IFMAR AGM in Collegno - Future of ISTC
07-11-2006, 09:43 AM
#106
Originally Posted by tonyv
I did not think they were too fast either although we did get to the point that the tyres had trouble coping with the cornering speeds. However the point was made earlier in the thread that at the last Worlds the drivers that attended voted to end the class partly based on an argument that speeds had become to high. Not sure to what extent that was the real reason.
Originally Posted by tonyv
Having said that, what is the reason people switched to touring cars which to many of the old PRO 10 and 12th scale drivers felt like driving a "shed"? Touring cars were much slower... Were they easier to drive? (perhaps) Cheaper? (hardly...) What was the reason?
Originally Posted by Advil
It seems to me that the easiest solution would be to let market forces bear....i.e. if your electronics don't hold up, we will buy someone else's that will.
07-11-2006, 09:58 AM
#107
Change rules on cars, resulting in chassis or drivetrain alterations = $$$$ out of my pocket.
Simply take 1 cell off my existing battery packs = no cost to me (new 5-cell battery packs will cost less as well)
Tough choice.
Simply take 1 cell off my existing battery packs = no cost to me (new 5-cell battery packs will cost less as well)
Tough choice.
07-11-2006, 09:59 AM
#108
I'm not sure why people think stock is popular because of cost. To me it's way more expensive to race stock and be at the top.
Also nitro racing is very popular because too much HP is the best equalizer. Why is Gas Truck dying in the states? Because it's too fast? No, they have to choke the engines down in power so much to control that power, but nobody ever says they need more power in it. But now we race faster and biggger 1/8-scale, more because they don't break.
And classes come and go in RC. Oval, pan car, 1/12-scale ect. If these classes that switched to slower motors are so much better why aren't they being raced more? Why aren't we all running 1/12 19-turn 4-cell or oval? There has to be a reason?
Also nitro racing is very popular because too much HP is the best equalizer. Why is Gas Truck dying in the states? Because it's too fast? No, they have to choke the engines down in power so much to control that power, but nobody ever says they need more power in it. But now we race faster and biggger 1/8-scale, more because they don't break.
And classes come and go in RC. Oval, pan car, 1/12-scale ect. If these classes that switched to slower motors are so much better why aren't they being raced more? Why aren't we all running 1/12 19-turn 4-cell or oval? There has to be a reason?
07-11-2006, 10:00 AM
#109
Tech Apprentice
PRO10 died for a number of reasons, if you care to look at it clinically you would see that. PRO10 required large, clean and fairly smooth grippy tracks, of which outdoors here in the UK there were/are only a limited few, so there were actually limited places that they could actually be raced and the racing be enjoyed by the drivers. However the largest problem it had was actually the rapid arrival and competition from the new Touring Cars that were appearing, which were available in many forms and appealed to the "masses", and could be run on smalled and less refined tracks.
Like any sport, as it develops and the technology becomes more sophisticated and applied, it becomes more costly, it becomes increasingly difficult to even enter, let alone compete, which is what racing is about and why most people do it.
If your perception is that the sport needs more people to enter, then create an entry level class, which 27T stock was supposed to be, and keep it low ('ish) speed and regulated so that new comers CAN compete and learn at the same time. Provide a class structure that encourages movement through the classes and stop the "entry level" classes getting blocked at the top with drivers who should have moved on up the classes.
One of the attractions of the touring cars is the quite wide range of "classes" that it covers around the world, more than any other single racing group.
If your percetion is that the cars are too fast - then for who? Speed has nothing to do with it and it doesn't break cars, just like batteries don't kill motors, drivers do in both cases!
Here in the UK, when the BRCA went open class for the modified class I couldn't believe it and said so quite loudly! What about the contradiction I said, we had IFMAR at the same time "discussing" that cars were "too fast" (for who I asked (see what I mean about defining the problem!)) as our governing body and members voted to move to faster cars! The main reason being given was that drivers were killing the 12T motors, I said nothing would change - so here we are and drivers are now killing 7T motors, so what's new? The real problems are caused by not looking deeply enough at the issues before making changes and actually justifying the so called problem(s) actually IS the problem in the first place!
Anyway, been here before, seen it so often in different markets as well, and it never changes, people will still screw things up just because they like to think they know the answers - but it is patently clear to anyone reading this that the "problems" still haven't actually been defined.............what comes around goes around.
If it ain't broke then don't try to fix it. I would still like to know exactly what is supposed to be broke and the supporting justification, it needs more than just one persons perspective! As has already been said, mess with it and get it wrong and the market will decide by voting with their feet and going elsewhere, then you will totally kill it for all!
Like any sport, as it develops and the technology becomes more sophisticated and applied, it becomes more costly, it becomes increasingly difficult to even enter, let alone compete, which is what racing is about and why most people do it.
If your perception is that the sport needs more people to enter, then create an entry level class, which 27T stock was supposed to be, and keep it low ('ish) speed and regulated so that new comers CAN compete and learn at the same time. Provide a class structure that encourages movement through the classes and stop the "entry level" classes getting blocked at the top with drivers who should have moved on up the classes.
One of the attractions of the touring cars is the quite wide range of "classes" that it covers around the world, more than any other single racing group.
If your percetion is that the cars are too fast - then for who? Speed has nothing to do with it and it doesn't break cars, just like batteries don't kill motors, drivers do in both cases!
Here in the UK, when the BRCA went open class for the modified class I couldn't believe it and said so quite loudly! What about the contradiction I said, we had IFMAR at the same time "discussing" that cars were "too fast" (for who I asked (see what I mean about defining the problem!)) as our governing body and members voted to move to faster cars! The main reason being given was that drivers were killing the 12T motors, I said nothing would change - so here we are and drivers are now killing 7T motors, so what's new? The real problems are caused by not looking deeply enough at the issues before making changes and actually justifying the so called problem(s) actually IS the problem in the first place!
Anyway, been here before, seen it so often in different markets as well, and it never changes, people will still screw things up just because they like to think they know the answers - but it is patently clear to anyone reading this that the "problems" still haven't actually been defined.............what comes around goes around.
If it ain't broke then don't try to fix it. I would still like to know exactly what is supposed to be broke and the supporting justification, it needs more than just one persons perspective! As has already been said, mess with it and get it wrong and the market will decide by voting with their feet and going elsewhere, then you will totally kill it for all!
07-11-2006, 10:12 AM
#110
Here's what I see what people are told is broke...
1. Motors that are being pushed too hard.
2. Tires that aren't being developed to handle the speed and actually last.
3. New brushless controllers that are struggling to get up to the pace of a motor that's been developed and perfected for 20 years.
IFMAR should be the place where new technology is proven. THey should be runnign prototype motors/batteries to push the technolog down the line.
1. Motors that are being pushed too hard.
2. Tires that aren't being developed to handle the speed and actually last.
3. New brushless controllers that are struggling to get up to the pace of a motor that's been developed and perfected for 20 years.
IFMAR should be the place where new technology is proven. THey should be runnign prototype motors/batteries to push the technolog down the line.
07-11-2006, 10:24 AM
#111
Tech Adept
How about instead of limiting the power, we limit the traction instead?
A good hard compound control tyre which lasts several meetings is the way to go in my opinion.
A motor spinning under no load due to a lack of traction will not use much power.
Remember the 2wd offroad worlds - 5 cells was used in the winning car because it was easier to drive in low traction conditions, but those who wanted to could still run a 6 turn with 6 cells.
I don't recall any issues with cells / motors burning up at that event.
A good hard compound control tyre which lasts several meetings is the way to go in my opinion.
A motor spinning under no load due to a lack of traction will not use much power.
Remember the 2wd offroad worlds - 5 cells was used in the winning car because it was easier to drive in low traction conditions, but those who wanted to could still run a 6 turn with 6 cells.
I don't recall any issues with cells / motors burning up at that event.
07-11-2006, 10:36 AM
#112
Originally Posted by dw
How about instead of limiting the power, we limit the traction instead?
A good hard compound control tyre which lasts several meetings is the way to go in my opinion.
A motor spinning under no load due to a lack of traction will not use much power.
Remember the 2wd offroad worlds - 5 cells was used in the winning car because it was easier to drive in low traction conditions, but those who wanted to could still run a 6 turn with 6 cells.
I don't recall any issues with cells / motors burning up at that event.
A good hard compound control tyre which lasts several meetings is the way to go in my opinion.
A motor spinning under no load due to a lack of traction will not use much power.
Remember the 2wd offroad worlds - 5 cells was used in the winning car because it was easier to drive in low traction conditions, but those who wanted to could still run a 6 turn with 6 cells.
I don't recall any issues with cells / motors burning up at that event.
this is right on brother.
07-11-2006, 10:39 AM
#113
When a NOOB tries out any sport for the first time, does he or she excel to the top right away? Never! It takes hard work, practice, trial and error to learn the ropes, that will never change. We shouldn't dumb down the racing so a rookie can win the A right off the bat. Winning the A at any level in any sport should be hard, and winning it should mean a lot.
I don't think there are any problems with TC's as they are today. It has always been 6-cells, changing the number of cells requires radical changes to the cars to perform at their peak (= big $). Motors need to be more efficient (more $), drive train needs to be super smooth (lot-o-work + big $ for best bearings), you get the idea.
Don't fix what is not broken.
I don't think there are any problems with TC's as they are today. It has always been 6-cells, changing the number of cells requires radical changes to the cars to perform at their peak (= big $). Motors need to be more efficient (more $), drive train needs to be super smooth (lot-o-work + big $ for best bearings), you get the idea.
Don't fix what is not broken.
07-11-2006, 10:39 AM
#114
PRO10 died for a number of reasons, if you care to look at it clinically you would see that. PRO10 required large, clean and fairly smooth grippy tracks, of which outdoors here in the UK there were/are only a limited few, so there were actually limited places that they could actually be raced and the racing be enjoyed by the drivers. However the largest problem it had was actually the rapid arrival and competition from the new Touring Cars that were appearing, which were available in many forms and appealed to the "masses", and could be run on smalled and less refined tracks.
So we're back to where we were with Pan cars. How many people are going to take their new CF chassis belt driven car and run on an unprepared parking lot?
Then again it you put today's batteries and a 7 turn motor into a pan car someone (most likely a marshall) is going to get hurt.
Taking out a cell or 2 is not going to solve the problem.
07-11-2006, 11:07 AM
#116
Very few people in this discussion are attempting to answer the same question or address the same perceived problem. Is it an issue of speed? Is it an issue of heat and electronics reliability? Is it an issue of promoting the sport to newcomers? These all might be slightly related but there isn't a single answer to satify all of them.
Additionally, there have been some outlandish suggestions made by some influential and respected people in the industry. I originally was afraid of dropping a cell or two because it seemed like a pretty large change for a seemingly small problem. But to hear some of the alternatives makes me cringe. I honestly can't believe they were even suggested.
If you want TC to die just follow the way of decreasing traction.... it'll die a quick death whether you do so by making tcs 2wd, requiring hard tires, or whatever. Its not the answer.
Additionally, there have been some outlandish suggestions made by some influential and respected people in the industry. I originally was afraid of dropping a cell or two because it seemed like a pretty large change for a seemingly small problem. But to hear some of the alternatives makes me cringe. I honestly can't believe they were even suggested.
If you want TC to die just follow the way of decreasing traction.... it'll die a quick death whether you do so by making tcs 2wd, requiring hard tires, or whatever. Its not the answer.
07-11-2006, 11:08 AM
#117
I dont know how many of you really see 4cells touring running on track? In fact the 4cells touring is FASTER in corner than 6cells due to reduced weight. Therefore if the track is more tech, the laptime of 4cells might be faster than 6cells.
I believe the way JMRCA go (4cells, 1350g limitation) is the right way to go, and probably the only way to go. Yes the manufacture will always against changes, bcz changes means re-design, re-everything, less-profit at begining. It's logical response from manufacture.
Before you saying anything against 4cells, I suggest you try it first, you might surprise how much fun it's.
I believe the way JMRCA go (4cells, 1350g limitation) is the right way to go, and probably the only way to go. Yes the manufacture will always against changes, bcz changes means re-design, re-everything, less-profit at begining. It's logical response from manufacture.
Before you saying anything against 4cells, I suggest you try it first, you might surprise how much fun it's.
07-11-2006, 11:14 AM
#118
Originally Posted by ttso
I dont know how many of you really see 4cells touring running on track? In fact the 4cells touring is FASTER in corner than 6cells due to reduced weight. Therefore if the track is more tech, the laptime of 4cells might be faster than 6cells.
I believe the way JMRCA go (4cells, 1350g limitation) is the right way to go, and probably the only way to go. Yes the manufacture will always against changes, bcz changes means re-design, re-everything, less-profit at begining. It's logical response from manufacture.
Before you saying anything against 4cells, I suggest you try it first, you might surprise how much fun it's.
I believe the way JMRCA go (4cells, 1350g limitation) is the right way to go, and probably the only way to go. Yes the manufacture will always against changes, bcz changes means re-design, re-everything, less-profit at begining. It's logical response from manufacture.
Before you saying anything against 4cells, I suggest you try it first, you might surprise how much fun it's.
By slowing touring cars you are just adding another nail to the coffin.
If you want to create a class for beginners at the local level, introduce a 4-cell stock class or 6-cell Mabuchi class (preferable).
07-11-2006, 11:16 AM
#119
Originally Posted by ttso
Yes the manufacture will always against changes, bcz changes means re-design, re-everything, less-profit at begining. It's logical response from manufacture.
07-11-2006, 11:28 AM
#120
Originally Posted by Rick Hohwart
The problem is that at the meeting, no manufacturer (chassis, battery, electronics, servo, brushed or brushed motor) could even give any indication of 4-cell performance because NONE had even tested it!
The japanese manufacturers, and in particular Teru from Xenon, clearly stated his testing results and that he felt the change to 4 cells in Japan works good. At the same time he said there was no racing so far, but just testing.
I think this entire thread doesn't get us far, from where we are right now, to be honest... So I stay away from further discussion here!