ROAR to 4 cell....
11-23-2006, 11:21 PM
#211
Originally Posted by DerekB
One could make an assumption that battery companies make a certain percentage of profit off each cell sold, so selling one less per pack yeilds the loss of one "sale" after every six packs sold, and therefore a market adjustment would be in order to gain that 16% loss in profit up.
Actually a very good assumption phrased wrong.
Actually a very good assumption phrased wrong.
Originally Posted by DerekB
BEcause time has exponential harmful affects on heat build up. Switching to 5 minutes created a huge problem for motor cooling since it is another minute of runtime. We saw lots of problems with brushes when we made this switch, which has corrected itself. When a brush fades it loss EFF causing a spike in heat, which makes you drive harder, pushing more heat...compounding problem.
8 Minutes would ruin most motors quickly.
8 Minutes would ruin most motors quickly.
11-23-2006, 11:21 PM
#212
Have either the other sanctioning bodies in Europe or Asia released any official statements stating the reasoning behind their change? I have seen a lot of debate on the forums regarding the changes, but I am curious to see the 'official' reasoning behind the changes to 4 or 5 cell from those who made the decision. I may have missed it if posted elsewhere.
The reason I ask is that after reading this thread and others, I am completely confused as to what effect, positive or negative, is expected to happen. It seems to me that the arguments for both sides are going in circles. I cannot tell if these proposed changes are intended only to address the physical limits of our equipment that we are now reaching, or if it is to address the broader issue of declining attendence at the races? I would assume that any change would be made to strengthen the TC classes as a whole, but like BadBoyRC asked a few posts earlier, I have not been able to find specific answers to how. You see arguments to slow the cars down, yet the next post will state they are just as fast. I read that it will reduce the cost of racing, but also that it will make high end equipment more important. And on and on....
I am trying to figure out how you regulate people from pushing their equipment beyond the limit? Am I wrong in stating that you could take current motors and electronics and reduce the timing, gearing, windings, etc. to make them hold up better to the high voltage batteries we now have? Of course no one is willing to do this because the drawback to these changes is that you will go slower. And I once again find myself stuck in this loop of reasoning. What ever the rules are decided to be, any competitive racer is going to push his equipment to the max in order to win. That is the point of racing. If you change number of cells, battery capacity, battery chemistry, motor turn limit, chassis weight, hand out tires, etc., a competitive racer is going to do what ever is possible to go as fast as possible. And before you know it, everyone is again operating at the break point for their equipment. If someone was on the raged edge before the rule change, they will probably be there after the change as well. Maybe it is no longer the motor, maybe it is the batteries, or the esc, but there will always be a weak link of some sort. And if you feel the need to push hard enough, it will break.
The reason I ask is that after reading this thread and others, I am completely confused as to what effect, positive or negative, is expected to happen. It seems to me that the arguments for both sides are going in circles. I cannot tell if these proposed changes are intended only to address the physical limits of our equipment that we are now reaching, or if it is to address the broader issue of declining attendence at the races? I would assume that any change would be made to strengthen the TC classes as a whole, but like BadBoyRC asked a few posts earlier, I have not been able to find specific answers to how. You see arguments to slow the cars down, yet the next post will state they are just as fast. I read that it will reduce the cost of racing, but also that it will make high end equipment more important. And on and on....
I am trying to figure out how you regulate people from pushing their equipment beyond the limit? Am I wrong in stating that you could take current motors and electronics and reduce the timing, gearing, windings, etc. to make them hold up better to the high voltage batteries we now have? Of course no one is willing to do this because the drawback to these changes is that you will go slower. And I once again find myself stuck in this loop of reasoning. What ever the rules are decided to be, any competitive racer is going to push his equipment to the max in order to win. That is the point of racing. If you change number of cells, battery capacity, battery chemistry, motor turn limit, chassis weight, hand out tires, etc., a competitive racer is going to do what ever is possible to go as fast as possible. And before you know it, everyone is again operating at the break point for their equipment. If someone was on the raged edge before the rule change, they will probably be there after the change as well. Maybe it is no longer the motor, maybe it is the batteries, or the esc, but there will always be a weak link of some sort. And if you feel the need to push hard enough, it will break.
11-23-2006, 11:27 PM
#213
Originally Posted by Backfire
Have either the other sanctioning bodies in Europe or Asia released any official statements stating the reasoning behind their change? I have seen a lot of debate on the forums regarding the changes, but I am curious to see the 'official' reasoning behind the changes to 4 or 5 cell from those who made the decision. I may have missed it if posted elsewhere.
The reason I ask is that after reading this thread and others, I am completely confused as to what effect, positive or negative, is expected to happen. It seems to me that the arguments for both sides are going in circles. I cannot tell if these proposed changes are intended only to address the physical limits of our equipment that we are now reaching, or if it is to address the broader issue of declining attendence at the races? I would assume that any change would be made to strengthen the TC classes as a whole, but like BadBoyRC asked a few posts earlier, I have not been able to find specific answers to how. You see arguments to slow the cars down, yet the next post will state they are just as fast. I read that it will reduce the cost of racing, but also that it will make high end equipment more important. And on and on....
I am trying to figure out how you regulate people from pushing their equipment beyond the limit? Am I wrong in stating that you could take current motors and electronics and reduce the timing, gearing, windings, etc. to make them hold up better to the high voltage batteries we now have? Of course no one is willing to do this because the drawback to these changes is that you will go slower. And I once again find myself stuck in this loop of reasoning. What ever the rules are decided to be, any competitive racer is going to push his equipment to the max in order to win. That is the point of racing. If you change number of cells, battery capacity, battery chemistry, motor turn limit, chassis weight, hand out tires, etc., a competitive racer is going to do what ever is possible to go as fast as possible. And before you know it, everyone is again operating at the break point for their equipment. If someone was on the raged edge before the rule change, they will probably be there after the change as well. Maybe it is no longer the motor, maybe it is the batteries, or the esc, but there will always be a weak link of some sort. And if you feel the need to push hard enough, it will break.
The reason I ask is that after reading this thread and others, I am completely confused as to what effect, positive or negative, is expected to happen. It seems to me that the arguments for both sides are going in circles. I cannot tell if these proposed changes are intended only to address the physical limits of our equipment that we are now reaching, or if it is to address the broader issue of declining attendence at the races? I would assume that any change would be made to strengthen the TC classes as a whole, but like BadBoyRC asked a few posts earlier, I have not been able to find specific answers to how. You see arguments to slow the cars down, yet the next post will state they are just as fast. I read that it will reduce the cost of racing, but also that it will make high end equipment more important. And on and on....
I am trying to figure out how you regulate people from pushing their equipment beyond the limit? Am I wrong in stating that you could take current motors and electronics and reduce the timing, gearing, windings, etc. to make them hold up better to the high voltage batteries we now have? Of course no one is willing to do this because the drawback to these changes is that you will go slower. And I once again find myself stuck in this loop of reasoning. What ever the rules are decided to be, any competitive racer is going to push his equipment to the max in order to win. That is the point of racing. If you change number of cells, battery capacity, battery chemistry, motor turn limit, chassis weight, hand out tires, etc., a competitive racer is going to do what ever is possible to go as fast as possible. And before you know it, everyone is again operating at the break point for their equipment. If someone was on the raged edge before the rule change, they will probably be there after the change as well. Maybe it is no longer the motor, maybe it is the batteries, or the esc, but there will always be a weak link of some sort. And if you feel the need to push hard enough, it will break.
I think you just summed up the frustration of people on the many decisions that do nothing more than contradict themselves in every other statement.
This particular one affects more than just racing, it changes a standard in the industry, and for that reason it really is NOT a good rule change.
But that is a very good question, and maybe it should be answered so we can argue about the same thing.
11-23-2006, 11:30 PM
#214
Originally Posted by Bob Barry
its a cool idea and all but how many heats are at the big races?? 40? at 3 minutes to each qual and main thats 12 more minutes for each of those 40 heats....thats 480 more racing minutes...which is 6 hours. not really practical
Perhaps now, finally what you would really get is people registering on time for events, so the organizers can plan better and the event can run more smoothly. Instead of having 400 racers, you set the limit at 300. Everybody gets more track time, more pitspace, more relaxed atmosphere, etc.
This also means the host facility has say 100 less people to cater to, and can do a better job of helping each and every person there, with whatever they need.
It also adds a sense of urgency to registering, and adds a greater sense of noteriety to the event. "Dude, check it out, I got my entry accepted, I'm going to the whiz bang 300!!!" Instead of the Anybody gets to go thing. Where it's overcrowded and oversold and you get no tracktime, or it's so tight for time, that they physically can't wait even one minute for you in a desperate situation.
I feel most people really don't think of the advantages of longer run times. There's a lot to be said for more track time and a more relaxed environment.
11-23-2006, 11:31 PM
#215
Originally Posted by Bob-Stormer
Actually I think SMC would be able to lower prices, due to an huge increase in volume. No longer can the average guy simply buy a few packs at the start of the season. You're gonna need the absolute best cells, all the time, like it was when we had 1700's.
I respectfully beg to differ. If guys are dumping and using up 4300mah of battery in 5 minutes, they need to motor down to make an 8 minute time and dump with same 4300mAh of power. Same power used, over a 60% longer period means you need to slow down continuous power used by 60% to make time. That's less heat and strain at any given time. Same amount of power used, over a longer period of time.
I respectfully beg to differ. If guys are dumping and using up 4300mah of battery in 5 minutes, they need to motor down to make an 8 minute time and dump with same 4300mAh of power. Same power used, over a 60% longer period means you need to slow down continuous power used by 60% to make time. That's less heat and strain at any given time. Same amount of power used, over a longer period of time.
So we will have lower price because we have to buy twice as many packs. I pick up some good old fashion sarcasm on that one, lol.
The problem is, we'll never run just what we need to "make it to the end." It's a race and that means out "doing' the next guy. Those who just care about "finishing" or having a motor/battery last a lifetime shouldn't be in this conversation, because they don't have an issue. Most people make runtime fine, motors are fine (probably running BL by now)...but the few that take this as a sport, not a hobby will alway be pushing.
And I said this in an editorial. The day we force our industry to go to 4-cell, and thinking RTRs will follow is the day I start selling cars that come with 6.
Speed sells......oh and sex.
11-23-2006, 11:34 PM
#216
Tech Regular
The argument is not about speed, it is about being told you can no longer run 6 cells with out any say so. What country do we live in.........the USA. Americans are a democratic society, we vote. This is why most of us are pissed off. There are people on this forum that will try to shift the real issue, we did not vote this in or even ask for it. Lets stop arguing about speed and say” I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS CHANGE, WE AMREICANS DONT LIKE TO BE TOLD WHAT WE HAVE TO DO”. This ROAR needs to here its members.
11-23-2006, 11:39 PM
#217
Originally Posted by rcdougie
This is just simply the last gasp effort for roar and the battery companies to prevent lipo's from taking over.
I have never talked about Lipos as if I do I will be accused of looking out for my own interest as I'm an owner of a cell matching company.
It looks like I have made a decision not to hold back my thoughts on this subject anymore.
As Lipos aren't used in any type of racing at the moment they are fine for the enthusiast who wants to play. If they do become legal in racing you will see a change with these as matching will become a factor and will be added to the already higher cost. It will also be very hard to tech these packs which will mean we will have the pack of the month.
Let me try and explain where I'm coming from. As Lipo packs have 2 cells they can be matched and if they would become the must have item in racing I would buy matching equipment that would do Lipo cells then we would assemble the cells in house into packs. This would add to the already high cost of Lipos. Lipo technology is relatively new and will evolve at a rapid pace we already have gone from Lithium Ion to Lipo and now there is Lithium magnese.
As company owner who deals only in batteries I have been looking into Lipos. I have gotten many samples and I can tell you for a fact that not all Lipo packs are the same in performance. Not to long ago I was sent some samples from a friend in Asia. I tested the packs and they had real good voltage and IR. A few weeks later he informed that he would be sending me an updated formula that had better performance.
With the current battery situation there is more than enough great cells for every racer as the fluctuation we see in our cell lots is .015 volts at the most with 80% of the cells falling within .007 of each other. Some of you may think you can notice the difference between .007 but you can't.
If we do go to Lipos the companies dealing directly with the manufacturers or companies who can spend the most money will be working closely with these manufacturers to come up with more powerful Lipos at any cost even if these would only be used for major races. It would be great fun for the average racer to get passed on the straight in stock or 19t because some racers have had access to the latest and greatest Lipo packs that were specifically built for one company who spent more money to get the best possible Lipo packs.
11-23-2006, 11:45 PM
#218
Originally Posted by DerekB
So we will have lower price because we have to buy twice as many packs. I pick up some good old fashion sarcasm on that one, lol.
Originally Posted by DerekB
we'll never run just what we need to "make it to the end." It's a race and that means out "doing' the next guy.
11-23-2006, 11:48 PM
#219
Originally Posted by gotyournumber
The argument is not about speed, it is about being told you can no longer run 6 cells with out any say so. What country do we live in.........the USA. Americans are a democratic society, we vote. This is why most of us are pissed off. There are people on this forum that will try to shift the real issue, we did not vote this in or even ask for it. Lets stop arguing about speed and say” I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS CHANGE, WE AMREICANS DONT LIKE TO BE TOLD WHAT WE HAVE TO DO”. This ROAR needs to here its members.
11-23-2006, 11:53 PM
#220
Tech Apprentice
Bob, I did not mean that anyone here are idiots or morons, infact it's just the opposite. I guess I should have been a little more clearer when I replyed. I appologize if I offended anyone. It's just we are sitting here complaining and such and the voting hasn't even taken place and to this point is just being discussed at the excomm level. I am not a fan of how ROAR is run, and never will be until huge changes are made, thats why I have not become a member. This is something that should be voted on by those who are members, it will change the hobby. At this point it wouldn't matter to me if it was 4 or 6 cell racing, I race 12th scale and my kids race TC, and wouldn't mind being able to use the same batts for both. The point that I was agreeing with was the part that we are all sitting here discussing how racing is all about going fast. Thats not all correct. Racing is about competion nothing more nothing less.. You have competion at any speed whether fast or slow. Again I apologize for offending anyone.
Kevin
Kevin
11-23-2006, 11:55 PM
#221
Originally Posted by Danny/SMC
I have never talked about Lipos as if I do I will be accused of looking out for my own interest as I'm an owner of a cell matching company.
It looks like I have made a decision not to hold back my thoughts on this subject anymore.
It looks like I have made a decision not to hold back my thoughts on this subject anymore.
For the record, you know we'll stock the crap out of them if you ever decide it's a must. If a rock solid company like SMC makes it happen, we're on board.
11-23-2006, 11:59 PM
#222
Originally Posted by KevinL
Bob, I did not mean that anyone here are idiots or morons, infact it's just the opposite. ..... I am not a fan of how ROAR is run, and never will be until huge changes are made, thats why I have not become a member. This is something that should be voted on by those who are members, it will change the hobby....
And you are 100% accurate, this isn't like a new body, this would change the hobby.
But even though it's "assumed" that nothing has been decided, this is the time to let people in charge know our opinions, for or against. Not after it's a rule. So now REALLY IS the time to discuss this.
11-24-2006, 12:08 AM
#223
Bob,
As a racer of many years who really likes this sport/hobby I don't like it when I see that things are unfair. My fear of Lipos is based from I have seen is that first of all it's more expensive and if they become the next thing in RC car racing I think that we will see the pack of the month. The larger manufacturers who have allot to gain by seeing there products in the winners circle will be spending allot of money to push Lipo companies to make more powerful packs. Since Lipos are manufactured by many companies there will be to many options and to much developement to fast. It would suck to show up at large race with 100 dolllar Lipo pack only to find out that the new hot pack is now 150 dollar pack but offers more perfomance but at that race only company X has them and they only have enough for there drivers. If things like that happen then racing will go away.
The way racing is now your getting beat by better driving and car setup not because of a battery pack.
I think Lipo is great for planes or backyard bashers but not for racing.
Hope this makes sense and I trully think this would happen if we go to Lipos.
As a racer of many years who really likes this sport/hobby I don't like it when I see that things are unfair. My fear of Lipos is based from I have seen is that first of all it's more expensive and if they become the next thing in RC car racing I think that we will see the pack of the month. The larger manufacturers who have allot to gain by seeing there products in the winners circle will be spending allot of money to push Lipo companies to make more powerful packs. Since Lipos are manufactured by many companies there will be to many options and to much developement to fast. It would suck to show up at large race with 100 dolllar Lipo pack only to find out that the new hot pack is now 150 dollar pack but offers more perfomance but at that race only company X has them and they only have enough for there drivers. If things like that happen then racing will go away.
The way racing is now your getting beat by better driving and car setup not because of a battery pack.
I think Lipo is great for planes or backyard bashers but not for racing.
Hope this makes sense and I trully think this would happen if we go to Lipos.
11-24-2006, 12:22 AM
#224
All sanctioned bodies like ROAR, EFRA and JMRCA are switching to 4 or 5 cells packs. Main question i: what number of cells will the IFMAR allow for stock, 19t or mod. IFMAR already allowed brushless for racing as well as the other sanctioned bodies. We have seen in the past year 27t stock were 23t stock in Japan. What will do the 19t class? Will that be changed to 15t for brushed motors?
11-24-2006, 12:37 AM
#225
[QUOTE=Danny/SMC]I think 4 cell is to drastic and 5 cell is the way to go atleast for the mod class and I do think it would be beneficial to all classes. My reasoning behind this is that dropping to 5 cell is not a huge difference compared to where we were for voltage 2 years ago. When the cells were 1.15-1.16s with 2.4 IR 2 years ago we had packs that cycled out 6.96 now we have packs that are 1.23 with 1.4 IR which means we now have 7.38+ voltage and 1 milli ohm less in IR which means the cells today can deliver energy faster and will have less voltage drop under higher loads when accelerating.
It seems like with the newer generation cells that stock and 19t motors have to be detuned to make them hold up. If we go to 5 cells the motors could be tuned up agains which would regain some of the lost power so I really don't think the speeds would be greatly reduced and since runtime is not even close to being an issue in these classes then batteries wouldn't be more important.
We can come up with theories for and against this change but no one can really say for sure what the outcome would be. Trying something is better than doing nothing unless there is no issues as things are now.
Lets say ROAR does make it 4 or 5 cell for every class nothing keeps your local club or track from sticking to 6 cells.[/QUOTE]
Danny, I am not trying to bash at all, Just have a couple of questions about the sentances that i made bold in your post. Again Not trying to bash.
Ok, First off...What "problems" are we having in Mod that we need this change?
Next: Your comparing 5 cell to battery technoligy of two years ago, Why do battery companies make new batteries if we were fine with the pack 2 years ago? I thought we would be trying to move foward, not backward.
Then, Why would a stock racer "de-tune" his motor when he is using good 6 cell packs? Maybe its just me, but when i used to run stock i ran the best of what i could get and tuned my motor as best as possible to get the most performance out of it, Never "De-Tuned" a stock motor!
Last, What is wrong with all the new products that we have now that we have to try somthing new? Whats the problem?
Ron
It seems like with the newer generation cells that stock and 19t motors have to be detuned to make them hold up. If we go to 5 cells the motors could be tuned up agains which would regain some of the lost power so I really don't think the speeds would be greatly reduced and since runtime is not even close to being an issue in these classes then batteries wouldn't be more important.
We can come up with theories for and against this change but no one can really say for sure what the outcome would be. Trying something is better than doing nothing unless there is no issues as things are now.
Lets say ROAR does make it 4 or 5 cell for every class nothing keeps your local club or track from sticking to 6 cells.[/QUOTE]
Danny, I am not trying to bash at all, Just have a couple of questions about the sentances that i made bold in your post. Again Not trying to bash.
Ok, First off...What "problems" are we having in Mod that we need this change?
Next: Your comparing 5 cell to battery technoligy of two years ago, Why do battery companies make new batteries if we were fine with the pack 2 years ago? I thought we would be trying to move foward, not backward.
Then, Why would a stock racer "de-tune" his motor when he is using good 6 cell packs? Maybe its just me, but when i used to run stock i ran the best of what i could get and tuned my motor as best as possible to get the most performance out of it, Never "De-Tuned" a stock motor!
Last, What is wrong with all the new products that we have now that we have to try somthing new? Whats the problem?
Ron