Kevin Marcy

I was hoping there would (finally) be an explanation given of how you could have accidentally included the "very complex software" needed to create advanced timing in your spec mode, but I see we still aren't getting one. I have lost a great deal of respect for Tekin in this whole matter. The ONLY bright spot of it all is that it was detected quickly by other manufacturers and corrected. Unfortunately, not all of my local tracks are requiring v212. Lame excuses given are that "some people had problems with v212" and "ROAR and/or Tekin never said that v208 had timing in it".

Having said that, I still tend to agree with those who support the "blinky mode" for 17.5 "stock". TC on-road needs a stock class with managable speeds for new racers. There also needs to be an in-between class for experienced racers, whether it's boosted 17.5, unboosted 13.5, or a combination of the two.

I would strongly suggest to ROAR that the penalty for illegal software should be similar to the penalty (from brushed motor days) for illegal motors from a manufacturer:

8.4.1.6 Any motor found to be in deliberate violation of any specification will result in the OEM
Importer/ Manufacturer/ Builder to have their products banned from any ROAR
approval for a period of one year.

oldrcr

iTrader: (46)

Not to back any company, software is not as easy as you make it seem to be void of mistakes. None of us can say what actually was the case with 208/212. Maybe it was that an access pointer to dynamic timing was buried in a single pixel on the software dashboard and could be accidentally put into play by a user? What difference does it make, it was deemed accidental and corrected. As for the penalty for a deliberate violation of any specification, I agree, nothing wrong with making that part of the rulebook. As with any case of potential violation, proof of it being deliberate would need to shown. I can't imagine any manufacturer would really want to flirt with a ban. It doesn't make good business sense to potentially lose a years worth of sales of all your products.

By the way, I'm going racing, at any speed, that is the fun part for me, and why I do this hobby. See ya on the track.

g12314

iTrader: (6)

Funny, on our carpet track, the SP ESC in spec mode has no problem keeping up with any of the competitors spec mode ESC's. I've run 100's of laps testing with another racer who had a Tekin (V212) in his car and saw no difference based on the ESC... Difference based on our motor / gearing selection was obvious. I can always toss a Tekin in my car to see if it does make a difference, but based on the laps I've run I dont expect it to.

Regarding the Cirtix, I ran it outdoor in spec 17.5 against the others and never felt at a disadvantage.

CypressMidWest

iTrader: (1)

Kevin, you know I love ya right? Now here's my retort to the above statement.

Is it possible that the $60 speedo may not have the same quality of componentry, (fets, etc.), as the speedos that cost almost THREE times as much? I understand that an updatable ESC will cost more due to the need for the re-writing capability, but a difference of over 100% is unlikely. In the archaic brushed motor days, an M5 Novak looked just like an M1C without the current limiter. The M5 was $60, the M1C was $115. Ran 'em both, and the M1C was way quicker. Then came the Hyperfet, an M1C with better fets, faster still.

If the big SP is on par with the LRP/Novak/Tekin offerings, then I'd say that the whole "spec-blinky" thing is working pretty well. Chevy used to sell $10,000 Metros and $50,000 Corvettes. Guess which car was faster

DARKSIDE

iTrader: (2)

got to love VTA...thanks USVTA

25.5 Novak and limited esc's ...why not..

hey ROAR...add VTA to your classes and that can serve as your entry into r/c onroad racing...

thanks again USVTA...we finally got it right...

man this is alot to read if you miss a day..geez

oldrcr

iTrader: (46)

Nice to see one company gets to win the lottery and be the only motor provider allowed in a class. Please, don't get me started.

DARKSIDE

iTrader: (2)

works for me...one less varible to deal with

mracer

iTrader: (43)

Somebody tell me what is wrong with this idea.....Theoretically everyone could win.
Have a "stock" and "super stock" class for each motor and let the regions and tracks decide what they want to run.
Examples:

Entry class 21.5 no boost and is "stock" 21.5
Next would be "super stock" 21.5 with boosted speedos
Then 17.5 no boost is "stock" 17.5
Next would be "super stock" 17.5
And the list goes on to say 10.5 and beyond which could be mod.
With the above, each track could decide what motor they want to run for the size track they have and average skill level driver of that track plus it would allow for the flexibility of those that want to play with the boosted speedos to do so and go a few ticks faster. It would also allow the guys that wanted to go "fast" and not want mess with the speedo to do so, but wouldn't make them have to learn all the intricacies of the boosted speedos to go fast. I hope I have explained this like I have it in my head which is sometimes the hard part....lol I DO NOT WANT THE BOOSTED SPEEDOS BANNED!!! I think that would be a joke, however, I also do not want people that can drive a faster car to be forced to figure out all the bells and whistles of the newer speedos to be competitive in the faster classes. It has to be kept so that the person with the average amount of time can be competitive - they pay the bills. I for one will not spend my limited, valuable track time trying to figure out the best settings on my speedo. I am going to be making laps!

skypilot

iTrader: (14)

I guess I should have added, your results may vary.

I have had the cirtix spec stock system, I raced with it, I kicked some ass with it. I loved it, I even tried to get the lhs/track to get some. they didn't, so the racers went on line and got it, they were happy, they liked the performance, then "new spec" software came out and those systems are on the shelf now. well some of them, the others just wanna run and don't care.

btw, this is the track I tested on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwTXUr2Ay3E

avs

iTrader: (2)

with all due respect, i think you are only reacting to a transient phenomena. the advent of dynamic or ramped timing, boost or whatever you want to call it is a relatively new option due to the arrival of consumer priced microprocessors and low cost digital signal processing capability. the impact of this is twofold:

1) reconfigurable hardware ESC's providing more performance with lower motor temperatures and lower reliance on battery voltage in the low turn spec motors.

2) a temporarily steep learning curve that everyone is still on. some of us are nearer the bottom or top than others. (this situation applies to consumers and manufacturers).

i submit that these algorithms will become commonplace among all mfgs. in time, and the optimal parameter values will settle down for a given class vehicle and motor configuration. (as long as the Luddites don't win)

this kind of innovation is exactly the kind of thing that makes this hobby interesting and infuriating but never boring.

in regards to the reduced 'throttle' feel that some have complained about with boost timing, i expect that the root cause will be recognized and the desired response characteristics will be recovered without resorting to flogging motors and batteries with fixed timing.

mikel33

iTrader: (2)

my 2 cents.

I don't understand the 21.5 thing and vehemently disagree. If ROAR or a local track wants to have a slower class or novice class, why not simply mandate 0 timing on the motor and 0 in the esc? or a gearing restriction(that one's tough, I know).

I would like to see 17.5, 17.5 open, and mod. I feel there needs to be a class in between stock and open mod that is further from stock that 21.5 to 17.5.

I also don't see why a programmable speedo with zero timing would not be allowed in the 17.5 class. We need to figure out how to embrace technology, not run from it. That is a sure fire way to completely destroy on-road. I ran Tekin before turbo and timing boost, and would like to continue to run the product. If it conforms to the rules, why ban it? With all the scrutiny around this issue I am not too concerned with someone programming around the rules or letting software get out the doors with that kind of mistake. Label me a Tekin crusader if you want, but I am tired of hearing about v208.

I would also point out cost effectiveness. With 1 chassis I can race 2 classes with a 17.5 and programmable speedo. throw in a 13.5 or 10.5 and I can run mod. 2 classes with nothing but a handful of gears and 3 with 1 extra motor.

In the end, I hate going backwards. I race both restricted and unrestricted 17.5 and have no interest in restricted 21.5. This is TC, not usvta where they have a specific goal and idea for that class. There should be a TC class where a good club racer can step up and run faster before mod, never mind the fact that most of the carpet tracks in this country (at least around me)really aren't big enough to run mod unless you are a world class racer.

again, my 2 cents.

michael.

Jaz406

iTrader: (50)

zero timimg in the motor is not a level playing field and not an option for limiting speeds unless its all one manufacturers type and version of motor.

Motor makers have different amounts of timing as "zero" on a sticker or a mark, gearing would be the only option. Timing must be adjustable to allow all makes of motors.

ottoman

iTrader: (13)

Damn I am sure glad we quit racing after the IIC... reading this thread gave me a headache and convinced me we made the right decision

tc3team

In the UK, back in the days of brushed motor classes, the BRCA done away with the 27t class and put its focus more into pro stock and mod classes.

27t was a VERY expensive class, it would not be uncommon to hear of motors and brushes being changed or skimmed after every run, best voltage nimh etc etc and it killed "stock" racing for the younger racers imo.

The sponsored or wealthy guys locked out all the top finishing positions, it was not an introduction for an up and coming younger or rookie racer to get motivated in.

Since then, a junior championship was created to get up and coming younger racers noticed, but it never got enough interest to keep it going.

I can only assume that big events can be intimidating to the newer or slower guys and hence the low booking in numbers it can generate.

Not really sure what my point is, but all I can say is that no matter how hard an organisation tries, sometimes it is still looking for a good answer to cater everyone.

Kudos to the guys that have been trying to come up with a solution, I hope it all works out for you.

ODEN

Have the people who are the makers of the rules ever concidered the future
and asked the manufactuers of batteries to put more effort into 6.6V LiFe
batteries! All governing bodies around the world need to grow a pair! and maybe concider them more.

Its also funny how with all the advances in speedies and motors and batteries that the SLOWEST class to go FASTER is Modified! and also its the smallest in driver numbers no matter where you race. Enjoyable to watch the best in the world do it! but last time I looked there was a small number of them to.

Maybe the govering bodies around the world SHOULD be looking at restructuring classes rather than capping the classes that have the most
drivers in them..... There is a lot of options out there to choose from, who has the biggest pair to guide this hobby we all enjoy.