Disaster

Welcome into the conversation. I think it is important to have some dialog with ROAR members and more importantly, for ROAR members to get feedback from people at the lowest level.

To solve the problems in TC, we have to expand our scope of discussion. A cell change or motor limitation isn't going to fix things.

I think a settable ESC or a voltage/current limiter would not be difficult to implement. Where ROAR goes, the manufacturers will follow...after all, that is where the money is.

If limiting the power in the lower classes makes sense....and it will make sense if it brings in new drivers and retains them, then it should be done.

More importantly, we have to reign in costs. This scares people because they think it will take money from the already strapped track operators and manufacturers. That is very nearsighted thinking. If that were true track operators should charge $50 a race and manufacturers should charge $2000 for cars.

The reality is the less expensive entry point, and lower maintenance costs and hassle will bring in more people and retain more people. With more racers you have more funds. The growth in TC racing will easily offset any added costs.

Also, as was already mentioned, voltage/current limiters could be rented...just like transponders...offering another point of income for track operators.

There is much less chance of cheating with a voltage limiter than there is with a motor. You can clearly see if it has been connected. An ESC could have a clear indication of it's setting and likewise it would be easy to check after races. Drivers that cheat should get a harsh penalty...and that will discourage this activity.

Disaster

If they can't see something as obvious as an unwired voltage limiter they are missing all kinds of cheating today. If, on the other hand, you aren't concerned with cheating going on today, then you likewise shouldn't be concerned with a voltage limiter.

Disaster

We need to look at the evidence out there. The cost does hurt RC racing. The cost IS hurting TC.

It happens again and again, in racing class after racing class. A new car/class comes up. People start racing mostly "stock" because there aren't many options. It is cheap, it is fun, it is competitive.

More and more fancy stuff becomes available at higher and higher cost and soon the inexpensive class has become the pricey one. You retain some people that invested heavily in it and took the walk...but you don't get new racers and and people start leaving for cheaper racing...where they feel they have a chance to compete without spending thousands of dollars.

We can prevent this by creating classes of racing framed by the vehicle costs and designed to have low maintenance costs.

We are fooling ourselves if we say cost isn't a factor. Until we take responsibility for the cost, the sport will suffer.

ROAR needs to lead the effort...or I guarantee it will vanish into it's own insignificance. I'd like to think ROAR would be replaced by an RC racing governing body that is proactive...but there is always the risk RC will be irreparably harmed...becoming a fringe hobby (if it already isn't.)

muahdib4

It doesn't have to he unwired...you could have dummy wires that look like their hooked up. It wouldn't be nearly as hard as you might think.

Disaster

What you are saying goes 10 times as much for cheating today. Who is able to look inside a motor to see if someone didn't toy with the timing? Any kind of seal can be defeated and then copied...indistinguishable from the naked eye.

Batteries can be swapped and relabeled. Without charging and discharging...or destructively tearing them apart who could tell?

Short of handing out spec. cars before every race, you will always have to deal with cheating.

But I'm afraid we are losing focus. A voltage limiter is a way to make cars go slower...a technological way of creating slower classes. There are other ways...for example traction limits could be enforced, by handing out spec. tires.

Limiting speed isn't a big problem...or more importantly, a factor in the loss of popularity of TC racing. If people wanted to go slower they wouldn't be putting 8000kV brushless motors into cars and trucks.

The problem is cost.

We need to get the focus back on limiting the cost of racing....the entry cost....the maintenance cost....especially the maintenance cost.

When TC racing cost less you will get more racers.

When you get more racers the tracks and manufacturers will be able to amortize their costs across more people...further driving down the costs. It feeds itself.

Lowering the cost will ignite the sport.

All I ask is for the sanctioning bodies to try it. They don't have to abandon the existing classes. They need to create new classes framed by the vehicle cost and designed to limit the maintenance cost.

I think they will soon find a new popularity in the sport. The new classes will explode. Racing will be revitalized at the grass roots.

It is "trickle up" economics and it has been proven to work over and over.

For example one of the reasons the Playstation beat out the Nintendo in popularity was because it had lower costs for game developers. CD's cost less than game cartridges and were more flexible (code didn't have to be so optimized.) That brought more games to it's platform, which in turn brought more gamers. This spiraled upward.

Likewise, Microsoft, made a platform that was easier, hence less costly, to move PC games to. This allowed developers to market games across both the PC and Video game platform with little added cost. This in turn fueled it's success.

The XBox 360 didn't take off like it could have, because of the high entry cost. It is still underselling the lower cost Playstation 2. Playstation 3 sales are suffering even worse because if it's even higher cost. Meanwhile, Nintendo is seeing a huge rise in popularity because of their inexpensive Wii.

TimPotter

iTrader: (15)

Disaster,

I have been following this thread all along. I have been hesitant to jump in , as people get pretty excited and overzelous about this subject... No matter what is said... it gets totally hammered on if it is not the same view as what the reader wants to read. It is a similar situation for brushless and Lipo.

Listen, I am a proponent for 5 cell, but I am not jumping up and down about it... It works, as anyone that races against me... I am plenty fast and it has helped my driving. Actaully I am a proponet for loweing the voltages.... My out of the box suggestion was to make a "Power Pack Spec" basically it has to fit in X by X dimensions, and had to have a specific voltage max and a minimum weight. It could 1 cell or 10... could be Lipo or Nicd... just as long as it fit the spec... and it was safe...


As far as chassis limits, that is a tough call... way to many manufacturers out there.... for club racing, it works well, but as you get higher up... it becomes difficult...

Personally, I think the limiter is bad idea.... jsut making something more complicated then it has to be, and adding another variable. If dropping 1 cell limits the voltage... well you taking away.. nto adding, and getting the same result.. But once agian, my opinion on this matter is only mine, not that of the comittee I chair... so please take it for what it is worth.... not much...

MR JOLLY

i actually tried to see
all the racers that saw my car (within reason) were suprised it wasen't that slow
just remember i ran 1420g @1350g it would be ideal weight for power to weight ratio
does improve your driving no doubt
only thing i don't like Tim is making that weight 1350g 3 ways to get this

1)spend dosh on Ti stuff & lightweight shells to get there ,this is making racers spend more money to fit in with rules ...

2) go & buy a newer chassis coz the one you have now is to heavy

3) buy all the latest smallest electric gear going

so @1350g it will fit the money bags of this world & penalise the average racer ..........

disclaimer

just a view ,not to split hairs & argue over ,,i have the facts & figures coz i got of my fat arse to try it & find out
won;t take off in the UK for 27t/19t

mod future uncertain in 5 cell
might be better off going back to 6 cell/mod & try another way instead of pissing about adding & splitting class's, cos that just annoy`s racers more then invite them to race

Disaster

There is always a risk people will become uncivil, but the discussion is still necessary to have. I'm actually pretty surprised how "polite" people have been. As you suggested, this can be an emotional topic with people having very strong viewpoints.

I like the "power pack" idea. However, I think the only thing that should be specified is the cost (to keep it affordable) and the upper voltage, impact, and heat resistance (to keep it safe.) Let the manufacturers do whatever they want within those limits. This allows the technology to move forward. It doesn't limit a technology because it has an odd dimension (like donut shaped.) It might well be, in the future, manufacturers build super efficient motors that require 24 volts and the best technology is a donut shaped super capacitor. If it is safe, and they can sell it competitively, let them do it.

If you don't like the voltage limiter idea, but you still want to create classes with different voltage limits, then I suppose you could have different upper limits on the power packs but I think you have to be careful here, or you risk specifying a particular technology or chemistry that falls the closest to this limit. That ties peoples hands to stick with that technology...no matter how outdated and expensive (ie. people will continue to use NiCd if the NiCd is right at the limit...but the Lipo is just over....and the same thing goes for whatever might replace Lipo.)

I'm not sure why you, or others have mentioned chassis limits. I've never proposed a limit other than cost...and then only on the lower classes. There would still be the ultimate classes that would let the racer spend whatever he wanted on the chassis. Of course, you'd still have the minimum definitions like you do today, on width and height....and overall final weight (but not chassis weight.)

Cost is the simplest, most direct way to control the cost to the customer. It allows the most freedom for the manufacturer to build the best product at that cost. It allows the committees to get out of the world of design, where they don't belong, and focussed on the world of marketing where they do.

With cost it is a case of "build it, and they will come." We need to create (build) a cost realistic class (based on some existing vehicle and or technologies)....say the Losi RTR brushless, or a reasonable chassis cost along with reasonable battery, motor, ESC, etc cost. People will buy the product to race, sales will go up, and other manufacturers will join in, with equal or incrementally better products. Soon you will be awash with choices. By focussing on cost, and not technology, you allow the most diversity for the manufacturers...anyone can offer a product, as long as it is within the cost requirements.

This is the future. It has been successful for reigning in costs of professional sports which in turn helps keep ticket prices within reason, retaining their customers. It will, likewise, be successful for reigning in costs of RC racing, and help attract and retain RC racing customers.

We need to get our brains around the concept of the racers as our customers and how we can improve our customer service. Once we do that, once we focus on serving them, they will come and we will all win for it.

Disaster

This is a good example of how overspecifying, even though it is based on good intentions, can end up costing the drivers more money, which is the wrong thing to do when you are already having an issue attracting and retaining them.

Now you've started a new race where the chassis's, batteries and motors all will be optimized for this new lower weight and battery count and people will feel they have to buy all the latest expensive gizmos to compete. Some will buy them and win...others will shrug their shoulders and leave.

muahdib4

First, try opening a Silvercan motor and putting it back together....you can't. There have been people trying that for years and you break the motor when you open it. So, there's your slower spec class motor.

You keep talking about tracks having "handout" tires and renting limiters and such...but doesn't that ADD to the cost of racing? Race day would triple in cost. Our track does require a 'spec' TakeOff CS27 tire/wheel for racing rubber but it's not a handout...the track isn't responsible for that cost and it's clearly posted EVERYWHERE but they'll let you run what you have until you can afford the right ones. Limiters would cause to many headaches for track owners. Sure they could recoup the cost of the limiters by renting them but that ADDS more cost to the race day for the racer who already has entry fees, tires, etc...to pay for. What happens when racers just start buying their own limiters? There would be several companies that would make different ones and some would "limit" either more efficiently or perhaps...LESS efficiently or people could then just open them up and figure out how to "hack" the limiters. It would be no better than the current battery wars or ESCs.

I'd like to say that limiting class costs is a way to save TC racing but I don't think it is. I'm afraid that people have a SPEED mindset rather than a RACE mindset. Everyone wants to go fast, not everyone wants to really race. That's why every newbie that walks into a hobby shop asks "How fast does it go?". They want speed until they see what speed really is and realize they can't control it...then they quit. Usually after the first couple of races when they've broken so many parts that the cost goes up even more for them...then they buy a nitro basher monster truck.

I'm just afraid that there is no way to save the hobby. Newbies want speed but the rest of us want to put them into slower classes so they can learn to drive...which they'll fight against. Adding yet another electronic device to the car won't work due to costs and giving the car another spot for people to cheat or another point of failure. Fewer cells in the batteries won't work because then TCs are even farther removed from all other forms of electric RC that all use 6-cell and people won't want to make that investment in new batteries just for cars they can't drive in their backyard. LiPo and Brushless motors are the best things to happen to TC racing and actually improved racing attendance even though they have that huge added initial cost but is it enough to save TCs?...No.

I'm not saying that I want to see TCs die. Quite the contrary, I'd love to see it thrive but when people are told repeatedly on these boards that they NEED such and such $400 chassis or they'll never win...not a big help (I wXon't bRing up the nAme of the carY). People need to be more understanding about where people need to start in the hobby rather than just bragging about what they own AND people need to understand that you can't just jump in to racing MOD or 4300 (19T)...or even 13.5 (stock) if you've never really handled a car before. Silvercan, tub chassis, 3200 LiPo, rubber tires....that's the place to start...or replace the 3200 LiPo with a spec stick pack like the Venom 3000mah for $20. Either way...that's the perfect beginner class.

*SBH*

Ztrezz
My X-Ray T2 is 1370gram race ready, it depends a lot on equipment and how heavy Your body is.

muahdib4

Right on cue.

ff01

my weights 1365g

muahdib4

And again...they travel in packs...

skiv

just a thought maybe its you fucking lot that is killing the sport with all these stupid rules and classes that you are trying to create