R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-16-2008, 01:34 PM   #16
Tech Master
 
JamesArluck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,233
Trader Rating: 52 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to JamesArluck
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
So ROAR has addressed 3 sore subjects of the last few years (brushless, lipo, and "pros" in stock). Whats left for them to do? Global Warming? The US Economy?

Things I see on the horizon:

- Once lipo takes off and nimh is all but forgotten look at the weight rules for cars.
- Looks like the lightweight body ban was tabled for now
- New battery technology for 4 cell applications

What else you got? It seems this committee hasn't been afraid to take on tough issues and make changes. We might as well get everything on the table while this good group of people is still around. Get them to start thinking about things...

Sorry ROAR committe members, I guess your job is never "done"
Things left to cover:

-Price limits for lipos and brushless motors
-Safety tests/specs for NiMH like they have with lipos
-one run foam tires
-outlawing oneways, or more enforcement of rough driving penaltys (no more "calling" oneways)
JamesArluck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 01:36 PM   #17
Regional Moderator
 
Darkseid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At my computer, duh...
Posts: 9,033
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

I'm not sure that the cost of hop ups would even factor into a reduction of weight. If you slap a Lipo in your car right now, any car...your under the standard weight limit. So if the limit gets reduced, no one would "need" to get lightweight parts.

If a car like the TA05R can come in well under weight with just a Lipo and no hop ups, I think all these people running at big events will be okay running X-Ray, Schumacher, Corally, etc...
__________________
TLR 22...Tamiya F104...
Darkseid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 01:39 PM   #18
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Nor-Cal
Posts: 1,853
Trader Rating: 18 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesArluck View Post
-outlawing oneways, or more enforcement of rough driving penaltys (no more "calling" oneways)
You've been racing with STLNLST for too many years.
__________________
SMC ( www.smc-racing.com the only place to order your batteries online.), Awesomatix, Gonzo Paints, BN Racing

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
Advil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 02:08 PM   #19
Tech Elite
 
Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ocala, Florida
Posts: 4,909
Default

These larger races could ask for an IFMAR sanctioning and then anyone could attend. but then why have worlds.. ya know.
You could go about it the other way with superlicensing/registering or atleast the recognition of it. Just gotta make sure the blocs update the master list weekly.

Other wise, the race hosts, or promotors, or other industry affiliates can get together and come up with some sort of ground rules on setting a series of events up to equate to a champion. Each of those races have their own points of interest. The rules may be different for each one - Heck they may actually all be the same.

JUST DONT GIVE OUT A GREEN JACKET.
__________________
Mason McCombs
NewRed Hobbies & Indoor Facility
Off-Road, Dirt Oval, Crawlers & Pullers
Mason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 02:20 PM   #20
Tech Master
 
timmay70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,701
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Not only does ROAR sanction the rules used at our races in Northern America, but they also provide the insurance for the event. A superlicense for IFMAR affiliated sanctioning bodies would all be fine, however, I don't see how they could automatically be covered with the ROAR provided insurance unless their membership fee was paid... Just a thought.

Would IFMAR sanction a non-worlds title event?

On the by, I think that racers should choose their shells at their own peril. If they want to race a lightweight shell, so be it. If they get tucked, or the shell disintegrates in one outing, they knew what they were getting into when they bought it. The shells don't last long on our LHS's shelves. We have both types of folks that race at our track, those that like them, and those that hate them. Where did the notion come from that they should be outlawed anyway, it's retarded to rule on something as mundane as that.
__________________
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 01-16-2008, 02:24 PM   #21
Tech Master
 
JamesArluck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,233
Trader Rating: 52 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to JamesArluck
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Advil View Post
You've been racing with STLNLST for too many years.
yep, and watching the DHI cup videos too many times
JamesArluck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 02:28 PM   #22
Tech Champion
 
Matt Howard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Abilene TX
Posts: 5,952
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmay70 View Post
Where did the notion come from that they should be outlawed anyway, it's retarded to rule on something as mundane as that.
I believe it was Dale Epp that wanted to outlaw them, you know, Mr. Protoform
__________________
Official member of The Guild of Calamitous Intent and proud supporter of Conjectural Technologies.
Serpent S411 LE kit #192
RCTech #361
Matt Howard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 02:31 PM   #23
Regional Moderator
 
mrrcguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jonesboro Akansas
Posts: 3,157
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default YEAH

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianM View Post
The independant races (I dont like the word outlaw) can become roar affilated races if they want to. There are fewer reasons not to do this than ever now. Especially if they can be counted as high level sactioned events and they can be used to gain IFMAR Worlds eligibility.

ROAR could also bring them in and form a national points series to crown a US CUP Champion.

Novak Race
Snow Birds
Carpet Nats
Reedy Race
On Road Nats
IIC
Cleveland

Did I miss any biggies?

Yeah, I just have not decided on a title for it yet, but its coming.

maybe "MID-AMERICA INTERNATIONAL TC CHAMPOINSHIPS".?
mrrcguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 02:52 PM   #24
Tech Master
 
timmay70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,701
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Howard View Post
I believe it was Dale Epp that wanted to outlaw them, you know, Mr. Protoform
Dale Epp makes some really nice shells, so I have respect for his work. I don't see how making thin shells effects him or racers that race his shells. If a racer racing another shell gets tucked, or wants to race a lightweight shell, how does it effect him or Protoform? If ROAR rules that all shells must be .030, how does that effect some of the off-road shells that are extremely thick? Why bother trying to regulate this? It seems like wasted effort that could be spent elsewhere.
__________________
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 01-16-2008, 02:54 PM   #25
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

On the shells. I believe its a cost thing. They have to make 2 of everything.
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 02:56 PM   #26
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

The Tour-De-France set a minimum weight not based on what technology could achieve but what was needed. Many bike makers would skip on saftey and just go for the lightest bike. The weight limit also stop bike makers from trying to lobby for rules that favored thier bikes so they could win the tour and strongarm the market.

At somepoint(future) I feel ROAR should stand their ground and say, this will be the minimum weight and will not be affected by changes in technology. The weight reduction in some areas of the car could be used to increase the durability of the car in other areas.
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 03:01 PM   #27
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,587
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

I think the lightweight body issue is mostly that:
A. It's pretty much considered a must have if they are legal
B. The "average guy" is turned off from touring cars by this, among many other developments.
C. The longevity of the body is shorter (which I also say you pays your money and takes your choice)

Plus body tucks suck.

Personally, I think that lightweight bodies are not a great thing, especially since they inspire so many 1 color paint jobs
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 03:08 PM   #28
Tech Champion
 
TimPotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Boynton Beach Fl > Randoph NJ
Posts: 7,481
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to TimPotter
Default

Yes Dale brought it to ROAR, and I believe EFRA too, but I do not think it is "retarded". He will most likey sell less bodies in the short term, he saw it as another " One Run" piece of the puzzle that could be eliminated.

Is his and many other people observations ( including Pro Racers ) , the ultra thin bodies are playing too much of a part in determining the results of race. From the One color paint jobs to the tuck and go method of passing, it is taking away from the overall show...

So take that out of the equation, and it is yet another thing that should be done to help a type of racing that is on Life Support.


Quote:
Originally Posted by timmay70 View Post
Where did the notion come from that they should be outlawed anyway, it's retarded to rule on something as mundane as that.
__________________
Clean Title & Escrow|p3|TRF|Tamiya|SerpentAmerica|FSEARA|Team Butter|RC 3|Munno |RCTECH #29|EAMotorsports|BMI|Novak|SpeedPassion|RadioPost
TimPotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 03:08 PM   #29
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
On the shells. I believe its a cost thing. They have to make 2 of everything.
I believe it is a cost thing too.

It is bad enough hobby shops have to choose brand and style of the week, then come up with the perfect ratio of lights to normal bodies to stock. If the LHS, Distributor, or manufacture gets the demand wrong or a untimely release of a new body any of those in the supply chain could be hurt resulting in higher cost passed onto the racers. Dead stock inventory hurts everyone. If a LHS could reduce inventory in one area, I am sure they will increase inventory in other areas, like stocking one or two more colors of paint for that body. A perfect solution for those monotone paint jobs


A .030 rule for onroad cars would not be a bad idea. Some of the die-hards will complain, but the fast guys will always be fast even with thicker shell. This rule would protect our wallets. For those that run only one or two bodies a year for thier car the savings may only be $1, but for the others including the LHS if could be in the hundreds each year.
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 03:20 PM   #30
Regional Moderator
 
Darkseid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At my computer, duh...
Posts: 9,033
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

I'm not a fan of the ultra thin bodies. To me, all it takes is to use one to realize that you don't want one. Last winter I can think of 6 straight...yes SIX...straight club races (one of which was a event race) where I went from high up in the A-main, to dead last, because my lightweight Protoform G6 tucked. I only tried that long to use it because I had a REALLY nice Core Creations paint sceme on it. Otherwise I would have stopped using it the first time it happened. The main problem being that no matter how well you drive, its not up to you whether or not it gets tucked. Its up to the person behind you.

That being said though, I'm also a fan of Formula 1. And as a fan of that series, and seeing whats being done to it by Max Mosely, I believe that when it comes to rules, you want to focus on the absolute essentials and not over regulate.

So if someone knows the drawbacks of running a ultra thin body, and still wants to risk running one, why should that be regulated?

On the flip side, anything that keeps me from having to look at another all white paint sceme at the big races our local races is definitely a plus.
__________________
TLR 22...Tamiya F104...
Darkseid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting Out... Here is what's left. tdiguy R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 4 04-23-2008 03:21 PM
What I have left... Fewski R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 1 09-19-2006 01:48 PM
All thats left!!!!!!! HVFracingwilly R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 12 08-03-2006 06:32 PM
non-roar bodies faster than roar? imjonah Electric On-Road 5 05-13-2005 07:40 PM
What's left lotus1 R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 5 05-27-2004 06:27 AM



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 03:21 AM.


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