Rick Hohwart

A standard battery application for 1/10 off-road is a 2S stick or saddle. It either fits in the chassis it should be OK. If you choose to use a shorty LiPo in a 22 in mid-motor it would be OK as well because you can fit the standard saddle in this configuration.

masterhit

iTrader: (16)

Here is a pdf of the Facebook discussion were allot of these points are covered, including the saddle pack issues.

My question, which will need to be clarified by ROAR, is what does "as presented" mean?

Does it mean in race condition, or "can be presented" after 20 minutes of wrenching or electronics re-arranging to accept a standard pack.

It looks like an Xi will take a standard pack slammed to the back with no battery stops without any re-configuration.

Basically my argument is this, you can still design a car optimized for a shorty pack and just have a "less than desirable" that no one in their right mind would run configuration to meet the rules. Think batteries going off to the side at weird angles, an ugly (uglier?) 22 body with side flares to take a pack cross-ways, etc....

A car completely compromised performance wise, but meets the intent of the rule. While the world at large runs it in it's shorty optimized configuration basically negating the rule.... A company throws in a piece of carbon fiber that will never be used, but allows a pack to be mounted to meet the rule....

While it can take it by design, it doesn't necessarily mean that the car would function with it.

Mike Slaughter

alf.skaar

Thank you for sharing this, for those off you that did Vegas and see my 17.5 Blinky car, you know that my car is extreme when it comes to wheel base It is short, and I did test the short CRC lipo pack and I like it. I did think off using this short CRC lipo to make a even more extreme car.

After reading this I may not do that

Alf

seaball

iTrader: (9)

i haven't read much into it, but my initial thought is that the rule exists so that the shorty packs don't cause manufacturers to redesign their sh*t around them ... in turn creating the perception that everyone must now update their chassis to be competitive.

thinking forward, not backward. my guess is that the rule isn't likely intended to make illegal, a previously approved chassis or scenario. rather it appears to be intended to bring some longevity to existing designs, while integrating in newer li-po technology.

i could be out in left field with this as well, having put little thought into it thus far. and yeah, the mfr's will circumvent this rule with b/s mounting adapters/etc that nobody in their right mind would use, but the rule addendum seems a noble intention on the surface. i guess we'll see where it goes. seems like pretty minor stuff to me.

Casper

iTrader: (34)

I don't see the big deal. Having a car that "only uses a short pack" really is no different in my eyes then having one that "only uses saddle packs". With more then one company making these new short packs and they becoming more common what is the big deal? If a company makes a choice to design a car around a specific battery size (5 cell, 6 cell, 2s lipo long or short or saddle pack) that is up to them right? If they can make a better mouse trap with the equipment available what is the deal? Only reason I would see the need to run a larger pack in most 2wd electric cars is runtime but with races 10 min or shorter in most cases the current "shorty" packs do that just fine. Again I don't see a difference in a saddle pack only car from a shorty pack only car? As for longevity of current designs. Any car that uses a std long pack can fit a short one with some extra foams so not like we are excluding anything out there today.

seaball

iTrader: (9)

as chassis designer, it would be wise to be in semi-regular communication with the governing body whose rules your car needs to comply with. they would probably not be opposed to giving you a heads up on the direction things are intended to go in the future, if not in print, possibly in a verbal discussion.

it's not. but if you've spent any time on this board (or even at the track) you'll learn quickly that racer perceptions are what drives these types of things. now, is it roar's responsibility to protect racers from their own ignorance? probably not. but again, it seems noble to try. if they don't, we might just succeed in burning the whole thing down ... (ala - foam tire ep sedan racing).

IndyRC_Racer

iTrader: (9)

Another car that doesn't easily fit lipo packs is the HPI Pro3. I doubt anyone would race one at a national event, but they are decent cars in slower classes.

Since I own one, I was thinking of buying a shorty pack and running it in VTA.

Casper

iTrader: (34)

Oh I have spent plenty of time on the boards
<--------

and at the track. (16+ years racing)

I read through all the post from the FB stuff. I think they should have just set a minimum on the battery size as per the current shorty pack then. Instead of forcing cars into this new rule which to me is veague as it does not talk about saddle pack configured cars but if manufactures want to design a car around a specific battery that is between the std and current shorty then so be it. Saddle pack cars have always suffered some IMO due to battery configurations with sales as people don't like to have specific batteries just for one car. With Lipo's they way they are not I know a lot of poeple that have one battery per car now as you can charge the battery right after racing and it does not take that long like in the old round cell days. I get what they are trying to do just maybe might have done it anther way through a new battery size Put tolerances on hieght and width and length min and max. Cases are pretty std right now but this would not limit chassis design around short only.

Casper

iTrader: (34)

Also if you have the 22 "configurued" with the battery holder in the "short" configuration would this be legal or will we need to add a ton of spacers and a over the top battery brace to hold all the foam in place? I thought the moveable battery holder was a really neat feature of the 22 line.

EAMotorsports

iTrader: (79)

I wondered how long it would take for this to show up here. Only a matter of time before we are all racing shoe boxes with solid rubber tires and duracell batteries with tyco radios so its all even for everyone!

EA

Chaz955i

iTrader: (5)

The current rules make sense for a number of reasons already outlined but with battery capacity increasing so rapidly it will get silly when 8-9000mah packs are being sold when most racers running non-mod never get close to using that much. I'd love to stick a 4000 mah pack the size of a deck of cards in my TC6. Much easier to lay out all the electronics.

masterhit

iTrader: (16)

I see the rule as a bit knee jerk and not well written. Hence this thread. It should have been put out there in "beta" form first for discussion on the ROAR forum.

Why do I pay a membership again to find out about things on Facebook?

That way, rules lawyers (read arse holes if you will) like myself could have picked it apart somewhat more privately before being released into the wild.

Three scenarios,

A) My personal project car, a TA06 with speedo and radio gear stuffed inside the battery box "just because I can". "As presented" it will not fit a standard pack although the car was designed for it. With 20 minutes of re-wiring yes.

Legal or not as presented?

B) A project that I admire. Obviously the intent is for a shorty pack, but can also very easily take standard pack without any re-wiring. Would anyone buy this (if it was/became available) with the intent of ever running a standard pack? Doubtful...

Legal or not as presented?

C) Another project of some one else. Very neat, with lots of hard work obviously put into it. And if I read the results right made it into the B mod at the last ETS race which is no small feat! Obviously shorty pack only.

But, now imagine the above car with a "U.S." edition extra piece of carbon fiber that jutted the pack off at an angle just enough to keep it under the body... Or slapped across perpendicular to the belts.... Obviously it would be a complete mess with a long pack but can be made to accept one....

Legal or not as presented?

Any armchair engineer knows that the current TC layout is less than optimal. Eventually I would have guessed that the shorty packs would become the norm as it allows much more freedom of design.

I personally would hate to see that stifled, or worse yet, see neat cars released by foreign companies that would not be legal over here.

Of course that wouldn't stop me from buying them....

If IFMAR doesn't follow suit, a mess could be brewing down the road....

Mike Slaughter

RC MARKET

iTrader: (12)

Touring Car can use shorty battery ?

Serzoni

iTrader: (13)

Not exactly - you'd have to split that into 20 different classes so everyone could win something.

rocketron

iTrader: (16)

Seaball has expressed the intention of the rule correctly, the new rule does not affect (or shouldn't) existing chassis on the market. But is a step to prevent new chassis being designed around specialty battery designs.

All the organizing bodies (including EFRA, IFMAR etc..) are working together to eliminate specialty battery sizes, to prevent what could lead to batteries being designed for specific chassis.

ROAR just happens to have been the first to publicly publish a rule regarding this issue.