R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-25-2008, 02:57 PM   #481
Tech Master
 
gijoe64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Corona, Ca
Posts: 1,435
Trader Rating: 30 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John St.Amant View Post
LOL I'm pretty confidant I can handle it .. Problem is most ppl cant. And we need more ppl in this sport/hobby. I can afford to race , thats not the issue here . I for one greatly miss 10.5 in my T/C . Some of the best racing is where most everyone can be right there running with the pack so to speak. I had to give up off road racing as it is way out of hand. I love the global Spec GT class as its fast enough but not crazy! But still it would seem that everyone would perfer Li-Po's over "round cells" and 2 cells are way too fast in that car. As for T-Bars.... I know some ppl love 'em but... they are fading fast ! That fiberglass center section is best suited for billiard table smooth tracks , and last I checked .. billiard tables are far too small for 1/12th racing. Almost every car has gone to the non t-bar style and as for those that havnt well... time for a new design! And as for the matchers? If they havnt started doing lithium whatever .... perhaps they should have closed their doors long ago. Time chames things and things change the times.
Either S**t or get off the pot. Every class out there in every country is trying to slow the cars down, weather you like it or not. 5 cells for this 4 for that... I think it overdue actually. Things have gotten out of hand and I for one dont want to see R/C racing go down like Slot cars did! I hope I have made my point a bit more clear.
Boy your wrong about T-bar cars

CRC new T-Bar Gen-X
Asscoiated New T-bar conversion
X-ray new T-bar car at the worlds
Hotbodies T-bar car

Check the market! Most top drivers will tell you at a national level T-bar is the way to go. I run both T-bar and link, If you think manufactures are going to completly change a design that has worked for years think again. To much time and money has been spent on this simple design and if you take one type of car away, you take half the racers with it.
__________________
Raymon Robinson

ARC, LRP Go Blue!!
gijoe64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 03:21 PM   #482
Tech Elite
 
reenmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 2,539
Trader Rating: 26 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TVMRocket69 View Post
RC has Spec class and those TT01's which are slow and cheap. U want new racers in our hobby get them in there. Why mess with a formula thats worked for years. All these new classes are killing our Hobby more than the speed.
OK, I'll stop now, as this is seriously detracting from the thread. You're missing the entire point of the thread, what's being discussed, and the reasoning about it. Either go back and read the whole thing or tune out.
__________________
Pete Waydo
2010 Big Fat Turkey Race Mini Cooper AAA Main Champion
*** currently in stasis ***
reenmachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 03:25 PM   #483
Tech Addict
 
Tubaboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Riverton, WY
Posts: 582
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Right now there isn't a T-Bar compatible cell, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. One could simply put 2 2000mah lipos in parallel in a saddle pack to create a viable 3.7V Lipo. Even better, 2000mah cells are cheaper than 4000s!

As tech improves, it may even be possible to reduce the battery to only cover one half of the car, thus freeing up the other half for better balancing. Things like mounting the ESC & receiver pack (if that's necessary) on one side, closer to the rear.

I have seen a few images of cars on here that took a TrakPower Saddle pack, and only used 1 half for their 3.7 experiment. That battery fit pretty well on one side of a t-bar car.

Like others, I can't say that I'm sorry if battery matchers go out of business. On one hand, for most, this was something that they did as a side business, and those that still do, have found that demand has already crashed due to lipo use in 6 cell classes. For instance, SMC matches batteries on a weekly basis at most now. Before he used to match on a daily basis and couldn't keep up with demand. Unfortunately, those same matchers did themselves in by selling a crappy product for several months in which batteries arrived as dead cells, and didn't last more than a couple of races before blowing up.
__________________
www.wyomingrc.com | www.wyomingmodelerspark.com
Tubaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 03:39 PM   #484
Tech Master
 
TVMRocket69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lancaster Pa.
Posts: 1,902
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to TVMRocket69 Send a message via Yahoo to TVMRocket69
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robk View Post
There's a reason why nobody wants to race you. It's way too fast for the vast majority of people out there. It's probably too fast for you, no offense. I only say that because when I go to national races, there are about 3 or 4 guys actually driving the cars, and the rest of the A main is just hanging on. Not to mention, 10.5 is like .2 slower on the hot lap than mod. Ray Darroch's 10.5 1/12 time at the last ROAR nats would have TQ'd mod 1/12 for the first 2 or 3 rounds if I remember right. That should tell you how hard the cars are to drive.
Who doesn't want to race with me. and why? Is it because I try to help people or because I like mod? Or are U thinkin of someone else? And From what your saying about national a-mains 6-7 racers that made it can't drive. So if wat your saying is true anyone can make the a if they hang on.

I'm done with thread. Roar is gonna do what they want. I hope they do 1cell spec but It's their decission not mine.

See U at the Nats in March.
__________________
Bob Walker Jr.-Sponsor's-
AnswerUSA-RC Team Driver, G's R/C Raceway Team Driver, RBMods Team Driver, Kosmic R/C Fuel Team Driver, MurfDogg Motorworks Team Driver, Serpent S811B, Serpent S811t, MurfDogg Powered V-Desizn Carpet Ripper 5
TVMRocket69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 03:49 PM   #485
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default T-Bar LiPO

I posted this several pages back.

There is a 3.7V LiPO solution for Linked and T-bar cars.

It requires two pack sized of nearly EQUAL VOLUME of PACKS ALREADY IN PRODUCTION. This would provide nearly equal capacity so not much to complain about there.

For linked cas use the 4-cell Sub-Clength sized pack
92x47x23mm max dimensions


For T-Bar cars use the 3-cell Sub-C length sized pack (AKA Half Saddle)
70x47x30mm max dimensions


Sedans have asymetrical layouts and pan cars could too. place the battery on side of the T-plate, the ESC, RX, Wires, Servo on the other side.

A few of the guys at my local track are just going in and buying a TrackPower Saddle pack and going halves for $55 each. I have a linked car, so I built a custom pack similar to the SMC pack.
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 08:33 PM   #486
RC8
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Reality
Posts: 394
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailranger View Post
SUNK cost are non recoverable cost no matter the future decision.
Not exactly sure what a sunk cost is, but if your saying that because you already have a motor that you bought before, it's not costing you anything, that's seems silly to me. By that arguement the cost of either of these system varies depending on what you have already.

How can the cost vary from person to person? You need to compare apples to apples when trying to figure out the cost differences. I would think even a caveman would understand this.

Like this (as Roland stated):

Single cell/540 motor
1. ESC $150
2. Motor $75
3. Battery $50
4. Regulator/booster/rx pack $25

2S/380 motor
1. ESC $50
2. Motor $20 (seems low to me)
3. Battery $25 (seems low to me)

It's obvious that the single cell version costs more, fact. If I had to buy one of these systems, cost-wise it is a clear decision.
__________________
I have no signature, it could be misconstrued.
RC8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 09:04 PM   #487
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,586
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TVMRocket69 View Post
Who doesn't want to race with me. and why? Is it because I try to help people or because I like mod? Or are U thinkin of someone else? And From what your saying about national a-mains 6-7 racers that made it can't drive. So if wat your saying is true anyone can make the a if they hang on.

I'm done with thread. Roar is gonna do what they want. I hope they do 1cell spec but It's their decission not mine.

See U at the Nats in March.
I explained it to you. It has nothing to do with you. The cars are too fast.
Too fast for everyone. You will see in March.
__________________
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 11-25-2008, 09:16 PM   #488
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC8 View Post
Not exactly sure what a sunk cost is, but if your saying that because you already have a motor that you bought before, it's not costing you anything, that's seems silly to me. By that arguement the cost of either of these system varies depending on what you have already.

How can the cost vary from person to person? You need to compare apples to apples when trying to figure out the cost differences. I would think even a caveman would understand this.
.
Well, I already explained what sunk cost was. It is a cost that will not change no matter the future decision. The only cost that matters is the cost to retrofit existing equipment or the cost of buy all new.


Yes cost will vary person to person depending on what they already own. So no comparing apples to apples since everyones needs will vary. So converting 1:!2 to a mirco brushless system will not change the fact that last year you bought a 1:10 brushless system. If you own a RC18T with brushless and realized how much a P.O.S. all the micros are, then your sunk cost is owning the MIRCO Brushless system so your cost will vary too.

If you are a current 1:12 racer with a brushless system, then your cost will be minimal because you only have to buy a $10 RX pack to retrofit exsisting equipment. The battery cost is negated because, racers buy batteries frequently due to the short cycle lifespan. So a smart budget racer would only switch to 3.7V LiPO when thier last Main pack becomes a JUNK practice pack. Since batteries, tires and bodies are a varible cost, they only switching cost associated with going to 3.7V lipo is the RX pack.

If you are a current 1:12 race and switch to a mirco system: Then the outcome is that your old setup becomes a SUNK cost and has lost value and you will still need to buy Brushless system and Chassis designed for the new system making the switching cost over $350. Don't forget the varible cost of new tires, bodies and batteries. Yes you will need new tires and bodies if the car is alot lighter than right now. Add all the cost together and the Micro Brushless Setup will have the higher StartUP and Switching cost becuase many racers already own exsisting equipment.

If you are not a current 1:12 racer....Why the heck are you complaining about the switch 3.7V lipo. You still would have to buy evertying new:car, battery, motor, esc, tires and body. So why insist on pissing off a lot of verteran 1:12 racers who already own ESC's, MOTOR and Chassis designed for the current package just so they can run a MICRO system that has no set rules or whys to introduce a STOCK class?
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 09:38 PM   #489
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 216
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bs6ef View Post
Well after testing my new 380 brushless setup with lipo 7.4v cells i have come to a decision that it would not be the way forward for the 12scale, it was a great idea but just not practicle to implement.

Pro's
Minimum tyre wear
Less breakage due to light weight car (not that i hit anything)
ermmm thats it

Con's
New cells
new motor
new esc
new tyres (softer tyres)
new charger/balancer
less controllable (grip roll for the first time ever)
new setup

This all takes time and money which most drivers don't have.

After speaking to a few guys at the track they are all convinced that eventually we will go to 3.7v lipo, but not for a couple of years until they can get the run time in mod out of these packs which i am sure will not happen for a least two years and by then who knows we might even have a practicle option with the A123 cells.

Steve
Steve:

I hope you don’t mind me arguing with some of invalid points, I think, you made in your Con’s section.

1> New cells? It’s the same two cells you put them in serial or in parallel.
2> New motor? This is the only valid point you make, but it costs only $20.
3> New esc? If you don’t have a b’less esc, you need to buy one any way. If you already have one, you can use it regardless which type you have as I point it out in my post #252.
4> New tyres (softer tyres)? Of course you will need the softer tire, if you’re overpowering the chassis by using the 380size motor, not the 2030size I motor I recommend. I can run my car with magenta without any problem.
5> New charger/balancer? The battery I recommended and SMC battery have the same balancing tap. If you don’t have a lipo charger, of course you’ll need a new charger. If you already have a lipo charger that has a different balancing tap, then you will need a new charger if you can not find a balancing tap convert that suit your need, and that’s true to either battery you choose, so this point of yours is invalid, to me. If you would go to this website: http://www.maxamps.com and choose any lipo battery pack, you would need to make a selection, some with extra charge, in plug type. Wire size and, yes, balancing tap. There are 5 types of balancing taps available on this website and there may be more out there that I don’t know.
6> Less controllable (grip roll for the first time ever)? New setup? Well, you should have look at it as a completely new/different car and treat it as such. After all it’s a car that weights almost 2/3 of its original weight.


YGPM
Roland S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 11:22 PM   #490
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 216
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_B View Post
Roland, the problem that I have is the fact that YOU are the one that isn't open minded on this whole deal. Anyone that doesn't agree with you isn't being "open minded" and they are "wrong". You've thrown those two backhanded remarks my way often enough that I pretty much dismiss anything new that you have to say. It's a constant childlike "am to", "am not" type of argument that's tedious at best

Fact is that I've tried both single cell and 2 cell a long time ago. I found out over a year ago that single cell had good runtime and could use my existing equipment with a receiver pack. I could list out the point again but to be honest, it's not worth the time as you're not "open minded" enough to listen.


Fred:

First of all, we should be able to disagree all we want on merits of thing we discuss here.
Not that I have done, but what’s wrong with calling people closed minded and wrong? If we can back it up with reasons and evidence. The political correctness attitude should be thrown into trash. You can call me closed minded and wrong all you want, if you can prove it; if you can’t prove it, people can see that too.

In fact, you’ve just called me that by saying:
” Roland, the problem that I have is the fact that YOU are the one that isn't open minded on this whole deal.”
Let’s see what you can back up with. You back up with what I challenged you on my post # 41, in it I said: “Would you be open mind enough to reconsider your position if I can point out where you are wrong? Is it possible that you could be wrong for once, right?

You see, I gave you the benefit of doubt that you are never wrong in your life time by asking you: Is it possible that you could be wrong for once,“
I don’t know you in person, so I don’t really know whether you are open minded or not, and I did not make it as a statement. I post it as a question:
“Would you be open mind enough to reconsider your position if I can point out where you are wrong?”

So, please read carefully. I didn’t say you were closed minded and wrong. You just assume I did.

Was I right? When I asked you, could you be wrong in post #41?
Answer: I don’t know because you never faced up the challenge I posted to you. You never came back with an answer. You could have said “Roland, you are wrong; I did try it with a 2030 motor.” Or you could have come back and say: “Roland, you are right, what I tried was a 380size motor, let me try the 2030 motor and see.” You see, most of people would have assumed you never did try the 2030size motor, otherwise you would have answered right back. Now it’s up to the reader to decide who makes more sense, who is more reasonable here.


You said:
” You've thrown those two backhanded remarks my way often enough…… “
“ backhanded remark”? Why was it a backhanded remark when I said it direct to you by mentioning your name to began my post #41 with? Is it still backhanded remark when
I’ve just proved it was merely your assumptions?
“Often enough?” Can you back it up the “often enough” claim?

You said:” ….that I pretty much dismiss anything new that you have to say….”
Dismiss? Not only you did not dismiss what I have to say, you read into it and respond.
Oops, I’m sorry, I’ve just pointed out a flaw in your statement.

On one hand, you want to let me know that you’re dismissing me, or what I have to say,
And in the same paragraph, you began by calling my name to catch my attention, as if you have important message for me. You know I can describe you as a self-centered person based on that. You want to dismiss me and at the same time I should pay attention to you.

Enough said and I am going to end this by saying that we are adults and we can gentlemanly disagree with each other and argue with reasons in our arguments like I’ve just demonstrated. So, please keep the “childlike” argument, your words, not mine, to yourself.
Roland S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 12:15 AM   #491
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reenmachine View Post
Even then, you're wrong. Look at Formula 1, far and away the most expensive racing in the world. There is constant, year-round, 24/7 debate over costs and legions of people whose sole purpose in life is to figure out how to control and reduce those costs. Continuing with the F1 analogy, there is a similar effort underway to try and make it more feasible for new teams to enter the game. So, in a nutshell, CHEAPER AND EASIER YES.
Of course there are also legions of fans, and many manufacturers, who think that all this cost control is stupid. Many feel that F1 needs to get back to it's roots of unlimited technical innovation.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 12:26 AM   #492
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailranger View Post
I posted this several pages back.

There is a 3.7V LiPO solution for Linked and T-bar cars.

It requires two pack sized of nearly EQUAL VOLUME of PACKS ALREADY IN PRODUCTION. This would provide nearly equal capacity so not much to complain about there.

For linked cas use the 4-cell Sub-Clength sized pack
92x47x23mm max dimensions


For T-Bar cars use the 3-cell Sub-C length sized pack (AKA Half Saddle)
70x47x30mm max dimensions


Sedans have asymetrical layouts and pan cars could too. place the battery on side of the T-plate, the ESC, RX, Wires, Servo on the other side.

A few of the guys at my local track are just going in and buying a TrackPower Saddle pack and going halves for $55 each. I have a linked car, so I built a custom pack similar to the SMC pack.

Did you try out the Trakpower pack? 30mm height sounds very high.
Der Dicke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 07:44 AM   #493
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 1,544
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to John St.Amant Send a message via MSN to John St.Amant Send a message via Yahoo to John St.Amant
Default

the track power packs are a bit cumbersome. so far SMC's got the only thing for link cars. my advice is get a link car and a smc4000 1c pack and race it . sell the tbar car while u still can. they are becoming a thing of the past.
John St.Amant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 07:51 AM   #494
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 1,544
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to John St.Amant Send a message via MSN to John St.Amant Send a message via Yahoo to John St.Amant
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InspGadgt View Post
Of course there are also legions of fans, and many manufacturers, who think that all this cost control is stupid. Many feel that F1 needs to get back to it's roots of unlimited technical innovation.
F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports. I kinda miss the mansel days with computer controlled evereything .. but admit it.. this year and last were two of the most exciting years to watch ever .. and it was with nothing more than go-kart tech. gotta love it tho..... F1Freak here 4 sure !
and yes... they are too fast (1/12 the that is) even in stock for most people.
John St.Amant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 08:10 AM   #495
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 108
Default

The solution for a T-Bar car and 3.7 LiPO is to run the lipo on one side and the electronics on the other side unless the 3.7 LiPO weighs a lot more than the electronics. What's the weight on the SMC 3.7 LiPO?
MACHFIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1/12 forum ovalnator Electric On-Road 46180 Today 12:18 AM
1/10th pan car Taz_S Oval, Larger Scales and More 16138 09-25-2014 10:03 AM
The Nitro Pit Dbackmasta Arizona-New Mexico Racing 18732 09-13-2012 09:27 AM
new 19t motor from peak sukh Electric On-Road 77 07-13-2007 03:12 PM
The future of RC? - New Radio Technology stuff Electric On-Road 275 11-09-2005 01:49 PM
The Future Of The Nct....... Mike Dana Northwest Racers 122 09-02-2004 04:23 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 03:58 AM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net