Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road
ROAR Approves LIPO >

ROAR Approves LIPO

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

ROAR Approves LIPO

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-21-2008, 01:37 PM
  #226  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (32)
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,279
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Davidka
Is there some reason that this rule can't be applied to Nimh too?
Well, I guess the battery would only be like 50% charged if you did that with NiMH. The rule makes sense with LiPo, because due to their chemistry, going over 4.2V/cell is dangerous, and can lead to a battery fire. NiMH is a different animal entirely.

The voltage limitation on LiPo isn't arbitrary, it's a function of the battery's design and chemistry. ROAR's rule wasn't to limit voltage, it was to prevent then intentional, dangerous abuse of the batteries. The temptation is there because you can get more voltage from the cells by overcharging them, and racers will always try to squeeze more from their gear. In this case, however, there's a very real danger in doing so, which is why people are so upset at the nonchalant attitude toward the practice shown by individuals in the industry.
syndr0me is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 02:08 PM
  #227  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (86)
 
Davidka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,883
Trader Rating: 86 (100%+)
Default

I understand the reason and risk. I chose 8.4v because it was the safe voltage a lipo could be repeatedly charged to. While Nimh packs show higher voltages on their charger screens while charging they usually only arrive at the track a couple of 10th's above 8.4v. There have been more than a few Nimh expolsions this year caused by overcharging too. If there were a voltage cap it would both level the performance playing field and increase safety.
Davidka is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 06:25 PM
  #228  
Tech Master
iTrader: (8)
 
PitNamedGordie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Highwood, IL
Posts: 1,789
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Verndog
Ask and thou shalt recieve!

I'm in the process of CNC machining stainless steel mounting base and side weight kit. Tried the first protype yesterday at the track with perfect balance results. This will amount to a 10 minute conversion on the TC5 to LiPo with perfect balance, battery protection from collision, and polished stainless steel case...very nice.

Will post a pick of prototype tonight, and first batch will be ready by this weekend. Ugly lead... and taped packs and hours of fabing just came to an end.

Let's see those pics
PitNamedGordie is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 07:24 PM
  #229  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
Verndog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: PPDBillet.com USA
Posts: 1,845
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by PitNamedGordie
Let's see those pics

New TC5 LiPo mount and balance.

Please post any responce in new thread.

Verndog is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 07:56 PM
  #230  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (16)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,379
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Verndog

New TC5 LiPo mount and balance.

Please post any responce in new thread.

Nice! Have you considered tungsten for those balancing weights?
Still Bill is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 08:08 PM
  #231  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
Verndog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: PPDBillet.com USA
Posts: 1,845
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Still Bill
Nice! Have you considered tungsten for those balancing weights?
I have. Tungsten is more diffucult to machine and moisture can cause corrision. Stainless will hold appearance, is tough, and still machinable enough to keep costs down.
Verndog is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 08:24 PM
  #232  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (16)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,379
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Verndog
I have. Tungsten is more diffucult to machine and moisture can cause corrision. Stainless will hold appearance, is tough, and still machinable enough to keep costs down.
Understood. Kewl!
Still Bill is offline  
Old 01-23-2008, 04:44 PM
  #233  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chico, Ca
Posts: 808
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

ROAR has reached a decision on the weight rule 5.2.6

"5.2.6 TC Deviation On Road Electric Touring Any material used to add weight to a vehicle in order to comply with the minimum weight requirements for the class must be securely attached to the vehicle (the vehicle includes all electronics, suspension, and power sources that are mounted to the chassis). If such ballast falls off the vehicle during a race for any reason, and the vehicle is under weight at the post race technical inspection, the vehicle will be disqualified for that run."

This should make you all happy ;-)
schurcr is offline  

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.