Mini-Z, Kyosho Mini-Z Racer, MR-03, MR-02, MA-010, Forums, News, Pictures, Parts, and Shop - Mini-ZRacer.com
Forums, Mini-Z, MiniZ, Kyosho Mini-Z, Kyosho MiniZ, Kyosho Mini-Z Racer
Mini-Z Hop-Ups, Mini-Z Parts, MiniZ Hop-Ups, MiniZ Parts, Kyosho Mini-Z Hop-Ups, Kyosho Mini-Z Parts, Kyosho MiniZ Hop-Ups, Kyosho MiniZ Parts, Kyosho Mini-Z Racer Hop-Ups, Racer Kyosho Mini-Z Parts
Old 2019.05.07, 06:57 AM   #16
arch2b
Moderator
 
arch2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,768
Send a message via AIM to arch2b
I understand the logic behind not allowing base class cars in upper class racing but at the same time, if upper class is about loosening the restrictions, What your really doing is mandating something faster than base class must power upper class. Not opposed to that but should be clear about it in any rules for the class. It would in essence ensure a distinctly feel to the class vs. description below.

I personally would run both classes if time afforded me the opportunity. The upside to allowing less restriction to upper class is that those on a budget can setup one car and run multiple classes vs. forcing those to have either two cars or change out motors and different TX model setting.

Much more subjective opinion than anything else from this point down...
Not running CCW is a personal choice, one that has consequences. Why take that away simply because some of the top guys choose not to but majority does? If you want the full Monty experience, pull up the big boy britches for CCW vs. dumb it down. Either HFAY stays CW and CCW or goes to CW only, at which point, your really just doing group time trials. I understand why some donít like CCW but i also donít like the idea of dumbing something down either. Itís meant to be a challenge. Some accept, some donít but to take it away (make easier) because some of the top drivers refuse strikes me as arrogant, just from a subjective opinionated perspective. My club had drivers that refused CCW as well so iím Familiar with the issue. I will state that in the past participation, our top driver ran both directions and Take pride in that as a club.

No offense intended to drivers that choose not to run CCW, itís a personal choice they are welcome and free to make.
arch2b is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.07, 10:57 AM   #17
briankstan
SLMZ / HFAY
 
briankstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 6,829
Love the discussions going on.

if There were 2 classes of completely different feel, and seperated enough the the faster cars simply wouldn't meet the rules of the slower class than you would have to run 2 different cars to be able to compete in both.

I would be good with Clubs running LeMans style or sperating the classes if they had the drivers to do it. We have run racing like that in the past.

Regarding the CW and CCW directions. this is just a challenging thing. I don't prefer the CCW direction myself and most of the club doesn't either. some like it. I ususally take a 10lap hit on the CCW direction but that is part of the challenge. to make it more difficult we run both directions on the same night. back to back ususally with only 1 practice run in between.
__________________
--Salt Lake Mini-Z---HFAY---MZR Gallery--

Last edited by briankstan; 2019.05.07 at 11:01 AM.
briankstan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.07, 12:08 PM   #18
EMU
EMUracing
 
EMU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,363
Send a message via AIM to EMU
I am a fan of running both directions. It helps improve as a driver, as well as the difference in setup and line approach as the same setup might not be as well suited for the opposite direction.

In our club races, we often alternate direction for different race meetings. We have been doing this as long as I can remember eating back to the Action RC days. If parties decide to omit one direction, I think that is on them. For race groups that really only have HFAY as their racing method, it offers two layouts in a sense in the same time period.
__________________
EMUracing
Micro RC Syndicate /DG Designs /GSR /Reflex Racing /Fast By Faqish /MurderTown Racing
EMU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.07, 02:25 PM   #19
bobbyz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 396
I prefer keeping both CW and CCW in upper class(s) especially if the format is timed races. I like the extra racing, and challenge of figuring a new set of racing lines.

As for inclusion of the base 70t/3500 class into possible upper 50t/5500 and Open, I think distinct and separate classes allow the base class to remain robust, and the other classes to grow over time as participants choose to either change out motors from 70t to 50t or 3500 to 5500, add a second chassis, or upgrade to the latest & greatest. The exception I can see would be allowing any "filler" cars from any class to meet the 3 car minimum rule for the final recorded race event.

I also think it could be left to club preference how classes are run; either mixed or separated as long as race data can be managed and uploaded appropriately.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.07, 05:15 PM   #20
art4242
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 97
Looks like everyone is converging on two classes, stock and open, allowing drivers to participate in both, and keeping CW and CCW directions. Sounds great to me.

I like the idea of mandating something faster than 70T/3500kV NiMH in the open class to provide a distinction, otherwise running a stock car twice doesn't seem to make sense as it will just be two separate runs of the same car. Also provides a challenge for drivers to become accustomed to the higher powered cars, and hopefully do better than their stock car times . There could always be sorting of the data post race to include the stock cars with the open cars for comparison.
art4242 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.08, 01:11 AM   #21
mugler
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 395
Sounds like retaining CCW in the would be future open class is unanimous..that being said conversation shifts to asking all clubs and drivers be it in the slower or faster class to please run the CCW direction as well so the accumulation of points doesn't get jacked up...i don't think there's any desire to force this but just to say not having all drivers run CCW as well ( specially fastest 10-20) dulls down the meaningfulness of the overall rankings which is suppose to be the main prize at the end of the season.

If the sorting of data on NLT could be implemented in ways which has been suggested then it would definitely add another dimension to the meaning of results but as Art suggested ( I think ) that can also be done just by looking at results of both classes after each round for comparison and amusement.

Couple of words about running CCW . Firstly it's like running 2 completely different layouts on the same day so if anything its double the fun in that way. 2ndly even though everyone is doing less laps running CCW it's still within same gaps with others as in CW so no shame in that which I can think of. not really sold on the CCW direction driving messing up the CW driving skill set theories either, I feel if anything its the opposite but maybe running one direction only opens up more time for multiple runs in the same direction be it for practice or for submission for which i'm making suggestions regarding rules in the next paragraph. The issue with CCW being slower is the location of the motor on the pod which has CW racing in mind but that's in all scales of pan cars which our scale has copied off of however when everyone runs CCW then that factor is the same for all. We've run CCW at every race this year at Malibu Mini-Z and feel it made it better than just running CW.

I think rules #9 & #10 under "GETTING STARTED " banner on NLT's manual page need to be re-considered given that most of it is not that practical and likely not being practiced even at this time & certainly not by all.

My suggestion is in all scenarios below as long as there are 3 cars on the track allow each club at their own discretion to:

1) allow slow and faster class drivers in the same race in any combination as long as there are 3 on track. (will apply to the future multi class season)
2) Race as many runs either on the same or multiple race days per month for any number of drivers who show up on that given day(s) (again a minimum of 3 drivers to be present)
3) allow each driver to to pick their best result for that month for submission from any of his/her runs which were ran by the club as a race.

Last edited by mugler; 2019.05.08 at 01:16 AM.
mugler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.08, 03:45 AM   #22
MTSEO
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Under the Bodies category can lexan window/roof be added?

There is a section for ages 16 and under driver championship. Currently there is not a good way to designate which drivers are at or below that age in order to "award" that title. It looks like in the past it was done with * but the current system does not allow the asterisk symbol to be imported. Parenthesis could be used around the name in its place. For instance my son (HodgeT) instead of *HodgeT. That would save Blaine from needing to figure out how to import an asterisk.

I am fine with muglers suggestion of changing rules 9 and 10.
If those rules are changed, do we still need to drop the 2 lowest scores for the season?
I think one area where this would make a difference is that currently we have a filler driver every time we race because we have 5 people, one race with 3 racers and another with 2 racers and a filler. That filler driver has nothing to gain or loose under the current format, but in the format mugler has suggested there would not be a filler as that person can improve their position during that race also.

Last edited by MTSEO; 2019.05.08 at 03:47 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.08, 04:03 AM   #23
SuperFly
bitPimp
 
SuperFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugler View Post
2) Race as many runs either on the same or multiple race days per month for any number of drivers who show up on that given day(s) (again a minimum of 3 drivers to be present)
3) allow each driver to to pick their best result for that month for submission from any of his/her runs which were ran by the club as a race.
This seems like it would be a significant advantage to those with a permanent space to have unlimited runs. You're suggesting one could run, say, ten different 8 minute sessions of a given track, and just pick the best one?

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems like introducing more than one class, and having multiple runs at it makes it something different than the HFAY I've grown accustomed to. To me, part of the challenge was showing up on HFAY night, learning a layout in about 30 minutes, running quals, running a main that counts, then doing the same thing counter-clockwise, pick up the track and go home.

I'm not going to be challenging anyone for any HFAY glory any time soon, but I guess it takes something away knowing that the guy one spot above me might have practiced the layout for a week and taken 15 tries in 3 different cars to get his score.
__________________

mini-z gallery
SuperFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.08, 07:06 AM   #24
arch2b
Moderator
 
arch2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,768
Send a message via AIM to arch2b
There is nothing preventing anyone from practicing a layout for 29-30 days and running for numbers on the last day of the month. Itís not exactly the same thing as cherry picking results as suggested but one could practice as much as they want, then run for timed conditions. Iím sure there are some that have the opportunity to do so and do, happy for them really. If i had the opportunity to practice, i know i would. There were seasons where the off HFAY weekends we raced next months HFAY layout, albeit modified to 3 wide L size. This has always been the case and while iím Certain, it has improved some drivers results, is that really a negative? Some clubs have more access to track time than others, just the way it is. Remnant for example races twice a week, every week. My club races twice a month.

Iím not in favor of cherry picking results either. No other race event lets you have endless re-runs. This is of course solely based on honor system so clubs have had to hold up to a common standard on their own.

We have bump ups for example and the drive must choose before he bumps on which run he wants counted, the finished run or the bump or not even take the bump run.

We have also had HFAY make up days in which people could still get their race in but those that already ran before didnít get a redo.

My opinion is a no on cherry picking results. Makes the importance of race day meaningless if there are no stakes in showing up and putting forth best effort if can simply be done over at any time. Some times you just end up with a goose egg...
arch2b is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.08, 07:47 AM   #25
EMU
EMUracing
 
EMU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,363
Send a message via AIM to EMU
There is also nothing preventing groups from running more rounds after the official round for their personal glory to compare to the published statistics, however only the first run should be submitted. This puts everyone on close to equal terms regardless of they have a permanent track or a temporary one.

I would assume that they can also run practice races before the final submitted race, but cannot choose the best run of the races to count for the results. The practice tacers would give insight with setup, line, and passing zones which could help with the final run, but nerves always change when the clock counts, and I think it would be good to keep it so that the single run is the one that counts so that there is more pressure to perform.
__________________
EMUracing
Micro RC Syndicate /DG Designs /GSR /Reflex Racing /Fast By Faqish /MurderTown Racing
EMU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.08, 11:12 AM   #26
TyGminiz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 47
I think we should keep it as simple as possible presently. Like when our club was new, we simply couldn't allow tons of options or our club would fall apart. We had strict guidelines on the cars and still do. We presently have 3 classes. 1) Near Box Stock (our NBS requires Kyosho stock motor, but allows a few small things for another thread 2) HFAY Spec 3) Open class.

This allows us an entry point for new drivers. And allows folks to do whatever mods they want on their car that fit HFAY rules, and run what ever car they want for that night of HFAY racing (NBS or HFAY Spec). And then allows everything else that doesn't fit HFAY, to be in the Open class.

HFAY is a unique racing event. Every RC event i've participated in has structure for that event. HFAY is 8 minutes of racing, run one CW, run the other CCW. When we were new, we were numb at the end of 8 minutes. Well, we still are numb and checking our heart rate monitors... but it's the structure of the event that whether you get lots of practice for during the month or not, that when you come to race, you are putting your best effort in that race and you get what you got. Just like going to a weekend event, you can choose to do some races or all of them. But because of the structure of this event, it accounts for your times in CW and CCW to qualify for positions. Just like 8 minutes was the challenging part in the beginning, as well as CCW, they are both welcome factors for the event. Some still choose to not do CCW and that is fine. We want everyone as well to have a good time.

That being said, i think the structure is fine.

If two classes were an option, I would lean back on HFAY Spec (including NBS) and Open classes. All other rules would need to be the same, and if one night during racing you only have 2 Open Class cars show up to your club than you have to have a 3rd racer line up with their HFAY Spec or Near Box Stock car to run with you. We have done this and actually it's not terrible. Sometimes the HFAY Spec driver has out performed the others.

We have also run guys in two classes with two different cars. Adding an additional class in both CW and CCW was time challenging for us, but we did it when we were a smaller group. Now we only allow NBS and HFAY Spec to run on HFAY nights, and we run them as one class, simply because of our clubs time restrictions.

Also only run the Filler / what we call Ghost car, as simply that, it is not allowed to be a "choice" finish by the driver to use as their backup race if for whatever reason they didn't do as good in their real race.

The vise versa also is a factor. If you only have two NBS or HFAY Spec cars show up one night and there is a few guys who want to run their Open car, they can not run their faster Open class cars, down to the HFAY class. So that would mean you don't run that group that night, or you miss out completely. This is why we have a standard that our clubbers start with the NBS car first, add in or upgrade their car to HFAY Spec, then and only then allow them to buy an Open car. I know, seems restrictive. But if we didn't put this in place, Murphy would show up and we'd have 4 guys with 3 different classes of cars and couldn't run any HFAY. It's worked for us, may not for you, do what your club can do.

Last edited by TyGminiz; 2019.05.08 at 11:45 AM.
TyGminiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.08, 06:33 PM   #27
RussF
Salt Lake Mini-Z
 
RussF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 249
I have a lot of cars and would love to race them all in HFAY and have the cars to do it, but I understand time limits. HFAY is How Fast Are You on this track with a similarly equipped car compared to the rest of the participants. And it needs to stay simple to run and record the results.



I would highly support the idea of two classes:

1. HFAY Spec = Any chassis, 4 AAA Nimh batteries, 70t/3500kv motor, hard plastic scale body with min mods, 170 gr min, etc...

2. Open = Everything else, No 70t/3500Kv motors, open everything else.



For all the other opinions I read about here are mine:

- I kind of liked the idea of running the track as much as you like and trying to improve your time if you can. Definite advantage to those with a permanent track.
- Any car could be eligible for the ghost or filler car to make 3.
- Keep both CW and CCW directions.
- 8 minute runs are too long. I would like to see it lowered to a more standard 5 or 6 minute run. This could also allow more classes to be run in the same time limit.
- I would love to see an alternate class event where you could run other class cars like F1, Nascar, Buggies, FWD, 3 Wheeler's, Semi Trucks, Porsche Cup, Etc.. Maybe just one track for one month and that's it for the season.

Above all it needs to be fun and inclusive!
__________________
Salt Lake Mini-Z

Last edited by RussF; 2019.05.08 at 06:35 PM.
RussF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.09, 01:28 AM   #28
mugler
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 395
Regarding cherry picked results at this time there's nothing to prevent it from happening even in this season. To control it (but only partially - fully is not possible) that would require PDF submission of race sheets to NLT as a requirement to submit the general results but not only that's cumbersome on both ends of the software it still can be the cherry picked results for both of the 2( when there's 1 filler) or all 3 racers (if there was a filler or not)did their best in the race sheet that's being uploaded. That being the case the rules can make it known that cherry picking is allowed and hopefully that will spur more GTG's for each club within the month and more mini-z activity in general in pursuit of max # of laps.

A filler should be used only if there are more than 3 racers present on race day and there should never be more than 1 filler per race. As an extension to this point any driver used as a filler for any month should have their results submitted to NLT even if they don't run in another race as a racer.

Perhaps the Alternate class can be reserved for the off months in-between the seasons ... members could vote on track layout & which class and bingo.

I absolutely like the 8 minute length and to be honest even though I know we're not headed there I think 10 minutes would've been even more enjoyable & appropriate given that in our case at least we only meet once a month so the 2 races per class need to be long enough to qualify as enough actual racing on the track. Also the cars groove way more consistently during the second half of the race when tires are temped in.

Last edited by mugler; 2019.05.09 at 01:37 AM.
mugler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.09, 02:40 AM   #29
BladeSling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 38
Okay, didn't see this here for a while. This is some interesting conversation.

Summary of below hahaha:
- I agree, two classes 70t/3500 and open
- I don't like removing the two rules that basically would make it a time trail
- I'll start working on adding classes even if for some reason we don't use them for season 28
- Keep CW and CCW
- I can fix the "age" indicator if desired

I like the idea of two classes to allow people to go explore the deep ends of performance and one to keep things real close. 70t/3500 or whatever it is, and then open. That way people can start exploring other manufactures in the scale. I know our club would have a rough time of it because with HFAY we do local HFAY but I'm interested in seeing the other results.

Features needing to be added:
- Support for class when submitting data
- Ability to have multiple classes in a single race
- Filter and or sort by class maybe by default display them merged together
- Allow multiple entries for a racer with different classes for scoring calculations

I don't like the idea of removing #9 or #10. This rule serve as the balance for clubs of different varieties. Racing is about preparation, nerves, driving, and all that stuff. We follow these rules and the results are devastating and change our local results. It pushes our local racers to show up for every HFAY night so they don't lose their drops since we only do one night of HFAY a month. I hope people are following these rules. I've had several accidents and my times reflect that. I'm not submitting 50 laps because I want to, it is because if I have a drop that 50 laps can be several points difference if I need it.

Maybe monthly hfay time trial championship can be spooled up at the same time if there is enough interest. If you like this idea vote for it and leave a comment on how many people you could get interested in it here: https://nextleveltiming.nolt.io/14

I'm not sure what would happen to the "open" classes scores if they only submitted half of the races. The software isn't smart and doesn't know which races are for which classes. In fact that would be counter to what it seems like most people are expecting. It sounds like they want a merged result for both classes in the same race with options to filter/sort results. If we go that route we will have to think how things are displayed or if a new championship is created instead.

As for the age asterisk indicator- Yes it is broken. I think special characters are striped from the name field. Not sure why yet, probably something even easy to fix. I don't mind a novice/age indicator but I think the female/male indicator is a bit awkward. Half of the people submitting times don't even submit using their real names. If you can let me know if we want to fix this for the next season that would be great.
BladeSling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.09, 11:29 AM   #30
arch2b
Moderator
 
arch2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,768
Send a message via AIM to arch2b
I like the idea of promoting time trial participation! Clueless on how to do this as i have not run one in ages.
As a club, you could do individual time trails as a means to sort mains. It generates a lot of time trial data to submit but also takes up a bunch of time for those with more than just a small handful of drivers.
arch2b is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HFAY Season 27 TyGminiz How Fast Are You? Online Points Series 298 2019.06.06 01:52 PM
HFAY 70-turn Season 6 Spec Motor Tests schmenzer How Fast Are You? Online Points Series 27 2009.03.09 01:49 PM
2008/2009 Winter Season Schedule, Rules, and Prizes AtlRC Atlanta Mini Scale Racing 0 2008.11.26 03:52 PM
HFAY 70-turn Motor - On Track Tests schmenzer How Fast Are You? Online Points Series 1 2008.06.04 05:31 PM
HFAY OLPS Ann Arbor Videos hobbycar How Fast Are You? Online Points Series 16 2007.11.03 08:02 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2011 Mini-ZRacer.com
Mini Inferno Sale - Up to $85 Instant Savings!
Micro-T Hop-Ups
RC18R, M18, Micro RS4, Mini-LST, TamTech-Gear, Minizilla, RC18T, RC18B, RC18MT
shop.tinyrc.com Products

more»
Tiny RC Community News
[03/22/17] MZR was on vacation, didn't... : All kidding aside, the host experienced a bit of a server meltdown last week and efforts to restore the site to a new server took longer than anticipated. The current server is temporary until - more»
[11/25/15] Did You Hear? Our Black... : Hey Racers,
We're getting started a bit early with our Black Friday sale this year.  Generally we're not supporters of retailers opening early on Thanksgiving, but in our case, we're - more»
[06/30/15] shop.tinyrc.com: Have You... : Hey All! Just a quick reminder to everyone that we post all of our shop.tinyrc.com Newletters here on the MZR Forum. If for some reason you miss them in your email inbox, you can always see the - more»
Mini-Z, Mini-Z Racer, MR-02, MA-010
M18, M18T, RC18T, Mini-LST, Mini-T, Micro RS4, XRay, 1/18, 18th scale
XMODS, XMOD, Micro Flight, ZipZaps, ZipZaps SE, Bit Char-G, MicroSizers, TTTT, Plantraco Desktop Rover, SuperSlicks, Digi Q
Mini Inferno, Mini Inferno ST, half EIGHT, 1/16, 16th scale
Epoch, Indoor Racer, 1/43, 43rd scale
E-Savage, eSavage, eZilla, e-Zilla, HPI
Robots, Bots, Bipeds, Wheeled, Manoi, Roomba, NXT, Lego, Hacking
Crawling, Crawlers, Micro, RC, Losi Mini-Rock Crawler, Duratrax Cliff Climber
Kyosho Minium, Caliber 120, Minium Forums
Mini-Z Hop-Ups, Mini-Z Parts, Mini Inferno Hop-Ups, Mini Inferno Parts, M18 Hop-Ups, M18 Parts