R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-02-2008, 09:28 PM   #76
Ike
Tech Master
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,131
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Going to ask one more time... Has anyone ever run a 10.5 with a 4 cell battery pack to see how it compares to a 27T with a 6 cell?
Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:28 PM   #77
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,140
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

My baby is all growed up. :-)
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:32 PM   #78
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

Thank god I go duck hunting and own chest waders cause the $Hat is getting deep.

Brushless and Brushed motors will never be equal....NEVER! What would be fair in developing rules that keep the hobbyist in mind and the livelyhood of the R/C alive would be to find a compromise between what is already at hand with the outlook of what will be available in the future.

I don't want to bring LiPo's into the picture but really it has to be addressed when choosing motor classes. I am not in favor of LiPo's for racing, for bashing and sport racing they are great. The Euro Race Classes have swtiched to 5-Cell to help reduce the speeds that our technology has increased. 6-Cell and LiPo's are fairly "even" but 5-Cell and LiPos are not even close to being matched. So what kind of compromise will have to be developed? Do the rules favor 5-Cell and Prevent LiPo's from entering the race picture for another year or two? Or are the rules adopted to allow LiPO's now and risk the pandora's box of problems.

If LiPos are allowed the two most stable classes of racing will be disrupted.
1:12 and Oval. These classes have been around for many years and it would be a shame to have to delete this class based on a rule. If you convert oval or 1:12 cars to LiPO's the speeds are either to excessive with the current motor classes or if you change motor classes the result would be having to run motors like the 21.5T and pinions the size of spurs should you be able to fit them into the motor pod.

I suggest either accepting the fate of using NiMH for a few more years or adopt to LiFePO4 batteries (A123 and similar) to compromise and be similar to a 5-Cell NiMH pack. Once the decision of the power source is made, then start making the motor classes.

By going to 6.6V pack, yes there will have to be changes in every race class but at least it will not destroy Oval and 1:!2 by going to LiPO's
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:37 PM   #79
Tech Champion
 
Scottrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 6,212
Trader Rating: 245 (100%+)
Default

I've never run 13.5 or 17.5, but I had PLENTY of room in my cars (3.2R's, Darkside MX2, BMI DB12R) to run all the gear I needed for 10.5 with a 94T spur. I've got to believe using 78T (which are pretty readily available) I could roll out a 17.5 easily enough. I know Jason was looking very hard at BL combos when he was designing/developing the DB.

Steve, the short of Bodine's and my nearly 8 hour discussion was that incorporating LiPo into 1/12 should be done simultaneously with ending our marriage to .05/540 can size motors. I'm 100% with you--no receiver packs. Go to 2-cell configuration(s) and spec appropriate brushless .380 (or even smaller) size motors with appropriate wattage to reasonably emulate the speed categories (classes) we want.

The key to it is that for 1/12 incorporating LiPo will require a revolution. Let's just get the WHOLE revolution done at once rather than in two steps. No matter what is done we'll manage to piss off about half the racers, why not just piss 'em off once.
__________________
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 01-02-2008, 09:38 PM   #80
Tech Elite
 
corallyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Edmonds, Wash
Posts: 4,564
Trader Rating: 99 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike View Post
Going to ask one more time... Has anyone ever run a 10.5 with a 4 cell battery pack to see how it compares to a 27T with a 6 cell?
I think that would be tough to answer. TC as you know is 6 cell. TC mod is 5 cell. 4 cell in the U.S. is only limited to 1/12th so the comparision would be wrong (apple to orange). Japan uses 4 cell in TC but when they do they use BR motors as BL is still illegal to them. So the answer appears like it would come from someone doing some "rogue" testing.

My issue with this though is that it would require more problems than solutions. For one the TC would require a complete redesign and balancing would be harder still. In the long run selling some used 13.5 on ebay to the bashers and then buying the 17.5 if that is what becomes legal is the cheaper option.

Steve
corallyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:39 PM   #81
The Evicerator
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 4,142
Default

Interesting discussion we have going on in here...

First of all I'd like to quash any notion that Novak has some master plan to release slower motors in succession in a ploy to make everyone buy them one after another.

People tell us they want slower motors than what we have available... we do testing...we have third party testers test it... if everything seems good we release it.

Brushless technology has been advancing very quickly over the last few years and as mentioned before the 13.5 with a bonded rotor and a sintered rotor are two completely different beasts.

The 17.5 was a motor that we made available because some oval organizations specifically asked for a significantly slower motor that they could use... as word of this motor spread, demand for it grew and then it was put into full production/distribution.

As far as what motors are equal to others today it seems that most people tend to agree that the 10.5 and the 19T brushed motors seem fairly equal... they each have their own advantages in different aspects.

Then you get to the stock issue... 13.5 with a sintered rotor seems to be too fast when compared with the 27T brushed motors... so maybe a slower wind is in order...? enter talk of using the 17.5.

The 17.5 is definately slower...maybe too slow if you're looking for an equivalent? Maybe a 15.5 with a sintered rotor is a better match?

Is equality really what we need anyways?

Going to alot of the big races there are times when the 19T times are only a bit slower than the full blown modified times... there is definately some credibility in the idea that there should be a larger differential in speed among the classes.

IE: If "stock" class was so slow that the normal stock guys wouldn't enjoy it... it would compell them to step up to the "intermediate" class (somewhere between current stock and 19T speeds)... and then you'd have a full blown modified class above that for those who don't feel challenged enough by the "intermediate" class
__________________
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 01-02-2008, 09:41 PM   #82
Tech Elite
 
SWTour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Coast...CALIF.
Posts: 2,873
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verndog
Exactly...just as I was saying. Novak started this whole thing, with the first 13.5, now their the first 17.5 and you guys want to jump on the bandwagon that that is now the second "new stock equivalent Novak deleloped" and throw more $$ in their pocket.
I don't know why the 13.5 was built a couple years ago - I wasn't running B/L at the time.

I DO know why the 17.5 was built however... WE requested it.

WE (A group of us who wanted to get into B/L racing in OUR kind of racing) but we wanted to have options for all of the classes we were running to be able to make the switch.

WE tested the 18.5 ROCK CRAWLER motors first (since it was already available) because we didn't really want to have something NEW built just for our limited use. NOVAK had concerns about that because the 18.5 motors didn't have the thermal sensor built in and thought we may have overheat issues... SO they built us the 17.5's to test. THEY WERE PERFECT for one of our needs, but actually TOO fast for the class we were looking for. (We were looking for a motor to run 4 cell STOCK Speeds, but with the higher voltage LIPOS) The 17.5's instead ran equal to 4 cell STOCK WITH 4 cell. (Or a close to equal as you'll ever be able to get)

Back to the drawing board - in search of a motor to run on LIPO, that would be closer to 4 cell STOCK SPEEDS - we tested 21.5's and 25.5's. The 25.5's were TOO SLOW and the 21.5's are still a little TOO FAST, but we settled for the 21.5's for our project...and this WILL be our B/L STOCK CLASS in '08.

(I'm NOT pushing for the 21.5's to be used on anything with a gear box because THOSE really have NO rpm.)

Regardless the direction that ROAR chooses to go with Brushless, IMHO the first thing that needs to be done is to create a very specific set of SPECS (Much as has always been done with BRUSHED MOTORS) and make sure there are no GRAY areas that can be messed with.

Then it will be upto the MFG's to build motors to those SPECS...as they have ALWAYS had to do, until we were able to get a few things changed a few years ago with the 'rebuildable' series of Stock Motors.

I must also add, we received a lot of negatives about the idea of the 17.5 and the 21.5 amonst the OVAL guys too (while we were testing all year long), but once MOST of the guys tried them - they quickly changed that feeling...(Too often we hear a lot of negative crap from people who never even tried it...good goodness it isn't like BROCOLLI)
__________________
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 01-02-2008, 09:42 PM   #83
Tech Master
 
Tire Chunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,241
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

Lets see the biggest success of late in this hobby has been the 13.5. Yes it is faster than a 27t but not to the point that some one could run a 27t and not handle a 13.5.

Some one said the pros would stay away from 17.5/27t class to slow---well they love to run stock 27t so what would change.


How ever these issues shake out, our hobby would be hurt if 13.5 is sent packing!!!!!!!!!!! What BL motor is in more hands as of today? It seems like the market has spoken on what we should keep.
Tire Chunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:42 PM   #84
Tech Elite
 
corallyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Edmonds, Wash
Posts: 4,564
Trader Rating: 99 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrik View Post
I've never run 13.5 or 17.5, but I had PLENTY of room in my cars (3.2R's, Darkside MX2, BMI DB12R) to run all the gear I needed for 10.5 with a 94T spur. I've got to believe using 78T (which are pretty readily available) I could roll out a 17.5 easily enough. I know Jason was looking very hard at BL combos when he was designing/developing the DB.

Steve, the short of Bodine's and my nearly 8 hour discussion was that incorporating LiPo into 1/12 should be done simultaneously with ending our marriage to .05/540 can size motors. I'm 100% with you--no receiver packs. Go to 2-cell configuration(s) and spec appropriate brushless .380 (or even smaller) size motors with appropriate wattage to reasonably emulate the speed categories (classes) we want.

The key to it is that for 1/12 incorporating LiPo will require a revolution. Let's just get the WHOLE revolution done at once rather than in two steps. No matter what is done we'll manage to piss off about half the racers, why not just piss 'em off once.

You know if done correctly, this could be done. This is what I would propose. After testing of course with possibly as many as 3 to 4 different groups/companies, announce that these would be the rules starting in say 2010. The timeline would be like this....test issues..solve issues in 2008. Stay current rules for 2009, this would allow all the companies to sell some cars and start designing their new cars, then when 2010 rolls around....Bahm

Steve
corallyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:43 PM   #85
Tech Champion
 
Scottrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 6,212
Trader Rating: 245 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Sanchez View Post
in all seriousness.. you guys aren't helping.

17.5 is ONE MFG... that's the problem I have with completely sanctioning a motor that says this...
Dawn,

I'm asking in all earnestnes...do you really see a way around a single mfr spec? I don't, but I certainly don't have ALL the facts either. I know ROAR DESPERATELY want's to avoid such a scenario, but is a consistently level playing field even possible? What I envision (and have tried to describe for the "brushless is cheaper" zealots) is that we'll still have a "motor of the month" game going, but instead of $20-25 pit box weights we had in the old sealed stock motor days we'd have $80 pit box weights.

As fast as the technology is advancing (we've only scratched the surface) the only way I see to make it work is for adopting brushless at the regional and national level is to have the mfr's bid to create the "spec" motor for 2 year periods or whatever.

OR, can we specify a maximum output wattage at a given volt input? Or??? Whatever it is has to be EASILY checkable "on the ground".

Scottrik
__________________
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 01-02-2008, 09:47 PM   #86
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Weiss View Post
Interesting discussion we have going on in here...

First of all I'd like to quash any notion that Novak has some master plan to release slower motors in succession in a ploy to make everyone buy them one after another.

People tell us they want slower motors than what we have available... we do testing...we have third party testers test it... if everything seems good we release it.

Brushless technology has been advancing very quickly over the last few years and as mentioned before the 13.5 with a bonded rotor and a sintered rotor are two completely different beasts.

The 17.5 was a motor that we made available because some oval organizations specifically asked for a significantly slower motor that they could use... as word of this motor spread, demand for it grew and then it was put into full production/distribution.

As far as what motors are equal to others today it seems that most people tend to agree that the 10.5 and the 19T brushed motors seem fairly equal... they each have their own advantages in different aspects.

Then you get to the stock issue... 13.5 with a sintered rotor seems to be too fast when compared with the 27T brushed motors... so maybe a slower wind is in order...? enter talk of using the 17.5.

The 17.5 is definately slower...maybe too slow if you're looking for an equivalent? Maybe a 15.5 with a sintered rotor is a better match?

Is equality really what we need anyways?

Going to alot of the big races there are times when the 19T times are only a bit slower than the full blown modified times... there is definately some credibility in the idea that there should be a larger differential in speed among the classes.

IE: If "stock" class was so slow that the normal stock guys wouldn't enjoy it... it would compell them to step up to the "intermediate" class (somewhere between current stock and 19T speeds)... and then you'd have a full blown modified class above that for those who don't feel challenged enough by the "intermediate" class
I knew you would jump in Steve.. I've seen you lurking quite a while now..

So, this is what I wanted to hear.. why 17.5 is out there and what is Novak's take on equivalency.

Now, I'm more convinced.. leave stock alone. Allow BL in 19T at 10.5 and up and mod is below. Yes, I know that's bold saying 10.5 is 19T... but its just an example.

Stock is stock.. most of the guys here shouldn't be in stock.. its an entry level class and it should be the builder of our hobby.. not the safety zone.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:48 PM   #87
Ike
Tech Master
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,131
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corallyman View Post
I think that would be tough to answer. TC as you know is 6 cell. TC mod is 5 cell. 4 cell in the U.S. is only limited to 1/12th so the comparision would be wrong (apple to orange). Japan uses 4 cell in TC but when they do they use BR motors as BL is still illegal to them. So the answer appears like it would come from someone doing some "rogue" testing.

My issue with this though is that it would require more problems than solutions. For one the TC would require a complete redesign and balancing would be harder still. In the long run selling some used 13.5 on ebay to the bashers and then buying the 17.5 if that is what becomes legal is the cheaper option.

Steve
All it would really require is a dummy weight to make up for the lost space and weight from cells. I just don't see why the motors need to be slowed down when you could slow things down by reducing the number of cells which also makes thing cheaper for the entry level racer. Having 4 cell 10.5 as an entry level class and then 6 cell 10.5 as a mid level class between mod and stock would make it very easy for racers to move up a level without have to do anything but get some new packs or even combine some of their current packs. Just tossing out ideas...
Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:52 PM   #88
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Scottrik - nope, I can't.... years ago and for years, there was only one 19T motor on the approved list because of our type of wrapping rules. Come to find out, mabuchi wrap was not preferred.... cross wrapping was...

so, we opened up those rules as of July of 2007... and still.... not really many more 19T's on the list. And, I haven't run a brushed 19T in months but I did love the cross wrap I purchased from my hobby shop.. it was the bomb!!

So, I ask.... is this BL thing going the same direction? Is what is best for ROAR really what the racers are asking for? What is best for the long term health of our hobby? Do we kill off stock by bringing in the 17.5 as the equivalent... do we combine the classes... do we make more classes... what about 1/12th.. these guys are gonna be unhappy whatever we do... Lipo is involved.. how will that effect this BL discussion....

good thing we have a team of 7 other people to help with this decision plus all these threads I'm saving and emailing to the excom for them to read....

Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:53 PM   #89
Tech Elite
 
corallyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Edmonds, Wash
Posts: 4,564
Trader Rating: 99 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike View Post
All it would really require is a dummy weight to make up for the lost space and weight from cells. I just don't see why the motors need to be slowed down when you could slow things down by reducing the number of cells which also makes thing cheaper for the entry level racer. Having 4 cell 10.5 as an entry level class and then 6 cell 10.5 as a mid level class between mod and stock would make it very easy for racers to move up a level without have to do anything but get some new packs or even combine some of their current packs. Just tossing out ideas...
On the surface you might think that this would work....but now here comes the LIPO issue. 3.7 or 7.4 Your move

Steve
corallyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2008, 09:55 PM   #90
Tech Elite
 
wallyedmonds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brampton ont canada
Posts: 3,662
Default

10.5 is just like 19t about
13.5 is close to 10.5
and 17.5 is closest to stock
thats it
10.5 and 19t together is good
thats all i can say
and lipos in 1/12 would imo suck cuz of the 3.7
but 7.4 now thats crazy speed
wallyedmonds 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 02:00 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