JKA

iTrader: (4)

ROARPrez... here was the question since you can't seem or care to find it...

Orange

You can't make a mountain out of a mole hill in just 1 day. Rick is on your side. He wants to know a solution to problems. He needs help to do this. But everytime there is debate about something it is real easy to point fingers isn't it??

Everything ROAR has ever done in it's 30+ year history is alway's put on the shoulders of the guy that is in charge now!! Why do you do that, why do you do this, why don't you try this should be the question and answer. But find a better solution that is a happy medium that ALL ROAR members can be satisfied with is the hard part!!

Not everbody can be totally happy with something that is done because we ALL have opinions that we feel is the best solution!! Some of us agree, some of us don't, but the best thing would be to just live with it and see how it goes before we jump to conclusions and point fingers at the people that are trying their hardest to make YOU the racer happy!!

In the past couple of years I have been on a rules committee, I have tried to figure racers out. Do I go by the guy's I talk to at the track? Or do I go by what the 5% of racers on message boards are saying?? Because both opinions are different. Shoot, opinions vary. You could ask the same guy the same question twice once in person and once through a message board or email and get 2 totally different answers!! Why is that?? Because emotions and getting personal about something are non existant face to face!! But everyone gets all super tough behind a keyboard!! Sad, very sad!!

OUT AGAIN!!

Sean

ROARprez

Thanks Keith for that. All they have to do is submit them.

All your suggestions are noted and I appreciate the input.

A simple question question was asked about approval and a simple response was given. We are just rehashing the same comments over and over.

If racers now have decided that yearly battery approvals are not a good thing it will be discussed. This board is only being commented on by a few racers. We need a bigger perspective than this but given the comments it will be looked at.

If you or other think I am bashing you I am very suprised it is not my personality or style at all.

Orange

Dude, Rick simply pointed out the process. A process BTW that has been updated in the past couple of years!! Not 1985!!

You were the one that seemed to take it personal!!

I didn't see anything as to what you were implying!

Should I go through your post and give you 1 liner answers one by one so that you can understand better??

I totally get what you were saying!! You seem to feel like if you say that I am confused it appears to be that way. But in all reality it seems you are the one that is confused.

Dawn Sanchez

ok.. lets decrease the amount of testosterone in here?? (yes, that's moderating)

The question was GP 3700's and it moved to a question regarding Intellect cells.... I responded that I am inquiring the availability and the rules process regarding the intellect cells and I stated I will post the response. Any arguement one way or another - really, irrelevant at this point until I hear back from the tech director as to the direction we need to go in regards to a cell that could fall out of spec range per the rules.

About each of our opinions - respectfully, they are all valid and relevant and maybe we should all listen first before jumping? I think the prevalence of accusing ROAR of not listening and having an elitist attitude is a bit over dramatic but that's just me.... I deal with this stuff every day and you know what, Rick deals with it more than I do.

There are important issues that arise daily and processes that MUST be followed. ROAR does not make rules just to irritate - the class committees must recommend and it must be discussed. Most ideas come from message forums but honestly, I rarely read those trashing on somebody or ROAR itself - and its a waste of a good idea when presented in a negative manner.

I have heard on another forum there is quite an arguement about the rule being rescinded about hand out tires at mod nats... what a joke!! This was the one thing off road racers complained about for the last 2 years and host tracks refused to bid on events due to the cost obligations... and now, this is a problem? If you only could understand both sides of an issue and understand the spirit of rules... I think this forum would be so much more pleasant to read.


thanks guys....



just my .02 - as non passive aggressive or assertive as I possibly can make. Just expressing my opinion.....

JKA

iTrader: (4)

Reread the suggestion and the responses from Dawn, Rick, and gascarnut. A suggestion was posed and never once was its merits considered. Rather it was written off as covered by the rules. The rules may need updating again, and as such these suggestion should at least be considered.

There is NOTHING wrong with the yearly approval system except that its reactive rather than proactive. I still believe cells should only be approved once per year, but ROAR might consider looking at cells the RACER suggests rather than just those of the manufacturer. THAT was the point.

You are right, I should. I should not ever approach these thing like this, but ask anyone that knows me... I speak my mind passionately when I see something I know is wrong... that is when I give a hoot about the situation.

I want ROAR to grow and become what people need. I see the way a polite guy's suggestion is written off as covered in the rules without recognizing the potential merits of those suggestions regardless of rules and it become clear to me why ROAR has attained such a bad rep. Its counterproductive, but I suppose the same is clearly true of my approach as well.

It seems these day... just like you said Dawn... if you take the warm and fuzzy approach you might as well be talking to a brick wall.

I'll email each of you with my suggestions so it doesn't have to be a public flaming. But remember... a flame (under the approriate backside) is not always a bad thing.

David Alberico

iTrader: (13)

I didn't mean to start anything, I really don't think these guys have a US importer. Back 10 years ago QA on Cells were all over the place and it was only sanyo to make the cells. Now there is almost no or very little beneifit to matching 3300 cells because the QA from GP so good (so hats off to GP for making such great batteries). I really think Intellect cell would be about the same as the GP's.

As another friendly suggestion I'm sure it would not hurt if someone from ROAR sent an email to an intellect rep just letting them know that when they are ready ROAR can send some information on getting their race batteries approved.

Dawn Sanchez

the rules, truly, are reviewed each year..

maybe, lets have this discussion after the 2005 book comes out.. Dennis did a WONDERFUL job of revamping, reorganizing and rewording some things....

And.... I never get that harsh... sarcastic and my tone a bit impetulant but never harsh... LOL

MattW

This doesn't really effect me as i'm thousands of miles away - however there looks like a couple of thing that stick out to me.

If i've grasped this correctly, the new Sanyo 3600 won't be legal for ROAR in 05, and neither will the GP 3700.

This leaves you with basically the same cells that are on the market now - i.e the GP3300. If i've got this wrong then the rest of my post won't be relevent

However, if the GP 3300 is going to be the cell you use in 2005, are you absolutely sure that there will still be a good supply of that cell for the next 12 months?? We had a situation similar to this in the UK a couple of years ago with the Panasonic SMH/UMH. During our 12th season (which runs 6 months out of sinc with everything else - during our winter) SMH cells ran out, the matchers couldn't get them, only UMH. UMH wasn't due to be legal till the following summer.

This caused a huge amount of grief i can assure you.

The other issue is that i understand there is a quantity of GP 3300 cells out there that are heavier than they ought to be, wonder what this means bearing in mind that the 3700 is also heavier. Only certain people will have these cells.

Dawn Sanchez

so, your saying the supply of 3300's might run out before the next approval process?

from what I understand of the 3600 cell - it doesn't meet specifications and is not approved ROAR, EFRA or IFMAR standards.

MattW

I don't know, like i say though we have seen it with Panasonic.

You introduce a new product that is better than the old one - why continue producing the old one?? As the 33 is a good cell, maybe they will keep with it.

The only info that i have regarding the Sanyo 3600 is that it will be legal for UK (BRCA) use from 1 April 2005, so i assume it passes our specs.

brianhackett

Once a year is great for battery wars, I guess. But I'd like to see you guys be proactive in the fact that Roar should see what cells are ready for approval on the market when it comes that time. For the most part you know who has batteries for the industry, search them out so their is plenty of compititon in that one period to hit the market for that year to hopefully keep prices down. This could be your stratigy already, dunno. My big question about batteries is that is there any progam in place or being looked at to regulate the standards for the numbers placed on batteries when they hit the counter. That way I don't buy a pack that falls on its face after 2 runs because it was pushed way to far to get the "better" numbers? I've heard people say there is now way but, if all of the sactioning bodies implemented the same program of rules to the manufactures and stood behind it for "approval" it might work ehh? by the way I still have to buy new packs every month to stay on the competetive side

jkohan

ROAR has been around for 25+ years. Every battery mfg that wants their cells used in mainstream R/C racing knows they must be approved. If they have spent the $$ on mfg and R&D, they surly can afford the cost for a couple of cells and postage.

If the burden is placed on ROAR, then every crackhead Bob mfg can sit back and complain that ROAR asked Trinity & GP, but not them.

If they can make batteries, they should have the knowledge to figure out the approval process. Leave the burden where it should be .....

My $0.0212487

BullFrog

iTrader: (4)

ROAR got bashed to death afew years ago because of the approval process for batteries.They came up with a simple solution "a once a year process" with the submittion of the batteries in September. As with any company involved in this, they knew 3 months ago that they were working on a new battery.It has not been a secret that this was the process. It wouldn't be any different, ROAR is always going to get the wrong end of the stick. As with the elections and the message boards it's a very small percentage of racers that ever respond to anything. It big talking and not signing your name- not a member- or just want to see what kind of stuff you can cause on the net. You big talkers out there you want to change things get a petition with real ROAR members. Until then talk -talk - talk.......
Bill Fraden

Jack Smash

iTrader: (35)

I can't believe this is even an issue. The rules state that either a manufacturer or distributer must submit the cells. If a racer wants to use a certain cell, call the manufacturer or distributor and talk to the marketing department about submitting a sample. What company would not want to increase their sales numbers? Heck, jump on the web and grab some phone numbers of some battery matching companies and give them the to the marketing department for leads! The reason why a manufacturer or distributor must distribute the cells is so that someone can't get ahold of some one-off, super expensive high powered nuclear cells and get an advantage over everyone else. I don't see how allowing joe shmoe to submit some supply of cells that he stumbled across is going to benefit the racing community, regardless of the performance of the cell.