New Novak Stock Brushless
07-06-2006, 12:50 PM
#31
Originally Posted by bvoltz
It is time for the rules to get out of the 90s... Let the wattage limit define the class and let them go... How you check this... Simple Dyno... if the motor output is over the limit, DQ. How hard is that? Or are you saying that the dynos that everyone is using to tune motors are lying?
Why does what's INSIDE the motor matter when it comes to stock/spec racing? Who cares if it runs on plutonium or cat piss. If the output is under an acceptable limit, then it's "stock" (or "spec"). Placing arbitrary limitations on materials and mechanical configurations benefits all the wrong people. Those limitations were originally set to keep costs down, but with all of the required auxillary equipment to be competitive, stock isn't a dime chaper than mod. Today, these limitations benefit all the wrong people and leave a lot of potential hobbyists at the door.
07-06-2006, 12:51 PM
#32
Yeah, I agree. I would really like to focus on something else other than tuning my motors all the time. How nice would it be to have consistent power with no maintainence! This would also help to determine if small changes to the car were helpful or not. Removing the motor from the equation is nice! Many times, I'll make a small change to the car, but it's hard to tell if it was my change, or if my brushes were just breaking in better causing the brushed motor to run a little better.
I'd like to get back to focusing on driving, and the car set up. I know this will help the hobby to grow as well. New racers will have the same power output and can focus on learning to drive and set up their cars.
Here is the Tower link.
I'd like to get back to focusing on driving, and the car set up. I know this will help the hobby to grow as well. New racers will have the same power output and can focus on learning to drive and set up their cars.
Here is the Tower link.
07-06-2006, 12:54 PM
#33
It's probably intended for some different applications, but it looks like "The Crawler" is also new.
Crawler 18.5 (w/Crawler ESC)
Crawler 18.5 (w/Crawler ESC)
07-06-2006, 12:58 PM
#34
Originally Posted by syndr0me
It's probably intended for some different applications, but it looks like "The Crawler" is also new.
Crawler 18.5 (w/Crawler ESC)
Crawler 18.5 (w/Crawler ESC)
07-06-2006, 01:02 PM
#36
Originally Posted by syndr0me
It's probably intended for some different applications, but it looks like "The Crawler" is also new.
Crawler 18.5 (w/Crawler ESC)
Crawler 18.5 (w/Crawler ESC)
07-06-2006, 01:06 PM
#37
Originally Posted by or8ital
That price on Tower cant be right!
07-06-2006, 01:53 PM
#39
So company "A" send a Brushless motor in for Dyno'ing..
First, it has to be a common Dyno type. and results from Dyno to Dyno differ.
Second, The motor gets submitted is of the sup par quality, but still dyno's at 99 Watts... then the "good" Motors are released... this can dyno much higher.... 110+.. See what I am getting at...
It will be IMPOSSIBLE to police and keep track of.
That is why I am saying, limits such as output will not work. too many oportunities to cheat.
Physical Limitation with theoretical output limits.....
The On Road Committee has been dicussing these issues for while. The best way to get someting like this adoped, is to get the local tracks to let the brushless stock motor run with the brushed ones.... get more racers using them, and that pushes the rules....
First, it has to be a common Dyno type. and results from Dyno to Dyno differ.
Second, The motor gets submitted is of the sup par quality, but still dyno's at 99 Watts... then the "good" Motors are released... this can dyno much higher.... 110+.. See what I am getting at...
It will be IMPOSSIBLE to police and keep track of.
That is why I am saying, limits such as output will not work. too many oportunities to cheat.
Physical Limitation with theoretical output limits.....
The On Road Committee has been dicussing these issues for while. The best way to get someting like this adoped, is to get the local tracks to let the brushless stock motor run with the brushed ones.... get more racers using them, and that pushes the rules....
Originally Posted by James35
ROAR would need to dyno the motors when companies like Trinity and Novak send them motors for approval. As long as the motors don't exceed the class wattage output at 7.2 volts, they will be approved. It's a pretty simple concept really. And it is the only true way to let brushed and brushless motors compete fairly with eachother.
07-06-2006, 02:05 PM
#40
Originally Posted by TimPotter
First, it has to be a common Dyno type. and results from Dyno to Dyno differ.
Racers that have the CE Turbo Dyno's don't notice much of a fluctuation since it's a true dyno. Maybe 1% or 2% difference at most. Manufacturers would then submit motors to ROAR providing room for this small variance so they can still qualify. The new ROAR classification rules that I propose could specify that all models of a given motor (pre-production and production) must be under x amount of watts.
Last edited by James35; 07-06-2006 at 02:18 PM.
07-06-2006, 02:20 PM
#41
As a newbie I'm excited to see this. Sign me up for more track time and less maintenance.
07-06-2006, 02:33 PM
#42
First a DYNO would have to be produced to DYNO a brushless motor and as of currently I know of any.
07-06-2006, 02:34 PM
#43
Tech Apprentice
The 100 watt limit would probibly let out a lot of "tuned" motors out, if you believe the BS in the stock motor forum. I think 120-130 watts would be a reasonable range. As for the cost difference I don't care if I don't have to tune it all the time.
07-06-2006, 02:43 PM
#44
Originally Posted by TimPotter
That is why I am saying, limits such as output will not work. too many oportunities to cheat.
If a cheating method surfaces for brusheless motors, then let's cross that bridge when we get there. I've never been a fan of the Slippery Slope argument, especially when the problems at the bottom of said slope already exist with the current situation.
There are simply way too many benefits to ignore this step. In my eyes, this is the same leap that was taken from MSC's to ESC's. If people looked at that advancement 15 years ago the way some are viewing brushless, then the electric side of this hobby would be deader than a doornail today and nitro would be much smaller from not having electric turnover.
If there are already perceived issues with regards to standardization and/or cheating, then let's address those issues head-on. Simply casting the technology aside at the first sign of trouble seems narrow-minded to me at best, and the furthering of a personal agenda at worst.
Let's give it a chance before we just chalk it all up to failure. The technology is there, the people are DEMANDING it, and far larger obstacles have been cleared (or ignored) than this.
I know there are other interests at play here, specifically, motor tuners and manufacturers. But we have textbook supply and demand at work here. There has been CRAZY demand for a stock brushless class, and Novak met it.
It's up to companies like Novak, Trinity, LRP, and Reedy to furnish the supply to meet the demand. Several companies have spent years trying to engineer and "guide" demand to cater to their own supply, and I think people have had enough of it.
07-06-2006, 02:58 PM
#45
People keep refering to only the HP numbers, but the HP will not always be the leading factor, If you limit the HP, then the torque comes into play. There is more to motors than high rpm and HP, if they have no torque, it may have a high top speed but it will take forever to reach it.
This is how HP/torque in my views affects a car:
HP = top speed
torque = how fast it gets to the top speed
This is how HP/torque in my views affects a car:
HP = top speed
torque = how fast it gets to the top speed