84LikesOfficial AARCMCC EP On Road Thread
11-02-2016, 10:56 PM
#196
The reasoning behind it needs to be more clear, it's not cost, because we just allowed non marking of chassis and as has been confirmed I can now rock up to a states with 5 different cars with 5 different set ups and race each one according to track conditions to give myself the best chance (yes that's an extreme scenario but it's possible). We're stopping a motor war and making it a chassis war.
11-02-2016, 11:12 PM
#197
The reasoning behind it needs to be more clear, it's not cost, because we just allowed non marking of chassis and as has been confirmed I can now rock up to a states with 5 different cars with 5 different set ups and race each one according to track conditions to give myself the best chance (yes that's an extreme scenario but it's possible). We're stopping a motor war and making it a chassis war.
For me, it's not just about cost, but about ease of entry for newcomers. If I can say to someone. Our Sportsman class is a 21.5 turn motor, and motor X is the one used at all the State and National events, and it's fairly cheap. That makes the decision of what to get really easy for someone coming into the sport, which I find helps get people in.
It depends how they are checked. As I showed two motors that on the equipment being discussed would appear to be equal but on the track would be anything but. Just because KV / Stator / Rotor are in the same ballpark doesn't mean the same performance, there are variations across production runs of motors and there needs to be a better way to check for this than the overly simplistic ones I have seen mentioned.
11-02-2016, 11:16 PM
#198
It depends how they are checked. As I showed two motors that on the equipment being discussed would appear to be equal but on the track would be anything but. Just because KV / Stator / Rotor are in the same ballpark doesn't mean the same performance, there are variations across production runs of motors and there needs to be a better way to check for this than the overly simplistic ones I have seen mentioned.
11-02-2016, 11:27 PM
#199
Having a return to the scenario of the 13.5 Trinity 3.5 motors being blacklisted, and the resulting fallout would not be in hobby's best interest.
Some people have invested heavily in their cars & equipment, and I get that.
And who knows, we may be looking at the wrong end of the stick, would it be better for individual clubs to introduce a control motor, and preferably one that other clubs chose? The reasoning behind this is to find a common ground that clubs, and racers could start to participate in inter-club championships once again.
*edit* let 21.5, & 13.5 remain as they are and create an additional class*
Last edited by ta04evah; 11-02-2016 at 11:31 PM. Reason: forgot to add something in.
11-02-2016, 11:55 PM
#201
One concern I have, is what do all the people that have invested in other motors do with them?
Having a return to the scenario of the 13.5 Trinity 3.5 motors being blacklisted, and the resulting fallout would not be in hobby's best interest.
Some people have invested heavily in their cars & equipment, and I get that.
And who knows, we may be looking at the wrong end of the stick, would it be better for individual clubs to introduce a control motor, and preferably one that other clubs chose? The reasoning behind this is to find a common ground that clubs, and racers could start to participate in inter-club championships once again.
*edit* let 21.5, & 13.5 remain as they are and create an additional class*
Having a return to the scenario of the 13.5 Trinity 3.5 motors being blacklisted, and the resulting fallout would not be in hobby's best interest.
Some people have invested heavily in their cars & equipment, and I get that.
And who knows, we may be looking at the wrong end of the stick, would it be better for individual clubs to introduce a control motor, and preferably one that other clubs chose? The reasoning behind this is to find a common ground that clubs, and racers could start to participate in inter-club championships once again.
*edit* let 21.5, & 13.5 remain as they are and create an additional class*
11-03-2016, 12:02 AM
#202
As Ive already mentioned above, you haven't stated whether the trackstars you tested were before or after tuning to match them. As far as I'm concerned at the moment, reading your comments, you've literally tested out the packet motors, with no tuning. How is that comparable to what is being proposed?
And what was the on track performance? Where is the testing to show on track differences?
And what was the on track performance? Where is the testing to show on track differences?
11-03-2016, 12:46 AM
#204
They'll get track tested by someone at some point. If a motor is a dud, the user will complain. If it's exceptional, their rivals will complain. And surely AARCMCC has access to a dyno to verify if needed. I imagine the outliers would get weeded out pretty quickly during controlled practice at the first event.
11-03-2016, 01:17 AM
#205
One concern I have, is what do all the people that have invested in other motors do with them?
Having a return to the scenario of the 13.5 Trinity 3.5 motors being blacklisted, and the resulting fallout would not be in hobby's best interest.
Some people have invested heavily in their cars & equipment, and I get that.
And who knows, we may be looking at the wrong end of the stick, would it be better for individual clubs to introduce a control motor, and preferably one that other clubs chose? The reasoning behind this is to find a common ground that clubs, and racers could start to participate in inter-club championships once again.
*edit* let 21.5, & 13.5 remain as they are and create an additional class*
Having a return to the scenario of the 13.5 Trinity 3.5 motors being blacklisted, and the resulting fallout would not be in hobby's best interest.
Some people have invested heavily in their cars & equipment, and I get that.
And who knows, we may be looking at the wrong end of the stick, would it be better for individual clubs to introduce a control motor, and preferably one that other clubs chose? The reasoning behind this is to find a common ground that clubs, and racers could start to participate in inter-club championships once again.
*edit* let 21.5, & 13.5 remain as they are and create an additional class*
11-03-2016, 01:17 AM
#206
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...%20ep%20onroad
Sure, the rules only apply to AARCMCC events, but what position does this leave clubs, & the racers in, that race more club days/events than any AARCMCC events?
When thinking about it, I suppose the same thing could be said about control tires, that everyone uses in sanctioned, and some non sanctioned events.
Again, I'm neither for, nor against the proposals atm, as I need more information before coming to a conclusion.
11-03-2016, 01:19 AM
#207
Except that AARCMCC have the closing date as the 11th of December, and added to the rule book in January, link below.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...%20ep%20onroad
Sure, the rules only apply to AARCMCC events, but what position does this leave clubs, & the racers in, that race more club days/events than any AARCMCC events?
When thinking about it, I suppose the same thing could be said about control tires, that everyone uses in sanctioned, and some non sanctioned events.
Again, I'm neither for, nor against the proposals atm, as I need more information before coming to a conclusion.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...%20ep%20onroad
Sure, the rules only apply to AARCMCC events, but what position does this leave clubs, & the racers in, that race more club days/events than any AARCMCC events?
When thinking about it, I suppose the same thing could be said about control tires, that everyone uses in sanctioned, and some non sanctioned events.
Again, I'm neither for, nor against the proposals atm, as I need more information before coming to a conclusion.
11-03-2016, 10:37 PM
#208
I am still puzzled as to how AARCMCC intend to "match" these motors in the pool, assuming all motors are equal?
So lets look at it this way, I did some checks on a couple of 21.5 motors I had last night.
Motor 1
Stator resistance (On RMS MM2 Stator checker) 32.8
Rotor Strength (on Trinity Igauss) 1380/-1341
Unloaded RPM 2731kv @ 4.2A
Motor 2
Stator resistance 32.7
Rotor Strength 1373/-1300
Unloaded RPM 2736kv @ 4.0A
Would you consider these motors 'equal', based on what I have seen of the proposed AARCMCC tests of matching by KV they may well considered to be..... I'll Dyno them both tonight and post a pic of what the motors were if interested
So lets look at it this way, I did some checks on a couple of 21.5 motors I had last night.
Motor 1
Stator resistance (On RMS MM2 Stator checker) 32.8
Rotor Strength (on Trinity Igauss) 1380/-1341
Unloaded RPM 2731kv @ 4.2A
Motor 2
Stator resistance 32.7
Rotor Strength 1373/-1300
Unloaded RPM 2736kv @ 4.0A
Would you consider these motors 'equal', based on what I have seen of the proposed AARCMCC tests of matching by KV they may well considered to be..... I'll Dyno them both tonight and post a pic of what the motors were if interested
For those that are interested I have attached the dyno curve of the above motors. Now I deliberately made these two different motors to illustrate one single point, that the testing methods I am led to believe AARCMCC will be using is clearly insufficient to ensure all motors are comparable. More specialised equipment is needed (ie a loaded dyno). It seems that my opinion does quickly get quashed by the powers that be seeking to quash any opinion not in line with their own, which is a shame, because on the surface control motors is not necessarily a bad idea, BUT (and it's a massive BUT) I question the ability to implement it given the offroad fiasco (but as I have had pointed out that's a different part of AARCMCC so it's not your fault... ok but to an outsider AARCMCC is AARCMCC is AARCMCC), and the ability to tech and maintain motors for all events.
I strongly suspect that the numbers already exist for these to get pushed through, and dissenting opinions such as my own will be quickly fobbed off as that of malcontents within the hobby, that's your call. As I am quickly learning with these and other aspects of club politics, those in command don't like it when the rabble have an opinion, and I apologise for doing so.
11-03-2016, 10:59 PM
#209
For those that are interested I have attached the dyno curve of the above motors. Now I deliberately made these two different motors to illustrate one single point, that the testing methods I am led to believe AARCMCC will be using is clearly insufficient to ensure all motors are comparable. More specialised equipment is needed (ie a loaded dyno). It seems that my opinion does quickly get quashed by the powers that be seeking to quash any opinion not in line with their own, which is a shame, because on the surface control motors is not necessarily a bad idea, BUT (and it's a massive BUT) I question the ability to implement it given the offroad fiasco (but as I have had pointed out that's a different part of AARCMCC so it's not your fault... ok but to an outsider AARCMCC is AARCMCC is AARCMCC), and the ability to tech and maintain motors for all events.
I strongly suspect that the numbers already exist for these to get pushed through, and dissenting opinions such as my own will be quickly fobbed off as that of malcontents within the hobby, that's your call. As I am quickly learning with these and other aspects of club politics, those in command don't like it when the rabble have an opinion, and I apologise for doing so.
I strongly suspect that the numbers already exist for these to get pushed through, and dissenting opinions such as my own will be quickly fobbed off as that of malcontents within the hobby, that's your call. As I am quickly learning with these and other aspects of club politics, those in command don't like it when the rabble have an opinion, and I apologise for doing so.
Has anyone actually said that AARCMCC won't be using a loaded dyno?
11-04-2016, 01:11 AM
#210
For those that are interested I have attached the dyno curve of the above motors. Now I deliberately made these two different motors to illustrate one single point, that the testing methods I am led to believe AARCMCC will be using is clearly insufficient to ensure all motors are comparable. More specialised equipment is needed (ie a loaded dyno). It seems that my opinion does quickly get quashed by the powers that be seeking to quash any opinion not in line with their own, which is a shame, because on the surface control motors is not necessarily a bad idea, BUT (and it's a massive BUT) I question the ability to implement it given the offroad fiasco (but as I have had pointed out that's a different part of AARCMCC so it's not your fault... ok but to an outsider AARCMCC is AARCMCC is AARCMCC), and the ability to tech and maintain motors for all events.
I strongly suspect that the numbers already exist for these to get pushed through, and dissenting opinions such as my own will be quickly fobbed off as that of malcontents within the hobby, that's your call. As I am quickly learning with these and other aspects of club politics, those in command don't like it when the rabble have an opinion, and I apologise for doing so.
I strongly suspect that the numbers already exist for these to get pushed through, and dissenting opinions such as my own will be quickly fobbed off as that of malcontents within the hobby, that's your call. As I am quickly learning with these and other aspects of club politics, those in command don't like it when the rabble have an opinion, and I apologise for doing so.