R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-04-2008, 07:45 PM   #376
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Hohwart View Post
My point is that 19T/10.5 is not an intermediate class. It hard to argue with the fact that when R/C racing was biggest, and there were 20,000 ROAR members, there was no 19T class and there were no rebuildable stocks. There is no way to argue that these two developments helped racing.

17.5 is the stock/entry level/Sportsman class. 13.5 is the intermediate class, and modified BL/brushed is the top class. This is how I would officially structure it.
There's really no argument that those developments hurt racing either. I for one think they did help the hobby seeing as how racers no longer needed to own 2 different com lathes and the popularity of 19T in 1/12th class at local races all over.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 07:48 PM   #377
Tech Champion
 
AdrianM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,914
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

I race outdoors 12 months of the year. I have been racing mostly 19T and mod for the last 3 years. I have tested 13.5's and on our tracks they are way slower than 19T motors. The 10.5 might be a touch slower than a really good 19T.

There are 2 tracks in Tampa. One is 170x50 and the other is 185x85. 27T Stock is SSSLLLOOOOWWW on these tracks. 13.5 is still slow. 10.5/19T is perfect.

I do run mod from time to time but if I want to just have fun and not have to concentrate too much I run 10.5/19T. If 13.5 becomes the new spec mod motor it would really stink for all us outdoor mid talent racers.

If 13.5 is the new mid level class I am stuck between a motor that is too slow and a motor that is to fast (Open Mod).

I know that the indoor carpet tracks up north can be small and 10.5/19T's can be a handfull but try to look out for the rest of us. Most ROAR members live in CA, FL and TX where we run outdoors and only see a carpet track a couple times a year.
__________________
Adrian Martinez
What I run: Schumacher Mi5/Associated RC10R5.1/Associated RC12R5.2/Futaba/HobbyWing/Team EA Motorsports/BSR Racing
Where I run: Florida Indoor R/C Complex/Thunder Racing/Florida On Road State Series
AdrianM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 07:49 PM   #378
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tfrahm View Post
From the outside, looking in on this debate, the sad thing is that this is what happens when new technology is ignored for too long. In oval racing, the BRL has been running a smooth, successful racing program for a long time now. they have a huge head start on rules and an understanding of the technology involved. If ROAR makes sweeping changes to the defacto standards (i.e. BRL) for oval racing, it will (in my opinion) hurt ROAR -- oval racers will stick with BRL.
I have to disagree here...while oval racing may have adopted the technology early and have done well, this does not mean all of racing would have had the technology been adopted early. The comparability of BL to Brushed in oval may not be as comparable in other classes...and from what I've been reading here it definately isn't. Had this been adopted any earlier ROAR would have more of a mess to untangle now then they do in making the decision later.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 08:18 PM   #379
Tech Champion
 
Scottrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 6,212
Trader Rating: 245 (100%+)
Default

I'm firmly of the belief that whatever replaces Stock needs to be SLOWER than what is currently in place. The 17.5 really isn't slower, and goodness knows development will see it DEFINITELY outpacing current 27T motors if they aren't already (as some have said).

I LOVE 19T racing, but to Rick's point (and a point Bob Stormer has been making for a LONG time) the lap time difference between 19T and Mod isn't enough to justify the two. Bob's contention is that there are VERY few drivers who can adequately "harness" mod power. SO...I flex. If 13.5 (slower) needs to be the new "Intermediate" class I can buy that.

BUT, then I'd argue there's VERY little difference between this new intermediate and the Stock replacement IF it is at 17.5. I would argue that this plays PERFECTLY into the "slow down entry" movement by saying that, say, 19.5 is a better place to go.

So...

19.5

13.5

Open/Mod
__________________
Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors.

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED -Gil Scott-Heron (1949-2011)
Scottrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 08:29 PM   #380
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 396
Default

ASM-not riled, I started to talk about the 8 minute stuff and deleted it because I didn't want to lose the focus of this thread. No problem here!

AdrianM-You are correct, us folks up north (frozen in the snow) have different views what is fast and what is not because we run on smaller tracks with a lot of traction, some of us with foams. I run gas in the summer so I can't comment on outdoor up here. Kind of a mess isn't it?

What about having four classes:
Slow 17.5 or 21.5-same as stock today
Faster 13.5
A lot faster 10.5-close to 19t
Real fast Open Mod
Ted Flack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 08:51 PM   #381
ASM
Tech Master
 
ASM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Palm Bay, FL
Posts: 1,493
Trader Rating: 21 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Flack View Post
ASM-not riled, I started to talk about the 8 minute stuff and deleted it because I didn't want to lose the focus of this thread. No problem here!

AdrianM-You are correct, us folks up north (frozen in the snow) have different views what is fast and what is not because we run on smaller tracks with a lot of traction, some of us with foams. I run gas in the summer so I can't comment on outdoor up here. Kind of a mess isn't it?

What about having four classes:
Slow 17.5 or 21.5-same as stock today
Faster 13.5
A lot faster 10.5-close to 19t
Real fast Open Mod

Ted.....much appreciated.


I have to agree with AdrianM and Ted in their points. I also still believe the 10.5 class is needed. For those that believe you need to get rid of it, you're asking those who plan on moving up to make a pretty big jump in power. As most "stock" BL drivers have already admitted....they now own 13.5's. So really you're taking "stock" drivers/skilled guys and moving them to mod next?
Isn't 17.5, 10.5 and 3.5 mathematical enough to figure out? Again, my opinion is we should slow stock down in the future to a 17.5 if not this year, then certainly next year.
__________________
Scott Meeks

2016 & 2017 ROAR Region 4 VTA Champion
USVTA Member #116
ASM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 09:15 PM   #382
Tech Elite
 
Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ocala, Florida
Posts: 4,910
Default

12th scale related..
trailranger, if anything LiFEPO4 is actually the newest out of the bunch and offers some higher discharge rates.. which we may end up at in the end. But I have seen the shelf at the hobby shop. Reedy, Orion, Peak?, Losi, Max Amps, etc etc, Already on the LiPo bandwagon. This is not to say that there wont be a move towards LiFEPO4 in the future but why would we add weight back to the car at that point? I find values of 75-78g per iron phosphate cell + any sort of wire and packaging (2300mah) vs 3000mah lipo of 151g so even in the best case a LiFePo4 pack is 1g lighter but down 700mah and the cell is twice is tall as the lipo. (adjusting for similar mahs, the lipo would roughly be 136g) If the Lipos were laid side by side (like with a jumper over your tbar car) and not stacked, its obviously even lower. Who wouldn't call that an advantage? So a LiFePo4 has a higher discharge rate.. my 6k mah has handled a 4.5r on bead pulling/foam tearing high bite 2 drag strips attached by paperclip corners for the past 3 months quite well. There isn't much more drain on a battery other than a drag race or maybe some sort of pull-off between two vehicles. I don't think the discharge rates are an issue like they may have been in the past and obviously will only get better. The other thing is i can only find a123 making LiFePo4 cells - there are possibly others but i'm not finding them and they claim a proprietery technology (not sure if its on the manufacturing or the chemisty design?) so could/does this mean we are limited to only them? That wouldn't bode well.
I doubt you'll see LiFePo4 be considered this late in the game, but it could happen. Good information and a good chat buddy.
__________________
Mason McCombs
NewRed Hobbies & Indoor Facility
Off-Road, Dirt Oval, Crawlers & Pullers
Mason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 09:58 PM   #383
Tech Elite
 
Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ocala, Florida
Posts: 4,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailranger View Post
Before motors windings are choosen, the voltage at which the motors will be running is more critical. Many classes such as the 1:10 sedan and offroad are marginally affected by the use of LiPO's but when other classes such as Oval and 1:12 they are greatly affected by that change to LiPO.
Both classes were 7.2v in the past,(dirt oval still is 7.2v and 7.4 in areas) speedos already exist to run it and don't need to have any "specialized" components to handle it like they were when made for 4.8. These guys have UPPED the motors in the past to reclaim the speed from the drop in voltage. Now we would be going the other way and DOWNING the motors.
Barring voltage..People claim when they drop turns amp draw goes up.. So wouldn't it be logical that if they went to more turns that amp draw goes down? Steve? You're a R&D Guy. Am I right or backwards?
__________________
Mason McCombs
NewRed Hobbies & Indoor Facility
Off-Road, Dirt Oval, Crawlers & Pullers
Mason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 10:57 PM   #384
Tech Elite
 
Johnny Wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,419
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Here is a absolutely crazy thought. Since its showing that there isn't enough speed difference in BL motors between 13.5, 10.5 and mod, why doens't ROAR approve a bunch of brushed motors for racing, say something like a bushing 27t/24* stock motor, maybe some locked timing 19t motors and then some wide open modified motors.

Just too funny, and way to late into the night, and I'm just joking. LMAO
Johnny Wishbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 11:01 PM   #385
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

Mason in the Lithium family that is used in portable power there are other options. The most common is of the 26650 size due to the higher current loads and found in power tools. The other size the second in use are the 18650 cells. Bosch and Black&Decker use these 18650 in their smaller cordless tools and the LiIons are found in Laptops. A123 just happens to have best cell of about 500 manufactures using the LiFePO4 chemistry. The LiFePO4 chemistry is fairly new, but over time will become the cheapest to make. When LiPO Cylindrical cells become more stable and powerful that is when the 1:12 market should move away from the LiFePO4 chemistry. I insist on using a Cylindrical cells due to the nature of r/c hobbyist and to be able to let battery suppliers and car designers know what will be accepted. The evolution of LiPO hard cased bricks is not over and may take several different shapes including a 5-Cell Sub-C sized pack. In 1:12 the shapes would be quite vast as there are saddle pack cars and linked cars. With cylindrical cells, car designers can still carry on without having to worry will the next form of Lithium batteries fit my car. The nature of hobbyist also causes problems with hard cased LiPO's. Eventually there will be matched or "High Voltage" LiPO's and seeing those individual labels on each cell is a badge of honor for that cell. Yes some racers are content with "black box" battery racing, but the die hards want to inspect and rebuild everything. For those reasons alone Cylindrical cells should be the standard. Since majority of industries in portable power are using 26650, and some 18650 the R/C hobby should consider adopting that form factor to guarantee the stablity of supply and advancement of technology in our power source as NIMH production fades

The 1:10 class in my opinion will incorporate lithium cells fairly easily with out the need of many motor changes: 17.5, 13.5, 10.5, PROMOD. As the brushless technology and the Lithium technologies get better adding a 21.5 or higher windings may be needed.

The 1:12 class may suffer several hiccups a in to finding the right motor voltage scheme before getting it right. I just want to avoid too many of the hiccups before racers get run off or the class is killed. The 1:12 class carries many archaic features that could be eliminated in the switch to Lithium based batteries. Everything in the 1:12 class could be scaled down. Battery Size, Motor Size, ESC power handling, and the class would still be as fast and cheaper than as it sits right now with the 4-Cell NiMH / 540 motors. The stock running gear found in a RC18T could easily power a redesigned 1:12 car faster than current stock 1:12 cars. The reason would be in weight reduction. Rather than impose rules now that would force 1:12 cars to be clandestine around old technologies, approach it with a new perspective that allows the cars to progress further.

For the sake of it all ROAR should consider creating a time line in which the conversion to Brushless and LiPO will take place. Just like the FCC is doing with HDTV, setting a date at which the old technology will not be used. In the mean time, mixed class racing will have to ran. In the given structure of Brushless motors, if mixed racing gave the advantage to brushless more racers would covert early before the technology deadline. Since brushless and Lithium will get better over time, I would suggest adding another lower BL class be added immediately after the deadline to help reduce the overall speeds for new racers. This hobby needs lifetime hobbyist and scaring off newcomers with excessive speed and cost is not the way.
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 11:21 PM   #386
Tech Champion
 
C_O_jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wa.
Posts: 9,055
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wishbone View Post
Here is a absolutely crazy thought. Since its showing that there isn't enough speed difference in BL motors between 13.5, 10.5 and mod, why doens't ROAR approve a bunch of brushed motors for racing, say something like a bushing 27t/24* stock motor, maybe some locked timing 19t motors and then some wide open modified motors.

Just too funny, and way to late into the night, and I'm just joking. LMAO
What an amazing idea!

Why didn't I think of that?

Somebody needs to let Dawn know about this!

__________________
Bacon is Meat Candy
C_O_jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 11:46 PM   #387
Tech Master
 
timmay70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,701
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

So, how long have you been a sales rep for A123 with their bastard-ized sized cells that don't conform to any documented standards? And did you miss the point made earlier that the current lipo cells can be put into any shape to conform to what the RC industry will need? - Trolls, it's not the internet without them.

BTW, only the people that are receiving TV over the air (through antennas) will need special tuner boxes to receive broadcasts. Everyone with cable and DSS will still be able to use their old equipment. Anyone telling you otherwise is either lying, or doesn't know the facts.
__________________
Speed Merchant Rev7, Tekin, TQ Racing (wire), Team Tamale
RC Excitement - Buy where you race, support your local tracks.
ROAR #105242
timmay70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 01:29 AM   #388
51
Tech Regular
 
51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 360
Default

Wow...you guys sure can talk...lol. I tried to keep up on this thread, but the past two days have been murder.

Dawn and ROAR have established a good smattering of minds to analyze many different angles of this debate. I have no doubt that whatever ROAR decides will be the best compromise of all the scenarios be it brushed, brushless, lipo and nimh.

For me, I just want to get the rules established so that everyone knows where the industry sits and where it is going. This will hopefully allow the manufactures to create new products and bring new customers to our sport.

Make the decision ROAR, I have faith even if no one else does...lol.
__________________
Brent Thielke - Associated Team Manager
** AE Forum - www.aeforums.co.uk **
51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 04:42 AM   #389
Tech Master
 
miller tyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,712
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmay70 View Post
BTW, only the people that are receiving TV over the air (through antennas) will need special tuner boxes to receive broadcasts. Everyone with cable and DSS will still be able to use their old equipment. Anyone telling you otherwise is either lying, or doesn't know the facts.
As long as you have the Box...a lot of customers subscribe to analog cable which means 'cable ready tv' with the line hooked straight into the antenna hook-up, but analog is going bye-bye and you will still need a digital tuner box either from your cable provider or store. And a lot of that equipment in place more than a couple years is likely anaolg.
__________________
Ken Miller
RCTarget - Capricorn - Pro Level RC - MAX Power - Maxima Fuel - EA Motorsorts - TQ Wire

LONG LIVE OPEN MODIFIED
miller tyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 07:11 AM   #390
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 396
Default

This is from Josh Cyrul on the Novak thread:

"At dinner tonight, we all spoke (Bob Novak, Charlie S, Bob S (AE), Dieter and many others) about the speeds and lack of seperation in the classes due to the speeds...... Many ideas were kicked around and I know Bob Novak wants to sit down with everyone on Sunday to discuss things further to make it better...... Some thoughts are 17.5, 10.5 and 4.5 limits.... I wanted to go even further with 21.5, 17.5 and 10.5 with a Pro/F1 class (maybe 5.5 limit) where drivers can not compete in the other classes to give the races back to the racers rather than being dominated by "pro's"..... Other comments were about 5-cells, etc..... Interesting conversation and it's good to see that everyone is starting to agree more and more that there is a problem and we need to work on a solution to make it better for everyone...."

I think several of us have come up with this same combination. It would work outside as well.

Ted

Last edited by Ted Flack; 01-05-2008 at 07:35 AM.
Ted Flack 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 10:21 PM.


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