Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > International Forums > Australian Racing
Official AARCMCC EP On Road Thread >

Official AARCMCC EP On Road Thread

Like Tree84Likes

Official AARCMCC EP On Road Thread

Closed Thread

Old 12-09-2017, 06:05 PM
  #901  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,476
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Oh, and I found the minute.

The 2S battery proposal was accepted, but then rescinded. FEMCA were not able to attend and so this went to a postal vote as it was 50/50. Then after postal it was rejected.

Stock was unanimous and will make the next rule update.

I’ll add the image to our Facebook page.
cplus is offline  
Old 12-09-2017, 07:05 PM
  #902  
No9
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
No9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The track
Posts: 905
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by cplus View Post
We want to see 1/12th, as an internationally recognised worlds level class grow. We are confident a stock class will help that. If everyone wanted 2S 21.5 like the Japanese, or 17.5 like the Americans - that would also be fine. Going 13.5 makes sense with making it easy for existing ISTC drivers to have a crack and also align to IFMAR plans. The latter would be dumb not to, surely?
I'm all for growing the class both internationally and locally but i don't believe for one minute that a change of motor will have that much impact,you're either interested in a class or you're not,i took up F1 even though i didn't have a 21.5.

I would have waited until IFMAR had officially made 13.5 an international class and opened the topic by way of public debate to gauge a general consensus.
We would have had the opportunity to discuss the possibility of sanctioning the class and would have been better prepared for it to be voted on at next years nationals Agm.

The current committee has set a very high standard of transparency and communication in the last 2yrs but have dropped the ball on this one.

Also our clubs need to take a more active roll in making sure they have nominated delegates at all National Agm's to ensure there members views are represented.
Communication is everything.
No9 is offline  
Old 12-09-2017, 07:18 PM
  #903  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,476
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

The worlds are in 2018. The class *is* in place. We’re not waiting for IFMAR, it’s done. Either do it now, or wait till June. Better now.

Having the chance to offer the class in the lead up at our state titles would be a good thing for anyone that might want to go (or had been considering adding 1/12th to their ISTC effort)

As for the change in motor - you’re right. People who love 1/12th will run it with anything. Look at the near enough 100% cross over from mod to stock at AOC (but not reverse)

So if 13.5, 1/12th guys will run anyway.

And have already been told by a number of TC drivers that this may well be the thing to tip them over into running a pancar.

I can only see up myself. No one who loves 1/12th will run away because of this.
cplus is offline  
Old 12-09-2017, 07:39 PM
  #904  
No9
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
No9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The track
Posts: 905
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Anytime a class is recognised internationally is a good thing i can't deny that.

If the class proposal gets the go ahead here and we see an increase in popularity i will be the first person to admit it.

I make no apologies for my criticisms of the way it's been handled.
No9 is offline  
Old 12-09-2017, 08:00 PM
  #905  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,476
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by No9 View Post
Anytime a class is recognised internationally is a good thing i can't deny that.

If the class proposal gets the go ahead here and we see an increase in popularity i will be the first person to admit it.

I make no apologies for my criticisms of the way it's been handled.
Thatís cool. We have made our bed in terms of how we have previously consulted and need to wear it. But I say again, we did as directed to.
cplus is offline  
Old 12-09-2017, 09:59 PM
  #906  
Tech Addict
 
bd581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, NSW
Posts: 607
Default

As one of the ones who wants to make the step into 1:12 when this gets started I’ve been thinking and reading a lot.
Plenty of pro’s and cons both ways.
Don’t care if anyone disagrees or agrees, this is just my opinion.
10.5 Motors are less “developed” as they are really only used in SCT commonly, 13.5 Motors manufactures put more effort into the development of, this makes 10.5 motors cheaper, but less available than 13.5’s.
My question to those that may have tested, is there much performance difference between a 10.5, top level 13.5 and a basic 13.5?
My biggest fear of going 13.5 is if it becomes an expensive motor of the month war like touring car, which let’s be honest, will happen.
The big plus I see to 13.5 is if that’s the way the rest of the world is going, info and help will be much more available to beginners, and manufactures will have cars designed to suit.
Take stock 4WD off road for example, basically the rest of the world runs 13.5, we run 17.5, so there is less info around, and cars aren’t really designed for it.
A downside to 13.5 may or may not be the performance gap to mod.

Either way, 10.5 or 13.5 is a step in the right direction and is greatly needed and will definitely benefit 1:12 short and long term.
It needs to be done, and sooner the better. Arguing over it isn’t helping.
10.5 or 13.5 I don’t care, I just want to finally race 1:12
bd581 is offline  
Old 12-09-2017, 11:14 PM
  #907  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,476
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Thumbs up mate.

I’ve tested with a 10.5 Trinity Monster and a 13.5 R1 V16.

Yes the 10.5 is quicker, but not dramatically so to be honest.

You don’t need torque in a 1/12th cause they weigh stuff all - revs are key and gear to suit.
cplus is offline  
Old 12-10-2017, 12:33 AM
  #908  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (2)
 
gigaplex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 2,064
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by cplus View Post
The worlds are in 2018. The class *is* in place. We’re not waiting for IFMAR, it’s done. Either do it now, or wait till June. Better now.
I think my club is leaning towards voting no since we polled our members before IFMAR sanctioned the class (or before we were aware of the ruling). The timing of it all isn't likely to help the proposal.
gigaplex is offline  
Old 12-14-2017, 03:15 AM
  #909  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (2)
 
Radio Active's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 7,114
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Thoughts in brief on Spec 12th:

* The fact that IFMAR is going to 13.5 is relevant. Australia performs more poorly in 12th at world level than any other RC class. EP, IC, ONR, OFR, LGS, whatever we're better at all of them. Running our feeder 12th class with a different motor spec to the international standard won't help with that.
* When I picked 10.5 originally that was a standard in the UK and Europe. Europe has since gone to 13.5, because the performance of motors and (especially) batteries has improved.
* Cheap 10.5s were also quite common when we started the class because Super Stock had just wound up as a TC class. It's long dead now, and only SCT offroad still uses 10.5, making it easier for TC drivers to cross-over is desirable.
* However the third factor is still relevant, and that is the size of Australian tracks. In Australia we race on larger outdoor tracks. This only happens elsewhere in parts of Asia, where they often run unusual motor configurations. I feel like this aspect is the major area of concern for the 12th scale racing community, and the reason the poll in the other thread is resulting in 10.5 being preferred. It would have been preferable for there to have been more engagement with those who run 12th at clubs on this point before a proposal went up. That's moot now though.

If we're going to run 13.5 1S then we better stop holding Nationals on 1/8th scale tracks. Or at least use the provisions in the rules that allow for extra chicanes to be added. It's inappropriate to run any 12th class, let alone a 13.5 spec class on such open circuits.

The small numbers of 12th scales nationwide are a factor to be considered. I made some suggestions about this to the previous AARCMCC ONR EP executive. To grow numbers I believe it would be beneficial to waive the no cross-entry rule for the first year or first 2 years of the class. [I will have to check the current wording in the rules to see if the current no cross-entry rule would apply or not.] A sunset clause could be built into a waiver if needed. I think after 2 years the numbers at sanctioned events will have grown sufficiently to return to a normal cross-entry rule.

One thing the Executive could do to grow numbers in the feeder 12th class is to approve fewer demo classes at sanctioned events. This would give Stock racers more of an incentive to invest in 12th scale.

-----

I'm also just looking at the change being made to qualifying points. How many rounds to be counted is now exactly equivalent to the previous system (i.e. best 50% rounded up). I campaigned hard to keep that, so I'm glad we have a proposal that essentially switches us back.

Some of you may remember that at the time one argument I used was that our system was equivalent to the IFMAR system...

Without looking up the current rule book though, it's not clear to me whether this formula will also come into effect for regrades and wash-outs, which would be preferable. Can anyone link me to the current rule book, so I can check?
Radio Active is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:05 AM
  #910  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,476
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Daniel - the rule book on the AARCMCC site is up to date.

AARCMCC
cplus is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 05:34 AM
  #911  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (2)
 
Radio Active's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 7,114
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by cplus View Post
Daniel - the rule book on the AARCMCC site is up to date.

AARCMCC
Cheers Clive.

______________

So, at the moment the cross-entry rule is a little bit ambiguous for multiple 12th classes: "2.10.3 Cross entries between chassis types allowed (TC, 12th scale), cross entry within TC classes prohibited."
However, the default is that something is allowed unless it's explicitly disallowed, so I read this as cross-entering between 12th motor classes currently being allowed.

_____________

Taking a closer look at how proposal 031 would slot into the rule book leaves me to think there are some issues. 6.9.11, which according to the proposal stays in place, contradicts how many rounds are to count with IFMAR 1.5.4.

I'm also not sure why 6.9.8.3 needs to be deleted. This rule doesn't give the Race Director the power to set the number of heats and regrades etc. as is very occasionally mistakenly thought by people not familiar with the rule book. It's just there to make sure the RD reminds everyone how many heats there are, how many count, and when the regrades are, so everyone is on the same page at the start of the meeting.

Having thought about it, I'm not clear on how the rule book will actually be altered here. Will IFMAR 1.5.4 be inserted into the rule book, or will a reference to it be inserted, or both? The former seems preferable. If a reference, does this mean that the rule updates automatically if IFMAR change their rules? Or at the 6 month point in accordance with 1.2.7? In either case, this could cause problems if software developers need to make changes after an IFMAR rule change. As there may be insufficient time before one of our championships. There's also the possibility that IFMAR could radically change how qualifying works (say go to a Reedy Race of Champions format) which would create inconsistencies in our rule set. Or more likely they just add or delete a rule upstream changing the IFMAR rule number.

Losing the last part of 6.9.13 "In the extremely unlikely event that such methods are insufficient to break a tie, the driver who set their fastest heat time first will be the higher qualifier, note that this may come down to starting order in a heat." is a bit disappointing, because it means theoretically you could have an unsolvable tie (more likely if rain reduces the number of heats, or if we're talking about the first regrade). It wouldn't take much to reinsert that bit in a future update though.
Radio Active is offline  
Old 12-19-2017, 08:34 PM
  #912  
Tech Apprentice
 
96smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 55
Default AARCMCC Calendar

Is there any plan to release a calendar of all the sanctioned AARCMCC events over the year?
whether it be an online calendar that can be edited over the year should additional events be added,
or a current yearly overview, not just for the state and national titles.
96smith is offline  
Old 12-19-2017, 09:08 PM
  #913  
Super Moderator
iTrader: (306)
 
nexxus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,312
Trader Rating: 306 (100%+)
Default

Curious the information filtering through.

From a scrutineering standpoint, a racer owned control motor would need MORE work on the part of the host club at an event. All motors would need to be opened to ensure there has been no tampering (considering that they can be racer opened to conduct basic routine maintenance such as bearings etc) Things such as alterations to sensor boards, stator windings, substituting rotors would all need to be checked. Then the motors have to be matched by kv at the event (by a scrutineer I assume) before they are sealed to prohibit tampering at the event.

Saying motors will need less checks if they are a control motor and will all be alike may seem like a good selling point, but if clubs adopt that as a reason to vote 'for' a proposal, they may find the reality quite different unless they choose to take short cuts in the scrutineering process, which then opens it up to cheats etc and none of us want that.
Attached Thumbnails Official AARCMCC EP On Road Thread-25627343_383759465380747_929546743_n.jpg   Official AARCMCC EP On Road Thread-25564657_383759468714080_669512029_n.jpg  
nexxus is offline  
Old 12-19-2017, 09:34 PM
  #914  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (2)
 
gigaplex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 2,064
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by nexxus View Post
Curious the information filtering through.

From a scrutineering standpoint, a racer owned control motor would need MORE work on the part of the host club at an event. All motors would need to be opened to ensure there has been no tampering (considering that they can be racer opened to conduct basic routine maintenance such as bearings etc) Things such as alterations to sensor boards, stator windings, substituting rotors would all need to be checked. Then the motors have to be matched by kv at the event (by a scrutineer I assume) before they are sealed to prohibit tampering at the event.

Saying motors will need less checks if they are a control motor and will all be alike may seem like a good selling point, but if clubs adopt that as a reason to vote 'for' a proposal, they may find the reality quite different unless they choose to take short cuts in the scrutineering process, which then opens it up to cheats etc and none of us want that.
I agree. Clive referred to motors being distributed. The proposal is for a racer owned model so there would be no distribution of pre checked motors.
gigaplex is offline  
Old 12-19-2017, 09:39 PM
  #915  
Tech Addict
 
bd581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, NSW
Posts: 607
Default

Further to that, should AARCMCC or the clubs own the motors, who is going to be doing the maintinance, and at what cost?
If the motors are all checked prior to dispatch then sealed, does that mean that motors are imported, sent to AARCMCC, then back to importer then sent to stores?
Or do we buy straight from AARCMCC?

Yes it seems the majority of racers want control 21.5 (I wasn’t one, but will go with the flow) but it’s the fine points that really need to be sorted out. And as it seems there is a lot of misinformation, confusion or no information at all that needs to be dealt with ASAP.
Longer this takes, worse it is for RC
bd581 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Terms of Service