or8ital

iTrader: (38)

I think the motivation to not run a prototype at a big race is as simple as this:

If you would have won without the "prototype" then why bring the scrutiny that comes with it upon yourself with threads like this. The perception will take away from your great accomplishments.

If you wouldn't have won without the "prototype" then you were given some kind of advantage others didn't have access to. Do you really feel good about winning a race based on your super special exclusive equipment rather than your driving?

The one exception would be if you actually created the "prototype" equipment. Then I think there would be a great deal of pride in racing something you created yourself and were successful with.

Win a big race race with an old GTB and you will be a racing legend with all sorts of admiration.

(this is a general statement, I can't pass judgement on this case as I didn't race there)

Danny-b23

iTrader: (3)

The least ROAR should do is make a note of what happens and make an example out of it so to speak.

kn7671

iTrader: (16)

This thread is not exclusively about the IIC, it is about what steps ROAR should, or should not, take regarding prototype (or limited availability) equipment in Stock and Super Stock classes. The IIC, non-ROAR, event is only one example where prototype equipment is used. If the same happened at a ROAR event, this would be a huge issue, any several manufacturers would be protesting.

Credit is due to CRC for bringing their "A" game and winning multiple classes. They have recruited some of the best people out there. As I stated earlier, if it is found that this ESC has zero objections from ROAR, and once it becomes publicly available (November 2009 according to CRC), than I will be buying one as well.

What we should be doing is encouraging ROAR to decide is whether or not non-production, non-publicly available equipment can be used in Stock and Super Stock classes. The term "Stock" implies that the equipment should be available to anyone. There are probably so many cases of this happening all the time, it seems unlikely an easy and controllable solution will be easily implemented.

We should also encourage ROAR to adopt rules that would clarify who should be allowed to run Stock. We can all agree that it is a forgone conclusion that absolutely nobody would have been happy if Mike Dumas, Paul LeMieux, Frank Calandra, Brian Wynn, Donny Lia, Hupo Honigl, Josh Cyrul, and other top-drivers all entered the "Stock" classes. As an independent, and fair to moderate driver at best, I am fully aware that I have no chance at an A-main win, but if the field in Stock is stacked with team drivers, what is going to keep independents such as myself interested in running stock classes at large events, which is where the bread and butter of racing begins, and are usually the largest classes supporting these events?

TimPotter

iTrader: (15)

That has been rehashed time and again....

You have two camps.

1 - Let anyone run whatever class.... basically MAN UP
2 - Try some kind of a ladder system to keep things moving on UP < Good luck,

I, as well as many other have stressed a need to go to a skill based delineation of classes, not power based.

But back on topic, before this turns into the "other " thread

or8ital

iTrader: (38)

It seems the only thing that will work is to take any glamor out of winning a stock class. Maybe a simple step might be to stop gathering and listing equipment used for participants in the stock A mains of big events. That might curb some of the sponsorship of stock class racers which will further remove the glamor from the class.

Wild Cherry

Stock is Doomed for the beginners


How can you guys find it acceptable if someone wires in a extra battery for more voltage being fair or even legal ....



Loop hole ?
No fool me ....


also
Roar will never accept the resposibility of creating a ranking system , perhaps someday a more professional organization will step in and get her done .

PitNamedGordie

iTrader: (8)

Not sure anyone said that was ok. I think that was the conspiracy theory that proved not to be true.

~McSmooth~

Because such a system would require a TON of work to keep up with all eleventy-million classes we have these days, and all the races nationwide (from club to national) that would need to be tracked.

That's quite a big undertaking for a volunteer.

Further, can you even begin to image the WHINING about such a system? From the structure, to missing somebody's race, so somebody feeling slighted? Just look at college football rankings and the BCS points, and tell me racers wouldn't be flipping out left and right.

But hey, you seem to be full of good ideas. Why don't you step and and make this ranking system?

Wild Cherry

O ! that extra battery was not providing a shot of extra voltage to the motor ?

No fool me , one bit ....


I don't care how clever they were in the wiring , what it does is not legal ....

Mason

ESCs are designed to do one thing: provide power to the motor somewhat relative to throttle position. Other things like Battery Eliminating Circuitry, modes, profiles, and adjustments are options. As for timing, well the whole brushless thing only works because of timing from the ESC.. So its a bit hard to regulate that. Mechanical timing at the motor is not regulated for any brushless motor. It would be pointless to regulate it since the ESCs main goal is to time power application to the phases anyways. Whether there should be any sort of limitation on that.. outside of a spec type of unit it would be pointless, financially not feasable for all involved to deal with such as tech, consumers having to buy yet another speedo only to be not useful after some progression to faster classes. If speed is a concern it may just be easier to change winds.

As for battery supply issues: There are already rules in regards to BEC's (5.2.2) and how supplied power can interact with ESCs. The only advantage of running any auxilary power is to allow the esc to run as efficiently as possible between primary battery and motor. If that includes operating control (switching) in the esc but the not actual power application to the motor, it's currently allowed. Also in regards to some comments about "recharging", 8.3.1.7 specifically addresses this (meaning its not allowed in standard races). Once again all of this only applies to ROAR events. This may mirror or reflect IFMAR rules but I don't race at that level so I don't worry about it.

I hope this answers some of the questions.

HenBeav

iTrader: (13)

The system is easy if you have won a stock race at a national level before in that class man up and don't run it anymore, especially with prototype equipment.

you can cut the eleventy-million classes in half at least by getting rid of foam touring

PitNamedGordie

iTrader: (8)

This is a quote from RCTVLIVE's Facebook page as to how the ESC works.

"This is the ESC at the heart of the iic controversy. The new Black Diamond speed control from Advanced is incredibly well designed and specifically built with 1s and 2s lipo use in mind, although it has 5 and 6 cell NimH modes as well. Every speed control on the market that allows 2s lipo or 6 cell NimH cells has a voltage regulator in it. The speed control regulates the 7.2 or 7.4 volts from the race pack down to the 6 volts that servos are designed to use. When designing the unit for 3.7 volt 1s lipo use, engineers at Advanced knew that many racers would be using a small 7.4 volt 2 cell lipo to power the radio gear. Rather than forcing the user to add a second regulator to their small 1:12th car, the Advanced unit allows the user to connect the 7.4 lipo direct to the regulator in the speed control eliminating the need for a separate regulator. Very smart, why carry 2 regulators? Very clever and very well designed."

There's nothing illegal about that.

I find it hard to believe that a well known reputable company like CRC would blatantly run an illegal speed control at one of the countries biggest races. They weren't hiding anything and their cars were torn down and teched at the IIC....nothing illegal was found.

I for one am looking forward to seeing this ESC hit the open market this fall. I like innovation.

Wild Cherry

Take the extra battery out of the CRC and it will not be as fast ...


It needs the extra power from a additional battery to provide that performance you claim is so innovative and legit...

jiml

iTrader: (3)

I love the way ROAR has to fix all this, but 90% of you guys don't want to join ROAR.

Also, there's no such thing as stock. The class is called 17.5

Homologation? Anyone remember the fights over the body rules???

liljohn1064

iTrader: (17)

How many of you plug your PC or Mac into 110 volts? The DC output in these is highly regulated or you'd blow it up in seconds.

What voltage does the power supply put out to the hard drive? +12V
What voltage is output to the Processor? +/- 5V
What would happen to the Processor if you ran +12 volts through it?

You'd let the smoke out.

Same theory internally in this ESC. It takes in DC voltage either 3.7, 4.8, 7.2 or 7.4 volts. From there is either regulates the voltage sent back to the receiver at 6 Volts and to the motor at 3.7. This unit obviously has a regulator system built into it.