R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-03-2008, 02:03 PM   #226
Tech Master
 
sportpak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ft Wayne, IN
Posts: 1,314
Trader Rating: 26 (100%+)
Default

Slowing people down is like pulling teeth. Most people need to slow down to get truly better. Problem is, a decent percentage would rather quit first.

I ran the 17.5 in TC and liked it.
__________________
-Tamiya TA05-R - Tamiya M05 - Summit Raceway Ft. Wayne, IN

www.summitrcraceway.com
sportpak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 02:18 PM   #227
Tech Elite
 
SWTour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Coast...CALIF.
Posts: 2,874
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidAlford
Adding bearings is a start.
This is something I feel should/could have been done when Rebuildable Stock motors were introduced.

WAY back in the 70's and 80's when a Stock Motor PRICE Cap was what 25.00 I believe, you really couldn't do that because those little bearings were selling for over $5.00 each. So that made a STOCK motors price go up really high for the times.

Now ...what 20+ years later you can get imported bearings "TO THE CONSUMER" for .99c - $1.50 each. (YOU CAN PUT Bearings in your Motor CHEAPER than you can change Brushes)

....if 'BRUSHELESS' wasn't on the table for discussion...I think in this day and age that STOCK MOTORS should be a MACHINE WOULD Arm - SOLID STACK...no FUNNY STUFF...but stuffed in a Adjustable Timing Modified Style Can with STAND UP Brushes, but fully adjustable on the timing.

EASY TO TECH - Drill Holes for BALANCE ONLY - No lightening of Arms, and arms TAGGED for I.D.

Legalize Hybrid STOCK MOTORS - using ANY Legal MODIFIED style Can and limit the arms to APPROVED LEGAL ARMS built to SPEC.

But - now that we've moved to the Brushless Age - I don't think this is needed. (I personally never understood the NO Hybrid logic either...as long as ALL components used are LEGAL APPROVED components) but now I'm really getting off subject...LOL
__________________
Joe Myers
R/C Racing since 1985 ~ Santa Maria, CA (Central Coast)
2001-2012 - South-West Tour R/C Oval Series...will the SWT be revived?
Things are headed towards a return of the SWT Series, but for
2017 the focus will be on the Encino Velodrome (and dirt oval racing)
SWTour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 02:26 PM   #228
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,059
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

IMO all racing classes except novice and stick pack based classes should go to 5 cell.

The weight of the car shall remain as per 6 cell and this will allow two things. Reduced requirement for superlight weight expensive hop ups and it will allow the next generation of cars to be built stronger and cheaper. This will not only reduce the manufacturing cost and the purchase price for racers but limit the need to buy light weight upgrades. With a stronger cars there will also be reduce amount of maintance and replacement parts required.

The classes should be 13.5T stock, 8.5/10.5T(we run 8.5 here with 19T) and MOD, MOD racers may choose to use any 540 size Brushed or brushless motor all runing 5 cell.

Running 5 cell batteries at the current 6 cell minimum weight will reduce the power and slow the cars down, reduce drivetrain wear, tyre wear and reduce the cost of batteries slightly.

Running brushless stock classes will keep the spec classes as close as possible to the same, reduce cost as keeping brushed motors at peak performance requires rebuilding every run (yes racers do do this to get the edge on there competitors). This is less of a problem in MOD as 90% of MOD drivers are supported.

As for comments about which motor is closer to a 27T, it depends on lots of factors but mostly the size of the track and gearing. Our local tracks the 13.5T is nearly the same speed as 27T, if there was to be another turn of motor opted for at most it should be 15.5T. At local tracks there was one guy that tried a 17.5T and it was much slower than 27T.
frozenpod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 02:32 PM   #229
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: MI
Posts: 462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportpak View Post
Slowing people down is like pulling teeth. Most people need to slow down to get truly better. Problem is, a decent percentage would rather quit first.

I ran the 17.5 in TC and liked it.

What amazes me is that everyone thinks that slowing the cars down means that "they" personally have to go slower. ROAR offers rules for multiple classes because different racers want to go different speeds.

It floors me that the guys running the slowest class freak out (most of them) if you want to slow the slowest class down. We have faster classes to run and that's where the serious racers need to be.

If you want to go fast, run a faster class and leave the slowest class to the hobbyist and new people.
Unregistered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 02:33 PM   #230
Tech Elite
 
bigb11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: POUGHKEEPSIE,NY
Posts: 3,140
Trader Rating: 59 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to bigb11
Default

Bearings!! I agree no bearings, we had cheaters at our track that were using bearings. if 17.5 is closest to stock, let roar test them and make a decision.
__________________
PHAT QUAD RACING, HPI/HOTBODIES, RATZAS, DARKSIDE MOTOR SPORTS, PARMA, Brown Engineering, ROBITRONICS, RC AMERICA, PANTHER, TEKIN, TEAM HOLY ROLLER, Rev Tech/Epic, RC AFRICA, HITEC www.browneng.org, DE wheels
bigb11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 02:38 PM   #231
Tech Champion
 
John Tag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 8,925
Trader Rating: 42 (100%+)
Default

Anybody bring donuts..I have a fresh coffee....
__________________
www.express-motorsports.net for all your motor needs
Multi time National Champions,Reedy Champs,Vegas Champs,Birds, Champs,[email protected]

Team Associated-Express Motorsports-Trinity-Reflex Racing-A Main Hobbies-ProtekRC
John Tag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 02:43 PM   #232
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenpod View Post
IMO all racing classes except novice and stick pack based classes should go to 5 cell.

The weight of the car shall remain as per 6 cell and this will allow two things. Reduced requirement for superlight weight expensive hop ups and it will allow the next generation of cars to be built stronger and cheaper. This will not only reduce the manufacturing cost and the purchase price for racers but limit the need to buy light weight upgrades. With a stronger cars there will also be reduce amount of maintance and replacement parts required.

The classes should be 13.5T stock, 8.5/10.5T(we run 8.5 here with 19T) and MOD, MOD racers may choose to use any 540 size Brushed or brushless motor all runing 5 cell.

Running 5 cell batteries at the current 6 cell minimum weight will reduce the power and slow the cars down, reduce drivetrain wear, tyre wear and reduce the cost of batteries slightly.

Running brushless stock classes will keep the spec classes as close as possible to the same, reduce cost as keeping brushed motors at peak performance requires rebuilding every run (yes racers do do this to get the edge on there competitors). This is less of a problem in MOD as 90% of MOD drivers are supported.

As for comments about which motor is closer to a 27T, it depends on lots of factors but mostly the size of the track and gearing. Our local tracks the 13.5T is nearly the same speed as 27T, if there was to be another turn of motor opted for at most it should be 15.5T. At local tracks there was one guy that tried a 17.5T and it was much slower than 27T.
5 cells... no (exludes lipo)
heavier cars... no (heavy makes them break easier - more force at impact)
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 02:56 PM   #233
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: north-west Indiana
Posts: 749
Trader Rating: 18 (100%+)
Default

Where to start? I don't think slowing down the stock class is the answer. A lot of people are agreeing that it is for the sake of new racers, but lets face it, new racers don't belong at the regional or national levels. There does not need to be a class allocated for them at those events. New racers belong at the club level until they are able to run without hitting everything in sight. I do however agree that new racers need slower motors, but this needs to be enforced at the club level.

My view or opinion, keep the brushed stock class as it is, get rid of 19t and replace with a 13.5 brushless class, and keep mod the way it is. Overtime the 13.5 class will develop into the the biggest class and the stock class will fade away, then you can call the 13.5 stock and make a new class for where it was. Maybe the 10.5. This will allow clubs that run a 13.5 to run now not feel ousted by the new rules, and of course all of us who have bought 13.5 motors will be able to compete with them.
trilerian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 02:58 PM   #234
Tech Fanatic
 
Scrubb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
5 cells... no (exludes lipo)
heavier cars... no (heavy makes them break easier - more force at impact)
1/8 scale are heavier than 1/10, and 1/10th still break easier.

Weak cars with lead weight break easier than cars that are built stronger, they can both weight the same.
__________________
Mark Westerfield
Scrubb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 03:08 PM   #235
Tech Master
 
Mr RCTech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,291
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Sanchez View Post
yea, and ROAR should look to the 'Birds for guidelines....

ok.

Sorry, I couldn't live with that much longer.... (sorry Mike, you know I love ya!)


I meant by regulating lipo batteries by size as an opition for next year.

Brushless motors are going to get faster as the lipo batteries improve.

Cheers!!

Last edited by Mr RCTech; 01-03-2008 at 06:21 PM.
Mr RCTech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 03:10 PM   #236
Tech Regular
 
CBear3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 413
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

I think however, that with the quest for lower CG's and more centralized weight that has pushed chassis design lately; you wouldn't see too many chassis components beefed up in TC, just tungsten instead of lead weights. So now you've got the same weak car but with slightly slower speeds due to the 5c so you'd see a small improvement in durability.

Last edited by CBear3; 01-03-2008 at 03:12 PM. Reason: KE=1/2mv^2
CBear3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 03:51 PM   #237
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 352
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Sooo, after 236 posts I am curious, Dawn what are your feelings about this 17.5 talk with 27 turn. I would just like to know what you are thinking and considering. Is it even a possabality?

And a big THANK YOU for all you do.
Goggles Paesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 03:58 PM   #238
Tech Elite
 
SWTour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Coast...CALIF.
Posts: 2,874
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quick "Q" for the MFG. related people watching this thread...

With NOVAK being the only company now making a 17.5 motor...

If ROAR lays down a firm set of SPECS and REQUIREMENTS for a 17.5 motor -

HOW MANY COMPANIES WOULD PLAN TO BUILD THEM Using those required SPECS?
__________________
Joe Myers
R/C Racing since 1985 ~ Santa Maria, CA (Central Coast)
2001-2012 - South-West Tour R/C Oval Series...will the SWT be revived?
Things are headed towards a return of the SWT Series, but for
2017 the focus will be on the Encino Velodrome (and dirt oval racing)
SWTour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 04:02 PM   #239
The Evicerator
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 4,142
Default

I think the idea behind the specifications is to make it so that most everyone's different tear down brushless motor will meet the specifications as is with some minor alterations to rotors, etc.

The idea is not to force everyone to completely re-tool up a new motor... but to try to seguay what everyone has into something we can all agree on and attain easily.

Once all of that type of stuff is out of the way it's simply a matter of winding 17.5 turns on your stator instead of 3.5 or 13.5 or whatever
__________________
Steve Weiss
TEAM ASSOCIATED -- REEDY -- SANWA -- PROTOFORM -- 1UP Racing -- ActivRC -- P1 BRAND -- TEAM KINWALD -- TEAM STEVE INTERNATIONAL
Steve Weiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 04:05 PM   #240
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goggles Paesan View Post
Sooo, after 236 posts I am curious, Dawn what are your feelings about this 17.5 talk with 27 turn. I would just like to know what you are thinking and considering. Is it even a possabality?

And a big THANK YOU for all you do.
She already said its unlikely they will combine brushed and brushless motors (except mod), which is the right answer.
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roar Brushless motor debate thread. *Chrominator* Electric Off-Road 173 01-18-2008 10:52 AM
New ROAR rules Rfury Georgia Racing 9 01-16-2008 12:58 PM
Roar Rules rollagen Nitro On-Road 1 08-06-2007 06:04 PM
? on ROAR rules gator Electric On-Road 2 11-23-2002 12:13 AM
ROAR rules LooseCannon Nitro On-Road 18 09-08-2002 11:03 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 12:44 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