Regs for f1 racing in oz
07-17-2013, 04:36 PM
#361
I think it depends on what level you want to race a class at. Nobody is ever going to say, it's not on a list you can't use x at a club day. So long as any class is low numbers or not raced seriously at top level there isn't a need to be strict in setting up the rules. It's when things move to the next level, where the cars are being raced for State of National Championships, that those types of measures start to become necessary.
Q. Is there a problem with the current rules?
Q. Is there rampant cheating under the current rules?
Q. Is there ONE motor and ESC combination that is being used under the current rules that is dominating all competition nationally to the detriment of the class?
If it aint broke, don't fix it as they say.
07-17-2013, 04:53 PM
#362
Hi All,
I have been following this discussion with intrest for a while now, As a extreme newbie to f1, the following are just my thoughts from someone that is new to the f1 Scene.
For me personally i'd like to see:
1, Control Tyres across the board (Ride R1) premounts (used with great success at AOC)
2, Any ESC in Blinky mode from any approved list.
3, Any 21.5 from any list anywhere in the world or any 21.5 motor for that matter.
4, Minimum Ride height of 4 or 5mm for everyone,
5, Lock in a maximum overall width of 200mm front and rear.
I think that the easier it is to understand a class the easier it will be to promote it and gather momentum. All these discuusions are positive. just my 2 cents.
I have been following this discussion with intrest for a while now, As a extreme newbie to f1, the following are just my thoughts from someone that is new to the f1 Scene.
For me personally i'd like to see:
1, Control Tyres across the board (Ride R1) premounts (used with great success at AOC)
2, Any ESC in Blinky mode from any approved list.
3, Any 21.5 from any list anywhere in the world or any 21.5 motor for that matter.
4, Minimum Ride height of 4 or 5mm for everyone,
5, Lock in a maximum overall width of 200mm front and rear.
I think that the easier it is to understand a class the easier it will be to promote it and gather momentum. All these discuusions are positive. just my 2 cents.
07-17-2013, 05:28 PM
#363
Not so long as the competition stays at the level it is currently at. When there is more at stake, that's when problems develop.
No, but it's not really about intentional cheats. The lists are there because those units have been verified by knowledgeable authorities to comply with the technical specifications.
The difficulty with electronics is that it is now days more sophisticated than can be easily checked by the scrutineer at the event.
Not every unit advertised as such complies with the technical specifications. Further, there are units on the market advertised as being 'outlaw' units, that meet more general regulations, but not the specific ones put in place to keep a cap on performance.
When not controlled these things lead to performance creep outside the range intended by rule makers. The bigger problem, that can be detrimental to a class, is that you need different types of (for example) 21.5 motors for different classes, reducing the cross-over between classes, and therefore numbers in those classes.
Tightening up the regulations won't help numbers in Formula 1. It will help numbers in Sportsman Touring though, because those getting into F1 will buy a motor that also meets the Sportsman regs. Open regulations are a very useful tool for encouraging entries in a class initially, but persisting with them after critical mass is reached, can hurt the racing at larger meets more generally.
Rather similar is the way many clubs have open regulations, but sanctioned meets have tighter ones. The clubs have open regs to make it easy for people to get in and racing at their club meets, but in that situation fewer people can race sanctioned meets without having to buy a second set of gear. One of the challenges clubs face is how to encourage drivers to make a step up from club level and getting the balance right between that and getting people into racing in the first place.
They also say a stitch in time saves nine. The difficulty is knowing when the right time is to make a switch, it might not be right now.
07-17-2013, 07:57 PM
#364
Exactly, yet here you have a rule change proposal here, that has no justification or supportive argument in favor of it based on the current rules not working.
For whom? A small subset of racers perhaps, but those are the ones who already take things way more seriously than they should be, or do not have the skills to be all they think they should be.
At the end of day, the pro's drivers will own, the elite drivers will whine cause they are not good enough and the club guys just wanna have fun. And the reason F1 is growing is because it is fun, the rules are easy and not demanding on the wallet, so why kill it by turning it into yet another 21.5, 13.5 or mod class.
So you argue in favor of lists by showing the failure of lists and argue against performance creep and motor of the month with the motor everyone jumped to because it was visually faster than any other motor out there. Which is still on the list even though it does not meet the spec requirements? HAHA
Quite a big assumption to make, I do not drive 21.5 and never will, yet i bought an F1 and 21.5 to race at the QLD's because it is a fun class and easy on the wallet, not because there would be tech crossover between classes.
And again, if something is working and there are no issues, why change it. Or at least have a tech process that drivers can use to have their gear approved for regional competition. If this the 12th eurospec we were talking about, anyone with a Trackstar 1 Cell esc would all of a sudden be not able to use it, all because Hobbyking does want to spend the $1000 in escs and approval fees to get it approved.
The same goes for batteries, you can drop my batteries off the table and then put them on charge to make sure they do not explode anytime you like, witch is, for most parts all ROAR does.
At the end of day, the pro's drivers will own, the elite drivers will whine cause they are not good enough and the club guys just wanna have fun. And the reason F1 is growing is because it is fun, the rules are easy and not demanding on the wallet, so why kill it by turning it into yet another 21.5, 13.5 or mod class.
So you argue in favor of lists by showing the failure of lists and argue against performance creep and motor of the month with the motor everyone jumped to because it was visually faster than any other motor out there. Which is still on the list even though it does not meet the spec requirements? HAHA
The same goes for batteries, you can drop my batteries off the table and then put them on charge to make sure they do not explode anytime you like, witch is, for most parts all ROAR does.
07-17-2013, 08:29 PM
#365
Roger, you seem to think I am arguing in favour of changing this now. I'm not. I'm not arguing in any way actually. I'm simply answering your questions about why list based systems exist, and why eventual movement to them is desirable.
The one point I do wish to expand on is this one I've quoted above. It's not that big an assumption. My club runs both EP ONR and EP OFR. When a big meet comes along in one of those formats close to home, we get people who wouldn't usually race it have a go. The incidences of cross-over has reduced since the divergence in the motor and ESC rules between the two formats. People are far more likely to give another class a go at a big meet if they already have most of the gear they need.
You say you'll never drive 21.5, but not everyone feels like that. Other drivers who've got into the sport through F1 might like to have a go. What happens when someone says, hey I've got a spare car you can run at the Qlds. If you've got class legal electronics then there is a good chance the person replies, 'Yeah, sure, why not?' If your spare F1 motor isn't 21.5 TC legal though you're probably not likely to want to buy a new one for one race. Sometimes, one race can become many if someone enjoys themselves. This is why I say minor differences in electronics regulations should be avoided long term.
Edit: It's also rather confusing for people to have one 21.5 motor allowed in a class but not another. It leads to people buying motors they can't actually use for what they bought them for.
-----
Also, I feel the need to point out, that you've only quoted me on the D3.5, and not on the other two examples I gave you. Yes, the D3.5 thing is a mess, but surely this highlights how complicated testing can be, and how manufacturers might not even be aware that a unit is outside the accepted parameters unless they submit it for testing. I'm not saying EP did or didn't know, just pointing out that something gaining a D3.5 sized advantage or greater could even more easily enter into the motor pool without homologation.
These issues all have to be weighed up when making a decision on rules. Openness and accessibility have to be balanced with fairness and broader issues of growth for the sport. My opinion is that whether to lean one way or the other depends on the numbers in which a class is raced, and at what level it is raced at. Fully sanctioned classes need to be tightly controlled, below that level more flexibility is justified.
Quite a big assumption to make, I do not drive 21.5 and never will, yet i bought an F1 and 21.5 to race at the QLD's because it is a fun class and easy on the wallet, not because there would be tech crossover between classes.
You say you'll never drive 21.5, but not everyone feels like that. Other drivers who've got into the sport through F1 might like to have a go. What happens when someone says, hey I've got a spare car you can run at the Qlds. If you've got class legal electronics then there is a good chance the person replies, 'Yeah, sure, why not?' If your spare F1 motor isn't 21.5 TC legal though you're probably not likely to want to buy a new one for one race. Sometimes, one race can become many if someone enjoys themselves. This is why I say minor differences in electronics regulations should be avoided long term.
Edit: It's also rather confusing for people to have one 21.5 motor allowed in a class but not another. It leads to people buying motors they can't actually use for what they bought them for.
-----
Also, I feel the need to point out, that you've only quoted me on the D3.5, and not on the other two examples I gave you. Yes, the D3.5 thing is a mess, but surely this highlights how complicated testing can be, and how manufacturers might not even be aware that a unit is outside the accepted parameters unless they submit it for testing. I'm not saying EP did or didn't know, just pointing out that something gaining a D3.5 sized advantage or greater could even more easily enter into the motor pool without homologation.
These issues all have to be weighed up when making a decision on rules. Openness and accessibility have to be balanced with fairness and broader issues of growth for the sport. My opinion is that whether to lean one way or the other depends on the numbers in which a class is raced, and at what level it is raced at. Fully sanctioned classes need to be tightly controlled, below that level more flexibility is justified.
Last edited by Radio Active; 07-17-2013 at 08:46 PM.
07-17-2013, 08:57 PM
#366
Great discussion and debate thanks guys. Some really good points. And it is very interesting that no-one is currently arguing strongly for the change.
After considering the above, and discussing some of it with others, my current view is:
- F1 is not yet as big as it can get
- Rules should support, rather than inhibit, the growth of the class while maintaining as fair a playing field as practical
F1 is seen by many, but not all, as:
- a second class
- a lower cost class
And therefore leaving motor and ESC choice open is in line with this.
While "prevention is better than cure" my current thinking is that the existing rules for motors and ESC's have not outlived their usefulness.
However, the optional rules for events should be fine tuned. Therefore large events, where rules need to be tighter, will continue to have the choice of using the standard rules on motors and ESC's or the optional rules which are tighter. While this might mean that some F1 drivers need to buy a new motor to compete at events many will use an event legal motor on club days.
If this view is generally accepted then the proposed rule amendments will be changed as follows:
Current Rule 8 remains unchanged:
8. ESC Rule: Brushless - Any ESC that does not have dynamic timing ie; boost or turbo timing options, or any ESC that has a Blinky mode ie; a flashing light denotes that no dynamic timing is enabled, is allowed. Brushed ESC for silver can: Any.
Current Rule 9 remains unchanged:
9. Motor Rule: Brushless – any 21.5 turn brushless motor with any rotor. Any end bell timing is allowed. Brushed – any 540 size 27 turn Johnson or Mabuchi silver can motor which may not be modified or tampered with in any way.
Proposed Change - that the current Optional Rule 8 for Events:
8. ESC Rule for Events: Brushless - Any ESC from the ROAR Approved Non-Timing ESC list or the AARCMCC EP Off Road Stock Spec ESC List. These ESC’s do not have dynamic timing ie; boost or turbo timing options. Brushed ESC for silver can: Any.
...be amended to add the BRCA list and to be in line with the AARCMCC 21.5 non-timing rules as follows:
8. ESC Rule for Events: Brushless - Any ESC from the ROAR Approved Non-Timing ESC list or the BRCA Non-Timing ESC List or any AARCMCC EP Stock Spec ESC List (an offroad list exists at the time of writing, should an onroad list be developed by AARCMCC this is also acceptable). These ESC’s do not have dynamic timing ie; boost or turbo timing options. Brushed ESC for silver can: Any.
Proposed Change - that the current Optional Rule 9 for Events:
9. Motor Rule for Events: Brushless – any 21.5 turn brushless motor from the ROAR Approved Brushless Motors list with any rotor on the ROAR Approved Brushless Motors list. Any end bell timing is allowed. Brushed – any 540 size 27 turn Johnson or Mabuchi silver can motor which may not be modified or tampered with in any way.
...be amended to add the BRCA list and to be in line with the AARCMCC 21.5 non-timing rules as follows:
9. Motor Rule for Events: Brushless – any 21.5 turn brushless motor from the ROAR Approved Brushless Motors list or the BRCA 21.5 motor list with any rotor on those lists specified for the motor. Any end bell timing is allowed. Brushed – any 540 size 27 turn Johnson or Mabuchi silver can motor which may not be modified or tampered with in any way.
The above is not set in stone and feedback is welcome.
In addition there has been no discussion of the proposed E. Sister Motor Rule. My concerns remain about this amendment but interested in different views.
After considering the above, and discussing some of it with others, my current view is:
- F1 is not yet as big as it can get
- Rules should support, rather than inhibit, the growth of the class while maintaining as fair a playing field as practical
F1 is seen by many, but not all, as:
- a second class
- a lower cost class
And therefore leaving motor and ESC choice open is in line with this.
While "prevention is better than cure" my current thinking is that the existing rules for motors and ESC's have not outlived their usefulness.
However, the optional rules for events should be fine tuned. Therefore large events, where rules need to be tighter, will continue to have the choice of using the standard rules on motors and ESC's or the optional rules which are tighter. While this might mean that some F1 drivers need to buy a new motor to compete at events many will use an event legal motor on club days.
If this view is generally accepted then the proposed rule amendments will be changed as follows:
Current Rule 8 remains unchanged:
8. ESC Rule: Brushless - Any ESC that does not have dynamic timing ie; boost or turbo timing options, or any ESC that has a Blinky mode ie; a flashing light denotes that no dynamic timing is enabled, is allowed. Brushed ESC for silver can: Any.
Current Rule 9 remains unchanged:
9. Motor Rule: Brushless – any 21.5 turn brushless motor with any rotor. Any end bell timing is allowed. Brushed – any 540 size 27 turn Johnson or Mabuchi silver can motor which may not be modified or tampered with in any way.
Proposed Change - that the current Optional Rule 8 for Events:
8. ESC Rule for Events: Brushless - Any ESC from the ROAR Approved Non-Timing ESC list or the AARCMCC EP Off Road Stock Spec ESC List. These ESC’s do not have dynamic timing ie; boost or turbo timing options. Brushed ESC for silver can: Any.
...be amended to add the BRCA list and to be in line with the AARCMCC 21.5 non-timing rules as follows:
8. ESC Rule for Events: Brushless - Any ESC from the ROAR Approved Non-Timing ESC list or the BRCA Non-Timing ESC List or any AARCMCC EP Stock Spec ESC List (an offroad list exists at the time of writing, should an onroad list be developed by AARCMCC this is also acceptable). These ESC’s do not have dynamic timing ie; boost or turbo timing options. Brushed ESC for silver can: Any.
Proposed Change - that the current Optional Rule 9 for Events:
9. Motor Rule for Events: Brushless – any 21.5 turn brushless motor from the ROAR Approved Brushless Motors list with any rotor on the ROAR Approved Brushless Motors list. Any end bell timing is allowed. Brushed – any 540 size 27 turn Johnson or Mabuchi silver can motor which may not be modified or tampered with in any way.
...be amended to add the BRCA list and to be in line with the AARCMCC 21.5 non-timing rules as follows:
9. Motor Rule for Events: Brushless – any 21.5 turn brushless motor from the ROAR Approved Brushless Motors list or the BRCA 21.5 motor list with any rotor on those lists specified for the motor. Any end bell timing is allowed. Brushed – any 540 size 27 turn Johnson or Mabuchi silver can motor which may not be modified or tampered with in any way.
The above is not set in stone and feedback is welcome.
In addition there has been no discussion of the proposed E. Sister Motor Rule. My concerns remain about this amendment but interested in different views.
07-17-2013, 10:34 PM
#367
Fully sanctioned classes need to be tightly controlled, below that level more flexibility is justified.
Rules should only be changed or adopted when there is some REAL need or objective that needs to be met. Which goes back to the questions i asked a couple of posts ago.
Q. Is there a problem with the current rules?
Q. Is there rampant cheating under the current rules?
Q. Is there ONE motor and ESC combination that is being used under the current rules that is dominating all competition nationally to the detriment of the class?
Or ultimately, are the current rules broken and unworkable in any way shape or form. If the answer is no, then what are you trying to achieve by proposing and changing the rules, that cannot already be accomplished under the current rule set. Is there any tangible gain from doing this? And who does it benefit? And all this should be done in relation to the stated objectives and goals for the class. If the class is meant to be a fun somewhat relaxed 2nd class, why turn it into yet another PRO class, don't we have enough of those already.
07-17-2013, 11:09 PM
#368
Things aren't just done that way because of tradition. The list system has come about because of issues that have arisen in the past. These issues include cheating at high levels, and an inability to scrutineer effectively at major events. A lot of people have analysed the situation and thought about it in detail, and the list system is the result. It's no accident that all of the biggest racing organisations in the world operate homologation lists.
Are lists a PITA? Absolutely. Should we look for ways to get rid of them? Please do, as someone who's scrutineered at major events the less looking up of stuff the better. Any move away from lists needs to be carefully thought through.
Are lists a PITA? Absolutely. Should we look for ways to get rid of them? Please do, as someone who's scrutineered at major events the less looking up of stuff the better. Any move away from lists needs to be carefully thought through.
07-18-2013, 06:46 PM
#369
I cannot wait to run my F1 on foam this weekend
07-19-2013, 09:02 PM
#371
Or ultimately, are the current rules broken and unworkable in any way shape or form. If the answer is no, then what are you trying to achieve by proposing and changing the rules, that cannot already be accomplished under the current rule set. Is there any tangible gain from doing this? And who does it benefit? And all this should be done in relation to the stated objectives and goals for the class. If the class is meant to be a fun somewhat relaxed 2nd class, why turn it into yet another PRO class, don't we have enough of those already.
My personal view (and this actually goes for all classes, not just F1), is that rulesets should be followed for larger events (such as nationals, states titles, Masters etc), whilst club level, they should simply be used as guidelines. I couldn't give a flying fig if someone is using a motor or ESC not on a list at a club night... more often than not club nights are testing nights anyway. However for an event, then yes, I would get a annoyed if someone is pushing the boundaries and gaining and advantage, even if only perceived.
The tricky bit is that transition... but if it's made known well in advance of an event, then it makes it a lot easier to be "race-legal" (Buy/beg/borrow equipment). Positive encouragment, good advice, cajoling, call it what you will, from current racers to others also helps the transisition. There will always be those who want to follow the $$, and for club racing only, fine I get that, and no issue... but if you chose that route, and buy something not legal for a big event, then sorry, that is your choice.
So what I'm saying (in a roundabout way), is much like others have already mentioned, for larger events, the rules should be more restrictive in terms of what's allowed. But for club racing, there is not so much of a need. Personally I would be setting the rules for the larger events, and then let the clubs use/not use parts as required... rather than specifically stating they have to use them, as in reality, thats what happens anyway!
I think thats been covered anyway!
07-21-2013, 04:55 AM
#373
I couldn't give a flying fig if someone is using a motor or ESC not on a list at a club night... more often than not club nights are testing nights anyway. However for an event, then yes, I would get a annoyed if someone is pushing the boundaries and gaining and advantage, even if only perceived.
I am not totally against approval lists, but what i am against, is the way lists are currently dealt with, which ultimately makes it a companies responsibility to pony up the $250 and X units of product and sent it to roar.
We do not even have our own approvals process, if we did, and it allowed for end users to submit their own gear to be tested and approved, then i would be more inclined to support it.
Take these 2 esc's as an example:
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...nsorless_.html
http://www.hobbywing.com/product_show.asp?id=250
One is on a list and one is not, they are identical in every way even down to the software they run, they are probably made in the same factory too, but because someone at ROAR has not said ok it has zero timing, it can not be used. A blinky esc is a blinky esc, so as long as someone can show their esc has no dynamic timing, what does it matter, if it is on a list or not.
07-21-2013, 03:12 PM
#374
The question here though, is this actually happening? Currently there seems to be no evidence that this is happening at all, so why preemptively address an issue that does not exist.
I am not totally against approval lists, but what i am against, is the way lists are currently dealt with, which ultimately makes it a companies responsibility to pony up the $250 and X units of product and sent it to roar.
We do not even have our own approvals process, if we did, and it allowed for end users to submit their own gear to be tested and approved, then i would be more inclined to support it.
Take these 2 esc's as an example:
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...nsorless_.html
http://www.hobbywing.com/product_show.asp?id=250
One is on a list and one is not, they are identical in every way even down to the software they run, they are probably made in the same factory too, but because someone at ROAR has not said ok it has zero timing, it can not be used. A blinky esc is a blinky esc, so as long as someone can show their esc has no dynamic timing, what does it matter, if it is on a list or not.
I am not totally against approval lists, but what i am against, is the way lists are currently dealt with, which ultimately makes it a companies responsibility to pony up the $250 and X units of product and sent it to roar.
We do not even have our own approvals process, if we did, and it allowed for end users to submit their own gear to be tested and approved, then i would be more inclined to support it.
Take these 2 esc's as an example:
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...nsorless_.html
http://www.hobbywing.com/product_show.asp?id=250
One is on a list and one is not, they are identical in every way even down to the software they run, they are probably made in the same factory too, but because someone at ROAR has not said ok it has zero timing, it can not be used. A blinky esc is a blinky esc, so as long as someone can show their esc has no dynamic timing, what does it matter, if it is on a list or not.
Originally Posted by AARCMCC EP OFR Rules (excerpt from Section 11)
Local distributors can apply to AARCMCC for Australian certification under specific conditions.
The situation you describe can be covered under the "specific conditions" mentioned. AARCMCC doesn't have the required testing equipment or the money/time to fund someone to carry out full homologation procedures. What they can do is contact the manufacturer to verify a unit is the same as one already on another list. If a local importer makes that request, or provides documentation to verify that is the case then that unit can be added to the local lists. This is the process that has been carried out in the past.
07-21-2013, 03:20 PM
#375
F1 is a great class But if this class wants to gain the recognition it deserves at the top level then it must fall into line with the other top level classes as far as approved electrics.
There are plenty of budget priced esc/motors on the roar list and at the end of the day they have taken the time and steps to have there products tested and hence approved for competition .
I have raced at events in other classes where there has been cheating and to say its not happening or will not happen in the future is naive .
A flashing esc does not prove it has no timing,roar/effra/brca approved units have been tested and comply.
I personally would not like to race against non approved items at event level.
There are plenty of budget priced esc/motors on the roar list and at the end of the day they have taken the time and steps to have there products tested and hence approved for competition .
I have raced at events in other classes where there has been cheating and to say its not happening or will not happen in the future is naive .
A flashing esc does not prove it has no timing,roar/effra/brca approved units have been tested and comply.
I personally would not like to race against non approved items at event level.
Last edited by No9; 07-21-2013 at 04:27 PM.