66LikesHot Bodies D413 1/10 4WD Buggy
08-13-2013, 02:06 AM
#121
The intent of my post wasnt to say it was somehow exempt from the rules because it was a prototype, only that nobody here knows what configurations are available with the car so we have no ability to judge the ruling (hence the armchair quarterback comment). As expected, the car does accept multiple battery configurations (imagine that, the guys that are paid to design a car within regulations did their job...) so everyone got their panties in a wad over nothing.
08-13-2013, 05:16 AM
#123
If you ever get a chance, look at the X-Factory SCX-60cf and the new Cubed. Both of them require nothing to be removed and you can run a saddle or shorty. My guess is that the chassis is milled for both and it requires very little to change battery types
08-13-2013, 07:25 AM
#124
Tech Regular
The D413 can be configured to run SHORTY or SADDLE packs. All parts needed to setup either configuration will be included in the kit. So if a customer already has saddles, there’s no need to buy shorties, and vice-versa.
We arrived at the nats with the car in shorty configuration. Prior to qualifying Ty’s father took the car through tech to see if we can run it that way. If they said no then we would have gladly converted it to saddle configuration and ran it like that for the entire event. The ROAR official said it was fine the way we had it. We find it more convenient to work with the shorty because you only need to remove one battery strap and you don’t need a jumper wire. It is also lighter by whatever the amount of weight difference is between the two types of batteries. Even though the shorty is lighter, our car is still well clear of the legal minimum weight.
Ty’s D413 went through tech at least 8 times (2 practice, 4 qualifiers, A1, A2) and each time we got the OK to race.
After Ty wins A1 and A2 in very close battles, we find that we are being protested by said “unnamed manufacturer”, citing that rule about battery fitment. Manager(s) from this unnamed manufacturer wrote up a protest and asked their drivers who qualified in the A-main to sign it (only drivers from the same main can file protests against other drivers within that main). THEIR OWN DRIVERS IN THE A-MAIN REFUSED TO SIGN THE PROTEST.
Furthermore, unnamed manufacturer’s manager then went to other teams and tried to get other A-main drivers to sign the protest. ALL REFUSED TO SIGN.
In the end one of their other managers who was in the B-main signed it and filed the protest. Because he wasn’t even in the same main as Ty, ROAR rejected it.
Some notes I got from this ordeal:
1. I already admired all of the racers in the A-main for their driving skill. Now, I admire them even more for their integrity.
2. Personally I didn’t have a problem with the protest itself. But I have a problem with the timing of when the protest was filed and how it was filed. Why did they wait till after A2? They could’ve filed it as soon as cars started going through tech so we can go to our saddle configuration. And the fact that they still insisted on filing the protest even after all other racers in Ty’s main refused to sign it is simply spineless.
3. Unnamed manufacturer shouldn’t be crucified for this cowardly act if in case somebody does reveal who they are. Their own A-main drivers refused to partake in this bogus protest. Others pitting under their tent probably didn’t even know anything about it. It is probably, or at least hopefully, just a case of a couple of individuals under unnamed manufacturer’s employ acting on their own accord.
4. WE WON.
We arrived at the nats with the car in shorty configuration. Prior to qualifying Ty’s father took the car through tech to see if we can run it that way. If they said no then we would have gladly converted it to saddle configuration and ran it like that for the entire event. The ROAR official said it was fine the way we had it. We find it more convenient to work with the shorty because you only need to remove one battery strap and you don’t need a jumper wire. It is also lighter by whatever the amount of weight difference is between the two types of batteries. Even though the shorty is lighter, our car is still well clear of the legal minimum weight.
Ty’s D413 went through tech at least 8 times (2 practice, 4 qualifiers, A1, A2) and each time we got the OK to race.
After Ty wins A1 and A2 in very close battles, we find that we are being protested by said “unnamed manufacturer”, citing that rule about battery fitment. Manager(s) from this unnamed manufacturer wrote up a protest and asked their drivers who qualified in the A-main to sign it (only drivers from the same main can file protests against other drivers within that main). THEIR OWN DRIVERS IN THE A-MAIN REFUSED TO SIGN THE PROTEST.
Furthermore, unnamed manufacturer’s manager then went to other teams and tried to get other A-main drivers to sign the protest. ALL REFUSED TO SIGN.
In the end one of their other managers who was in the B-main signed it and filed the protest. Because he wasn’t even in the same main as Ty, ROAR rejected it.
Some notes I got from this ordeal:
1. I already admired all of the racers in the A-main for their driving skill. Now, I admire them even more for their integrity.
2. Personally I didn’t have a problem with the protest itself. But I have a problem with the timing of when the protest was filed and how it was filed. Why did they wait till after A2? They could’ve filed it as soon as cars started going through tech so we can go to our saddle configuration. And the fact that they still insisted on filing the protest even after all other racers in Ty’s main refused to sign it is simply spineless.
3. Unnamed manufacturer shouldn’t be crucified for this cowardly act if in case somebody does reveal who they are. Their own A-main drivers refused to partake in this bogus protest. Others pitting under their tent probably didn’t even know anything about it. It is probably, or at least hopefully, just a case of a couple of individuals under unnamed manufacturer’s employ acting on their own accord.
4. WE WON.
How embarrassing….B-mainer protesting an A-main driver after an A2 victory and overall win. So sad. “unnamed manufacturer” keep doing what you’re doing, don’t change anything
08-13-2013, 09:03 AM
#126
Awesome win for HB and Ty!
Just please HB, make sure you put the parts out relatively soon after the kit is out. Parts support/availability is a huge issue with HB currently.
Just please HB, make sure you put the parts out relatively soon after the kit is out. Parts support/availability is a huge issue with HB currently.
08-13-2013, 10:39 AM
#127
Does anyone know the actual rule # that was in dispute here? I can't find it in the book...
08-13-2013, 10:47 AM
#129
08-13-2013, 11:05 AM
#130
HMM I don't find 8.2.3 in there...ahh no worries! I was just curious.
08-13-2013, 11:35 AM
#132
08-13-2013, 11:39 AM
#133
Nothing there that I could find either? Maybe a running rule change has already happened.
FWIW,
This was the rule quoted;
Rule 8.2.3
All chassis in all electric classes (except those specifically noted) MUST accept batteries up to the maximum dimensions allowed for its application. The legality of a chassis will be determined as presented to technical inspection. Chassis that require a configuration change, and/or a modification to fit a battery of maximum dimensions will not be considered legal, and the racer will be disqualified. Foam blocks/spacers are permitted to secure any size battery in its position, but the aforementioned spacers may never be attached to the chassis. The only exception is 1/8 off-road where it’s common to use two battery packs to achieve the maximum 4S configuration, or to use a single 4S battery, which has a different specification. Only under these circumstances will the fitting of either configuration be considered legal, but the production chassis must still conform to batteries of the maximum allowable dimensions.
08-13-2013, 11:41 AM
#134
Very cool that you have it to easily use shorty or saddle. I thought it was funny on the HPI interview you said "I don't do odds". You should have said, "100% man!"
The D413 can be configured to run SHORTY or SADDLE packs. All parts needed to setup either configuration will be included in the kit. So if a customer already has saddles, there’s no need to buy shorties, and vice-versa.
We arrived at the nats with the car in shorty configuration. Prior to qualifying Ty’s father took the car through tech to see if we can run it that way. If they said no then we would have gladly converted it to saddle configuration and ran it like that for the entire event. The ROAR official said it was fine the way we had it. We find it more convenient to work with the shorty because you only need to remove one battery strap and you don’t need a jumper wire. It is also lighter by whatever the amount of weight difference is between the two types of batteries. Even though the shorty is lighter, our car is still well clear of the legal minimum weight.
Ty’s D413 went through tech at least 8 times (2 practice, 4 qualifiers, A1, A2) and each time we got the OK to race.
After Ty wins A1 and A2 in very close battles, we find that we are being protested by said “unnamed manufacturer”, citing that rule about battery fitment. Manager(s) from this unnamed manufacturer wrote up a protest and asked their drivers who qualified in the A-main to sign it (only drivers from the same main can file protests against other drivers within that main). THEIR OWN DRIVERS IN THE A-MAIN REFUSED TO SIGN THE PROTEST.
Furthermore, unnamed manufacturer’s manager then went to other teams and tried to get other A-main drivers to sign the protest. ALL REFUSED TO SIGN.
In the end one of their other managers who was in the B-main signed it and filed the protest. Because he wasn’t even in the same main as Ty, ROAR rejected it.
Some notes I got from this ordeal:
1. I already admired all of the racers in the A-main for their driving skill. Now, I admire them even more for their integrity.
2. Personally I didn’t have a problem with the protest itself. But I have a problem with the timing of when the protest was filed and how it was filed. Why did they wait till after A2? They could’ve filed it as soon as cars started going through tech so we can go to our saddle configuration. And the fact that they still insisted on filing the protest even after all other racers in Ty’s main refused to sign it is simply spineless.
3. Unnamed manufacturer shouldn’t be crucified for this cowardly act if in case somebody does reveal who they are. Their own A-main drivers refused to partake in this bogus protest. Others pitting under their tent probably didn’t even know anything about it. It is probably, or at least hopefully, just a case of a couple of individuals under unnamed manufacturer’s employ acting on their own accord.
4. WE WON.
We arrived at the nats with the car in shorty configuration. Prior to qualifying Ty’s father took the car through tech to see if we can run it that way. If they said no then we would have gladly converted it to saddle configuration and ran it like that for the entire event. The ROAR official said it was fine the way we had it. We find it more convenient to work with the shorty because you only need to remove one battery strap and you don’t need a jumper wire. It is also lighter by whatever the amount of weight difference is between the two types of batteries. Even though the shorty is lighter, our car is still well clear of the legal minimum weight.
Ty’s D413 went through tech at least 8 times (2 practice, 4 qualifiers, A1, A2) and each time we got the OK to race.
After Ty wins A1 and A2 in very close battles, we find that we are being protested by said “unnamed manufacturer”, citing that rule about battery fitment. Manager(s) from this unnamed manufacturer wrote up a protest and asked their drivers who qualified in the A-main to sign it (only drivers from the same main can file protests against other drivers within that main). THEIR OWN DRIVERS IN THE A-MAIN REFUSED TO SIGN THE PROTEST.
Furthermore, unnamed manufacturer’s manager then went to other teams and tried to get other A-main drivers to sign the protest. ALL REFUSED TO SIGN.
In the end one of their other managers who was in the B-main signed it and filed the protest. Because he wasn’t even in the same main as Ty, ROAR rejected it.
Some notes I got from this ordeal:
1. I already admired all of the racers in the A-main for their driving skill. Now, I admire them even more for their integrity.
2. Personally I didn’t have a problem with the protest itself. But I have a problem with the timing of when the protest was filed and how it was filed. Why did they wait till after A2? They could’ve filed it as soon as cars started going through tech so we can go to our saddle configuration. And the fact that they still insisted on filing the protest even after all other racers in Ty’s main refused to sign it is simply spineless.
3. Unnamed manufacturer shouldn’t be crucified for this cowardly act if in case somebody does reveal who they are. Their own A-main drivers refused to partake in this bogus protest. Others pitting under their tent probably didn’t even know anything about it. It is probably, or at least hopefully, just a case of a couple of individuals under unnamed manufacturer’s employ acting on their own accord.
4. WE WON.
08-13-2013, 11:49 AM
#135
I know, since you asked, I went and looked as well,
Nothing there that I could find either? Maybe a running rule change has already happened.
FWIW,
This was the rule quoted;
Rule 8.2.3
All chassis in all electric classes (except those specifically noted) MUST accept batteries up to the maximum dimensions allowed for its application. The legality of a chassis will be determined as presented to technical inspection. Chassis that require a configuration change, and/or a modification to fit a battery of maximum dimensions will not be considered legal, and the racer will be disqualified. Foam blocks/spacers are permitted to secure any size battery in its position, but the aforementioned spacers may never be attached to the chassis. The only exception is 1/8 off-road where it’s common to use two battery packs to achieve the maximum 4S configuration, or to use a single 4S battery, which has a different specification. Only under these circumstances will the fitting of either configuration be considered legal, but the production chassis must still conform to batteries of the maximum allowable dimensions.
Nothing there that I could find either? Maybe a running rule change has already happened.
FWIW,
This was the rule quoted;
Rule 8.2.3
All chassis in all electric classes (except those specifically noted) MUST accept batteries up to the maximum dimensions allowed for its application. The legality of a chassis will be determined as presented to technical inspection. Chassis that require a configuration change, and/or a modification to fit a battery of maximum dimensions will not be considered legal, and the racer will be disqualified. Foam blocks/spacers are permitted to secure any size battery in its position, but the aforementioned spacers may never be attached to the chassis. The only exception is 1/8 off-road where it’s common to use two battery packs to achieve the maximum 4S configuration, or to use a single 4S battery, which has a different specification. Only under these circumstances will the fitting of either configuration be considered legal, but the production chassis must still conform to batteries of the maximum allowable dimensions.