THE Cub Report, Version 01.31.2010

I have a few things I NEED to get off my chest this week.

Marshalling is bad for our sport. Yes, it is. Everyone hates to marshal. I didn’t pay my entry fee to run my ass off and still get yelled at by some F’n moron on the drivers stand, I paid to RACE. If I crash in a race, I am prepared to pay for it. If I am hacked in a race, I expect the guy that hacked me to be penalized (unless he stops and lets me regain my position), and my car to be righted. Having a lot of marshals on the track only encourages over driving and hacking. Reverse NEEDS to be legal, I mean, if it’s perfectly fine for F1, NASCRAP, and Indy cars to have reverse, it is perfectly fine for toy cars, and will cut down on the need for marshals. Small tracks need ONE marshal, big tracks need TWO, just to right hacked drivers and those that still insist on driving over their heads (albeit very slowly to encourage people to drive within their skill range). Oh and, the TRACK needs to supply the ONE or TWO marshals. YES they do. If you have a club track, you’ve got Plenty of members to pick from. If you have a privately owned track, perhaps you can trade a couple weeks race fees in exchange for “working” marshal duty.

Why do racers run multiple classes? To get more track time. Problem is, it costs a lot of money to set up two, three or more race cars/trucks. Guess what? You can give racers more track time without having them enter multiple classes. It is soooooo beyond the time to increase race lengths. Every race in the world should be no shorter than 10 minutes. Having longer races for one class saves the money of having to set up another truck, and also saves on a second entry fee. Make racing cheaper, get more racers, win/win for everyone. There are simply too many classes now, this will also help there.

I’ve flipped out about this several times, but there is no F’n need in the world to make qualifying 75% of a race day schedule. It’s called RACE day for a reason, to RACE. So how about 2 quals and 2 mains? Two quals are needed in case some jackass hacks you (and breaks you) in one qual, at least you have a second shot. Two mains doubles the current standard for actual racing. More racing, less jerk’n around with this p&ssy IFMAR qualifying crap, it’s something that needs to be done to help aim the hobby in a better direction.

I’ve said this many times before, but to be perfectly clear, realism is GOOD for this hobby. Sanctioning bodies should start encouraging, and promoting the short course classes. They are the future and they will help get more people in the hobby. Developing the short course classes should be the number one priority of any sanctioning body.

There NEEDS to be only ONE national champion. Yes, indeed, JUST ONE. Having 50 per year only waters down the meaning. It’s time to cut the b#llsh^t, and determine ONE national champion. All drivers with a good enough resume are allowed to compete for it, and it HAS to be a series, not a one weekend deal. It’s what’s best for the sport, and will help generate a lot of enthusiasm and perhaps even outside sponsorship (Red Bull, Monster Energy, Yamaha, Spy Optics, Fox Racing, etc) for the race promoters. Let the amateurs compete for regional “amateur” titles, let the pro’s add some much needed credibility to our hobby with a truly professional national championship series. (how about every regional championship race be a leg on the national championship tour? just say’n)

There NEEDS to be separate rules for the ONE national championship title than for local/amateur racing. Most local tracks just use “ROAR” rules for their local racing, and those are not the most conducive for keeping noobs in the hobby. The national champion rules can allow for some uber tech in the F1 of rc racing, the ONE national championship series, and the amateur rules can be purpose built to keep all those new faces that show up at the track in the hobby more than just one trip.

Since when is FAST a bad thing when playing with toy cars (or any car for that matter)? If you think there should be separate 21.5, 17.5, 13.5, and “mod” classes, you are an idiot. If you think 3S, 6S, 8S, or whatever high cell count batteries should be illegal, ditto. Separating by novice, intermediate, and expert ABILITY is the more responsible way of dividing classes. Brian Kinwald WILL beat you (yes, YOU) with a 17.5 or a 4.5, it doesn’t matter what motor you are using. Give a novice driver a 3.5 motor on a 6S Lipo pack and he’ll be far slower than a 21.5 on 6 cell Ni-mh. If you allow drivers to use ANY cell count or motor wind available, they will eventually end up using what works best for them (and it’s not going to be the 8S Lipo 9000kv motor combo I PROMISE you that). The “stock” class might have worked as intended for a short time after it was introduced 20 years ago, but it’s been a joke since, and it’s just F’n stupid during the brushless age. Separate by ability, not by the motor of the day.

I feel better, thanks for listening. 🙂

One last note for this week. It’s good working for BigSquid, we can say exactly what we think here, that’s what makes us different than “most” of the print rags. I can say good things about about a mag, but you won’t see them saying anything good about a website, that’s what really sets us apart. So this week, I gotta give props yet again to Stephen Bess at R/C Car. His “Drivers Stand” column in the March issue of R/C Car is worth every penny of the $4.99 newsstand price. The March issue also features a cool interview with HPI’s Akira Kogawa. So pick up a copy if you can find it. And no, I am not kissing R/C Car mags a$$, I am simply recommending a very well written (and very outspoken) article in one of the mags. If one of the other mags would grow some balls and write something worth reading, I’d be recommending it here too, but so far only Bess has the stones big enough to put some real hard core views in print.

Thanks for reading, and as always, support your LHS’s and local tracks.

YOUR Cub Reporter