PDR

iTrader: (31)

There's a couple of factors at work here, one of which is the crash of the AUD. I don't believe that there's any special magic in any of the motors out there, but see additional comments below.

There's two key points here, which I'll touch in turn:

1. The current approach is not completely broken, but there's an argument that it could be better
2. AARCMCC won't change anything without the clubs voting on any change

Any direction you take needs to be in the light of where you want to go. Not everyone in RC has the same priorities - this is life.

My aspiration for RC is for it to competitive, fun and affordable. Others will have different views, and that's fine, but you may want to think about what's important to you when making decisions and recognise that there may be a wide range of motivations. Likewise, knowing that there are different views and priorities, I'm happy to run with a majority decision, even though it may differ from my preferred option. The obvious exception being a conflict on ethical/moral perspectives, but let's not get too serious

The move to fixed timing ESCs has been a great step, in my opinion and produced some very competitive racing and taken a range of burdens off RC owners.

There are two issues that I see that are kinda related. They both have a relationship to affordability.

Open slather encourages racers to push the envelope. If they don't blow them, they wear much faster. I have little data to go on, but I suspect most, if not all of the A finalists in 21.5/13.5 had a motor that was either new or near new for the event. That's a cost. Even if it was only their second motor for the year, it's a pretty decent expense. The data I do have suggests that a new motor or rotor was worth 10-15 positions.

Is this is an issue? I think so, because it plays into the second one which is about growing the sport. New racers will be discouraged if they're faced with unnecessary expense or wasted investment. Is this the same for 13.5 as it is for 21.5? Possibly not, but I think it's real.

Nothing is decided, so this is a great opportunity to air your perspectives and views.

Some have raised concerns about "being forced" to change, I believe suggesting that there is something about a proposed future state that would disadvantage them. I'm assuming this is a financial consideration, but would be happy to hear otherwise.

However, any proposed change can be phased in over time.

So, if a proposal was made for a control motor and minimum FDR, I think a change would result in a net positive for the sport:

• Lower costs - one motor would last a lot longer
• Less risk for new starters - their equipment will also hold better value
• Scrutineering will be much simplified

The fast guys are still going to win, but they'll spend less money doing so! Racing will still be super close.

The impact on distributors/retailers should not be ignored, but I have no special insights into this aspect. If you do, please share them

I know there are different views out there, so here's a chance to get them on the table.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

I think you should consider approaching suppliers earlier than that. What they can tell you about what is possible at their end will help inform how best any control set-up can be implemented in an Australian context.

Of course I'm sure you just meant you wouldn't be putting the cart before the horse. I'm just suggesting that fact finding discussions with suppliers would be useful. Also MT has already had many of these conversations, I'd be talking to him straight up.

AARCMCC EP ONR

Thasks for clarification. The way it was read appeared to be related to on-road, as that was the most recent nats and agm.

svndayNZ

iTrader: (20)

I'm no expert on this, but if you look at your cousins to the east who with a population the size of Sydney in their entire country who are pulling bigger numbers to their North Island champs than the entire Nationals event in Australia, something has got to be slightly off.

Damian and Ed are smart passionate dudes, let them work out some good ideas that make this hobby we all love more popular. They need support though.

ta04evah

iTrader: (2)

The above is one of a few reasons I no longer enter 21.5 at sanctioned events anymore. With the introduction of "premium, short stack, certified, 5%" $150-200 motors that are used in what is considered an "entry class" the costs to remain competitive are too prohibitive for myself, and a number of others.

Another question asked often towards on road ep is "why do we have 3 classes instead of 2 like off road?"
The answer to this is that the jump from novice to "stock" is to large. Stock in on road is a 13.5 motor that runs through a 2 to 1 reduction ratio, which still makes the cars very fast.
Add into this equation the culture mentioned above, and you can see some problems that may need to be looked at from a different angle.

Our club has been trialing a "club stock" conception where your car can have a FDR no lower than 5.0, and trialing with a set of control motors of the same brand & model, which has had some success at enticing drivers to step up from 21.5.
However, a potential negative has arose where drivers have found that a certain brand & model of tires takes off up to 0.5 seconds a lap, which can have a significant difference at the end of the race. The problem with the particular brand & model of tires, is that they retail at $40 a set, and only last for just over 2 race meetings.
Would a control tire, that is more budget friendly, has slightly less grip levels, and has increased use life help? IMHO the answer would be yes.

Anyway, good to see the discussion of the topic here without it turning into a "bun fight".

Rob.

blis

Again, I can't disagree, I can however debate the issue from the other direction and state that if you limit one area of car performance, it will lead to disparity in other areas. Do you own three sets of ceramic bearings, or one?

I did however make mention of the tight fields within 2 seconds being indicative of no newcomers. There's more that 2 seconds between a top racer and someone relatively new. If Daniel has plans, it's here that he's probably working on. A cheap handout setup for 21.5 wouldn't be cause for bother. I think stock is more pretigeous than the name given to the class, there should be room for choice as the titanium, ceramics, fresh batteries and real competitive drivers should be permitted to explore the thresholds of what they can achieve. It's a push to MOD that solves stock issues and invariably it gets crazy fast and the larger gaps in times form.

It's good everyone's being civil about it, keep the discussions open and see what the clubs think.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

If you can do a deal with a LHS to ensure supply of the control tyre for club racing then I'd say do it. At sanctioned meetings the tyres are already controlled of course, with (unlike in offroad) a restriction on the number of sets you can use.

evochick

iTrader: (5)

Josh and I have agreed to stop using said quick tyre

AARCMCC EP ONR

Starting with the third bloke on the committee

CS

nexxus

iTrader: (315)

...now I want to know what tyres these are!

evochick

iTrader: (5)

At Castle Hill the newer ETS ride 30's worked really well and were half a second quicker then anything else.
But.... were edgie to drive which took some time to get the setup right and didnt last very long.
They were down to the canvas after 6 runs....

Shiftiestmort

iTrader: (1)

The ones that voted yes at that Agm were all Mod Drivers and all of the no votes were from the Stock guys

svndayNZ

iTrader: (20)

Ofcourse not to forget you either Clive

AARCMCC EP ONR

Yes you are correct on both points.

If you control something there will always be another way to gain performance. We need to be careful in what we control to prevent for example an expensive battery war. A control locked timing motor and FDR limit could very well lead to this exact situation. At which point we will be in the same situation and have more regulations to enforce.

So going the other way of less control in an ideal world we would only have one control to limit speeds for the spec classes ie motor turns and everything else would be open. Open ESC would allow 21.5T blinky to be an entry level novice class at club level. But too many clubs and racers around the country do not want boosted.

We are open to suggestions and are well aware that there is not going to be an golden bullet that will be a perfect solution that will make everyone happy.

What is clear is that the current situation is unsustainable.


By becoming a sanctioned class 21.5T blinky was no longer a entry level class. IMO 21.5T should have never become a sanctioned class and at no time should the lowest power readily available motor ever be a sanctioned class.

IMO the lowest power readily available motor should be reserved for clubs to run as an entry point ie novice on club days.

But that horse has bolted and we cant turn back the clock.

One possible solutions is find a lower power motor to use as an entry point ie 25.5T. But there are supply issues with 25.5T motors and they are expensive or in the very least no cheaper than a MOD motor.

Damian Ware

AARCMCC EP ONR

You make an interesting point. Often when MOD drivers make descisions for spec classes the result is not optimal. The requirements in each class are different and the subtle details if overlooked can lead to situations where scruit becomes more complicated and/or racing becomes more expensive than it otherwise could have.

This is a mistake that we will endevour not to make.


Damian Ware