VERY IMPORTANT: We need new rules!!!
06-04-2004, 05:30 AM
#91
What andsetinn says is right. So he does have an idea of what he is talking about.
06-04-2004, 05:43 AM
#92
By reducing 2 cells, you would be reducing 33% of power.
By reducing 2 cells, you would only be reducing <100g of weight which is less then 7% of total weight.
So your trying to tell everyone that by reducing 2 cells, you would reduct amp drawn? No offence but after losing 33% of power, the motor will draw HIGHER amp just to make sure it moves. In turn the motor will run HOTTER.
Then it would kill run time.
If everyone believe that running 4 cells would be better overall, they should run with 1 cells then.
By reducing 2 cells, you would only be reducing <100g of weight which is less then 7% of total weight.
So your trying to tell everyone that by reducing 2 cells, you would reduct amp drawn? No offence but after losing 33% of power, the motor will draw HIGHER amp just to make sure it moves. In turn the motor will run HOTTER.
Then it would kill run time.
If everyone believe that running 4 cells would be better overall, they should run with 1 cells then.
06-04-2004, 06:00 AM
#93
Ok, the 4-cell discussion blindsided me. Are we still under the impression that scale-realism enthusiasts such as myself are really after scale speeds? No way! Go as fast as you can. That's what I say. But to me, some obscure, amorphous body shell that really only provides negligible (if any) performance gains is a pointless compromise.
Ok, I can understand not wanting to use GTP shells in a class specifically named "Touring Car", but things can change, can't they? Why not use the refined and potent package in a narrow wheelbase, 4WD touring car kit and start really pushing the performance envelope with GTP bodies? At least in modified.
The point I'm trying to get across is that you really aren't being authentic or realistic with the amorphous Stratus 2.0 thing-that-sort-of-looks-like-the-car, so the hypocrisy remains. If we wanted to retain the touring car image, perhaps the GTP shells could be reserved for the open mod classes.
Ok, I can understand not wanting to use GTP shells in a class specifically named "Touring Car", but things can change, can't they? Why not use the refined and potent package in a narrow wheelbase, 4WD touring car kit and start really pushing the performance envelope with GTP bodies? At least in modified.
The point I'm trying to get across is that you really aren't being authentic or realistic with the amorphous Stratus 2.0 thing-that-sort-of-looks-like-the-car, so the hypocrisy remains. If we wanted to retain the touring car image, perhaps the GTP shells could be reserved for the open mod classes.
06-04-2004, 07:44 AM
#94
Tech Addict
Originally posted by AdR|aN
Longer run time?
Motor draw less amps due to lower voltage?
Motor will run cooler?
DO you have any idea what your talking about?
By reducing 2 cells, you would be reducing 33% of power.
By reducing 2 cells, you would only be reducing <100g of weight which is less then 7% of total weight.
So your trying to tell everyone that by reducing 2 cells, you would reduct amp drawn? No offence but after losing 33% of power, the motor will draw HIGHER amp just to make sure it moves. In turn the motor will run HOTTER.
Then it would kill run time.
Longer run time?
Motor draw less amps due to lower voltage?
Motor will run cooler?
DO you have any idea what your talking about?
By reducing 2 cells, you would be reducing 33% of power.
By reducing 2 cells, you would only be reducing <100g of weight which is less then 7% of total weight.
So your trying to tell everyone that by reducing 2 cells, you would reduct amp drawn? No offence but after losing 33% of power, the motor will draw HIGHER amp just to make sure it moves. In turn the motor will run HOTTER.
Then it would kill run time.
The very first formula in electronics is U=I*R (Americans use E instead of U). It means Voltage is equal to Current multiplied by Resistance. This formula was the very first thing Albert Einstein learned about electricity (you may not have heard of Albert Einstein, if not do a search on Google). The Equal sign means that if you do not change anything else, just remove 2 cells, you drop the voltage, and with the same resistance in the cars electric system as before, then the current must drop too. Therefore Current and Voltage are both reduced.
The second formula in electronics is P=U*I. It means Watts/Power Equal Voltage multiplied by Current. Using that formula you see that since you drop both voltage and current you're using less power.
I've established that with fewer cells the motor uses less power. Motor that uses less power runs cooler.
The battery's capacity is measured in Amperes. I've established that the motor is using fewer Amperes with fewer cells. Therefore the batterys last longer.
06-04-2004, 07:47 AM
#95
Originally posted by andsetinn
The very first formula in electronics is U=I*R (Americans use E instead of U). It means Voltage is equal to Current multiplied by Resistance. This formula was the very first thing Albert Einstein learned about electricity (you may not have heard of Albert Einstein, if not do a search on Google). The Equal sign means that if you do not change anything else, just remove 2 cells, you drop the voltage, and with the same resistance in the cars electric system as before, then the current must drop too. Therefore Current and Voltage are both reduced.
The second formula in electronics is P=U*I. It means Watts/Power Equal Voltage multiplied by Current . Since you drop both voltage and current you're using less power.
I've established that with fewer cells the motor uses less power. Motor that uses less power runs cooler.
The battery's capacity is measured in Amperes. I've also established that the motor is using fewer Amperes with fewer cells. Therefore the batterys last longer.
The very first formula in electronics is U=I*R (Americans use E instead of U). It means Voltage is equal to Current multiplied by Resistance. This formula was the very first thing Albert Einstein learned about electricity (you may not have heard of Albert Einstein, if not do a search on Google). The Equal sign means that if you do not change anything else, just remove 2 cells, you drop the voltage, and with the same resistance in the cars electric system as before, then the current must drop too. Therefore Current and Voltage are both reduced.
The second formula in electronics is P=U*I. It means Watts/Power Equal Voltage multiplied by Current . Since you drop both voltage and current you're using less power.
I've established that with fewer cells the motor uses less power. Motor that uses less power runs cooler.
The battery's capacity is measured in Amperes. I've also established that the motor is using fewer Amperes with fewer cells. Therefore the batterys last longer.
I take back what i said earlier.
Guess my formula got mixed up with other theories
No offence i hope
06-04-2004, 08:59 AM
#96
Tech Addict
Originally posted by AdR|aN
Sorry but i got mixed up in all of this.
I take back what i said earlier.
Guess my formula got mixed up with other theories
No offence i hope
Sorry but i got mixed up in all of this.
I take back what i said earlier.
Guess my formula got mixed up with other theories
No offence i hope
06-04-2004, 11:10 AM
#97
Its been a long time (30 years) since I studied ohms law so I don’t know how this example plugs into the law… but in a practical example… if you have a 12 volt starter motor turning over a 12 litre truck engine it will draw about 400 amps. But if you reduce the voltage available the amps will increase, or in other words if the load on the motor remains constant and you reduce voltage you increase amp draw. In a rc car the load will drop some due to less weight, less top speed and lighter motor brushes with 4 cells but is it enough to realize a increase in run time?
06-04-2004, 11:32 AM
#98
ottoman - If you reduce the batteries to 4 cells(4.8v) you can draw more amps out of them? Wouldn't that mean that a mod motor would draw more amps from a 4 cell battery then a 6 cell battery? Thus dumping them quicker... 
06-04-2004, 02:00 PM
#99
Tech Master
WOW! run time with 4 cells is the same or better..on top of that they would run 7 or 8 turn motors with very little timing in them..
you will make 4 minutes..you will go as fast as you can for those 4 minutes as well..
4 cell 2 less cells= better motor life awesome wear in stock!
4 cell..2 less cells = less money per pack
4 cell...2 less cells = less weight
4 cell ..2 less cells = better tire wear
4 cell ..2 less cells in stock = a great place for the noobies to get there feet wet in..
4 cell stock would become what it should be..a true beginers class! slower speeds easier to drive closer racing...
4 cell 19 turn would become the class for the guys who cannot afford to run mod or are just scared to run mod because thats where the "pros" run...
fewer diff rebuilds the list goes on and on...
the only problem is getting a race promoter to push the class..get some guys to try it....i had heard the reedy race was going to have a exibition 4 cell mod class..but i guess it fell through..or someone got cold feet?
i say let the pros run a exibition 4 cell mod class and see what kind of feedback they give?
again bodies? i'm sorry but the body thing is a small detail..you touring guys have bigger fish to fry..
you will make 4 minutes..you will go as fast as you can for those 4 minutes as well..
4 cell 2 less cells= better motor life awesome wear in stock!
4 cell..2 less cells = less money per pack
4 cell...2 less cells = less weight
4 cell ..2 less cells = better tire wear
4 cell ..2 less cells in stock = a great place for the noobies to get there feet wet in..
4 cell stock would become what it should be..a true beginers class! slower speeds easier to drive closer racing...
4 cell 19 turn would become the class for the guys who cannot afford to run mod or are just scared to run mod because thats where the "pros" run...
fewer diff rebuilds the list goes on and on...
the only problem is getting a race promoter to push the class..get some guys to try it....i had heard the reedy race was going to have a exibition 4 cell mod class..but i guess it fell through..or someone got cold feet?
i say let the pros run a exibition 4 cell mod class and see what kind of feedback they give?
again bodies? i'm sorry but the body thing is a small detail..you touring guys have bigger fish to fry..
06-04-2004, 02:21 PM
#100
Re: VERY IMPORTANT: We need new rules!!!
I agree with you 100%. 1/8 scale racing is fast, but sweet jesus, when was the last time a Can-Am race was held in the US? LOL
Everyone should take a que from 1/5th scale racing....very realistic looking bodies. I know...I have 2 5th scale cars.
Everyone should take a que from 1/5th scale racing....very realistic looking bodies. I know...I have 2 5th scale cars.
Originally posted by Barry White
I had this a long time coming but have started this now becouse of the "Bring back the Pro 10" tread.
I've stated the following in that tread:
When touring cars came they where cheap very fun to drive becouse you could slide, brake, jump over curbs, run on untreated surface where realistic, ect. Even touring cars have problems. They became to expensive becouse of the different tires, motor limits, unrealistic body's ect.
Pro ten mod eats tires like crazy and now with the newer battery's and motors even more but it fast and thus cool.
What all organisations need to do is keep everything in SCALE. Touring cars with 4 door 2 liter saloon looking like body's should be 180mm wide. Or if they want to use 190mm the rules should say to use DTM or GT1 looking like body's (NSX, Supra, Corvette, ect.). Pro 10 cars should use 200mm wide body's like the Tamiya LM series and limit tires becouse the will eat them to. 235mm wide it more like 1/8 scale so you should name it 1/8 scale.
You may say: Yeah but 235mm is faster. Of course it is but we are model car racers so people who say that could use only a wing as a body or no cockpit and so on.
If the organisations would be more strict about that we would all race more realistic car's that therefore arn't that much slower (I bet a Tamiya NSX is as fast as a Protoform touring body) and a lot more apealing for outsider's AND girls. Look at Kyosho mini-Z cars. They have great succes becouse they are fast AND realistic looking.
The goal is to have more fun and attract more people to the hobby.
I had this a long time coming but have started this now becouse of the "Bring back the Pro 10" tread.
I've stated the following in that tread:
When touring cars came they where cheap very fun to drive becouse you could slide, brake, jump over curbs, run on untreated surface where realistic, ect. Even touring cars have problems. They became to expensive becouse of the different tires, motor limits, unrealistic body's ect.
Pro ten mod eats tires like crazy and now with the newer battery's and motors even more but it fast and thus cool.
What all organisations need to do is keep everything in SCALE. Touring cars with 4 door 2 liter saloon looking like body's should be 180mm wide. Or if they want to use 190mm the rules should say to use DTM or GT1 looking like body's (NSX, Supra, Corvette, ect.). Pro 10 cars should use 200mm wide body's like the Tamiya LM series and limit tires becouse the will eat them to. 235mm wide it more like 1/8 scale so you should name it 1/8 scale.
You may say: Yeah but 235mm is faster. Of course it is but we are model car racers so people who say that could use only a wing as a body or no cockpit and so on.
If the organisations would be more strict about that we would all race more realistic car's that therefore arn't that much slower (I bet a Tamiya NSX is as fast as a Protoform touring body) and a lot more apealing for outsider's AND girls. Look at Kyosho mini-Z cars. They have great succes becouse they are fast AND realistic looking.
The goal is to have more fun and attract more people to the hobby.
06-04-2004, 04:00 PM
#101
I have no problem with sports cars (porsche GT3, BMW M3, Corvette, Saleen, etc) in mod or 19t even to make the cars look different. that would probably even be an cool idea. Can AMs must go. I can appeciate the fact that an 1/8 scale car will go 75 mph down the back straight, and they prolly need the downforce. However, it will be over my dead body that every damn car that is on the track has a wedge on it. Not to mention that was 30 years ago. So let's just keep with the tin tops shall we?
06-05-2004, 12:02 AM
#102
Originally posted by Barry White
I am for all out performance as well but if unrealistic looking body's where banned and you used realistic ones we you maybe be only 1/2 or 1 second slower but everybody will be a bit slower so it doesn't hurt.
Scale realism really hurts a lot. People get interessed a lot quicker if they recognize a RC car. Just ask outsider and women.
An other thing. Real car manufacturers would support our sport a lot more becouse they could promote their cars trough our races.
I am for all out performance as well but if unrealistic looking body's where banned and you used realistic ones we you maybe be only 1/2 or 1 second slower but everybody will be a bit slower so it doesn't hurt.
Scale realism really hurts a lot. People get interessed a lot quicker if they recognize a RC car. Just ask outsider and women.
An other thing. Real car manufacturers would support our sport a lot more becouse they could promote their cars trough our races.
06-05-2004, 05:42 AM
#103
Tech Addict
Deleted
Last edited by andsetinn; 06-17-2004 at 06:48 PM.
06-05-2004, 05:55 AM
#104
Originally posted by NVisible
attracting more people = more demand = lower prices.
i dont see why anyone wouldnt want that
attracting more people = more demand = lower prices.
i dont see why anyone wouldnt want that
Interesting take on supply economics.. too bad the trend goes the opposite direction, greater demand allows manufacturers and retailers to charge higher prices.... and don't be fooled into the fact that the manufacturers are in this to make money.... why do Tamiya and Yokomo release new cars or newer editions to cars?? BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BUY THEM... why do they charge a premium price??? because people will pay for them.
As for new rules, sure, they are needed... but that would entail new cars, new bodies, etc. This would require a ramp up time and retooling time which most (if not all) manufacturers would not find to be cost efficient... the racing segment of R/C is a small population in comparison to the "bashing" segment. Who cares if there are 40 different compounds of TC tires?? Only us, the racer. Why do we care about this different tires (or bodies)? Because we care about top performance. Pure and simple. BUT - as I stated earlier - we are not the largest group in the hobby.
While the idea of changing the rules is good and sound, it will have to be driven by the industry, and come as a natural evolution of the hobby.