ROAR B/L motor Rules debate thread
01-03-2008, 03:16 PM
#241
Originally Posted by Steve Weiss
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
I'm also sure IF there is a market for what EVER wind motor - it would be built.
I guess concerns I may have is - with the One Up ideas...would we be having to always wonder did Company "X" use a different ga. wire, rotor size and material, timing adjustability, and other basic construction guidelines (Wye or Delta) which I guess really wouldn't be an issue as long as the classes use the .5 designation right? Sensored/Sensorless, etc.
Another concern is IDENTIFICATION of motors. What NOVAK has done with the 13.5 and 10.5 with the color ring has helped, but there are so many that were already on the market w/o the color rings, plus the ProRibbed and the Non Ribbed etc....not to mention all the OTHER MFG's that will be brought into the mix.
........MAN this has been a great thread, everybody is being really respectful and keeping this as a very good discussion... AWESOME!! Makes for a nice start to the NEW YEAR
01-03-2008, 03:23 PM
#242
Wow, Jon, wished I'd brought the donuts. Locally, I pushed hard at the local indoor track to get BL allowed. As the rotors made them (13.5) faster than brushed, I started testing bearings in my best brushed 27t motors.(in practice sessions, not in actual races!) I could gear higher and the lap times were very close to the same. I believe you can still in a five minute race, combine the two in one class! I'm suprised more of you haven't tested them. Good luck Dawn, You've got quite a task ahead of you! 
01-03-2008, 03:23 PM
#243
just changed my mind... it made ZERO sense.....
read posts below.
read posts below.
Last edited by Dawn Sanchez; 01-03-2008 at 03:37 PM.
01-03-2008, 03:24 PM
#245
It depends. I would like LRP and future Reedy motors to conform to a single legal specification. The problem is that you have big egos in race promotion who (sometimes with sponsor pressure) like to create their own rules (19T brushed motor rules are the perfect example) outside of ROAR's. If ROAR's rules are accepted as the standard for most races that is what we will make.
01-03-2008, 03:27 PM
#246
I think IF stock remains in nationals - it should be 17.5 only.
I would prefer to promote more 19T/Mod in our nationals with stated approved motors and stated tires to be used and tech'd. (IN 19T - THE STATED PRODUCT)
I do believe 19T/Mod in brushed and brushless is acceptable. 19T is a mod motor and we have had the combination for years now.
Last edited by Dawn Sanchez; 01-03-2008 at 03:38 PM.
01-03-2008, 03:35 PM
#247
so Rick, are you stating ROAR should/needs to come up with the standard in BL racing with the information we have gathered the last year with the MFG representatives working on BL rules and THESE will be the standard industry wide?
So, we know what to expect in the next few years because we can build from what we have about to go into print in the 2008 rule book?
That would be great... easy decisions now.....
01-03-2008, 03:36 PM
#248
There sure is alot of posts from my last one at 12pm. But to answer what was asked. We all run the sinter rotor(12.3) and Novak motors(13.5).I look at the lap times and we are all consistant with are lap times. The stock 27 motor did kick our butts. We have been using the correct gearing for our tracks.We usually are geared around 4.50 and on rubber C27 hand out tires.At one time we had our laps times for each heat and race posted but since they redid the site I have not had time to check if they are still posted.
01-03-2008, 03:41 PM
#249
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, 03:52 PM
#250
there will be specs for 5 cell (metal battery) in the rule book.. we ran the option at the nats last year in Seattle and it went well. But, with Lipo as a choice.... yep, 6 cell is the equivalent now as 7.4v is the choice. 3.7v for a 4 cell choice...... if 12th scalers want to go that direction... I haven't heard really.. so theres not much attention paid to that right now in my mind.
01-03-2008, 03:53 PM
#251
but I think stock has no place at a national event where 19T/Modified brushed and brushless have every necessary presence.There is no way to stop the sandbaggers in stock with our current system and with that system, the sandbaggers prevent the true stock racers from participating in ROAR nationals.
So, I think below nationals level... 27T and 17.5 should be allowed to run together with all weight specifications the same and let happen what will happen with stock brushed motors. If a track really MUST have a stock class at a nationals.. then 17.5 or higher number in brushless to simply avoid the who has what better advantage arguement that is going to happen. (yea, I know that will anger some folks out there.. but I was asked.. )
)
01-03-2008, 03:59 PM
#252
01-03-2008, 04:03 PM
#253
Who says we have to use Lipo.
Most racers in Australia still use Nimh.
I have used Lipo in my air RC activities and although it is suitable to air when things go wrong with Lipo it is very serious ie fires that cannot be put out, buildings burnt down.
In RC car application getting peak performance is always the key and this will lead to a much higher rate of failures. Particularly when warming batts, charging at high rates ect.
IMO I would ban all Lipos in RC car events as it is just a matter of time before there are some very serious failures.
Most racers in Australia still use Nimh.
I have used Lipo in my air RC activities and although it is suitable to air when things go wrong with Lipo it is very serious ie fires that cannot be put out, buildings burnt down.
In RC car application getting peak performance is always the key and this will lead to a much higher rate of failures. Particularly when warming batts, charging at high rates ect.
IMO I would ban all Lipos in RC car events as it is just a matter of time before there are some very serious failures.
01-03-2008, 04:05 PM
#254
The existing (one and only) ROAR brushless motor rule has been available for all to study for several years now. And yet, only two companies have submitted BL motors for ROAR approval. Why is this?
I'm sure many companies will show up at Snowbirds with their shiny new BL motors that they will expect to race. Motors, which they will claim are "Built to ROAR specs"---motors that have never been submitted for approval and which customers can not readily purchase. Why is this?
We, here, are debating new ROAR brushless motor rules but no one but Novak and LRP have even bothered to conform to the rules we have now. Why are these other companies unwilling to submit their motors for approval?
I'm sure many companies will show up at Snowbirds with their shiny new BL motors that they will expect to race. Motors, which they will claim are "Built to ROAR specs"---motors that have never been submitted for approval and which customers can not readily purchase. Why is this?
We, here, are debating new ROAR brushless motor rules but no one but Novak and LRP have even bothered to conform to the rules we have now. Why are these other companies unwilling to submit their motors for approval?
It depends. I would like LRP and future Reedy motors to conform to a single legal specification. The problem is that you have big egos in race promotion who (sometimes with sponsor pressure) like to create their own rules (19T brushed motor rules are the perfect example) outside of ROAR's. If ROAR's rules are accepted as the standard for most races that is what we will make.
01-03-2008, 04:05 PM
#255
Having read all the posts now, took a few hours to go play offroad, the general consensus is:
That 19t and 10.5 are comparable, which I do agree with, racing a 19t against 10.5 in rubber.
That 13.5 and 27t are not comparable.
So reasoning would point to the 13.5 as being to close to a 10.5,and the 13.5 is a mistake,
that happens when new technology comes about, and changes can be made.
The 17.5, from what I have read, could compete within the established stock class.
No Brainer there.
That 19t and 10.5 are comparable, which I do agree with, racing a 19t against 10.5 in rubber.
That 13.5 and 27t are not comparable.
So reasoning would point to the 13.5 as being to close to a 10.5,and the 13.5 is a mistake,
that happens when new technology comes about, and changes can be made.
The 17.5, from what I have read, could compete within the established stock class.
No Brainer there.