IFMAR AGM in Collegno - Future of ISTC
07-10-2006, 03:20 PM
#31
Ambient temps is always a factor and i'm sure thats part of the reason for multiple fans but there is no denying that the new cells are creating a lot more heat.
Terry its nice to know your esc will handle a 6 cell low turn mod combo but I wonder if The MRT would hold up just as well under the performance criteria the A main drivers were putting thier equipment through at the worlds?
Terry its nice to know your esc will handle a 6 cell low turn mod combo but I wonder if The MRT would hold up just as well under the performance criteria the A main drivers were putting thier equipment through at the worlds?
07-10-2006, 03:24 PM
#32
Originally Posted by T. Hodge
The reason that 4 or 5 cells was brought up was simply to reduce the heat issues we are experiencing in TC racing with 6 cells. There was not a decision made just an idea brought up. In A2 Hohwart was leading and his ESC shut off. Also in A2 Drescher's speedo went into thermal shutdown. Also the concern is that the cars are too fast. It is hard for people to drive these cars at the speeds they are going today. With that being said, it is hard for new comers to jump into the sport and have the ability to drive a car that goes 45-50mph.
Rick had one problem the entire time, and brushless is still figuring things out when it comes to heat.
Limiting the world is dumb...how do you sell slower? The whole appeal of RC is that it is fast, so now you want to sell slow? Novak tried that and didn't do well until they have faster brushless. I agree that speeds are hard for new people and that's why Nitro touring never took off, but why is it hard to tell people to work their way up? I think that's more an issue of racing not supporting the new guys in racing, not that racing in it's highest form is too hard? Is that really what you're saying is that it's hard to control a car at 40?
07-10-2006, 03:28 PM
#33
Tech Initiate
even if we get rid of a cell or 2, we are just going to get faster and faster. a while back, every one in off road was running 7 cells. now its 6 and we are way faster. once we are running 5 or 4 cells, we will find a way to go faster, and we will be in the same spot as we are now. 
07-10-2006, 03:29 PM
#34
I'd also like to say that there were complaints of tires not being good enough for the speeds, but this is a direct result of "spec tires" were racing on tires that we're designed to be good years ago and nobody cares.
If there was a rule tires had to be run for ALL of qualifying I bet you see tires that last...and if they couldn't, learning to slow down to make all of qualifying would be a better "restriction" than saying we need to limit the batteries.
Also, like I voiced their, limiting voltage to 6v or less is a slick way for battery companies to push LIPO technology out of racing...something to think about.
If there was a rule tires had to be run for ALL of qualifying I bet you see tires that last...and if they couldn't, learning to slow down to make all of qualifying would be a better "restriction" than saying we need to limit the batteries.
Also, like I voiced their, limiting voltage to 6v or less is a slick way for battery companies to push LIPO technology out of racing...something to think about.
07-10-2006, 03:32 PM
#35
Tech Initiate
hmm, in 5 or so years, ill bet that tc and off road will be 4cell, and 1/12th will be two. haha 
07-10-2006, 03:47 PM
#36
In 5 years if we aren't running some form of LIPO/Nano battery we have a serious issue.
07-10-2006, 03:49 PM
#37
Originally Posted by Francis M.
Terry its nice to know your esc will handle a 6 cell low turn mod combo but I wonder if The MRT would hold up just as well under the performance criteria the A main drivers were putting thier equipment through at the worlds?
I'm in favour of anything that will encourage more people to race rc cars. If we all (manufacturers/racers/organisers) can come up with some good proposals and they are agreed I will support them. We need solutions that will be popular and encourage more newcomers to race.
07-10-2006, 04:12 PM
#38
I totally disagree with any dumbing down.
To say that the rules need to be addressed because the cars are too fast is an insult to the 10 brilliant racers who made the A final at the worlds.
They don't think they are too fast, and they proved it. Andy Moore was in complete control. Granted there aren't many drivers of Andy's calibre, but that's why he's world champion and we are not.
In any case, more restrictions will end up with more costs because at the end of the day everyone is constantly trying to find ways to go faster, no matter what the cost.
Touring car racing is still on the increase all over the world. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
To say that the rules need to be addressed because the cars are too fast is an insult to the 10 brilliant racers who made the A final at the worlds.
They don't think they are too fast, and they proved it. Andy Moore was in complete control. Granted there aren't many drivers of Andy's calibre, but that's why he's world champion and we are not.
In any case, more restrictions will end up with more costs because at the end of the day everyone is constantly trying to find ways to go faster, no matter what the cost.
Touring car racing is still on the increase all over the world. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
07-10-2006, 04:26 PM
#39
Tech Regular
Originally Posted by johnbull
I
They don't think they are too fast, and they proved it. Andy Moore was in complete control. Granted there aren't many drivers of Andy's calibre, but that's why he's world champion and we are not.
They don't think they are too fast, and they proved it. Andy Moore was in complete control. Granted there aren't many drivers of Andy's calibre, but that's why he's world champion and we are not.
Ignoring the Thermaling, one of the things that struck me at the Worlds were the ammount of cars breaking down mechanically.
with the speeds and acceleration now avaliable most accidents resulted in something breaking - be it a wishbone, or hub or belt, and these were the best drivers in the world.
It is hard to beef the cars up any more as they need to make the weight limit, and with all the extra cooling appendages not many cars were carrying much lead.
07-10-2006, 04:28 PM
#40
[QUOTE=exint2]
Crashing = breaking. That's how it goes. IF your car breaks belts then it's too thin and needs to be thicker or better material, same with most other parts. But if you crash on this track the permanent walls break things easy.
Originally Posted by johnbull
I
They don't think they are too fast, and they proved it. Andy Moore was in complete control. Granted there aren't many drivers of Andy's calibre, but that's why he's world champion and we are not.QUOTE]
John I'm sorry but one current world champion told me exactly that at the weekend.
Ignoring the Thermaling, one of the things that struck me at the Worlds were the ammount of cars breaking down mechanically.
with the speeds and acceleration now avaliable most accidents resulted in something breaking - be it a wishbone, or hub or belt, and these were the best drivers in the world.
It is hard to beef the cars up any more as they need to make the weight limit, and with all the extra cooling appendages not many cars were carrying much lead.
They don't think they are too fast, and they proved it. Andy Moore was in complete control. Granted there aren't many drivers of Andy's calibre, but that's why he's world champion and we are not.QUOTE]
John I'm sorry but one current world champion told me exactly that at the weekend.
Ignoring the Thermaling, one of the things that struck me at the Worlds were the ammount of cars breaking down mechanically.
with the speeds and acceleration now avaliable most accidents resulted in something breaking - be it a wishbone, or hub or belt, and these were the best drivers in the world.
It is hard to beef the cars up any more as they need to make the weight limit, and with all the extra cooling appendages not many cars were carrying much lead.
Crashing = breaking. That's how it goes. IF your car breaks belts then it's too thin and needs to be thicker or better material, same with most other parts. But if you crash on this track the permanent walls break things easy.
07-10-2006, 04:41 PM
#41
Derekb - Every form of full scale unlimited racing has self destructed (GTP, Group C Rally,...). Every form of intelligently controlled racing has prospered (F-1, NASCAR,...). On the R/C side 1/10th pan cars selfdestructed. At the Worlds in Yatabe the best drivers in the world voted not to race 1/10th anymore because it was too fast to control and race cleanly. Without intervention sedans will end up the same.
Dan Hughes - You say things like "testing and "they". Who are they and what did they test? I know Mike Reedy did a lot testing, so have several hundred US oval racers and guess what "They" say....motors and batteries last WAY longer on 4 cells than 6 cells. There was tremendous resistance to the switch to 4 cell in the oval comunity. They said all the same stuff everyone here is saying. Today you can't find an oval guy that will say it was a bad idea. They are back to the speeds they were running with 6 cells in all classes (due to lower minimum weights and motor development) and everything last longer...motors, packs, tires, cars, etc.
In Japan the dominant class is 6 cell 23T stock. The only time anyone runs 4 cell Mod is at JRMCA Nats. Most of the guys that complain about it have never run it. The really fast guys are not running 4T and 5T motors. These motors are on the borderline of being so inefficient that they dont make good power. Most of the really fast guys are running 6T with more timing.
Dan Hughes - You say things like "testing and "they". Who are they and what did they test? I know Mike Reedy did a lot testing, so have several hundred US oval racers and guess what "They" say....motors and batteries last WAY longer on 4 cells than 6 cells. There was tremendous resistance to the switch to 4 cell in the oval comunity. They said all the same stuff everyone here is saying. Today you can't find an oval guy that will say it was a bad idea. They are back to the speeds they were running with 6 cells in all classes (due to lower minimum weights and motor development) and everything last longer...motors, packs, tires, cars, etc.
In Japan the dominant class is 6 cell 23T stock. The only time anyone runs 4 cell Mod is at JRMCA Nats. Most of the guys that complain about it have never run it. The really fast guys are not running 4T and 5T motors. These motors are on the borderline of being so inefficient that they dont make good power. Most of the really fast guys are running 6T with more timing.
07-10-2006, 04:53 PM
#42
Originally Posted by AdrianM
Derekb - Every form of full scale unlimited racing has self destructed (GTP, Group C Rally,...). Every form of intelligently controlled racing has prospered (F-1, NASCAR,...).
.
.
F1 really is UNLIMITED, and they have to develope stuff that works and is safe for humans. Example, when they went to spec tire having one tire per race they had way more failure (dumb rule) and changed it back to no tire control. They are switching to one tire and Michellin declinded to be in the bid because they wanted competition in racing...not the same tire.
Advantages to win are in lots of products and not just tires.Like the Reedy race that limited winds to 10-turn you saw EVERY motor blow up..because they were pushed too hard. Stock racing you need the best batteries, mod you need the best motor.
It seems like complaining "it's too fast" means people are racing above their capability. Are the mod cars fast? Hell yes, but why we want to limit things at the top is counter productive in a consumer driven market. We're not racing drivers we are racings consumers can buy. And as a consumber I want an advantage that makes me win. People who say they want "racing to be closer" are kidding themselves. If I could buy a tire that made me faster, or a ESC I wouldn't care if I was winning every week and everybody else was slow. It's OPEN mod. Control racing is stock, or 19T where if they are limiting things what battery, motor, brush, or IROC totally??? Because we as competitors want to win and we look for that advantage.
People cried about brushed being used up after a run...but guess who did that? We did. Now we're going to fast in modified? People watching F1 or indy won't notice a 20mph reduction in speed, but in RC we are racing and going slower or trying to make a car go slower because one product, or one manufacture can't keep something from blowing up is the worst exuse I've heard. If you can sell "slow" let me know....I know lots of companies sell speed. I never hear anybody complaining that RTR being marketed to go 70mph broke too much for that kid who bought it for his first car.
07-10-2006, 05:00 PM
#43
Oddly enough at the Reedy race there wasn't talk of slowing the cars down from racers or breaking (even with many prototype brushless arms having issues).
Here's an idea of how fast they were at the Reedy...overhead Heli-cam
http://www.rc411.com/pages/xstream.php
Click on the Reedy Race footage.
Here's an idea of how fast they were at the Reedy...overhead Heli-cam
http://www.rc411.com/pages/xstream.php
Click on the Reedy Race footage.
07-10-2006, 05:25 PM
#44
Originally Posted by Terry_S
Francis M. I'm just stating a fact. I know what is possible with ESC designs and these days it's not easy to 'up the spec' of the MOSFETs on a speedo to make special ones for the A main drivers at the worlds. I know our current MX speedo is very good and that we can (and will shortly) have twice as many FETs in the same sized speedo case which is itself already a very small size. We have a ESC fan and heatsink due out but we're in no rush as we don't need either yet. What I'm saying is it is possible but it would add to the cost to manufacture a speedo with that many 'world best' FETs. As I said if it's what people want it can and will be done by MRT and other ESC manufacturers.
I'm in favour of anything that will encourage more people to race rc cars. If we all (manufacturers/racers/organisers) can come up with some good proposals and they are agreed I will support them. We need solutions that will be popular and encourage more newcomers to race.
I'm in favour of anything that will encourage more people to race rc cars. If we all (manufacturers/racers/organisers) can come up with some good proposals and they are agreed I will support them. We need solutions that will be popular and encourage more newcomers to race.
Good to hear Terry S, thanks for the reply.
