. With a set of realistic constraints... a tinkerer can build what they want just as much as Daryl and Gary or any other body mfg. can, and without having to answer to anyone other than the tech inspectors if they get too far outside of the well-defined limits.

The constraints allow creativity within those limits. Most won't care or ultimately need to care... they can buy a Factory Works or McAllister body or <insert name here>, slap it on the kit, and race. No insane and infinite measuring, because on race day things will be more eyeballed to look within the confines, and any tech inspections that are necessary to keep it honest if it starts to become apparent that there's a lack of honesty to the competitors... will require you to cut things down closer to the restrictions, or run with a weight penalty assessed by the inspectors. Simple. Works for full scale, has for quite awhile now.

It's the body designs that body mfg.'s and tinkerers who want the tech inspection headaches that are under scrutiny, and they should have a foundation to build within and know they're safe, and know that tomorrow whatever they built today to the constraints noted, won't be obsolete and require going back to the drawing board. If a Dahm's or Protoform or Hot Bodies can fire out a high downforce lexan land missile and it be legal tomorrow with no rules/regulations/etc.... people like Daryl and Gary are going to have to answer it for as long as it is legal, which compounds things and renders their old product pretty much obsolete. That's an expense they shouldn't have to endure and one that is passed on to the racers who bought their bodies who have to buy a new one to be competitive. Judging by how things went the last time the Batwedge came to light, and something that was even addressed by Jerry Landgraff of Custom Works before on these threads, body regulations would be a very good thing for the intents of an economically-driven class.

Yes it was devised to be very limiting because the sideboards will do nothing but egg on greater speeds and costs, and much as they did in full-scale where they've died they'll hurt the class that intrigues us... but you could just as easily devise an Outlaw Late Model class that doesn't fit within Doug's rules and have your own "thing" to participate in that tickles your fancy, with open body rules and open motors and see how long it all lasts for yourself. If it gains a huge amount of support... then I can't see DODC's Nitro Tour not rendering support for it. More power to you if it hangs on and becomes popular.

This is our "thing" and if you don't get it... don't. No one should be there to force a division on you and make you participate, the same as I should be forced to run a sideboarded car when I have no interest or desire to. Understand? I'm glad that the OFF cars exist, I'm glad to see Klein out there, and glad to see Bulletproof as well as Custom Works, the Kranzel's Terminator, all manner of Belly Achers and Geo Fabs and what have you. The real problem you have is when you are stuck with only one supplier and the prices never waiver, or when you're stuck building cars that are so wide-ranging that they just can't and shouldn't be put together. If an OFF car wants to be competitive within the confines of a Custom Works car and class, it should meet the restrictions and sizings that, that car has. Many other mfg's have done it. If Custom Works wants to answer the OFF cars sizings... that's their prerogative as well. Yet it'll get beyond ridiculous if we go as far as putting double-wide sprints on the track with the more narrow cars... at which point, hell... we might as well throw Roy Moody's Moody American 1/8th scale cars on the track with the Custom Works and OFF cars. I mean... they're close enough right? ;)

-==MMackey27==-

July 5th, 2005, 6:09 PM

Brad, as you may have guessed from the tone of my previously long-winded post, I am a big proponent of spec tires. There are plusses and minuses of track-spec tires, though. One minus is that it requires that outside racers buy a whole new set of tires/wheels just to race at a specific track. Most R/C racers are really cheap, and it's just one more thing to complain about. On the upside of that, you know going into that track, that you aren't going to be hung out to dry with the tire setup. I'd actually prefer to know that with a $30 or $40 investment in a track, that my car won't be too far off base with the setup.

I like spec tires... to a point. However I think I'd prefer it if there was more than one spec tire brand offered at each track. Like find an array of tires for the track that are similarly competitive. There's nothing I hate worse than single brand regulations, as I've seen the leverage and monopolies that come from it in full-scale first hand, all the while I hate unrestricted open tire rules that require people to carry tire racks the size of NASCAR pit boxes. Maybe if we could elect to use an HPI, Pro Line, and some other vendor that's popular and widely available for a spec tire choice, it'd be cool. I don't want it to be strictly open to where you have pin spikes and unobtainable tires lurking. Yet it'd be nice to keep a little competition out there too. I think my favorite tire rule in full-scale is the NARA Battle of the Bluegrass tire rules. They allow Hoosier, Goodyear, and American Racer tires, with hard compounds on the rear and allow a softer compound upfront. They double-check for validity with durometers after taking baselines of the front/rear tires and grouping things together competitively. I'm not sure if that (hard on back, soft on front) would entirely work in RC per se, plus I'm not sure every RC track has access to a durometer (although they should, with tire solvents out there) as I don't think the cars get enough rear bite to go with a hard tire rule, but whatever is "hard enough" to be long-lasting while soft enough to get decent grip/bite out of the rear end and enough steering to be drivable out of the front sounds the way to go to me.

The issues with spec tires in these classes is that they will need to be very track specific, reasonably priced, perform moderately well and be easily available ANYWHERE. Foams, rubber, spec inserts or whatever, I think it would benefit the class, but that will probably remain in the hands of the tracks/promoters.

True. I'd prefer a national rules package but the problem is... the cars and their tunability. What tracks allow. I mean it's all well and good if you specify a set of JACO or TRC foams for the national tour, but then you hit a track like Monee or RVR where they're not allowed for whatever reasons and it'll obviously screw the whole situation up. I believe that with these cars, the tires are a very big deal in terms of getting the car to handle, and for that reason... each weekly track out there has their own hand-picked spec for what they've found works best and/or is cost-conscious. It's a delicate balancing act obviously. If you're going to travel into someone's backyard though, I've always felt you should be expected to run what their guys run, and find a way to adapt. If you're good enough to be a big dog and leave the porch, you have to be good enough to figure out what hooks up against the locals on their home turf. Expecting their guys to buy tires that they'll run 1-2x's a year for a bigger show isn't very practical, especially when they've not decided to leave and go anywhere.

Same notion... the old Northern Allstars series in full-scale tried a track-tire rule and it really hurt them majorly as few, if any, really travelled it because of the costs of tires per event vs. the purses (usually $2k, 3k, or 5k to win). Having to have tons of different, yet similar, tires in their trailer just turned out to be a mess that something like the very successful Battle of the Bluegrass <range> of tires helps remedy.

Usually, when you bring up "spec-anything" people get all bent out of shape, but generally, if it is policed with the spirit of fair competition in mind, it can be a good thing to increase car counts. I wouldn't want this to be a spec class, but a spec tire certainly should be something that the guys who run the tracks that will eventually use these rules should absolutely consider.

Agreed. For every doomsayer of how this spec class or that spec class died (usually through mismanagement or agenda-laden spec rules with kickbacks that didn't save anyone $)... there's a half million outlaw classes like SCCA Can-Am and the NDRA late models where costs got so far out of hand and the need to throw $ at the problem (purses) sank the ship to keep the openness of the cars practical. Spec rules aren't bad, as long as their spirits are thought out well enough to serve their purpose and serve it well. Hell... how long has Formula Ford or Supervee's been going Doug? ;)

I love the potential for these classes...

Agreed. :)

Daryl, when is that 205-210mm late model for my nitro car gonna be ready? I have the decal artwork to do an accurate Shannon Babb or a Chub Frank car. It's gonna be cool! :)

Ut oh... with the way Shannon's been dominating the Summernationals 'round our neck Doug, I'd be surprised if I don't know which direction this is heading. ;) His boss, "Mr. Smooth", is still holding down the fort in World of Outlaws and actually... there's a lot of similarities between "The Moyernationals" of a few years back and the "Babbnationals" of this year. The Moweaqua Missile is definitely on-fire. I'm anxious to see what happens when he brings it on home to his hometown track @ Macon, IL for the Herald and Review 100. If he wins there on the insanely small 1/5th mile track... they might very well tear the town down. LoL I thought they were gonna crucify Moyer the last time when they ran the UDTRA show there and Billy clipped and broke Shannon's left front tie-rod after tangling with Ogle Jr. (lapped car). My pal who I sat next to that night, a lifelong Moyer, Babb, Leka, and Allgaier fan (3 of which came from that area) was showing Billy "Double Birds" when he came by. It's funny too, the Petroff family and Joyce (Moyer) has him on video tape doing it. LoL I don't think he's ever lived that one down. LoL

DrOlds

July 5th, 2005, 6:38 PM

In Doug's original outline he included a 31mm width standard for tires.If you include 2" diameter rim the tire problem is at least reduced significantly.That mostly limits it to rally tires and there are only a few on the market.That pretty much rules out any offroad tires or cut down versions of them.HPI has 2 tread patterns each in hard or soft compound(unfortunatly they aren't marked for compound),Associated has one rally tire,and I am guessing that the Custom Works sticker and qualifier front tires would fit in there too.I doubt that the Tamiya rally tires would work anywhere(they are hard as a stone).Schumacher has some mini-pins but I don't think anyone on this side of the pond stocks them.If there were only 6 available tires that would at least reduce it to much less than what is available in on-road and off-road tires.I wouldn't think that all the insert combinations available for on-road would apply on dirt.I have no experience with foams but at least they are marked for compound and I would think that everyone already knows which one or ones work at any given track.In my experience the 4 wheel drive cars seem to be a lot less sensitive to having the right tire than 2 wheel drive cars so it really isn't as big an issue than with the cars we are used to running.

My only experience is on the 2 local hard pack dirt tracks(no clay)with rubber tires so if I am way off on this please educate me.

Daryl Lane

July 5th, 2005, 7:22 PM

-==MMackey27==-

July 5th, 2005, 7:49 PM

Just as an addendum, when I said "With these cars" in regards to tires... I was meaning RC vs. full-scale. In IMCA Late Models they run on the old McCreary/American Racer EC-2 tire. This tire is probably harder than the tires on Fred Flintstone's Yabba-Dabba-Doomobile. LoL They can still hook up even with the smallish 500 horsepower out of the IMCA-required spec motors. With full-scale, it's a lot to do with the suspension, the "lever-action" of how the suspension works with a torque arm or pullbar, and the leverage you can get with a live axle design exerting force in a teeter-totter fashion. If one wheel is pushed up the other comes down. With an independant suspension... yes the wheels touch the ground consistently, but you're not leveraging the contact patch into the ground like you are with the real cars, which actually is the workaround with a live axle car to assure maximum traction is to make sure the tires are getting shoved into the track. In a lot of ways... it's safe to surmise that a live axle car can generate more forward bite and side bite than an independant car in oval or drag racing instances because of that leverage. If you try to leverage the rear wheels into the ground with an independant setup, you struggle because the wheels move independantly of one another and actually push back against the frame of the car with the decklid sagging. There's no real methodology to use the wheelbase of the car as a lever to shove the wheels in with an independant car because of the free range of motion on both sides of the car. Even with inordinately stiff shocks the rear end will compress, whereas it's nothing in a late model for the rear deck to raise on acceleration providing added downforce. I think this makes tire selection equally or more important in RC vs. full-scale, and requires a much softer compound than what the full scale cars need to hook up. Some of the best full-scale racing I've seen is done on WRS-55's or LM40's, both being super hard tires. In contrast, I feel that hard tires with RC might take away a lot of motor and engine advantages, but I'm not sure the cars themselves would do much more than spin their wheels and putt-putt around.

As far as the tire selection not being as important in AWD... to an extent perhaps because both ends of the car are driving it, so you really have to wrap your head around tire selection front/rear for traction, steering, etc. and it changes in a lot of ways how you'll have to set up the car. You're not so reliant on one or two wheels to get your bite.

I will say that the track surface will make a significant difference though Dr. Olds. Clay holds significant moisture and doesn't tend to release it as quick, and it traditionally clumps together tightly yielding more contact area per inch. A surface with a high sand content tends to be looser, and sand doesn't stick together near as well as clay does so the surface isn't anywhere near as grippy. Dirt in contrast can be a bit of both... as it tends to stick together more solidly than sand making it more like clay, but it tends to be looser than clay and not pack so tightly that it doesn't release into the air. It's nothing to go to a track with black dirt, and have your white racing shirt covered in little black dust particles, but whereas a simple ::shake:: of the shirt will clean it off, with red clay... you're in for a real treat on wash day, lemme tell you. LoL

Clay can almost solidify and get polished over, and because it's so abrasive because it packs so tightly... you get more surface area for grip, which also means that the heat levels in the tires tend to rise as well with wheelspin, and you're more inclined to see a track with a clay base or clay mix lay rubber than simple dirt where there's some grip to be had even as it dries. If anyone's ever been to West Plains or one of the other red clay tracks in the South, if the track at any point dries and gets packed tightly... it starts laying rubber almost immediately. In fact, with many of the tracks down there... that's what you want, because red clay has a wicked tendency to get rutted up, and get super rough if you don't pack it down hard or if you get it wet enough to remain malleable. If you get it packed down and get it to glaze... you get a super smooth surface that has a good tendency to have a groove that spreads with the laps on it. The more rubber it gets through lots of cars and laps, the better it traditionally is. In fact... the best racing of the night at the Show Me 100 tends to happen within 5-10 laps to go. It almost makes you wish that the race was 150 laps. LoL

My favorite track surface I think was Brownstown, Indiana prior to the resurfacing and mixing of red clay in with the old surface this season. The old track surface is largely undescribable. I almost want to think of it as sand, but it almost had a kitty litter type consistency to it. Very bizarre. I mean you could get the track surface wet, and it never really was sticky. In fact, after a night of torrential downpours that required them to pump off the surface, I actually walked out on the surface with Chris Nunn (track announcer) taking photos of it last season for some buds that wanted to model the track for NASCAR Heat. I was half expecting the traditional "Tennessee Walking horse" walk to be my mode of transit on the surface, but you could walk normal. Your feet never really stuck to the surface. In fact... you could be shin-deep in track surface, pull your foot out of it, and the only thing left on your shoes was water. No dirt. No mud. Water. As loose as the surface was... the inclination would be to believe that it'd not take rubber, but it almost takes rubber faster and glazes quicker because... you're constantly getting wheelspin, even when the track is wet because it just, flat out, has little to no grip. With the mixing of red clay in with the dirt, the track times have picked up by almost 2 seconds a lap. That's huge for a little 1/4 mile track. They've also had a few rough outings because of the surface because as I said earlier, red clay sticks together, hardens, and you end up with ruts; and if you get enough grip to pull a chunk of red clay out, you're going to end up with a big huge pot hole that black dirt and sand seldom are prone to. I've not been out to the track this year, and I plan to for my usual pilgrimmage to the Jackson 100 out there at the start of August (one of my favorite races), but I'm sort of leary if this change was a good thing or not. Most of the racers that run there miss the old slick surface and how much of an equalizer it could be.

I keep thinking about a synthetic dirt surface for a temporary track that'd be portable and capable of being taken anywhere. Basically... a slick track using linoleum tiles and a tire rule that doesn't grip the surface real well. A little bit of Mop 'n' Glo to make some slick areas for less grip and a little Coke and Water mixed in a spray bottle to add grip in the right spots. Could be a fun little thing to toy around with with grooves that are very likely to change and require different driving alterations throughout a night. Maybe even some skateboarder's grip tape in a few areas if you don't want the hassles and bees that Coke + Water will bring out. LoL Might make a nice portable track you can take places.

Then there's the whole drifting tires for touring cars. Rather than trying to hold the slide though, you'd obviously be trying to get the car to stay straighter, but with those tires... it'd be a challenge. ;) Parking lot asphalt synthetic dirt racing. LoL Kind of scary actually... :?

Doug Carter

July 5th, 2005, 7:56 PM

Yeah, I would tend to agree on the spec tire thing. In a controlled class like FSCCA or Formula Ford, you still have a couple of different manufacturers to choose from. All the Proline Striker tire rule did at Monee is create a massive issue when the tire was discontinued and no one could buy them new anymore. The rules never really adapted well after that because the Strikers worked so well.

I'd say, make a tire suggestion, to limit experimentation with compounds and softeners and such, and leave it at that. I think the main ingredient of this class rules structure will be to advise track owners and tech guys to use common sense when adapting the rules to the cars. I think the spirit of the rules will come into play a lot in the development of this class. It will be easy to spot when someone is doing things that aren't considered fair play, or in the best interests of the class.

Racing in general makes room for people to push the boundaries of fairness and the rules. However, this one will need to be closely monitored to make sure that it isn't abused. I think the main ingredients will be body restrictions, to be dealt with the body makers, and the tires. Everything esle will work out as an offshoot of other dirt oval classes and both electric and gas touring car classes.

No matter what, there will be problems that pop up, and people who won't be happy with the ideas put out there on the table. You can't please everyone.

Daryl, I'll take one of those first few nitro late models when y ou get them pulled. I can't wait.

:D

doug

-==MMackey27==-

July 5th, 2005, 8:17 PM

Not sure about the spec tire thing Doug, if the rules are; 'any mass produced Touring Car tire on mass produced Touring Car wheels, treaded or slicks on-road tires and 'NO' Dirt Oval silicones or foams on CW or any other Oval wheel! Then everyone can try what they already own and everyone can get the same thing at almost any hobby shop. Remember this is for off the street first timer road racers, spec tire series seem to favor 'a' manufacturer, and everyone will have to buy the tires choosen. Every track will end up with tires that work. Not to put a wrench in it but to me spec tires mean spending more money then just getting a body.

I tend to agree in a sense, but I also fear about the very exotic soft compound touring car tires that are out there ruining the potentials of the touring car dirt oval segment of the RC sport. I also don't like the idea of having an endless sea of tires, many of which are exotic and largely unobtainable, and available to some that could yield significant advantages and send spending through the roof. I do like having choice, rather than being locked in to 1 brand... but many professional racing-level touring car kits come without tires, and to race competitively most RC people have to buy tires anyhow at somepoint. Might as well work it out, out of the gate, rather than leave Pandora's box open and have to face the firing squad over it later on. If you can buy a set of tires that'll last you a few weeks of racing, if not months... then you've got a good rule. If you're having to buy tires multiple times a night, it's time to curb it. With some of the exotic rubber tires they have for touring cars right now... you definitely need some rules at the very least, and to limit things to the competitive and cheap side of the spectrum.

If you're going to commit to this Daryl... they're still going to spend $20-30 on a body with the desire of competing. Throw in however much it costs to paint and letter the car up... it's still going to cost something. Yet if you're committing to it, you obviously want to have an opportunity to be competitive, and know that you have a good set of well-thought rules laid out. I don't even own a touring car yet, but with a good set of rules... it'll be high on my priority list of things to do. I see no problem in a restrictive tire rule that offers brand choice, but not an endless sea of options that could get to be a nuisance in a real hurry. If I have a huge rack of tires... I only want that because I need a few sets of tires to go race Panther and them cats in Ohio. Not because I need 50 tires to be competitive at my home track for varying conditions. LoL Y'get what I'm saying? ;)

The new body should be done in two weeks, I had to stop working on it to finish all towers we just put out. Sorry for the delay.:o :o

:D It's like Christmas in July... can't wait to see it. :D

Only spec tire racing I've ever liked was the Pro Line summer classic race. It was in the stock class only and a set of tires came with the race entry fee. The tires usually worked the whole week end as the track blue groved up.

I tend to agree on single-brand spec rules... hence why I was a bit leary before. Yes it can work, and there's been numerous instances where single brand rules have... but it has to be done for all of the right reasons. That's sometimes hard to do when you're dealing with a company who has their eyes set on the prize... big profits and fast turnaround of product to replace previous purchases. Granted, we don't necessarily have to deal with any particular company in the creation of our rules... but... I'd just as soon we don't deal particularly with one company or single one company out above the rest without at least 2-3-4 viable alternatives/choices. My online racing cars historically carry American Racer/American Race Tire badgings for a reason... even if one of my buds, Terry Young (a/k/a Smash The Loud Pedal on 4m.net), is a tire salesman for Hoosier Tire Midwest. Choice is good, too much far-reaching choice to the point of insanity is beyond ridiculous, but no choice = very bad.

racerrandy

July 6th, 2005, 1:31 AM

It must be a really cool world you live in Marcus.

Later,Randy

bolognarc

July 6th, 2005, 11:37 AM

We run this class cars are rtr whether it be Ofna,AE..etc as long as the motors are what came with the car. I raced this class this past Saturday & it was the best race of the night. the cars were so equal that we would swap the lead at every corner.I run Custom Works grooved rear foams with Dynotech adapters and it makes the car much more stable at speed. Some of our participants run the narrow style tires but it really makes the car "squirelly" personal preference once again. I personally would like to see the class stay with the original driveline to keep the cars equal.It's a inexpensive class as is the only option is stock & mod. jmho

Daryl Lane

July 6th, 2005, 12:22 PM

Simple rules, simple class, for first time oval Touring Car guys. This is not to replace the Touring Car Classes Dirt Oval Guys are already racing.

Touring Car Beginner class:
* Bodies production Late Model
Electric: 200mm wide max; min height 4.25" ; length 20"

Nitro: 210mm or 215mm wide max 'how wide is Gary's?'; min height 4.25; length 20"

*Chassis

Any Stock production on-road Touring car, no special LTO chassis' or parts.

*Motors electric rebuild able 19t

*Nitro stock kit motors

*Tires any stock TC on road tire on any stock TC wheels, no adapters no bigger diameter wheels.

We need to start another list of rules for the DO TC guys. Allowing Wheel adapters and bigger wheels, LTO chassis mods, bigger motors, ??? I would suggest the body rules 'sizes' be the same in these classes as in the beginner classes so shops do not have to carry 6 different sizes of Late Model Bodies! This is a big thing with shops and manufacturers to many is hard on the inventory pocket.

Cut and past this list to your post if you want to modify it, this thread is getting too long to keep track of the rules them selves. Then maybe we can copy them down and start sending them out to shops and track around the country.

We need to start a simular list for the open classes that would allow bigger motors, bigger wheels, LTO chassis' etc.

We can then start thinking about promoting a big race or two with both TC classes in it open and stock, that would by 4 classes if we do both in Electric and Nitro.

Dlan44

July 6th, 2005, 8:08 PM

I have read everyones comments........and try to keep mine simple.

Width........ the Touring cars (wide/narrow) being equal on the short tracks........ Here our "short track" is around 250'. The long one around 295'. Width is an issue.
All I want is some stability in the cars for the new guys car, and have a class the On Road guys can compete in easily. I think most CW bodies are no wider than 215mm. My old Dahms is 10" or +/-.125".

Chassis/suspension mods.............Our rules have taken into consideration basic mods on road guys and oval guys do (a-arms/towers/shocks/aluminum pieces). Suspension is basically free..........but it has to fit under the body. The chassis are stock or aftermarket with stock layout.

ANY touring car.............Shaft Drive was selected for reliability, durability and cost. On some tracks the Serpent/Mugen latest and greatist will dominate. On others they won't make 10 laps before the main drive belt packs up.

Engines........double edge sword. Factory/RTR means most guys have to buy a engine. Sometimes those cost more than a modified engine. Then there are those that will modify a stock engine and dominate. If you say no mods then you have tech issues. Then the old "claimer" suggestion pops up and that creates more issues. The simpliest solution was any 3port SB .12 or SB .15 RTR. Some guys may still eventually buy an engine.........but to
get things started........it WILL WORK.

Bodies.......... There is nothing out there that will or can produce the results the bat wedge did. These are NITRO CARS. You can only get things so low and still have room for suspension travel and tire growth. If bodies become a problem with the current formula.....change it then. Leave it alone and don't legislate a bunch of dimentions for something that may make no difference. Electric cars are another issue which I have no expertise on any more.

Side dams...............simple......lets keep the cars realistic. If we have to add them.....we will.

SPEED........these cars should be fast enough to keep a "pro's" interest, yet not intimidate a newcomer. That was the goal. I never intended it to be a pure "entry level class", but a fun simple class to attract entrants from other venues (on road) as well as new racers. It was ment to be a class that could be an entry for new guys.......without the "ROOKIE/ENTRY" label that puts people down. More open rules results in faster cars and more $$$$. Unfortunately some of our ego's are greater than our skills. Wide ass wide open car rocketing around a track looks cool. Put 10-12 of them out there and just see how easy they are to RACE (not just drive). You may think you are good......till you get yelled at for not backing off quick enough and hitting a stationary car...........or become a stationary car when you screw up in traffic.
Bottom line.........they will be fast enough.........to race and have fun.

Tires.............I purposely left this to last. Personally.........any tire except caps. Simple. If the car will work on foams............RUN EM. They are cheaper, last longer, and you can mount your own. Exotic foam is more expensive and will last longer. In the cases where they don't.......you are running a compound too soft anyway. In this area if you limit it to Touring car wheels..........you WILL have wear issues. If you can run Super Nitro wheels,,,,,,,you can mount just about anything you will ever need. Spec tires are good in philosophy till you get to a track where they are a bear to get the handle on. Then you have issues.

Our intent is to attract more racers in a competetive class that is neither "entry level" or "Pro". Where you can tweek on a car and learn as well as RACE and that car not having to be a "oval speciality" to compete and have fun.

A RACERS CLASS.............NEW or OLD!

Oldschool

July 7th, 2005, 9:55 AM

Just one short comment on the simplest motor rule. The simplest motor rule is any small block motor. It seems that the 3port and .12 limits benefite those who have perfectly LEGAL motors that cost several hundred dollars. They also seem to cry the loudest when those that use an .18 that costs less than a RTR motor are competetive with their high dollar mill. The limits of durability for current touring car drive trains will take care of excess horsepower just like the shaft vs belt drives will take care of itself without a specific rule. The simplest rule is no rule but we all recognize that that isn't practical, but just think how easy it is to police a simple rule like any small block.

Daryl Lane

July 7th, 2005, 11:08 AM

I'm going to show my lack of knowledge here; I do not know the difference between a small block and a big block in R/C. Now if we're talking Chevy’s - I can make a small block whoop on a big block! LOL

93TA

July 7th, 2005, 11:35 AM

wow... on vacation for a few days and this thing blew up.... touring car late mods are a pretty hot topic lately

daryl,

small block/big blocks in rc are the same as in full scale. the blocks are different sizes... and just like chevy built a 396 big block and 400 small block, there are .15 big blocks and .18 small blocks in the rc world. the block size of the .18 small block is similar to the block size of a .12 small block, and the block size of the .15 big block is similar to a big block .21

and just to clarify here in florida all small blocks are legal in the late model class(that means 235mm style big block .15's are illegal).... but locally i could see a more limited class being a good addition.... say a class like has been discussed here... no side dams, and less hp... i think it would be much better suited to the newer guys as well as the more advanced guys, who just dont want to spend as much money. locally for us it would just be a limited late model class, and the guys that still want to run semi-unlimited would still run in the regular nitro late model class as they do today.

Daryl Lane

July 7th, 2005, 5:39 PM

Nice to have you back! Hope you had a GREAT Vacation!!:D :D

Thanks for the info - so I am assuming that telling the differance between the two a quick and easy thing to do?

93TA

July 7th, 2005, 5:44 PM

thx daryl

yeah... its pretty easy to tell a big block from a small block w/ nothing more than a quick visual check.

Dlan44

July 7th, 2005, 6:37 PM

I agree the drives will limit what engine you can use. The 3 port .12 and .15 RTR engines will do fine. I would even go as far as non turbo. But opening it up to 5 port open engines and .18tz's is just plain unnecessary. We already know they will break drivelines, and we know belts pack up in loose/damp dirt. So why let someone run one on a dry slick track with no problems, then the sheep will follow, and spend $$$$ on something that won't work on all tracks and break parts. The .18 and 5 ports will be so fast that racing that HP will intimidate half of the guys we are trying to attract. You take my rules, and your rules and run them in two established areas.............I guarantee you that if the classes take off, and are accepted, I will have twice the car count you do in a years time.

Doug Carter

July 7th, 2005, 7:08 PM

I agree with the motor things, for the most part. Small blocks, 3-ports, and while I only run standard plugs, these motors seem to be getting tougher to find. I see the turbo plugs becomming a majority of the market in the coming years.

My only issue with the class structure is that I do NOT want to label it a "spec", "beginner" or "entry level" class. That is a sure-fire way to keep everyone away, newbies and vets alike. While it needs to be an easily-accessed class by all, especially those who aren't DOGs, putting a tag on it to make it a lesser class than anything else is a nail in the coffin. You have to keep it similar to road race classes if possible, to keep guys who have these things on the shelf interested in putting them into the dirt. I don't think that you will ever get every racer to be on the same page as far as fairness goes, so there will always be people porting out RTR motors trying to get every advantage. You just want to build a class that allows large car counts and a level playing field.

K.I.S.S.

Also, to start out, one nitro class and one electric class should be developed with the potential of more in the future if the popularity warrants. Would you rather have 10 cars in each class instead of 20 cars in one class? Not me. Just my view...

rm-rf

July 8th, 2005, 12:29 AM

Heh round here I would be happy just to have enough guys some where to even run a touring car late model class. Much less bothering with real complicated rules for one. I have a 4tec with a McAllister body on it. More or less stock other than that and the tires. Been sitting on the shelf collecting dust since I put the body on it last year. Far as I know no one else even has a TC Late model round here, least not that Ive seen.

Guess Ill have to start dragging it around to the tracks I'm gonna be going to this year and run it from time to time when I'm practicing.

So I agree keep the rules as simple as possible.

Dlan44

July 11th, 2005, 2:36 PM

My only issue with the class structure is that I do NOT want to label it a "spec", "beginner" or "entry level" class. That is a sure-fire way to keep everyone away, newbies and vets alike. While it needs to be an easily-accessed class by all, especially those who aren't DOGs, putting a tag on it to make it a lesser class than anything else is a nail in the coffin.
You have to keep it similar to road race classes if possible, to keep guys who have these things on the shelf interested in putting them into the dirt. I don't think that you will ever get every racer to be on the same page as far as fairness goes, so there will always be people porting out RTR motors trying to get every advantage. You just want to build a class that allows large car counts and a level playing field.

K.I.S.S.

Also, to start out, one nitro class and one electric class should be developed with the potential of more in the future if the popularity warrants. Would you rather have 10 cars in each class instead of 20 cars in one class? Not me. Just my view...

EXACTLY................

That is why we are calling our new class "Limited Late Models"

I wouldn't have a problem with the belt drive cars in the class, excapt that they don't generally work well on the tracks here, and the waintainence issues in the dirt. The Traxxas has the best chance since the f/r drive belt is higher in the car, even then, on a heavy track, They are done in less than 2min.

AscotConversion

August 3rd, 2005, 12:03 AM

Why not choose a spec tire that will work pretty much anywhere? Something like an HPI X pattern, or Super Radial, which would work on almost any track? The other possibility would be to spec 2 tires- one for smoother tracks, and one which could be more of a rally type tire for tracks that like a pin? Just make it something very easy to get. Also, it would help if it comes with an insert. Even if it's just the grey foam. Mandating the use of the included insert also helps a lot in avoiding headaches. Good luck.

Dlan44

August 3rd, 2005, 3:55 PM

-==MMackey27==-

August 3rd, 2005, 5:09 PM

EXACTLY................

That is why we are calling our new class "Limited Late Models"

I wouldn't have a problem with the belt drive cars in the class, excapt that they don't generally work well on the tracks here, and the waintainence issues in the dirt. The Traxxas has the best chance since the f/r drive belt is higher in the car, even then, on a heavy track, They are done in less than 2min.

Couldn't you rig up some form of "shield" around the belts? I know the Losi belt-drive Street Weapon kits are almost entirely enclosed, or at least they were. HPI also made "inner bodies" for their belt drive rally kits they put out. I don't think maintenance is so much the issue, it's preventative maintenance that is. A little ingenuity could go a long way. I could even see Daryl and Gary making a molded inner-body that attaches to the bottom of the chassis and encapsulates everything like a clam shell. Beyond that... a little lexan and a few strategic bends or a single piece of lexan curved to form a tunnel over the belts between the front/rear diffs, you would have a thin enveloped lexan drape that attached to the frame with double-sided tape that'd enclose the belt. Cut out the holes for access where necessary or for motor clearance. It can be done... I don't see a reason to outlaw the kits if people have them and want to run them and have access to them. If an XRay/Serpent, Corally, Mugen, Cen, or something else costs more and goes significantly faster... add ballast weight to them to make their lap times in the ballpark. If they (racers) balk at that... don't let them run then. If they're willing to accept the constraints, welcome aboard.

As far as the body issues...

It's a 1/10th scale car, and if an inch makes a difference in wing height in full scale, fractions of an inch can in RC, even if you opt to run a largely unscale wing out of necessity (i.e. 3" for 1/10th would be 30" for full scale) due to the power to weight, lack of mechanical grip, different torque/horsepower characteristics, etc. etc. The more surface area you have to work with, the more downforce. If that wasn't the case... you'd not see EDM's with bodies that look like an erected structure similar to the John Hancock Building in downtown Chicago. The cars work fine enough without all of that, but... people build them because the rules (or lack thereof) allow or account for it and it makes the cars faster, and everyone has to keep up with the Jones' as a result. Faster doesn't mean better racing, it just means they're faster, can run with more motor/engine. It's like what Doug spoke of on the thread about larger fuel tanks... you open up Pandora's box, people will learn to exploit the increased limits for manners that aren't the original intents, e.g. more fuel for more power (i.e. faster and more expensive engines) vs. longer run times as originally spec'ed.

The original idea of the body rules I posted wasn't to make it a nightmare to tech the cars for those that purchase bodies. I even addressed that above. It was designed for the tinkerer or body mfg. so they knew their investment or efforts had a set of constraints to fall within. If you don't build your own bodies, or don't mfg. your own bodies, then you have no concerns. Buy your body, mount it properly, and you're good to go. It's still K.I.S.S. but it saves people from making a body with a standard deck height only to have someone produce another body with 2" more deck height, a non-scale appearing sportscar-like dropped front, or a tall angled roof for downforce and render it largely obsolete. That's the exact things that RC Dirt Oval needs to nip in the bud to prevent some crazy off the wall monstrousity from hitting the track that has no association with anything scale. We've got a source of realistic-like bodies with Gary's and Daryl's bodies... all it takes is one person to undermine that and you're out to lunch. Without rules, there's nothing to spell out what is and isn't legal.

It's more for people like Daryl, Gary McAllister, someone else that mfg.'s bodies (i.e. Protoform, Parma/PSE, etc.) or someone wanting to do their own body like many of the dirt mod guys do out of cut/bent lexan. I for one don't want to see things restricted to certain brand bodies because it limits the freedoms, freedoms of those that run the class, and puts a stop sign up in front of anyone with a desire to build something *NEW* for the class knowing they have a bureaucratic fight to get through to get in. If I want to have an open deck and a different nose or tail section or different roof... I should be able to do so as long as there's a set of rules to build the body within, i.e. body min/max length, width, height, etc. That in effect was what I believe Daryl was asking for, was a set of guidelines that the cars, bodies, etc. should be held to. It also encourages other vendors to build bodies that fall within the body specifications without having to lobby to get their stuff in to legality.

You want to K.I.S.S., make it so that anyone can participate with bodies or cars... rather than restrict on which of what is allowed unless it truly provides some grounds for an advantage, which... a very lax set of body design regulations would allow. Restrictions like that (brand-specific or model specific) are far worse than outlaw rules, but it's the sensical restrictions that pay dividends, provide choice, but provide longevity in terms of production and usability for product. This is a niche hobby patterned after a niche sport... production isn't a cheap endeavor to partake in or justify, and wherever there's a giant sea of options... we should exploit as much of those options as possible without giving the competitor a noose to hang themselves with. For people like Gary and Daryl that invest in the hobby, it's a way to assure that their investment doesn't become a money pit, and assures that anything sitting on a hobby shop's shelves can remain legal and competitive for years to come. It allows Radikarz and Kipp and Shannzilla to go about building their own TC LM bodies and knowing that within the constraints, they're legal. It allows freedoms even as it spells out what will be accepted and what won't be.

Edit: As far as tires... I like choice, as long as the choices doesn't become endless to where I'm having to keep an endless sea of tires around in a special toolbox or case. It's good to have maybe 3-5 brands represented, preferrably with tires with decent grip and long-lasting durability. Yet if one is required to run 1 brand/tire design... or is allowed to run anything, you either end up with the same mess that was the Striker tire rule at Monee that Doug highlighted (when axed by Pro Line, there was no experience with anything else, and it's been a nightmare in a lot of ways) or... you end up having to haul a special case filled with tires for different track conditions and circumstances. We have enough of that already when you go from one area of the country to the next where tire rules are obviously very different... but to make that a local RC racing situation/problem is just ludicrous.

legend15x3

August 3rd, 2005, 5:26 PM

i just started racing after a 8 year absence from the sport of RC. Before I quit we ran dominators and such. And the biggest thing that was taxing us was the tires.

I now run here in Oklahoma with a TC3 with a MAC late model body. We run two classes with 4 different types of cars in the class. Losi, ASSO, XRAY and HPI. Most have ASSO cars. One class is 19t spec tag arm and any MAH battery and no lipos. I run 3600's and in just two weeks of starting back racing have won a feature and finished second in the other. The other class is Latemodel, whish is open motor and the same limits on batteries. Oh yes we are all 6 cell. The best part i see about the class is the tire rule. You can only run two types of tires. The HPI perelli rally T tire or the ASSO rally tire. Both tires have it stamped on the side walls what the tire is. We run a 2 1/2 in. tall side damn from top of car( which i think could go) any spoiler height and can bow in the rear spoiler. I don't agree with the side damn and rear box spoiler but it is the track rules. SOO i just run a side damn and go on to the front. Everyone runs the MAC bodies in the class. Either haggerstown or the knoxville, i believe. The open latemodel class has some brushless cars in it. But last two weekends the winner has been a brushed car. And last week I ran a 27t stock on accident and put myself on TQ.

I hope to have the track north of me open its dirt track back up so we can run up there. I have already requested that the latemodel class be only allowed to run the one perelli tire of any hardness( hard or soft), and no side damns and only the small factory spoiler and side fins for the the cars. With also the 19t tagged arms. And 6 cell any MAH and no LIPOS.

The reason I say the tire is this, It doesn't wear out in just a weekend of racing. I have two weekends and 3 practice days on the tires. They are the soft tires and have little to no wear.

Just my .02.

DrOlds

August 3rd, 2005, 5:35 PM

Faster doesn't mean better racing, it just means they're faster

THANK YOU!!!

My latemodel is a Street Weapon and the drivetrain is totally enclosed,but I still run an old XX4 body inside the LM body to keep it cleaner.The RS4/pro/rally/mt had an inner body that did the same thing,and they are belt drive.It doesn't take much to keep the dirt out if a belt drive car,a couple vertical sheilds of scrap lexan will stop 90% of it so let them run whatever they have!

Keeping the bodies from getting out of control is pretty simple.Just set a maximum heght that is about what they are now and specify that the top deck be parallel to the ground-problem solved,allows molded or handmade,and it's simple!

AscotConversion

August 3rd, 2005, 7:27 PM

The only reason I made a suggestion like I did is that tires will instantly get out of control. Since tire, insert and wheel choice all made a difference, you can spend unlimited $$ and still not be on pace. The thing that really helped touring car racing was tracks going to the prebuilt CS27 tire. Several on-road tracks like Trackside in WI have done this, and the racers seem satisfied. The best thing you can do is limit tire and insert choice, probably by saying the tire must be run w/supplied insert. If you pick out 5 different tires to allow, so be it. But unlimited tires won't be any fun, they'll take away simplicity.

Doug Carter

August 3rd, 2005, 8:17 PM

A spec tire on dirt will never work, unless it is implemented by each individual track. The previously spec ProLine Striker from Monee might not work everywhere, but it worked fine there (until they discontinued them).

You could always put a $25 claiming rule on a pair of tires with wheels. ;) That might keep some of the hijinx with odd rubber and handmade traction compounds to a reduced level. If someone was afraid of losing their 1-off handmade Frankenstein tires, they might not take the chance of using them.

Dirt oval racing will always be about tires, no matter what. To be fast, the tire is the key. It's up to the tracks to police the tire wars before they get out of control at that particular venue.

Dlan44

August 3rd, 2005, 9:19 PM

93TA

August 5th, 2005, 3:09 PM

this is a little off topic.. but since it was brought up here, i think its a good place to ask.

now, i'm not in any way advocating that any class be called spec(its a dumb name). and maybe my ignorance as to why it would put guys off is due to me only racing nitro where we never had a spec class until recently. but why on earth would an experienced/good driver be put off by a spec class? to me the only guy that should be put off by that is one that is only capable of winning with a mechanical advantage?

we just started a bomber class(which in a sense is a spec class... spec engine, spec body, spec tire(to some degree).. and this class is taking off like mad. and is filled with more experienced guys than newb's. everyone likes that fact that you dont have to worry about gettin out motored or pay a fortune for a motor.

Doug Carter

August 5th, 2005, 4:19 PM

Larry, I agree with you on that one. Personally, spec classes are appealing to me because of those reasons you mentioned. I can buy a car/kit and set it up, and drive it, and I know there will be great, close racing that won't cost a ton to be a part of.

In my experience with R/C spec classes (not real ones, as they don't seem to behave the same), when the really good guys get into those classes, the class seems to die. I think that the mechanical and money advantages that some people NEED to be competitive go out the window, and they think that they can't run at the top. The last electric class I ran in that was a spec class, was a relatively solid class. Spec motors, spec bodies, limited batteries and chassis, and the field was LEVEL. When a handful of really good drivers started to play, the class fell on its face, and left those few to race alone, and then eventually stop in that class completely.

While the name leaves a lot to be desired, an actual spec class is a ton of fun, easy to get into with limited resources, and provides great racing for all different levels of drivers.

I think anyone who thinks a spec class can't work should look at SCCA's Spec Ford Racer to see how large and even a class can be from one end of the country to the other.

I do think that it wouldn't be a bad thing to have at least one gas and one electric class in the new rulebook that were not necessariliy SPEC classes, but limited classes.

d

-==MMackey27==-

August 7th, 2005, 5:03 AM

Asphalt/concrete is a different animal. If the spec tires don't stick, just throw some more sugar water on it. Can't do that on Dirt. Personally i don't like being told what tire I HAVE TO run. As long as they aren't caps or silicone coated.........run what works. If that is foam......all the better...... and cheaper in the long run. If it is rubber......then you have to be prepaired for what the surface throws at you........just like the big boys.

The "big boys" are finding that when their tour comes to many tracks, they're not getting much support from the weekly competitors due to out of hand costs with an "open" tire rule, when many weekly competitors run with a more restrictive tire rule (i.e. UMP = LM20 and LM40). Yet when series' such as The Lucas Oil Dirt Racing Series (formerly NARA) run with a restricted compound rule... usually similar to the NARA Battle of the Bluegrass series, they find larger car counts. Why? They run a restricted compound rule, with 3 brands. They run the equivelant of a Hoosier D55/LM40 on the rear, and the equivelant of a Hoosier D20/LM20 or D55/LM40 on the front. That includes American Racer and Goodyear equivelants (i.e. SD56 and G45, amongst others), using durometer specs for each compound from each brand to set baselines and keep things relatively close.

As Doug said... I don't expect a "National" spec tire for RC, because I don't think it would ever really work. The RC cars just do not utilize a suspension capable of driving the wheels into the track like a real car does. There's differences in the car behavior because of the many differences between full-scale and RC. What works on an indoor track in the midwest on their clay/dirt mixture might not work near as well out in Arizona or California on an outdoor track. Yet... as Doug has mentioned, some of the ideas and philosophies are pertinent when taken into contexts with regards to the many differences.

I do feel that rather than a Pro Line Striker rule... that you should be able to pick 3-4 brands of touring tires at a particular track that have similar compounds and performance characteristics, even if the tread designs vary (minor or markedly; and then... some run slicks in RC and groove them so the tread would vary markedly there as well anyhow). Whether that's foam at a track that allows foams, or rubber like they have at a Monee, RVR, or M&M Raceway. The idea here isn't that we're going to limit choice or tie everything in to one manufacturer like the Pro Line Striker tire rule did. The fact is with the wealth of available touring car wheels/tires out there... a brand lock-in is beyond stupid. As has been said by many wise people "Never look a gift-horse in the mouth." You have the golden goose in the touring car movement, and with that phenomenal bit of fortune, is an undeniable array of profitable pieces to be exploited for the RC dirt oval sport.

Yet... giving someone an open tire rule will lead to considerable expense, and that's an expense that needs to be curbed, not just in full-scale but in RC as well. Softer tires will grip more in certain situations vs. hard tires, and there are times when the exact opposite is true; but if you have something that tends to work in 90% of the situations (at that particular track in RC)... even if it's not as fast as having it all open, as long as it works with that degree of consistency... roll with a restriction. If you leave everything open... you require racers to have to be prepared to handle every situation that comes up, and have the various answers in their toolbox or available for purchase on-site. If you've seen how full-scale touring competitors with monster budgets have an endless sea of tire racks with wheels pre-mounted and grooved for specific situations... compared to a lower budget weekly racer who has *NO HOPE* of matching that... you will learn to understand rather quickly why it's not a good idea to have it all just be open. Especially when you consider that many of the competitors in the dirt oval late model's "Dirty Dozen" have Hoosier contracts (i.e. free or reduced cost tires), which was a big part of them bailing on the Goodyear-only tire rule that XTreme posed. It was largely political, and if you understand the major predicament full-scale dirt late model racing is in, and now even full-scale dirt economy modifieds... you'll understand why giving one brand too much presence/power can be a detriment to many for the lack of price competition and keeping things "honest".

There's nothing wrong with me keeping tires for DODC's Nitro Tour for each track on the tour. That's a necessity, and if I want to be competitive I feel that in RC, that is something that I'd have to do, as there's no easy way to create a spec tire that works everywhere like there is in full-scale. A NASCAR-style WRS-55 tire rule (all 4 corners) would not work in RC IMHO. Yet... if you can maintain a handful of available options for front/rear in a handful of brands... you can make it easier for someone to have tires for their weekly track(s) of choice, and that opens up greater possibilities for running specials at other tracks throughout the year. It's a win-win for everybody, and noone's locked-in to any one brand unless they choose to be (i.e. become a contract driver for *brand inserted here*). I've got no problem with that... I just don't like the idea of having to have a big container full of touring car tires just to run Monee.

-==MMackey27==-

August 7th, 2005, 5:23 AM

You could always put a $25 claiming rule on a pair of tires with wheels. ;) That might keep some of the hijinx with odd rubber and handmade traction compounds to a reduced level. If someone was afraid of losing their 1-off handmade Frankenstein tires, they might not take the chance of using them.

Claim rules tend to become a difficult task though too, as there's usually some bureaucratic system put into place to enact a claim, and with said hurdles comes a greater potential of breaking down the whole shebang. You also then have the problem that the "offensive" tires can be basically bought from one competitor and passed to another competitor. Does it really solve the problem if instead of Marcus Mackey using the offensive tires, we have Doug Carter on those same tires the next week, and then Roy Moody the week after that, then Ken Pohlman, then... ?

Get my drift?

Now you could have a track (promoter) claim rule, sort of like the full-scale hornet division rules at many Illiana area tracks... but you still rely on a track promoter, with them typically burning the candle at both ends being busy enough as-is, having yet another responsibility to work within. If you want to get that technical... you might as well just run a durometer ruling. Anything = to or harder to x reading = legal... anything softer = illegal. The problem there is... you have to have a track buy a durometer, and then you have to have them be willing to tech the cars to that level. I'm presumptious that the (loose) technical inspection problem of full-scale doesn't plague RC nearly as heavily, but I'm also fairly astute to the realities that RC isn't nearly as restricted as full-scale is. While that had the advantage of making people make brand x car work with a myriad of options or buy car design a and use it for x # of years, it also paved the way for the current RC dirt oval cars to exceed $400 for a kit without electronics and definitely not RTR. There are pluses to open rules... but there are as many or more minuses after a thorough analysis is made.

I like the claim idea in theory... but I just am not sure how that would really work. If someone wants to be a real hard@ss... they can claim someone weekly and run off with a bunch of $20 tires and force someone they dislike... out of the sport. If you put in restrictions to prevent that (can only claim x # of events per year)... you have yet another hurdle mucking up the system and eliminating the options or making it more difficult and more of a hassle for those that are more considerate, more honest.

legend15x3

August 8th, 2005, 12:27 AM

-==MMackey27==-

August 8th, 2005, 12:06 PM

All I can say is this...the HPI Perelli T tire can be run on dirt and asphalt or carpet. The tire has in raised lettering on the side that clearly states what the tire is! There are two compounds to run, hard or soft. http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXCYT2&P=0

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXDUR0&P=0

Those are the two tires. And that is it. They come with an insert, but heck tell the guys no inserts to take that out of the deal.

Call the classes semi-late and late model? Semi = 19t tagged arms. Late = open motor.

.02

Once again though, single brand = bad idea. If HPI discontinues those tires... you're SOL until something else capable and viable is brought up. I also assure you, what works at one track in RC might not work well at all at another. A nationwide spec tire, as Doug said, is highly doubtful to work.

I also tend to think that the new Vintage Racing tires HPI has for their touring cars with the calligraphic sidewall lettering (the H looks like Hoosier's "H") could work at some tracks. Their tread looks very much like a Hoosier (what UMP mods are required to run) super chainlink dirt oval tire. Case in point: https://www.hoosiertire.com/otdtire.htm on second row left side, vs. http://www.hpiracing.com/piw4.php?part=4793 . The downside is that they're only available in D-compound (hard compound, same hard compound as the Pirelli rally tires) but... hard to say. Probably would still work at some tracks, in some conditions. At the very least... a set of 4 of them, same width, on the HPI NASCAR rims (chrome or black) on 3 of 4 wheels, a dish wheel on the right rear (only wheel dishes are allowed in full-scale in most sanctions with the mods), and a McAllister IMCA/UMP modified body... you're looking about as scale as it gets for concours.

I'd still like to see another brand or two though, and perhaps some slicks since many find success with using them. With extensive choice... it's foolish not to exploit it *SOME* but not to let it get carried away to the point of insanity where anything and everything is legal and you have people changing tires for each event throughout the night chasing changing track conditions. Cost containment is a good idea when it doesn't take away potential choices, and doesn't preclude other brands (within reason).

Doug Carter

August 8th, 2005, 12:49 PM

Simply put, a control tire should be left up to the local track. Take-Off 27Rs are an internationally available tire, and plenty of meat to groove. It's a great control tire to have for all types of surfaces. I wouldn't recommend making one brand or type of tire mandatory anywhere, but that should be left to the track owners.

As for the HPI vintage tire, it will ONLY fit on the HPI wheels made for those tires (American/Cragar mags). They are also a fairly hard compound. I have couple sets here, and I don't know how well they will potentially work on a dirt oval car.

d

Dirtdog

August 8th, 2005, 5:24 PM

Dell and I are local racers here in Dallas. I have spent many thousands of dollars building various types of nitro dirt oval cars. Dell picqued my interest in this nitro late model class due to the rules. I really like the fact that it is geared toward RTR kits so as to keep the playing field level and the costs down. My RTR LD3 has a .55hp engine in it. My 1/10 scale OFF car has a 1.5+ hp engine in it. The cool thing about these latemodel nitros is it is all about having fun racing. I see the dark side of racing, and I am becoming disillusioned by it. People have gotten way too serious about it. The cost of being competitive is keeping people out of the sport in both nitro oval and touring races. Many people can not afford to buy the custom made race kits and big ticket engines. Few others have the knowledge or money to take a full blown race engine and have it cut on to improve it's performance even more. I don't have a problem with people doing this kind of racing, but to me the whole point of racing RC is to have fun. I enjoy the association of the other racers, in fact on the weekends that my driver can't go racing, I go to the track just to hang out with my friends. I think these RTR latemodels will bring in new racers to our sport. I had my new latemodel at the track last friday night. It was not race ready at the time. A new guy came over to look at it. I told him of our plans to start a class and explained to him how much it would cost to get into it. He pulled out his wallet and handed me $220.00 and said "can you order me one?" I did this morning, he will have it this friday. Most of us who have raced for many years are hardened to the big money it takes to field a competitive race car today. You tell someone looking to get into racing RC sprint cars that a competitive sprint car can cost as much as $1,200 to $1,500 and they will turn white and run away screaming, but $220.00 is much easier to handle. I hope that guys who decide to try these cars will leave the general rules alone. It is all about fun, no big egos or pocketbooks required.

Dlan44

August 9th, 2005, 4:37 PM

Amen.........................

Lets just have a class guys can have some fun in. New guys, old guys, and guys with shallow pockets. If you make that class nationally accepted........fine. If not, we are gonna have some paint swappin latemodel fun..............and hopefully grow some new racers that will eventually race a fire breathing sprinter.

Mason

October 13th, 2005, 3:50 PM

Where are we at on this? Our (spec/limited) electric late model class is THE competitive class to be in on our oval. Now that our track is a bit bigger (~246') and corners are 'longer', it is to the point where drivers are forced to learn how to drive relatively side by side around the whole track.

A few guys have hacked off the battery tray in favor of a specialized one. Only one guy has made any progress with it in the winning arena and that gap is tightening. A few losis in the mix as well.

TC w/ foam tires (30-31mm max width), non-lipo 6 cell batt, LM body w/ max 1.5" chord spoiler & 19T Fixed timing motors. When the racers aren't goofing off, 0.5s is the average best margin of victory. Or one less bad corner than 2nd place. Some of the guys hmmmed and hawwed at the fixed timing bit but after a week or two they figured out that setup is going to win the race because there is only so much effort you can/need to put into motor and batteries. We run 19T because its a good balance of speed vs parts.

I qualify in the top 4 with 2 year old 3300's and whip out a fresher set of cells for the main. We usually finish a lap or 2 under qualifying due to tooo much rubbing :P

Anyways we have a great time, hope you guys are also.

Dlan44

October 13th, 2005, 5:40 PM

We run Nitro Latemodels on a 290' driveline (310' centerline) indoor oval. Lap times are around 6sec. Nitro cars are easier to control with a side dam (5.5"high), otherwise the bodies are the same, We run foam tires on any wheel. The limiting factor is that the tires have to be completely covered by the body.

koolaid89

October 18th, 2005, 2:29 AM

Dlan44

October 18th, 2005, 1:43 PM

DrOlds

October 22nd, 2005, 5:25 PM

I'm totally for the spec tire at each track... come up with one pattern and find any closely paterned ones by other mfgr. and thats it. you can pic from 1-3 tires max keep it cheap keep it simple.
I'm also for any small block, you can get a .12-.15 for 60$ and up and a .18 for 75$ and up to keep those hi-po .12's honest

As for suspension keep it stock design only.. aluminum parts are fine, if durability is more important than weight to them more power to them.

Lastly keep the body specs simple, I think side dams shoud be decided at each track... they're not expensive, the positives and negatives are a wash in my eyes and if the track is fast enough that a little stability is need to help out the newbies so be it... as for the scale or realism debate I've seen both ways ran on asphalt and on dirt LM. And this is coming from someone who's never ran a side dam so I'm completely impartial

Great thread doug... should make this a sticky if its not already lets keep it going lets get something in stone even if we have to vote.

The problem with "spec" stuff is that it works directly against it's intended purpose.If you have a spec tire,someone will put a new set on every main,if you have a spec motor someone will buy them buy the dozen to find the good ones and push them to where they are one day throwaways.If you have spec batteries someone will buy them by the dozen and then charge them at 9 amps.

For rubber tire tracks there are only 5 choices of rally tires,so even if you buy all of them it's not that much,and it will get figured out pretty quick which ones work and which ones aren't worth buying.On foam tire tracks it's much the same as it will be known which ones work,and it's probably only a few.

Limiting suspension mods is kind of pointless since even basic sedan chassis are very sophisticated,and some actually need a some changes to work on dirt since they weren't designed for it.As long as you don't turn one into a 10" wide 4wd buggy it won't really matter.

I agree on keeping body specs simple.At our track the rule is that the body must have a flat upper deck so that we have actual late model bodies and not "out of hand" batmobile wedge bodies.I can't stress enough the importantence of keeping the side dams off of them.They don't need them for stability-they're FOUR WHEEL DRIVE.Side dams are the difference between the class being a horsepower war,and not.Side dams make the cars reach higher speeds on the track but don't make for any better racing.With a side dam it's all about horsepower.Setup doesn't matter much because the side dam IS the setup.The chassis can be a complete mess,but put a side dam on it and the car will go around the track about the same as everyone else's.If the objective is to have a class that is all about setup and driving,then make setup and driving the most imortant things to have to be competitive.

I am still excited about the class and would like to see it grow,and help dirt oval to grow.