RE: Why the AMA is not growing...........
[quote]ORIGINAL: Tjettzky [quote]ORIGINAL: theriddler33872 no offence but using the economy is a crutch that i hear alot i'm not saying that it might have a little something to do with it but if you get the extra time read through some of these threads (if you haven't already)  there is a common link, i've listed some of my problems and i've got more issue's then listed that i've placed on other threads and by no means am i a trouble maker i think most can see i do not lash out at people unless they first poke me with a stick . to help the AMA and clubs during this time of a poor economy they should get togeather and come up with a price that could be somewhat universal think about guys you go on the AMA web site you pay 1 fee for 1 year you can go to any of the clubs fly check them out see if you and the club get along and go to another do the same you as a new member to the AMA will find right were you belong you'll get to make freinds from different clubs you'll have conntacts for life . or the AMA and the clubs could continue with hasn't been working and suffer in the end. the thing i've never understood if your club is AMA sanction or chartered then way isn't there some kind of unity in pricing out memberships or why is it if your a AMA member you can't go where ever you want i know some clubs have a cheaper membership enrolment if you belong to another club it seems if your all under the same banner then there should be or the AMA should set universal rules it would make things alot easier on the guys that are standing outside looking in..... i know i'll get it for this .   [/quote] The AMA implementing and regulating a Universal, easy-to-use and understand Club fee structure? That's Socialist Talk! Get the pitchforks! [:D] [/quote] Well, guess I'll be the token commie radical and suggest the following... ROFL! What if the AMA were to charge a $10 base fee for membership which is basically just the number, and then charge for the services used after that? $10 base membership. At that price level it's pretty hard to complain about not being able to afford membership. +$10 for expanded membership. This allows the member to vote and fly in AMA sanctioned events, etc. +$15 for the magazine. Personally I think that if Model Aviation had to compete directly against the other R/C magazines out there, the quality would likely improve significantly. +$?? for the basic secondary insurance. Yes, I do think insurance should be optional. For those with something like homeowner's insurance that already supplies significant primary coverage and only flying park fliers, they won't need it. Same thing for someone flying out in the middle of the Arizona desert. +$?? to upgrade the AMA secondary insurance to primary insurance that would kick in first. Don't see why it should be that big of a deal as the NAR/Tripoli offers $1 million primary coverage for model rocketry, and their membership fees and structure is very similar to the AMA.
Posted on: 9/8/2010 5:49 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9989032

RE: Why the AMA is not growing...........
That certainly is the case with our club. At age 44 I'm one of the youngest members, and probably 80% of the members in our area are seniors. When I first joined about 12 years ago, we probably had somewhere around 60 members, and we were VERY busy with the adjoining clubs. Now I think our club is down to about 18, with perhaps a dozen or so that are active. We've been fortunate in that we haven't had any serious problems with internal politics or squabbling amongst the members... it's all been the age and attrition thing. At this point we see the writing on the wall and why we beg and plead to get new members on board, ESPECIALLY the younger people! That's why I feel that it is so important for these clubs and the AMA to foster good will amongst new pilots. Ultimately it's the "new blood" that keeps our hobby going and thriving! Also because there has been so many changes in the hobby itself with the improvements in technology and the ability to get in the air without spending a king's ransom in the process, it's really crucial for both the clubs and the AMA to keep up with the times. [quote]ORIGINAL: bradpaul Why the AMA is not Growing? How about the fact that the average age of a ''open'' member is 59 years old and that the AMA loses ~140 members a month to death? That is 1680 new members a year to just stay even. Brad [/quote]
Posted on: 8/30/2010 5:42 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9969887

RE: Why the AMA is not growing...........
[quote]ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk [quote]ORIGINAL: nitro-pilot I always get a kick out of reading this stuff since 1974 when I started flying and reading RC magazines: [i] It will present updates on important AMA matters, new programs and member opportunities with interesting features such as the presentation Burt Rutan gave at the AMA Expo in January. One important issue I'd particularly like to alert you to is our developing FAA situation regarding our right to fly. Click the link below to read a preview of my upcoming Model Aviation column on the subject. Our ongoing work with the FAA advocacy effort is just one example of your membership dues at work for you.[/i] Our right to fly? Seriously? Someone wants it to stop? The fact of the matter is whatever remaining members they have shelling out $60 a year for this imagined service, it's been a sales pitch for 35 years if not more. You can't fly in school yards anymore. You can't fly in densely populated areas as easily as you can in rural areas. I've flown for decades in a free flying field of one kind or another and will continue to do so. FAA presents what argument? Can't wait to read the article online or an interpretation of it, not being an AMA member to read the drama first hand. If flying RC is so truly a controversial hobby, it would have been shut down for sure on or about 9/11/2001, nearly ten years ago. [/quote] Nitro-pilot, If you think nothing has happened since 9/11 please take note. The following are excerpts from a recent Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) for the Tampa Bay, Fl area. NOTAM Number : FDC 0/3075 Issue Date : January 26, 2010 at 1558 UTC Location : Tampa, Florida Beginning Date and Time : January 28, 2010 at 1615 UTC Ending Date and Time : January 28, 2010 at 2015 UTC Area A Airspace Definition: Center: On the ST PETERSBURG VORTAC (PIE) 084 degree radial at 10.5 nautical miles. (Latitude: 27º55'18''N, Longitude: 82º29'17''W) Radius: 30 nautical miles Altitude: From the surface up to but not including 18000 feet MSL Operating Restrictions and Requirements C. The following operations are not authorized within this TFR: flight training, practice instrument approaches, aerobatic flight, glider operations, parachute operations, ultralight, hang gliding, balloon operations, agriculture/crop dusting, animal population control flight operations, banner towing operations, sightseeing operations, [b][u]model aircraft operations, model rocketry, and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS[/u]).[/b] These Temporary Flight Restrictions apply to everyone, not just to the dozen or so AMA clubs in that 30 nautical mile area. One of the current recommendations in the FAA ARC that the AMA is fighting is the banning of certain engines (Turbines) in models. So yes “Seriously?� it’s more than a sales pitch. Regards Frank [/quote] Whoa! Back the truck up! Here are the details of the NOTAM http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_3075.html Also here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/clubs/notamarchive.aspx In a nutshell, the FAA cleared the airspace for 30 miles around the Tampa airport for 4 hours to allow for "VIP movement". Big deal. Suggesting that this one incident means that the FAA is cracking down on R/C pilots and trying to tie it into 9/11 is a bit disingenuous don't you think? Maybe alarmist is a better term. Hey, I'm all for our freedom and liberty to fly model aircraft; but please... making mountains out of gopher mounds is not helping. Thank you.
Posted on: 3/6/2010 1:52 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9559409

RE: Why the AMA is not growing...........
Apples and oranges. AMA membership is not the same as a baseball game. He's objecting on the grounds that he is paying for "x" amount of benefits and not receiving them. For example if you paid for an extended warranty on your car for three years and only got two, would you find this acceptable? I didn't think so. Same thing for AMA membership... if I were to pay for a full years membership with benefits, I expect to get to get a full years membership with benefits, regardless of when I sign up. My car club does it, my insurance companies do it, my phone company does it, etc. Why can't the AMA?
Posted on: 3/2/2010 4:19 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9549124

RE: Why the AMA is not growing...........
I'm jumping in here from only reading the first couple of pages. LOL! However, I would like to chime in on this one. From the perspective of someone who is now a park flyer, and also playing Devil's Advocate, I really have to question the value of AMA membership for park flyers. First, let me tell a quick story. I dropped out of the R/C hobby almost three years ago after my father had his stroke. At that point he lost the use of his left hand, and I had so much going on as a result that we just couldn't pursue the hobby any longer. Well, in that period of time, things have changed, and we are now testing the waters again as far as getting him flying again... starting off with a Blade CX2. So far he is doing really well! Currently my interests are limited to flying electrics (helis and fixed wing) and sailplanes these days, and pretty much everything I have left falls more-or-less into the Park Flyer category (a couple of models that I own like the Stryker F-27C would probably fall just out of this category), and don't see myself going back to flying slimers anytime soon. Was about to go ahead and reactivate my AMA membership under the PPP program, and then I found myself asking why I should bother. Here's my line of thinking... First, I don't need the full membership at this time since my activities fall exclusively under the PPP category. However, the PPP category is very much stripped of benefits. No being able to fly at sanctioned events, not being able to vote (not that I really care), flying at designated fields pretty much up to the whim of the club in question, etc. So that really leaves me with two benefits, both of which are questionable. First is the insurance. Realize that AMA insurance is secondary... meaning it only kicks in AFTER all other sources of insurance are exhausted. Currently we are covered for $2 mil under our home owner's policy. Now to be very honest, I have a REALLY hard time imagining how a 2 lb piece of foam or plastic is going to cause $2 million dollars worth of damage, especially out here in the sticks. Even more absurd would be something like a Slow Stick which flies at little more than walking speed. To put things in perspective, I own a WS6 Trans Am that I carry liability only (10/50/100) insurance on. It weighs in around 3400 lbs, has around 325 Hp, and is capable of reaching speeds over 150 MPH. Obviously the car has the potential of creating far more damage in the event of an accident, yet doesn't begin to have the coverage that my little piece of flying foam already does due to existing coverage w/o the benefit of the AMA. Funny, because nobody really squawks about the car either. So from my perspective, paying $30/yr for that extra insurance policy really isn't justified. Again, this is purely from the perspective of a park pilot. Which leads me to my next point... The other benefit would be able to fly at designated fields that do allow PPP flying. Now to me this is more than just a little hypocritical... I mean if a pilot with regular AMA membership showed up at an AMA designated field or event (that otherwise restricted PPP pilots) with a plane that would qualify as a park flier, there would be no problems with them flying, right? So why should PPP fliers be treated as second-class citizens in the regard? Likewise if a pilot with full AMA membership were to show up at a field that is designated only for park fliers, again there would be no problems with them being able to fly a park flier, right? But that issue aside, as long as I have permission from the land owner to fly, why should I need to worry about AMA membership? For the most part the parks and schools in the area don't pay attention, and even if they did I still know of plenty of areas to go fly my toys without being hassled. Like said, I'm already covered as far as any potential damage via my HO insurance, so in the end what is the real benefit? As others have pointed out, it is possible to now buy these models in department stores and places like Radio Shack who aren't terribly likely to offer any real advice on the subject, nor is it very likely that these consumers are really going to care about it initially. On the flip side, AMA membership (e.g. the "license") in no way conveys any competence to actually go out and pilot a plane. In fact the most irresponsible pilots I have run across were also card carrying members of this organization, and one in particular was treating his AMA membership as if it were some kind of "deflector shield" that somehow justified his behavior. Rotten apples indeed! At any rate, I agree that the AMA really has to come up with something more substantial to offer prospective PPP pilots if they hope to increase membership from this sector.
Posted on: 12/13/2009 8:56 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9328431

RE: Nitromodels PREDATOR RQ-1B
Hey Papajeff, thanks for the writeup. Definitely interested in the plane, just wondering how well a Torque 2830T/1095 would go since I happen to have one lying around. Would only add about 14 grams (Less than a half ounce) to the total weight over a Hacker A20-20L and a bit more power. Not looking for a speed demon here, but are considering mounting a camera to the nose... well that, and it would be nice if I could get away with using the hardware I have on hand [;)] [:D]
Posted on: 11/11/2007 9:17 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "Electric Aerobatic & Sport Planes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6611839

RE: Who has the Mamba Max?
I know I'm joining in the discussion late. I dropped a Mamba 5700 into a Factory Team B4 this last week, thought I would give a field report. Setup: Factory Team RC10B4 buggy, chassis stock. Setup as per AE default. Mamba 5700 motor/ESC. Settings: Reverse lockout, 9v cutoff. Otherwise curves and settings default. 81/21 gearing 3 cell LiPo Futaba S3003 servo HiTec universal FM reciever JR XR3i radio After I assembled the car and tweaked it out, I put it on the carpet just to check it out... I blipped the throttle, and the car immediately went nose up and wrapped itself around a chair. Anyway, today I took it out to the local soccer field to give it it's maiden run. The power of this motor is unreal. Speedwise, it ran at least as fast as my Mayhem, and that is just shy of 50 MPH. One thing about this motor is that it is torqey as hell... I couldn't get it above half-throttle at any speed without popping a wheelie and putting it on it's back. Runtime was about 10 minutes, and the motor/ESC was barely warm at the end of the run. No problems with the transmission. All I can say is very impressive. Hopefully I will be able to strap my Garmin to it sometime this week and clock some actual speeds!
Posted on: 9/5/2006 3:02 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC Electric Off-Road Trucks, Buggies, Truggies and more"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4711839

RE: Raptor G2 Maiden Flight
Up to about 25 flights now. Heli has held up fine, almost no incidents thus far from workmanship, however fasteners do need to be checked periodically to make sure they are tight. Did have first crash yesterday. I let my father fly it, and he managed to dump it on its side. Chewed up main blades, snapped one of the grips, and bent the feathering shaft. Total cost of damaged parts was $20. Did discover that weight and tolerances do vary quite a bit on the main blades, so anyone getting this heli does need to check this out when replacing blades. Performed Li-Po conversion last weekend, which has extended power and now has flight times of over 10 minutes. All that was required was to cut the factory funky connector for a Dean's plug. Overall, still very happy with this machine.
Posted on: 8/4/2006 12:32 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "Electric RC Helis"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4581356

RE: Raptor G2 Maiden Flight
Here you go!
Posted on: 7/26/2006 1:17 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "Electric RC Helis"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4545820

Raptor G2 Maiden Flight
My latest project arrived yesterday... a new Raptor G2 by Exceed R/C. Had a chance to give it it's maiden flights over the last couple of days. Since I've seen a couple of other posts asking about this heli, I figure I might as well share my impression. The Raptor G2 comes as an RTF package... a rather complete one at that. My understanding is that this heli rolls off the same assembly line as the Walkera Dragonfly series. Included are the heli (obviously [:)] ), the transmitter, NiMH battery, charger, an extra set of blades, and some basic tools. All that is necessary to fly are 8 AA batteries or pack for the reciever. Also, training gear is not included. I also ordered an additional flybar and landing gear as these are commonly replaced items in the event of a crash. Total for the whole package was $207 shipped to my door from XHeli.com. The heli itself seems to be surprisingly well consructed for the money. Things I really like about it are a belt-driven tail rotor, and ball joints for all the control linkages. The included gyro also seems to be of decent quality as well. Included motor is brushed, but brushless motors and corresponding ESCs are available, and I suspect I'll be doing that upgrade shortly. Sizewise, it's just a hair smaller than the Trex. Main and rotor blades are made out of foam, are fully symetrical, and cheap to replace. In fact, parts in general are reasonable, and seem to be plentiful, which was one of the reasons I decided to buy this model. Included batteries are NiMH, which are good for about 5 minutes of flight at a time. However, the heli is supposed to be Li-Po ready, and they are available as an option. The transmitter is also surprisingly decent for the cost. It's a basic FM transmitter, but it does include knobs for adjusting the pitch and throttle curves. Transmitter also features a switch to go from normal "hover mode" to full 3D mode. Also of note is that it has a full range of DIP switches on the back for control reveral, and a port along with a cord so that it can be plugged into the back of your computer. The only area that I would bonk the Raptor on is in the instructions. They are adequate for an experienced flyer, but leave alot of details out for a beginning flyer... considering that the cost of this machine is going to have great appeal to someone just starting out with helis, this is one area that I would like to see addressed. If anyone reading this is thinking of buying one, I highly recommend having an experienced flyer available to help you out with any issues you might run across. So far I have had 7 flights at the time I am writing this, mainly just hover practice. I notice the heli has a tendency to want to swing the boom around hard to the right (counterclockwise) during the initial spool-up. Beyond that, the heli is stable. While flying this morning, I did have one minor incident while hovering at the local high scool parking lot. What basically happened was that a random gust of wind caught the heli, and it started to drift away on me fast enough that I decided to put it down. In the process apparently a pebble got caught in the groud effect, bounced up, and nicked one of the main blades. A little foam CA and clear tape later, I was up and flying again. No big deal. Overall my impression with this heli is quite positive so far, as I feel it offers tremendous bang-for-the-buck. It's much less expensive to get in the air than an equivalent Trex by the time all is said and done, or a Blade CP for that matter. I also feel that it is a better choice over most micro-helis for those who are ultimately looking to fly a larger nitro helicopter as it should make the transition more natural. Of course this is my personal opinion... take it for what it's worth! [:D] Still, it would be nice if Exceed R/C could offer a brushless/Li-Po option out of the factory. Verdict so far: Winner.
Posted on: 7/24/2006 5:10 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "Electric RC Helis"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4536978

RE: Next Tamiya RC Tank!!!
[quote]ORIGINAL: kurtmeyer let them make a RUSSIAN KV-1 [/quote] Agreed, or a T-34. Anything but another Sherman [&o]
Posted on: 7/12/2006 7:11 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC Tanks"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4491857

RE: Most popular buggies?
Eh, what the hell... OFNA/HoBao Hyper series = Ford Mustang. Large following, lots of parts and hop-ups, and offers great bang for the buck[:)]
Posted on: 4/16/2006 1:29 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4170563

RE: 20% vs 35% fuel "my results"
First Law of Thermodynamics: Total energy output is equal to the amount of heat supplied. Second Law of Thermodynamics: It's all gotta go somewhere [:D]
Posted on: 4/11/2006 8:50 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4153919

RE: 20% vs 35% fuel "my results"
A given quantity of fuel contains so many BTUs/calories of energy, right? When you increase the quantity of fuel being burned, you increase the amount of energy being consumed at a given time. The energy being released is in the form of heat.
Posted on: 4/11/2006 7:21 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4153522

RE: 20% vs 35% fuel "my results"
Thermal expansion of the sleeve and piston. Increased nitro introduces more oxygen into the mixture, which in turn means adding more fuel to compensate. More fuel means more heat, and the additional heat will cause additional expansion of the metals in the combustion chamber.
Posted on: 4/11/2006 6:53 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4153389

RE: 20% vs 35% fuel "my results"
One thing that could also be skewing the results is switching back and forth between nitro content. Different nitro content means different heat content which means a different rate of expansion, and therefore different wear characteristics. That's why when increasing the nitro content, it is not recommended going back to the lower percentage fuel.
Posted on: 4/11/2006 6:33 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4153331

RE: Aluminum clutch shoes??
Nova R/C products sells good quality aluminum shoes... made of 7075 aluminum. They also includes weights to alter the engagement point. For a 3 shoe setup, I don't think you can do much better. http://cgi.ebay.com/HPI-Savage-Mammoth-Monster-GT-Ofna-LST-XLB-Clutch-Shoes_W0QQitemZ6048814279QQcategoryZ34063QQcmdZViewItem If you don't mind my asking, how has your twin worked out for you otherwise? I was looking at one last year, and it had me curious.
Posted on: 4/3/2006 5:55 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "Car Nitro & Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4117837

RE: Welding the cast aluminum engine case.
Properly done, a good weld should be just as strong as the metals being joined. I found a couple of articles from Lincoln Electric that hopefully should help and answer some questions: http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/tigalum.asp http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/alum.asp
Posted on: 4/1/2006 4:07 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "Car Nitro & Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4110242

RE: Welding the cast aluminum engine case.
Do you have any of your old cases/tabs left? It sounds to me like the best approach is to find someone with a TIG welder and practice on some old parts first, and see how it turns out. Thing I would be concerned with is that the heat from the welding process would distort the metal of the case.
Posted on: 4/1/2006 2:26 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "Car Nitro & Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4110098

RE: *Official Sportwerks Turmoil Thread*
I can definately see the rolling chassis version in my future. Anyone have any word on the release date?
Posted on: 4/1/2006 2:03 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4110057

RE: What is your favorite nitro engine/fuel myth?
Here's another one... MYTH: A nitro (car) engine is only good for about 3 gallons, then it needs to be rebuilt/replaced. FACT: There are simply too many variables to determine how long an engine will last. Who is the manufacturer? How was it broken in? What was the state of tune? How was it cared for? How was it driven? While some engines are probably good for only 3 gallons or so, I've seen too many reports of people who have gotten over 10 gallons in their engines here on these forums alone. One friend in our local club has at least 2 years on his T-maxx... he runs it nearly every weekend he can and usually runs about 1/2 quart during that time. While I have never asked him what his total fuel consumption is, I'm certain he's got at least 6 gallons through it by now. For that matter, the .70 BX on my EK-4 is ringed as opposed to ABC construction, and with a somewhat conservative tune should last a VERY long time!
Posted on: 3/31/2006 5:24 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "Car Nitro & Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4106029

RE: http://www.twf8.ws Down?
Their server is probably just down temporarily. It's when you get an "Error 401" or something along those lines that it's time to worry.[;)]
Posted on: 3/31/2006 12:14 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4105566

RE: ***R/C KITS***
[quote]ORIGINAL: Super_Dave Hyper 8 is a little over $400 depending on where you buy it from. That would be the best choice for your price range. The hyper 7 TQ kit is an awesome buggy especially for the price. Its very durable and it has very aggressive handling to let you dive into corners hard and get under someone to make a good pass. For only $200 on tower its a great buggy. [/quote] I'll second that... the Hyper 7 TQ is probably one of the best overall values out there right now.
Posted on: 3/30/2006 6:28 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4104063

RE: SHOULD I GET THE HPI BAJA 5?
[quote]Sure hope I didn't make the boat guy mad.....[/quote] Naaa... it's all good[8D] [quote]it's just hard to explain the fun and thrills of running these gas monsters around to some people...[/quote] You might appreciate my latest project then http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3811873/anchors_3811873/mpage_1/key_xlb/anchor/tm.htm#3811873
Posted on: 3/30/2006 2:46 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC Giant Scale Cars"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4101694

RE: SHOULD I GET THE HPI BAJA 5?
[quote]They aren't all the same with different names on them.[/quote] Then what are the specific differences between the Marder, Firehammer, Traveller, and the XTM gasser? [quote]As far as spending $1000 on one.....consider the fact that a gas car's engine last longer than 2-3 gallons of fuel....also the fuel doesn't cost $25+ per gallon.[/quote] Depends on the engine, state of tune, driver, and a host of other conditions as to how long they will last. For example, the Thunder Tiger .70 BX in my EK-4 is ringed, and with a conservative tune should last a very long time. If you attempt to run ANY engine to its limits, it WILL wear out much faster irregardless of fuel source. As a counterpoint to your argument, I happen to know a guy who has a Traxxas 2.5 (Currently selling for a little over $100, and not known to be a stellar engine) in a T-Maxx, and he has been running it almost every weekend for two years. Since you wish to play the apples-and-oranges comparison game, I could point out that the price difference between a typical 1/8 nitro buggy (I'm allowing $500) and the cost of an entry level gasser will buy A LOT of fuel! However, it's not that cost of fuel that has kept me in the nitro camp. As I stated above, after watching the two friends racing their cars, I just wasn't impressed with the performance of their vehicles. It's not a stab at you, nor is it an attempt to start an inter-forum war. The guy who started this thread asked for opinions, and I gave him mine. Keep in mind that this thread originally started over on the 1/8 buggy forum, and since my preference is for nitro 1/8 scale buggies, it shouldn't come as a shock that I am biased towards 1/8 nitro buggies. [quote]No Nitro user who has switched to gas cars will ever prefer the Nitro's again.[/quote] Fallacy: Faulty generalization. Fallacy: No True Scotsman. You can't prove a statement like that. I for one happen to own both a gas boat and a nitro boat... would it surprise you that I happen to prefer the nitro boat? [quote]Sure Nitro's can take alot more abuse and jump higher.[/quote] Sounds like good selling points to me. [quote] As far as HPI including a tuned pipe well....how many Nitro's out of the box have decent pipes on them? I've yet to see one come with a competition pipe stock. [/quote] If by "competition" you mean a tuned pipe, there are few nitros that don't come with one. If you mean a one-piece race quality pipe, the Sportwerks Mayhem does. The gas boat I mentioned above also came with a tuned pipe. On the flip side, most pro level kits don't come with engines or electronics either. Most experienced racers prefer it that way. [quote]I've also seen Nitro guy's toss $300 engines in these tinker toy Nitro's that blow up in a few gallons....[/quote] Fallacy: Argumentum ad nauseum. You stated this position previously. Fallacy: Appeal to ridicule. Reference nitros as "tinker toys" Fallacy: Misleading vividness. Not every nitro engine "blows up" in a few gallons. [quote]I own both Nitro's and Gasers and sure some gasers have issue's but they are still better than Nitro. [/quote] You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. [;)][8D]
Posted on: 3/29/2006 4:36 AM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC Giant Scale Cars"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4097321

RE: SHOULD I GET THE HPI BAJA 5?
I agree with annie... if you want one just get one.[;)] Personally gassers don't turn me on... while I do like the size, they are heavy, expensive, and only 2WD. I have two friends that own gas buggies, one has a Traxxas Monster Buggy, the other a Firehammer/Marder/Traveller/XTM Gas Buggy (it's all the same car, just a matter of who puts their name on it), and after watching them race, I wasn't impressed. Obviously I can't comment on how well the Baja 5B will perform (nobody can outside of HPI), and who knows... maybe HPI will put together a winner with this package. In fact I hope they do; giant scale can use a little competition. However, just looking over the pictures, I can already see some room for improvement... for one thing, the 5b won't come with a tuned pipe. So let's just say that for now I'm skeptical, and before I would spend $1000 on a car, I would want to see if it can deliver the goods first.
Posted on: 3/28/2006 11:38 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC Giant Scale Cars"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4096730

RE: 1/8th set-up site.
Here you be: http://users.pandora.be/elvo/
Posted on: 3/28/2006 10:50 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4096489

RE: WHY?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What engine are you using? How many tanks have you run?
Posted on: 3/28/2006 3:00 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4094300

RE: buggy for noob?
Does he intend to race or bash? If all he intends to do is bash, the MBX is as good as any. On the other hand, if he's thinking about racing (or both), the Hyper 7 TQ Sport is probably the best value out there. If he goes with a quality but no-frills engine like the O.S. .21 RG and basic radio/servo package, he could probably pull it off for $350 - $400. http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXJLE8&P=0
Posted on: 3/27/2006 9:46 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4091413

RE: RTV sealant...???
Probably not a good idea as the shafts that go through either side of the diff are rotating parts. You could try a [u]good[/u] auto parts store and see if they have an O ring that will work.
Posted on: 3/27/2006 2:13 PM by Author "Reindeer" in the forum "RC 1/8th Scale Buggies"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4089456