Clarifications to the GT12 Rules

[SlowOne]

If anyone had told me when these were written earlier this year that we would have clubs up and down the country adopting them and racing the cars, and over 40 places taken up at Nationals, I wouldn’t have believed them. Thank you to everyone who has taken this class up and raced it.

Time and your feedback have shown that there are those who are trying to understand the rules, and those who are testing them! So, time for some clarifications from the experience we have so far.

Carbon-fibre composite chassis – the intent was to prevent expensive, ‘must-have’ hop ups. To be clear, whatever the material supplied by the manufacturer for that car in their less-than £100 kit is the material you can use. You cannot upgrade the chassis material at all. Only chassis’ that come with the kit can be used.

Bodyshells – everyone has cut their shells to the cut lines on the moulding and seem happy with that. We’ll incorporate that as a rule to prevent any slamming of the shells which may then require low-profile electronics. The rear bumper line on the GT1 (Exige) is obvious, but the Ascari isn’t. Rules for that will be proposed after seeing what Kamtec and Mardave can help with.

We’ll be putting forward a proposal that the shells must be painted in the style of a current GT car, and not in some free-form war-paint, airbrushed style. This will preserve the look of the class and it’s attractiveness to new drivers. That will be voted at the EGM next April; no change for this season.

Feedback says that the numbers we use for the classes aren’t descriptive and are difficult to remember. We will propose to re-name GT12.1 as GT12 SuperCup, and GT12.2 as GT12 Production to make it easier to identify which is which.

GT12 Production hasn’t taken up well. I wonder if the lack of a differential is an issue here. If we allowed a differential in this class, do we think it would improve the take-up? Your comments by post here, e-mail or PM to me, would be welcomed.

The 21.5 class has become redundant. It was there because there were too few 1S-ready speed controllers at a fair price. With the new Mardave and Schumacher controllers now available for only £15 more than a good booster on its own, there is no reason to use 2S. Obviously clubs can do what they want, but for Nationals it is a redundant rule and will be removed.

Peter Winton
GT12 Co-ordinator, BRCA 12th Section Committee

If you have any proposals you would like to see proposed at the EGM, proposal forms will be circulated around March 2013, with our EGM being held in April 2013. Every BRCA member is welcome. Any discussions on here might help see what support you have.

[andy110m]

I agree with most of these points, I think the success of this class is superb, I must confess to not racing it myself but it is/was the support class at some local clubs, I think it my now be the dominant class.

The only rule proposal I don't like relates to the bodyshell colours. Most racers develop their own colours and scheme. I'd like to see these and their individualisum continue.

But thats the only thing, long live the class!

[dale]

Originally Posted by andy110m

I agree with most of these points, I think the success of this class is superb, I must confess to not racing it myself but it is/was the support class at some local clubs, I think it my now be the dominant class.

The only rule proposal I don't like relates to the bodyshell colours. Most racers develop their own colours and scheme. I'd like to see these and their individualisum continue.

But thats the only thing, long live the class!

I do race GT12 myself. Fantastic class and only going to get more popular. Agree with everything apart from the bodyshell colours, as said I have my own colours that I run on all my cars

[neallewis]

I've been racing my Schumacher since the week they came out and have thoroughly enjoyed it, as I last raced 12th and mardave ministock 22years+ ago. Really enjoyed the class at my local club YMRC, which moved from a purely mardave club to the gt12 early on. Clarification of some rules is needed, as I see confusion outside of my club, on forums and gt12 facebook group. Too many rules and regs will surely kill the class as quick as it arrived however.

Personally I think the class works very well with 1S/13.5t/blinky, and the notion of running 2S/21.5 should be dropped as it only confuses newcomers, meaning they could spend on that setup, then discover they have to spend again.

bodyshell painting rules are a ridiculous idea. If I had a real GT race car, I could paint it how I wished!

I don't see the need for separate gt12.1 or .2 classes. It should just be gt12 as the gt12.1 rules. Every car I see has some form of non kit mod, be it different battery holders, Ali nuts or a diff. Every mardave owner I know has none kit bits, as do lots of Schumacher owners. Sure limit titanium turnbuckles and carbon chassis hopups, etc, but if you are going to have box stock and hopupped cars in different classes, but running on the track together, what's the point? Just run with one class. box stock car can be setup and driven to win over a modded car with a diff, etc with good setup and driving. People will always like to add little upgrades to any car in any price range. Sure no non-kit titanium or carbon is fair though, with the £99 kit price limit. You don't require a diff to win, and the split of mardave/ Schumacher chassis at meetings prove both work at all levels, Z to A final.

[reg]

As said above,I dont agree with the body shell design,yes an authentic design does look nice,but as said above,alot of people(my self included)over the years have got there own colours and design.

[luniemiester]

I've been looking at this class for a few weeks now as an alternative to off-road and I also don't like the proposed rule regarding the painting of the shells. I use my own design and colours on all my cars, I couldn't even tell you what a real GT car paint job looks like as I don't follow GT racing but I do like the look of this class for close cheap racing. What would happen if you had 4-5 drivers in the same race with the same paint scheme - new spectators wouldn't know which car was which after a few laps.....

If I remember correctly they tried to bring this rule in when the F1 cars became popular again and I dropped out of that as it made me lose interest.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by SlowOne

The 21.5 class has become redundant. It was there because there were too few 1S-ready speed controllers at a fair price. With the new Mardave and Schumacher controllers now available for only £15 more than a good booster on its own, there is no reason to use 2S. Obviously clubs can do what they want, but for Nationals it is a redundant rule and will be removed

I am a little confused by this statement. The 21.5 class being redundant is not my experience at a number of clubs locally, far from it in fact. Whilst it may be the case at national events, it may not necessarily reflect the national club scene. There does not appear to have been any caveat in rules that stated 21.5 would be removed if not taken up at national events.

I find it reassuring that clubs adopt BRCA National rules for the classes they run locally and assumed that the BRCA considered this point when setting (or amending) class rules.

IMO removing this particular section would devalue its currently popular following at a number of club run events and championships. It may even damage what is a growing class that is encouraging new and returning racers.

The general theme of removing previous rule guides, especially recently published items such as this, may also devalue future rules set by the BRCA and I fear, goes against a number of the associations core objectives.

Paul

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I am a little confused by this statement. The 21.5 class being redundant is not my experience at a number of clubs locally, far from it in fact. Whilst it may be the case at national events, it may not necessarily reflect the national club scene. There does not appear to have been any caveat in rules that stated 21.5 would be removed if not taken up at national events.

I find it reassuring that clubs adopt BRCA National rules for the classes they run locally and assumed that the BRCA considered this point when setting (or amending) class rules.

IMO removing this particular section would devalue its currently popular following at a number of club run events and championships. It may even damage what is a growing class that is encouraging new and returning racers.

The general theme of removing previous rule guides, especially recently published items such as this, may also devalue future rules set by the BRCA and I fear, goes against a number of the associations core objectives.

Paul

just have national rules, i fail to see your point, the elec off road section do not publish different rules for clubs to use, nor do many other sections, clubs simply follow the sections brca rules unless they decide not too

[Paul B]

I was led to believe that the BRCA set class rules and guidelines to promote the sport and encourage competition. I therefore questioned how removing a previously published guide that had, in part, contributed to the formation of what is becoming a popular class, achieves this.
Paul