brians11

iTrader: (40)

It's hard to argue against this since the TQ in 10.5 would be 2nd in mod, it shouldn't be the intermediate class?

JayBee

iTrader: (31)

Sorry Rick...that wasn't what I was insinuating. I should've broadened that statement.

Crashby

So what you are saying, Rick, is that the Intermediate class will only be brushless as there is no brushed motors equal to the 13.5?

Dawn Sanchez

there also weren't battery wars that are never ending, brand new touring cars on a weekly basis, motor wars over who's cooling holes are in teh right place today and tire choices, body choices, hop ups that take an entire wall at my shop...

there was a car, a battery, a motor and four round wheels/tires and some dirt or pavement.....

and it was cheaper than flying planes.

I wish I had understood the ramifications of rebuildable stock motors when they came out and made it in our rule book... that time is a fog to me .. I have no idea how that happened so fast. What in ROAR ever moves that fast? LOL

I agree Rick, in the days of 20K membership.. it was more simple. Those days are gone. How do we get those 20K back and involved?

trailranger

[QUOTE=Mason;4038410]26650 is the SIZE ~26 x 65.xx mm. the only cars they have a chance fiting into current slots are front to back if you arent interfering with the shock.. and side to side slots will not work whatsoever unless you like a chassis that doesnt hold its shape lol. The other issue is not all of us seem to be talking about the same thing. A123's lithium phosphate (and whatever else is in there) is 3.3v. add two together and you're at 6.6v - Not the 7.4 we're talking.

Mason if you read my previous post I have addressed the 3.3V issues. A 6.6V pack would be a better compromise accross the board for all classes. It bridges the gap between 4-CEll, 5-CELL and 6-Cell NiMH by using one standard cell chemisty. When the LiPO technology gets better, then I say make the decsision to swith the chemisty of the 26650 cells away from LiFePO4.

Mason, a four cell 26650 pack is nearly the same volume as a 6-Cell Sub-C pack. When 1:12 cars moved from 6-cell to 4 cell, most chassis were designed with long slots for battery placement. Why the long slots? The t-bar was that long. Why was the t-bar that long, well the cars had 6-cells and all the radio gear used to fit before technology shrunk it down to two sugar cubes with wires for esc and rx.

I would rather see just a 2-cell 26650 1:12 class. It would nearly cut the entry cost of running 1:12 in half. Smaller motors, Smaller ESC's, Less wear on tires, less parts breakage, When LiPO 26650's come of age the increase from 6.6V to 7.4 volt should only be a marginal factor. If using a 4-CEll 26650the switch to lipo will be more than marginal, since the capacity would be doubled the 10.5 class and MOD would have insane speeds. With only 2-cells in 1:12, racers would have to choose between speed and dumping and dumping does not win a race.

The reason why I am pushing the 26650 cells is because that is what other industries are using. LapTops, PowerTools, Back Systems, EV's. Those markets along at least 100X bigger than the R/C industry and if the R/C hobby wants a cheaper souce of power I would say stick with a form factor that is being developed by people with deeper pockets. Since other markets are moving away from NiMH and NiCd I feel the R/C market should follow.

What I don't what is showing up at the track and seeing 100 different sizes of LiPO's of different manufactures some of great quality and some that are on the verge of starting a bonfire. By enforcing a size standard now it prevents spurious ventures by racers who think they are doing good but really just hurting thier wallet. I still would like to see the LiPO Hardcased Brick standard kept for 1:10 classes and allowed to run in conjunction with 26650 cells.

Rick Hohwart

I am not exactly sure what is equivalent. I think many would argue that a 19T is equivalent to a 13.5. Maybe 19T brushed should be allowed to race against 13.5?

Or why not let 23T japan stock motors race against 13.5? Or if 10.5 stays, let hand wound adjustable timing 19T motors race against them?

Unregistered

I don't think that the brushless motors need to be "equivalent" to the brushed class they compete in. If 13.5 is reasonably close to 19 turn but a little slower, I'm all for it. The guys that want to run brushless and work on setup instead of motors will have a class to run in.

I haven't run 17.5 yet but if it was a little slower than stock, that would be great also. Anything to get the cars back to a point where new people can race.

Rick Hohwart

It just needs to be fair. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that the entry level first time racers can reach comepetitive speeds with brushed motors.

Bigshades

iTrader: (28)

After racing Off-road for many years, i recently decided to give On-road a try. I bought a used TC3, 27turn, and used an Apogee 3800 limn. i was expecting to be blown away on the first race, which i was to a degree. i decided to run in rookie class, since i had almost no experience.

but after a few races, i was suprised to find that i didnt need to switch to BL, my brushed motor and xl-5 esc stayed up with those 13.5 guys. maybe i had a little better driving experience than the others carried over from off-road, but i felt the racing was very close. lap times were very close, but were inconsistent because we didnt know how to pass each other very well... lots of crashing and crunching...

on the rookie main, after i used my 13.5 for offroad, i put it in my TC3 just to see how it'd hold up. and to my suprise, i didnt feel a difference. i placed just the same as my qualifier. I honestly couldnt feel a difference. my lap times were close to the others, i guess it just came down to dodging the trafic...

In the end, i had tons of fun, and i dont think anyone could watch the race, and point out who was running brushed or brushless.

although after the race, i heard that the winner was running a sintered rotor, not bonded like i was. i guess it does make a difference. That make me think maybe we dont have to go to 17.5, but rather keep BONDED rotors in our 13.5's. i honestly couldnt tell the difference between bondedBL and brushed performance. Maybe you guys can see it, but thats because you can run consistently, and you dont rear-end other racers!

So i seriously think just keeping 13.5, but making sure to run BONDED rotors will keep things even. perhaps the only people who are experiencing problems are those who have been racing in the same class for an immesurable amount of time. Changing everyone to run 17.5 just so those who are already well established in the hobby, IMO, is a bad idea.

cheers!

C_O_jones

iTrader: (11)

How about going in a different direction concerning the 27t vs 13.5 battle.

If the motor rules were updated to allow the brushed 27t to use ball bearings and change the rule on Magnets, Ceramic, Neodymium or Ferrite only.
To allow Cobalt and other rare earth magnets.

That would allow newer technology to come into play in the stock class on a more equal footing.

edseb

No offense, but if you are running in a Novice class, there is no way to tell a speed difference between cars from other drivers in that class. Novice drivers could be running all sorts of other variables (gearing, batteries, how they carry corner speed, etc.) that would have a huge influence in comparing motors. The rotor in a 13.5 isn't just for speed, with a sintered rotor heat, torque, cogging, feel, push brakes, drag brakes, etc. are all felt. If anything rpm and top speed should be similar to a bonded rotor. Sintered is here to stay and most of the motors coming out these days have them, going to bonded is actually going backwards and causing other problems. A 17.5 is a better compromise and at this point a purchase is a purchase since many people don't have a bonded rotor motor.

Bigshades

iTrader: (28)

great idea! it would keep the brushed tuners alive, yet make them even more competitive! i think ball bearings would be the first thing to allow. i do not know much about different magnet materials, but i think allowing stronger magnets for brushed motors would be good too.

Johnny Wishbone

iTrader: (6)

Your right Rick, from what I've seen, a 13.5 with sintered rotor is closer to a 23turn brushed motor, and just the same a 13.5 bonded rotor motor is closer to a 27turn brushed motor. As far as 10.5/19t I have never seen a 10.5 bonded rotor motor compete against each other, and I don't think you can get a 10.5 with bonded rotor motor over the shelf, but I dunno.

Bearings in a 27T wouldn't be a deterent for most of the racers, not sure what its suppose to fix though.

Team Ash

iTrader: (22)

I agree with the above and from reading this thread it seems the majority of forum users do as well. I dont, however, think the amount of users on this is remotely close to the majority of racers.
Unfortunately there may be no way to include all these people in time for any rule change decisions in time for this year. So why not have a poll as Johnny Wishbone suggested. Make it short in duration, say 3 days to a week then take the results back to the ROARS committee. They could then use this info, if they think it could be called representative,to help in their decision.
I do personally think that this thread is in danger of just continuing on in circles until it is so bogged down with arguments that is totally useless.

Come on Dawn, bite the bullet, create a poll. I for one will my fellow club members know about it. Use the results at committee level for the good of all.

Terry

Team Ash

iTrader: (22)

This has also been spoken about locally and is a very good idea. I am sure that br 27 that can utilise the above changes and maybe more com segments as well could compete with 13.5.