IFMAR AGM in Collegno - Future of ISTC
07-12-2006, 07:21 AM
#196
it doesnt matter the capacity. people will gear it until it dumps on the finish line or something melts. if you limit capacity, somebody will find a way to increase the voltage like they have with the more recent batts. not to mention the artificially inflated prices as batteries will turn into even more of a commodity.
The change will end up being either in quantity (cells) or/and ..or and/or material (motor from what i've read, maybe esc) as these would be the most beneficial to everyone involved on both sides of the counter.
The change will end up being either in quantity (cells) or/and ..or and/or material (motor from what i've read, maybe esc) as these would be the most beneficial to everyone involved on both sides of the counter.
07-12-2006, 07:23 AM
#197
Tech Adept
Yes, and Novak knows why.......
I mean, look at RC airplanes, they know why they use full neodym stacks!
The problem with Brushless is a little similar than with brushed.
Due to the battery voltage, magntes brake, cause of rpm and heat!
With brushed the arms brake.
I can not believe its gonna be very profitable for manufacturers in the future that way and the users won' t be happy also.
Markus
I mean, look at RC airplanes, they know why they use full neodym stacks!
The problem with Brushless is a little similar than with brushed.
Due to the battery voltage, magntes brake, cause of rpm and heat!
With brushed the arms brake.
I can not believe its gonna be very profitable for manufacturers in the future that way and the users won' t be happy also.
Markus
07-12-2006, 07:38 AM
#198
Tech Apprentice
One of the suggestions put forward has been to drop the word 'bonded' from the requirements. This will allow the more powerful sintered magnets to be used. It has also been suggested that neodymium be allowed in brushed motors as well.
Originally, when the rules were drawn (we were still on 3300 at the time and 3600/3700 were due to be realeased) it was felt that the power of the bonded magnet was in closer relation to brushed motors and that the cost of sintered at the time was prohibitive. Things have now moved on and costs have come down on the magnets to the point that there is not much of a factor.
Originally, when the rules were drawn (we were still on 3300 at the time and 3600/3700 were due to be realeased) it was felt that the power of the bonded magnet was in closer relation to brushed motors and that the cost of sintered at the time was prohibitive. Things have now moved on and costs have come down on the magnets to the point that there is not much of a factor.
07-12-2006, 07:40 AM
#199
Tech Adept
Although Josh's post is one of the best inthis tread I still would debate #2, race runtime.
Please do not prevent top level rule changes because of IIC/Snowbirds/Cleveland events. I understand 6 or 7 minute racing will mess up their schedule. But these are only a handfull of races. The other 99.9% of the races will benefit from the extra track time.
Our track time is still very limited compared to the amount of time put into the whole event.
The whole Worlds were 17 heats/finales (if all were raced). That's hardly an hour and a half for which you have traveled half way around the world.
The heat is only a problem because it's released in such a short time. Opening bodies might help a bit but doesn't solve the problem. Lower weight + less voltage + 6 minute racing will.
Anyway, I'm very interested in your test results.
Please do not prevent top level rule changes because of IIC/Snowbirds/Cleveland events. I understand 6 or 7 minute racing will mess up their schedule. But these are only a handfull of races. The other 99.9% of the races will benefit from the extra track time.
Our track time is still very limited compared to the amount of time put into the whole event.
The whole Worlds were 17 heats/finales (if all were raced). That's hardly an hour and a half for which you have traveled half way around the world.
The heat is only a problem because it's released in such a short time. Opening bodies might help a bit but doesn't solve the problem. Lower weight + less voltage + 6 minute racing will.
Anyway, I'm very interested in your test results.
07-12-2006, 07:42 AM
#200
Originally Posted by Terry_S
Mike mission accomplished, at least the "what you need is one of these" part!!
What is needed to solve the problem has nothing to do with current or voltage or power. There's no need for expensive changes to cars, cells or other equipment. It's very high tech, in fact it's an amazing device. Nobody ever listened when we mentioned the idea before maybe there's more interest now? Anyhow the device to solve the problems is...
a solid state accelerometer
This device would limit acceleration, top speed and cornering speed. It would be simple to install in a car as it would easily fit in-line in the throttle channel and not require any wires to be cut or other modifications to be made. It would be very small and light and would most likely not be too expensive. The race organisers could bear the cost and supply them to the competitors. It could be used in any race class, either for electric or even for nitro cars.
Any better ideas guys???
What is needed to solve the problem has nothing to do with current or voltage or power. There's no need for expensive changes to cars, cells or other equipment. It's very high tech, in fact it's an amazing device. Nobody ever listened when we mentioned the idea before maybe there's more interest now? Anyhow the device to solve the problems is...
a solid state accelerometer
This device would limit acceleration, top speed and cornering speed. It would be simple to install in a car as it would easily fit in-line in the throttle channel and not require any wires to be cut or other modifications to be made. It would be very small and light and would most likely not be too expensive. The race organisers could bear the cost and supply them to the competitors. It could be used in any race class, either for electric or even for nitro cars.
Any better ideas guys???
not to be shooting down ideas or anything, but i m not too excited of everyone having exactly the same speed and acceleration.
it s called stock in my book. 
And, most of all, i m very concerned about people coming up with some possible workarounds, cheating and such.. it s a tad difficult to enforce i would say.
07-12-2006, 07:47 AM
#201
After much thought, 4-cell racing will be the easiest and least costly solution. And it will allow for much easier LiPo implementation.
07-12-2006, 07:49 AM
#202
Originally Posted by MBreve
Although Josh's post is one of the best inthis tread I still would debate #2, race runtime.
Please do not prevent top level rule changes because of IIC/Snowbirds/Cleveland events. I understand 6 or 7 minute racing will mess up their schedule. But these are only a handfull of races. The other 99.9% of the races will benefit from the extra track time.
Our track time is still very limited compared to the amount of time put into the whole event.
The whole Worlds were 17 heats/finales (if all were raced). That's hardly an hour and a half for which you have traveled half way around the world.
The heat is only a problem because it's released in such a short time. Opening bodies might help a bit but doesn't solve the problem. Lower weight + less voltage + 6 minute racing will.
Anyway, I'm very interested in your test results.
Please do not prevent top level rule changes because of IIC/Snowbirds/Cleveland events. I understand 6 or 7 minute racing will mess up their schedule. But these are only a handfull of races. The other 99.9% of the races will benefit from the extra track time.
Our track time is still very limited compared to the amount of time put into the whole event.
The whole Worlds were 17 heats/finales (if all were raced). That's hardly an hour and a half for which you have traveled half way around the world.
The heat is only a problem because it's released in such a short time. Opening bodies might help a bit but doesn't solve the problem. Lower weight + less voltage + 6 minute racing will.
Anyway, I'm very interested in your test results.
My point is that if we go the way towards longer racing heats, it is totally incompatible with freezing cell capacity.. or you end up with a battery war which is the last thing we need. So we will have to choose.
Reading at what everyone is saying, 5 cells gets my vote at this stage in terms of realistic implementation/ quickness of implementation / ease of adaptation ratio...
I dont believe in implementing realistically complex technological solutions ("A triple flux dilithium crystal limiter !!") as it will make implementation obscure and unclear.. and the last thing we need is ADDING stuff to our cars.
Just my 0.01c
07-12-2006, 07:51 AM
#203
Tech Initiate
A solid state accelerator is not allowed in the rule. It's like a ASR or ASP. Also the tolerances could be too high of such a component.
There are only two ways to go:
foam tyres to reduce the braking heat or
reduce the number of cells.
It was also very interesting how many rumors were made to make Masami change to brushed. I think everybody was really afraid, that Masami could win the worlds with the GM-Racing brushless system even with the IFMAR bonded magnets, because this one was the only one without overheating brushless speedos and motors in practise and at the worlds.
Anyway sintered magnets would be cheaper and more reliable for the long time use.
There are only two ways to go:
foam tyres to reduce the braking heat or
reduce the number of cells.
It was also very interesting how many rumors were made to make Masami change to brushed. I think everybody was really afraid, that Masami could win the worlds with the GM-Racing brushless system even with the IFMAR bonded magnets, because this one was the only one without overheating brushless speedos and motors in practise and at the worlds.
Anyway sintered magnets would be cheaper and more reliable for the long time use.
07-12-2006, 07:51 AM
#204
Tech Adept
Weight-wise: yes. LiPo weight = 4 cell weight.
Voltage-wise: no. 4x1.2 = 4.8. That's nowhere near 3.7 of 7.4.
Voltage-wise: no. 4x1.2 = 4.8. That's nowhere near 3.7 of 7.4.
07-12-2006, 07:54 AM
#205
Originally Posted by elvo
Weight-wise: yes. LiPo weight = 4 cell weight.
Voltage-wise: no. 4x1.2 = 4.8. That's nowhere near 3.7 of 7.4.
Voltage-wise: no. 4x1.2 = 4.8. That's nowhere near 3.7 of 7.4.
The voltage IS lower. But the IR is MUCH lower. And at the same time you will have at least 6400 mAh capacity on hand at the same weight.
07-12-2006, 08:02 AM
#207
Originally Posted by Patriiick
Unless there is an obscure impossibility for that with Lipos that i m not aware of..
07-12-2006, 08:03 AM
#208
Tech Adept
Originally Posted by Rick Hohwart
Well at least it will be in the realm of possibility. LiPo is here and must be addressed at the time these major rules changes are being considered.
The voltage IS lower. But the IR is MUCH lower. And at the same time you will have at least 6400 mAh capacity on hand at the same weight.
The voltage IS lower. But the IR is MUCH lower. And at the same time you will have at least 6400 mAh capacity on hand at the same weight.
) Changing to Brushless technology, different/new LiPo batteries, reducing the cars' weight,... all at the same time. That's a big change. but it sounds good....
(I know you wrote 'for the same weight', but... a LiPo that's the same weight as a 6-cell pack is .... too big to fit into a touring car! So changing to Lipo will almost certainly mean a weight reduction. )
07-12-2006, 08:11 AM
#209
Originally Posted by elvo
True. Then the motors will have to follow suit. they'd have to crank out the same power from half the voltage. (Can you say 1-turn motor? )
Changing to Brushless technology, different/new LiPo batteries, reducing the cars' weight,... all at the same time. That's a big change. but it sounds good....
(I know you wrote 'for the same weight', but... a LiPo that's the same weight as a 6-cell pack is .... too big to fit into a touring car! So changing to Lipo will almost certainly mean a weight reduction. )
) Changing to Brushless technology, different/new LiPo batteries, reducing the cars' weight,... all at the same time. That's a big change. but it sounds good....
(I know you wrote 'for the same weight', but... a LiPo that's the same weight as a 6-cell pack is .... too big to fit into a touring car! So changing to Lipo will almost certainly mean a weight reduction. )
I am saying go to 4-cells rather than 5 so that LiPo can be addressed. We are talking about the future of the class, and the future includes LiPo.
07-12-2006, 08:34 AM
#210
I am going to start Flying Kites! 
Seriously! I hate everytime people make the comparison to Offraod and oval Pancars! Come on get for real two totally different scenerios stop comparing!
Opening a hole in the body is a great Idea all you need are a couple of air scoops.
Another thing is tire manufactures need to try and make ligther wheel and tire combos. Materials to make the tires better is there and stronger lighter wheels also.
The electronics manufacture just plain and simply need to beef it up.
Without a doubt motors need to be up to date with materials!
Also lets reduce the weight of the cars. Less weight to push around.
Battery capacity! Freeze it at say 4200mah for a period 4yrs as an example!
It would make it less an issue and slow the battery wars for us. Make it a standerd. Going down on mah is a backward step. Using smaller dimension batteries ex. AA, AAA's wont help they cant handle the draw of a mod motor in a heavy sedan .
We can also maybe look at posibly going two wheel drive. Less weight and moving parts! Maybe this way we can make realistic looking LMP cars like at lemans. Might bring back the simplicity of the pancars but with independant suspensions.
Maybe bring back the 12 scale sedans, but use wheels that look to scale plus more realistic body then they used. You'll need to make those cars lighter also they are heavy due to 4wd. Make them Front wheel drive or rear wheel drive. Most real world touring cars are front wheel drive or rear, 4wd is banned!
One thing that we need to really change is those damn Taxi cab bodies we race. Going to a real sports car type body maybe even LMP will make the car more aero and have less drag to make it more effeciant. Less amp draw to accelerate!
Seriously! I hate everytime people make the comparison to Offraod and oval Pancars! Come on get for real two totally different scenerios stop comparing!
Opening a hole in the body is a great Idea all you need are a couple of air scoops.
Another thing is tire manufactures need to try and make ligther wheel and tire combos. Materials to make the tires better is there and stronger lighter wheels also.
The electronics manufacture just plain and simply need to beef it up.
Without a doubt motors need to be up to date with materials!
Also lets reduce the weight of the cars. Less weight to push around.
Battery capacity! Freeze it at say 4200mah for a period 4yrs as an example!
It would make it less an issue and slow the battery wars for us. Make it a standerd. Going down on mah is a backward step. Using smaller dimension batteries ex. AA, AAA's wont help they cant handle the draw of a mod motor in a heavy sedan .
We can also maybe look at posibly going two wheel drive. Less weight and moving parts! Maybe this way we can make realistic looking LMP cars like at lemans. Might bring back the simplicity of the pancars but with independant suspensions.
Maybe bring back the 12 scale sedans, but use wheels that look to scale plus more realistic body then they used. You'll need to make those cars lighter also they are heavy due to 4wd. Make them Front wheel drive or rear wheel drive. Most real world touring cars are front wheel drive or rear, 4wd is banned!
One thing that we need to really change is those damn Taxi cab bodies we race. Going to a real sports car type body maybe even LMP will make the car more aero and have less drag to make it more effeciant. Less amp draw to accelerate!