R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-24-2006, 12:21 PM   #256
Tech Elite
 
ottoman's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 2,761
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Something that should be made clear.... "Adrian M" is listed on the ROAR site as a EX COM member. http://www.roarracing.com/excom.php
He might have mentioned this in a post but I doubt the majority here know this... so read his posts carefully... they show a lot about how ROAR thinks
He mainly posts on the other 4 and 5 cell threads but its easy to see what he favors
ottoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 12:28 PM   #257
Tech Elite
 
vtl1180ny's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wrong Island
Posts: 4,963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottoman
Something that should be made clear.... "Adrian M" is listed on the ROAR site as a EX COM member. http://www.roarracing.com/excom.php
He might have mentioned this in a post but I doubt the majority here know this... so read his posts carefully... they show a lot about how ROAR thinks
He mainly posts on the other 4 and 5 cell threads but its easy to see what he favors
Yup and he'd fit in just fine in DC also since he Knows what's good for us better than we do....
__________________
I still lurk....
vtl1180ny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 12:38 PM   #258
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,140
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Lets not forget that LiPo is more expensive for the matcher, too. If a pack is made of only two cells, that means each cell is a lot more valuable. A "bad" cell is going to cost matchers a whole like more than NiMH. I'm sure matchers would rather toss a bad NiMH that cost them $3 than a bad LiPo that cost them $35.

So, LiPo is bad for the matcher, right? For the consumer, and for the average racer, it's awesome. Yes, I said awesome, and anybody that's tried it knows it's the truth. There's no voodoo required at all, and that is BETTER for new racers, and better for existing racers. Scaring people with stories about how the technology is going to evolve, and how you're going to drive up prices by trying to match them is shady.
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 12:46 PM   #259
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,140
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Battery technology will always evolve. At some point, though, you need to admit when you're beat, and move on to the next thing. It too will eventually be obsoleted, and the next big thing will take its place.

NiMH is beat. It has been for years, and every single industry other than R/C knows it. Pointing to potential new technology down the road as a way to stall will work forever, because progress is infinite. But it's a stall tactic, and nothing more. NiMH manufacturers will eventually go out of business because R/C racing won't keep them alive. The basher market is already moving to LiPo, and racers are too. Just admit that your days are numbered, and enjoy it while you can.

Sorry it didn't work out.
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 01:00 PM   #260
Tech Addict
 
DrOlds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 644
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Nightsoilmen tried to block the progress of plumbing too.
DrOlds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 01:16 PM   #261
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 902
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisP
The argument that keeps coming up is brushless....I'm curious about the special rules exceptions allowed for brushless...This situation seems rather similar to the 'surprise' inclusion of BL motors into the mod class last year...I also seem to recall that the same BL motors were the ones suffering the most from thermal shutdown at many of the major racers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisP
Is this proposed change for the benefit of racers and racing in general, or for the benefit of the BL manufacturers? Unfortunately, I suspect the latter....and at the expense of the former
Hmm.. interesting, could this be true??
Terry_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 01:35 PM   #262
Tech Elite
 
trackdesigner71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lynchburg/Portsmouth, VA
Posts: 4,979
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to trackdesigner71 Send a message via Yahoo to trackdesigner71
Default

Here is my problem with this. I am an independent racer. I depend a lot on stick packs to keep costs down. Unfortunately, no one makes stick packs in 4 cell configuration, so that means Id have to pony up for matched packs and that is about on the level of taking out a loan to cover all that.

If anybody ever DID make 4 cell stick packs, they'd probably cost a pretty penny because of their newness. Correct me if Im wrong about that though.
trackdesigner71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 01:46 PM   #263
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Whistler BC
Posts: 247
Default

I really don't understand why they want to knock down the one technology that is actually advancing only to keep our outdated (motors) technology from becoming obsolete.

Why doesn't ROAR put out an offer to motor manufacturers to come up with a more robust and efficient brushed motor design. Have a 1 year deadline and then if no one can come up with something then start to look at other options.

I am sure that there are a few engineers out there that would love the chance to redesign our current motors to create something that can run longer and can compete with brushless using our current brushed ESC's.
Johnny9s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 01:50 PM   #264
Tech Champion
 
STLNLST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 8,998
Trader Rating: 21 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny9s
I really don't understand why they want to knock down the one technology that is actually advancing only to keep our outdated (motors) technology from becoming obsolete.

Why doesn't ROAR put out an offer to motor manufacturers to come up with a more robust and efficient brushed motor design. Have a 1 year deadline and then if no one can come up with something then start to look at other options.

I am sure that there are a few engineers out there that would love the chance to redesign our current motors to create something that can run longer and can compete with brushless using our current brushed ESC's.
I agree with you on the out dated motors.
__________________
REMEMBER THE GOOD OLE DAYS..........THEY'RE NEVER COMING BACK SO WE'RE STUCK WITH THE MESS IN FRONT OF US!!!!
STLNLST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 01:58 PM   #265
Tech Elite
 
nf_ekt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Posts: 4,632
Trader Rating: 113 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trackdesigner71
Here is my problem with this. I am an independent racer. I depend a lot on stick packs to keep costs down. Unfortunately, no one makes stick packs in 4 cell configuration, so that means Id have to pony up for matched packs and that is about on the level of taking out a loan to cover all that.

If anybody ever DID make 4 cell stick packs, they'd probably cost a pretty penny because of their newness. Correct me if Im wrong about that though.
Yeah I dunno, check this site:http://www.cheapbatterypacks.com/mai...gid=loosecells

Elite cells at 4.55 per cell, configure however you want. 18.20 for 4 cells, 27.30 for 6 cells. Pretty cheap I'd say.
__________________
Up the Irons \m/

Powered by Hotwings, Rolling Rock, and the urge to race toy cars...
nf_ekt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 02:23 PM   #266
Tech Elite
 
Bob-Stormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glasgow, Montana USA
Posts: 3,518
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottoman
Something that should be made clear.... "Adrian M" is listed on the ROAR site as a EX COM member. http://www.roarracing.com/excom.php
He might have mentioned this in a post but I doubt the majority here know this... so read his posts carefully... they show a lot about how ROAR thinks
He mainly posts on the other 4 and 5 cell threads but its easy to see what he favors
Hmm, never thought to look at that.

Having read a lot or possibly all of his posts, his position is more defensive than neutral on the subject. More like he's trying to sell the idea than be interested in what the memebers have to say and keep a neutral eye on it. Well, there's one of the excomm with his mind made up.

No offence to Adrian, these are things that can be read by anybody that looks back.
__________________
www.stormerhobbies.com "Where the world shops for radio control."™
www.facebook.com/stormerhobbies
www.twitter.com/stormerhobbies

looking for....vintage 1/10-1/12 pan, need Schumacher 1/12th cars and parts.
Bob-Stormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 02:31 PM   #267
Tech Elite
 
Fred Hubbard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inglewood, CA
Posts: 2,719
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottoman
Something that should be made clear.... "Adrian M" is listed on the ROAR site as a EX COM member. http://www.roarracing.com/excom.php
He might have mentioned this in a post but I doubt the majority here know this... so read his posts carefully... they show a lot about how ROAR thinks
He mainly posts on the other 4 and 5 cell threads but its easy to see what he favors

I thought the majority of folk on here knew this already. What's really disconcerting is that he strongly hinted that ROAR would be going the 4 Cell route at least a month ago on another thread.
__________________
Goodwine Racing - RC America - XRAY - HUDY - Sanwa - Motiv - GravityRC - BN Racing
Fred Hubbard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 02:40 PM   #268
Tech Elite
 
dr_hfuhuhurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Westchester, NY
Posts: 4,503
Trader Rating: 75 (100%+)
Default

One thing that I really don't understand with ALL these threads...everyone talks about being able to run with the big dogs...with the factory guys. Anyone think Formula 1 will slow their cars down or impose rules because I want to race Formula 1. I don't have the cash or the skills. Let's dummy down Formula 1 so I can do it. I know there are differences here but it's the same basic principle.

It's racing, there is always going to be someone or some company willing to pay more to go faster. It's racing, that's what happens. I really think that if you don't like it, go collect stamps. But hey, even with stamps someone else is always going to have a larger collection.

One-upmanship is always part of racing. The local Oval track here has a similar problem...they keep inventing new "spec" classes so that everyone can win. It's stupid.
__________________
"There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness. Which side are you on?"

“Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.” - John Wayne
dr_hfuhuhurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 03:00 PM   #269
Tech Elite
 
vtl1180ny's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wrong Island
Posts: 4,963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Hubbard
I thought the majority of folk on here knew this already. What's really disconcerting is that he strongly hinted that ROAR would be going the 4 Cell route at least a month ago on another thread.
He consistently tells us that this is from the "industry insiders" and that they know better that we do....
__________________
I still lurk....
vtl1180ny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2006, 03:11 PM   #270
Tech Master
 
Anders Myrberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Man´s best friend: Hugo Myrberg
Posts: 1,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottoman
Something that should be made clear.... "Adrian M" is listed on the ROAR site as a EX COM member. http://www.roarracing.com/excom.php
He might have mentioned this in a post but I doubt the majority here know this... so read his posts carefully... they show a lot about how ROAR thinks
He mainly posts on the other 4 and 5 cell threads but its easy to see what he favors
That´s pretty unfair. Adrian feel a lot of responsibility to this sport/hobby and always try to look at the big picture.
Why not just try to understand it for a change? Kind of just try.
Anders Myrberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
5 cell Stock for the ROAR Onroad Nat's? C_O_jones Electric On-Road 75 06-21-2007 07:38 PM
F/S: Glow plug igniter, gel cell charger, gel cell, camber guage and car stand PD2 R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 18 05-21-2007 04:07 PM
Opinions on ROAR 4-Cell Rule ShaunMac Georgia Racing 12 11-29-2006 06:54 AM
ROAR - 4 cell for all touring HarshGuy Electric On-Road 17 11-23-2006 10:59 AM
non-roar bodies faster than roar? imjonah Electric On-Road 5 05-13-2005 07:40 PM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 11:43 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net