Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > North American Regional Forums > Northwest Racers
ROAR goes to 4cell... What will tracks do? >

ROAR goes to 4cell... What will tracks do?

ROAR goes to 4cell... What will tracks do?

Old 11-25-2006, 07:06 PM
  #16  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Auburn Washington
Posts: 19
Default

4 cell touring cars will totally obsolete everything the stock racer currently owns, and just start another technology war for battery manufacturers to come up with a 1.4v, 1.5v, or higher exotic sub-c cells, followed by the motor folks coming out with brand new winds and exotic brushes and magnet combinations to get the same speed as the existing 6 cell cars have. It may take them a year or two to get there, but the technology will evolve and all the non-sponsored racers will have to pay the $$$$$$ prices to go fast.

I agree with all the other posters. This seems like a bad move on Roar's part. Does anyone know the history behind this alleged decision by ROAR? Who is really pushing to get these new rules made?

Maybe 4 cell touring on a smaller carpet track but I think the cars would be considerably slower at a place like SIR. But then you are saving a couple of ounces in weight, and 4 cell 1/12 scale cars are as fast as or faster than the touring cars.

Maybe the 4 cell rule will just bring back 1/10 touring pan cars or pan chassis GTP cars?

Just another reason to not join ROAR?
rbojarski is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 07:08 PM
  #17  
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: auburn washington
Posts: 2,053
Default

Originally Posted by Wild Cherry
You Dummy ...


4 cell

Its for all the class`s in Sedan ....


Yup 4 cell 27T is now officially gona become turtle free....
your logic is only for you to understand, lets assume the reason i ran stock and silver can was because i couldn't handle going fast. wouldn't dropping to 4 cells make me even happier???? in other words, those of us "hiding" in stock still have no reason to go to mod. in fact what i see is the mod guys switching to stock as not to kill there packs every race day, to be able to make run time. that is if 4 cell racing sucks as bad as everyone is hoping.
Turtlemaster is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 07:10 PM
  #18  
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: auburn washington
Posts: 2,053
Default

point is, some will try it (like cj) and give a report back to us.
Turtlemaster is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 07:29 PM
  #19  
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ROAR HAD ME BANNED FROM RC TECH.
Posts: 2,025
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

By going to 4 cells that means that the amp draw in the MOSFETS will have go up higher in order to keep the speed up BAD for the mosfets..
While your thought is valid, part of the reason they are doing it is to slow down the cars...but exactly what you said will happen, the racers will demand cells that provide either more amps out, or more volt per cell.

Thanks for posting this, Peter..you found something that I think most of us will agree on!
Desolas is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 07:30 PM
  #20  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (41)
 
Anthony.L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,920
Trader Rating: 41 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Skruger
I was just Kidding I have my indy 0-30 and it works just fine for me.

But how many NEW people want to buy a $50.00 to $100.00 Discharger.
I have the Integy and it gets the packs WAY too hot because it's 30amp linear. When I was using that on the 4200WC packs they were coming off like 180+ F which is not ideal for the cells.

I never understood people's logic like this. You will buy several $70 packs to get the best runtime and voltage then you go discharge it on the cheapest thing you can find. Makes no sense, it's like buying a Rolls and then parking it on the street curb every night.
Anthony.L is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 07:35 PM
  #21  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (41)
 
Anthony.L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,920
Trader Rating: 41 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by rbojarski
just start another technology war for battery manufacturers to come up with a 1.4v, 1.5v, or higher exotic sub-c cells
How is that different then right now? New batteries are coming out every 3-6 months currently with each new cell being much higher voltage then the last. To keep on top you have to buy a new packs several times a year.

I don't think this will change the technology race one bit. All it will do is temporary slow down the cars until the technology allows the same speed that it used to with 6-cells. Then what, we go to 2-cells? Sounds stupid to me.
Anthony.L is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 08:01 PM
  #22  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
Skruger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: AT YOUR TRACK
Posts: 1,535
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Lightbulb WoW

Originally Posted by Anthony.L
I have the Integy and it gets the packs WAY too hot because it's 30amp linear. When I was using that on the 4200WC packs they were coming off like 180+ F which is not ideal for the cells.

I never understood people's logic like this. You will buy several $70 packs to get the best runtime and voltage then you go discharge it on the cheapest thing you can find. Makes no sense, it's like buying a Rolls and then parking it on the street curb every night.
Yea my Turbo 35 GFX is the cheapest thing on the market

I discharge most of my packs at just 5 to 10 amps on the Turbo35 and then use the Indy to ballance discharge only.
You are right about INDY 0-30 getting the 4200's HOT because it is designed to be used as a ballance discharger NOT a pack dump discharger like the Reactor.
and yep the Reactor Sucks Big time (I would never buy one)because I dont like to ruin my $70.00 packs either.
I like to slow discharge my packs untill 5.4volts and then apply the 30 amp Ballance discharge for only 1 to 3 min. that sould have all the lights out unless there is a bad cell. then I make a 4 cell pack out of that (BUT that is another story)

the Indy 0-35 is by far not the cheapest (I have some 2 bulb dischargers)

I am still using OLD 1400mah NiCad's and gp3300's from way back .In my TOY speed boat's. I quit using them because of the 4200's Voltage advantage
Skruger is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 08:06 PM
  #23  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
Skruger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: AT YOUR TRACK
Posts: 1,535
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

bACK TO subJECT
Skruger is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 08:08 PM
  #24  
Tech Legend
 
Wild Cherry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: TRCR Modified Driver
Posts: 22,595
Default

Originally Posted by Turtlemaster
point is, some will try it (like cj) and give a report back to us.
Aaah c-on !


I bet Ritchie can`t wait for next summer....


For that hot day on the parking lot !


Racing a 4 cell 27T sedan .....



I got to be the only racer around to approve of the rule change .

I say it will help Sedan a lot because it will open up the class`s for the beginner`s and novices..


This alone is why I support the decision...


Just look at the novice entry`s count for the sedan program`s and then maybe you could understand why this has to happen....


The sedan sport needs fresh customer`s in order to survive

or


watch it die....
Wild Cherry is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 08:22 PM
  #25  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
Skruger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: AT YOUR TRACK
Posts: 1,535
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Wild Cherry
I say it will help Sedan a lot because it will open up the class`s for the beginner`s and novices..


This alone is why I support the decision...


Just look at the novice entry`s count for the sedan program`s and then maybe you could understand why this has to happen....


The sedan sport needs fresh customer`s in order to survive .
Normaly George I think you are the bigest waste of R/C tech bandwith

But you are right about the Novice / beginner classes shrinking.

Hay that is what Tamiya's GT3 /spec sedan /novice class is suposed to do .
but in this MicroSoft enriched land of money it dont seem to be working either.

4 cells will just ruin more speedo's in the sedan class
Skruger is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 09:32 PM
  #26  
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: auburn washington
Posts: 2,053
Default

no, actually i will be running a 3.5 or 4.5 brushless.. that is what you wanted isn't it. ran the 6.5 brushless all weekend at the gold cup even though the car works better with a brushed motor, winning isn't important to me anymore, not working on motors is. having fun and hangin with friends is even better.
Turtlemaster is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 10:48 PM
  #27  
Tech Fanatic
 
crazy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Acuna mattata.........Bitches!
Posts: 896
Default

Couldn't you do the same thing by running longer races with the same equipment we allready have? Wouldn't that make the racer think about run time and motor wear in a new way without having to redesign chassis and electronics?
crazy5 is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 11:15 PM
  #28  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (41)
 
Anthony.L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,920
Trader Rating: 41 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by crazy5
Couldn't you do the same thing by running longer races with the same equipment we allready have? Wouldn't that make the racer think about run time and motor wear in a new way without having to redesign chassis and electronics?
Jeff, what people are saying the main issue is the voltage. Simply gearing the car different to get longer runtime will not change the voltage of the battery pack.

I don't believe undergearing the motor is the answer. Either we continue the current path and electronics catch up, or we step the voltage down.
Anthony.L is offline  
Old 11-26-2006, 03:30 AM
  #29  
Tech Legend
 
Wild Cherry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: TRCR Modified Driver
Posts: 22,595
Default

Originally Posted by Turtlemaster
no, actually i will be running a 3.5 or 4.5 brushless.. that is what you wanted isn't it. ran the 6.5 brushless all weekend at the gold cup even though the car works better with a brushed motor, winning isn't important to me anymore, not working on motors is. having fun and hangin with friends is even better.


LoL !

Blame the motor !!!!


I think I went as fast as you did !!

The motor was one of the reason`s I did though...
Wild Cherry is offline  
Old 11-26-2006, 08:45 AM
  #30  
Regional Moderator
 
Exterminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Digital Diarrea Deleter
Posts: 2,477
Default

In my opinion 4 cells would be a good thing for the novice/beginner classes. Due to less cost for start up. And slightly slower speed for learning to drive and set up.

One way to do some testing is allow 19t to run 6 cells and allow those running 4 cells to run modified motors and see if they can equal the lap times. or make the car perform better on the track. I believe it will be close in lap times and should make for a fun race with more people in it.

Personally I don't care one way or the other. Set up the rules. I'll meet them and we can sort it out on the track.

One idea is open up the rules for Modified class. Throw out the motor rules, let the Manufactures create some motors and electronics that can handle the voltages of current and future energy sources. Only rule is the car has to meet weight/size. Let them develop traction control,rare magnets, Explore armature size. Develop windings/arms with other materials. All these will trickle down and make racing at the top level something that is helping push the limits of technology. And the biggest goal is to put some cash on the potium develop a professional league of R/C racing. Or stay the course let the hobby of R/C racing die a slow death.
OOPS got off on the wrong rant.

4 cells who knows. Try it, don't try it. who cares as long as the cars on the grid meet the same rules. And the race is deciede by the clock.
Exterminator is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.