ROAR B/L motor Rules debate thread
01-03-2008, 01:18 PM
#227
Originally Posted by DavidAlford
Adding bearings is a start.
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
01-03-2008, 01:26 PM
#228
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.
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.
01-03-2008, 01:32 PM
#229
Tech Regular
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.
01-03-2008, 01:43 PM
#232
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.
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.
heavier cars... no (heavy makes them break easier - more force at impact)
01-03-2008, 01:56 PM
#233
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.
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.
01-03-2008, 01:58 PM
#234
Weak cars with lead weight break easier than cars that are built stronger, they can both weight the same.
01-03-2008, 02:08 PM
#235
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 05:21 PM.
01-03-2008, 02:10 PM
#236
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 02:12 PM. Reason: KE=1/2mv^2
01-03-2008, 02:51 PM
#237
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.
And a big THANK YOU for all you do.
01-03-2008, 02:58 PM
#238
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?
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?
01-03-2008, 03:02 PM
#239
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
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