R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-15-2008, 06:42 PM   #586
Tech Addict
 
Zdiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Bullring
Posts: 734
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

I have followed this thread a little, but it is a lot of stuff to wade through, so I have missed a lot of it, but it is a subject that I have a lot of interest in. I don't know how much it has been discussed in the thread, but WHY, WHY, WHY would the logical thing to do not be to go to 2 cell lipo? We have tested them at our local track at great length, and the 2 cell/21.5 is proving to be identical in performance to a 17.5 with sub c's. Likewise, a 2 cell Lipo equipped 17.5 is proving to be equal to a 13.5 with sub c's. So that everyone still has the option to run either or, why couldn't stock be 17.5/sub c or 21.5 lipo, super stock be 17.5lipo or 13.5 sub c, and mod be whatever. As for run tiime, we are running 2000 mah 2 cells with 17.5's (which would be super stock) and we are only using around 1500mah in an 8 minute main. Obviously run time could become a bit of an issue in mod with a battery of this capacity, but in the days of old, half of the challenge to 1/12 scale was to make run time. Now it is not even an afterthought. As battery technology advances, it will only continue to improve anyway. For those that choose to run mod, if run time is an issue with Lipo, they by all means have the option to run sub c's. Just my .02
Zdiddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 06:54 PM   #587
Tech Champion
 
AdrianM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,914
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EVILGRAFX View Post
Nothing is impossible. Weight is a simple fix, ever see how much weight is being added to touring cars these days? A lighter motor would allow you to distribute weight where you want it.

People should quit being so close minded and start thinking outside the box. Start innovating and stop making excuses.

Never say never.
Historically every time we make our cars lighter we never add weight back to them. It make no sense to do so.

For example, when Lipo is fully accepted, sedans minimun weight will get lowered.
__________________
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 12-15-2008, 06:58 PM   #588
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianM View Post
Smaller motors would cause some HUGE problems for the car manufacturers. There is a pretty accepted front to rear weight bias that is required for a 1/12th car to handle right. If you put a lighter motor in the rear pod you would need to move weight on the chassis WAY back to regain the proper weight distribution. This is impossible to do since everything is slammed as far back as it can go on most chassis.
Well given some people have allready tried it and smaller motors worked fine on carpet it is possible.

As for moving the weight more rearward that's easy. You're thinking of current designs where the weight is as far back as it can go. But if you make a pod sized for a smaller motor, rather then retrofit an existing pod, then you will have a much shorter pod and that will allow you to move the weight even more to the rear if it is needed.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 07:06 PM   #589
Tech Champion
 
AdrianM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,914
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zdiddy View Post
I have followed this thread a little, but it is a lot of stuff to wade through, so I have missed a lot of it, but it is a subject that I have a lot of interest in. I don't know how much it has been discussed in the thread, but WHY, WHY, WHY would the logical thing to do not be to go to 2 cell lipo? We have tested them at our local track at great length, and the 2 cell/21.5 is proving to be identical in performance to a 17.5 with sub c's. Likewise, a 2 cell Lipo equipped 17.5 is proving to be equal to a 13.5 with sub c's. So that everyone still has the option to run either or, why couldn't stock be 17.5/sub c or 21.5 lipo, super stock be 17.5lipo or 13.5 sub c, and mod be whatever. As for run tiime, we are running 2000 mah 2 cells with 17.5's (which would be super stock) and we are only using around 1500mah in an 8 minute main. Obviously run time could become a bit of an issue in mod with a battery of this capacity, but in the days of old, half of the challenge to 1/12 scale was to make run time. Now it is not even an afterthought. As battery technology advances, it will only continue to improve anyway. For those that choose to run mod, if run time is an issue with Lipo, they by all means have the option to run sub c's. Just my .02
This is getting tested everywhere. In a lot of places racers are finding that 21.5/7.4 is faster than 17.5/sub-c and 17.5/7.4 is faster than 13.5/sub-c. Running mixed classes is not an even match at all tracks. Also as you motor up the speed increases DRAMATICALLY with 7.4 where with 3.7 its is a much more gradual increase.

Once you get past 21.5 on 7.4 its gets hard to handle really fast. For example 10.5/7.4 is REALLY FREAKIN FAST. In a DB10R World GT car we were turning lap times on an asphat track that were tha same as 1/8th Nitro on road lap times. You would need a BIG track to run any more motor than a 10.5/7.4. It is not just the speed, the voltage gives the cars incredible accelleration.

On 3.7v all the motors are more managable. You motor up one class to get back the speed you want and mods are still driveable by normal racers on normal size tracks.
__________________
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 12-15-2008, 07:19 PM   #590
Tech Champion
 
AdrianM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,914
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InspGadgt View Post
Well given some people have allready tried it and smaller motors worked fine on carpet it is possible.

As for moving the weight more rearward that's easy. You're thinking of current designs where the weight is as far back as it can go. But if you make a pod sized for a smaller motor, rather then retrofit an existing pod, then you will have a much shorter pod and that will allow you to move the weight even more to the rear if it is needed.
What does worked fine mean...Who tested it? I know guys who run all kinds of wacky stuff and swear it works great until they put it down against normal stuff and they see they are out to lunch.

As far as shorter rear pods...almost every car manufacturer has made thier rear pods longer in the last few months as the longer rear suspension member improves handling. Going the other direction and making the rear pods shorter than even the old pods would make for some ill handling cars.

I am not trying to come in here and poo poo everyone's ideas. I just want to add some perspective. You can't just change this or that on a car. Every change has effect and consequence. Current 1/12th cars seem like very simple machines but they are the product of almost 30 years or constant development. They are amazingly sophisticated for how little there is to them.
__________________
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 12-15-2008, 07:25 PM   #591
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Brian Bodine from Slapmaster has tested it.

Again they are lengthening the pod because that works with existing motor and electronics sizes. That all changes when you go to different sizes.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 10:32 PM   #592
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

If there is a change the industry will have to absorbe it . But it seems we have enough enginuity to do anything we want to. Problem is most of the racers have other obligations in life other than just buying all new stuff t play speed racer once or twice a week.
Seems to me there has to be a "Formula" not unlike what the trans am guys do. I love that vintage stuff ! Problem is , no one wants to go slow. But then again they also want to keep their cars in one piece. I see in other forums people suggesting that the slowest GT3 class might be the biggest. Ok ok.. thats touring cars but listen up please.
Setting up races where everyone is close no matter what they run.
making cars slower to make it more of a drivers race .
acceleration standardized almost by .... historic at best motors or changing the voltage from the source pack. We have enough toys to play with , lets race then , and if you have a 12th car and u want to run 3.7v and a 13.5, whatever ! bring on your 380 mini motor monsters and lets go toe to toe . just come out and race. Diversity is not only out strength but also neusence. things were far more fun when everyone only had a 12i or whatever but we all had the same crap. There were like 20 or more of us all 4 cell and a 27 pos motor. Trans Am has an ansewr for almost any configuration. Kinda like MINI M03 but 4wd and not plastic! Figuring out how to win without the FASTEST car on the track sounds like the best racing around! My 4 cell 12R5 was Amazing last friday. felt a bit slow but 1st week out you know. For now lets race because most people wont like what another says we need to do. Spend more time on the track proving yourself wothy of an opinion about what others should be running. For one I like the motor size we have and I love Lipos. Efficiency or not a brushless motor canbe made to run about any speed imaginable. Lets remember the sanctioning bodies want to slow the cars down. Making the cars lighter will only change setup. but that will also make the cars faster . So how do we formulate a ligitimate seudo reality toy car race. Final drive .. wind .. volts.. tires.. whatever it takes. but then industry... who picks what tire... the tire manufacture? Us? Hmmm, What ever happened to that fair trade agreement ? There will always be faster cars... better drivers... lets find out by racing. not crashing , not breaking, everyone finishes .... every time. well almost.
John St.Amant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 10:56 PM   #593
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 216
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianM View Post
What does worked fine mean...Who tested it? I know guys who run all kinds of wacky stuff and swear it works great until they put it down against normal stuff and they see they are out to lunch.


When someone is successful in something does not mean you, I or other will success also. By the same token, just because someone fails in trying something does not mean others will fail also. That’s why I want to encourage more people to try it. It’s a shame that, it seems to me, more people want to spend ten times the effort to argue here instead of putting the effort in trying them.

Last edited by Roland S; 12-15-2008 at 11:16 PM.
Roland S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 11:09 PM   #594
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 216
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianM View Post
As far as shorter rear pods...almost every car manufacturer has made thier rear pods longer in the last few months as the longer rear suspension member improves handling. Going the other direction and making the rear pods shorter than even the old pods would make for some ill handling cars.
I beg the difference.
First, to say making the rear pod shorter would make for some ill handling car is all pure assumption on your part, because any shorter pod than what we have now, does not allow enough space to put in the 540size motor of your choice. If you can’t put the motor in the pod, how can you run the car and then say it's an ill handling car?
Recently, the car manufacture makes the rear pod longer is because the stupid gear ratio we have to run with the 17.5tT motor, we need more space for big pinion we never though we need before, not because it makes the car handle better, and that's my opinion.
Roland S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 11:45 PM   #595
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 900
Default

It simply beggars belief that people can come on here and write things that are against someone with years of experience in this class, and working in a development role for a manufacturer.

Fundamentally, you guys are doing this class a lot of damage. You are saying that things we know don't work, will work. You are assuming that, because you've tried it at your Club and not lost out in the two or three races it's been run, that it's OK. You are blowing bubbles...

I don't find your names in the top ten of the big events, and I don't find them with a manufacturer either. You want to steam-roller the majority of 12th racers into something that you can't prove is competitive, involves a lot of investment, and will make people have to re-learn their hobby.

On top of that, you have no real alternative to offer, just a bunch of unsubstantiated tests from people who can't really drive as development drivers using kit that isn't approved by the National Associations.

I'll say it again - if this is such a god idea, then get it approved by your National Association as a class, and see how many people join in. This will be tried on this side of the pond, and we are not expecting a rush.

Adrian, I suggest we butt out and let the LiPo-loopy live in their own little World.
SlowerOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 11:54 PM   #596
Tech Champion
 
AdrianM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,914
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowerOne View Post
It simply beggars belief that people can come on here and write things that are against someone with years of experience in this class, and working in a development role for a manufacturer.

Fundamentally, you guys are doing this class a lot of damage. You are saying that things we know don't work, will work. You are assuming that, because you've tried it at your Club and not lost out in the two or three races it's been run, that it's OK. You are blowing bubbles...

I don't find your names in the top ten of the big events, and I don't find them with a manufacturer either. You want to steam-roller the majority of 12th racers into something that you can't prove is competitive, involves a lot of investment, and will make people have to re-learn their hobby.

On top of that, you have no real alternative to offer, just a bunch of unsubstantiated tests from people who can't really drive as development drivers using kit that isn't approved by the National Associations.

I'll say it again - if this is such a god idea, then get it approved by your National Association as a class, and see how many people join in. This will be tried on this side of the pond, and we are not expecting a rush.

Adrian, I suggest we butt out and let the LiPo-loopy live in their own little World.
...Awesome...will do!
__________________
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 12-16-2008, 12:01 AM   #597
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 131
Default

I think this thread is no longer useful. Somebody should close it...
Der Dicke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 02:29 AM   #598
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowerOne View Post
It simply beggars belief that people can come on here and write things that are against someone with years of experience in this class, and working in a development role for a manufacturer.

Fundamentally, you guys are doing this class a lot of damage. You are saying that things we know don't work, will work. You are assuming that, because you've tried it at your Club and not lost out in the two or three races it's been run, that it's OK. You are blowing bubbles...

I don't find your names in the top ten of the big events, and I don't find them with a manufacturer either. You want to steam-roller the majority of 12th racers into something that you can't prove is competitive, involves a lot of investment, and will make people have to re-learn their hobby.

On top of that, you have no real alternative to offer, just a bunch of unsubstantiated tests from people who can't really drive as development drivers using kit that isn't approved by the National Associations.

I'll say it again - if this is such a god idea, then get it approved by your National Association as a class, and see how many people join in. This will be tried on this side of the pond, and we are not expecting a rush.

Adrian, I suggest we butt out and let the LiPo-loopy live in their own little World.
Slapmaster is a manufacturer with years of experience...granted not a large one who gets his name in every mag or placing high at every event. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing. Nor does it mean that other people who may have years of experience but don't get their names listed all the time either don't know what they are talking about. Some of us aren't fortunate enough to live in an area where the big players race and have strong racing programs. But just because it doesn't work with your setup (even though with others it does) doesn't mean it won't work. I fully acknowledge that going to a smaller motor will require much more drastic changes then simply a smaller motor. A smaller pod might require a lower shock to keep the ratio the same of the pod length to height in order for it to work well or, since we are talking about drastically lighter cars already, might even require a complete change in suspension to something like a floating rear suspension. Those worked great in the past but were largely abandoned due to complexity and weight.

That said typically classes don't get approved first then people run them...usually it is the other way around. People start playing around with an idea then if it becomes popular enough the sanctioning body might decide to adopt a rule set for it.

I agree the other alternatives proposed here are more practical and more likely to happen in the near future. Though I would prefer not to have to run a reciever pack or a voltage booster. Who knows...this whole discussion might be moot before it even gets off the ground depending what future battery developments bring.

Last edited by InspGadgt; 12-16-2008 at 02:51 AM.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 09:11 AM   #599
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 216
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowerOne View Post
Adrian, I suggest we butt out and let the LiPo-loopy live in their own little World.
I'm in 100% agreement with you!
Roland S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 10:30 AM   #600
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

1:12 will evolve over time. Right now I see 1:12 going to 3.7V lipo because the only change that will occur is the battery pack. The 3.7V concept has gained alot of traction to becoming a organized class for the fall of 2009.

I feel the 3.7V and motor we currently use will be adequate for our racing pleasures for many years. All this talk of going slow or going fast is purely the decision of the racer. The racer decides if they want a mod speeds or stock speeds. With 7.4V the choice for slower speeds was not an option, which is why the 3.7V has gained ground with stock racers in 1:12. 3.7V provides racers who just want to show up at a track and drive the ability to do so. Eliminating the battery voodoo process from 1:12 will make it alot more attractive to current racers and future racers.

I posted this several pages back, but I do feel smaller motors do have a place in 1:12 racing, just not right now. In the future when more mini sensored motors are available, I can see the 1:12's making the switch to those 380 sized motors in the next decade. I still feel the power source for those 380 motors should be 3.7V LiPO to allow for a broad range of speeds from stock to mod. The possible 200g reduce in chassis, motor, esc and pod mass would be enough to offset the slight reduction in power from the 380 motors. There will also be a cost benefit to making the switch to 380 motors. To compare a 380 Novak system to a GTB Novak system the mini system is $100 less and racers would applicate those savings when building a new car. Even normal wear on the car's tires, bodies, bearings and chassis may be less to the switch to a 600g car, but now is not the time for the switch.

The 1:12 class is a fun and easy to maintain race class. For now, NiMH is good enough to race with. Next year LiPO's would be a good battery race with. A decade from now, maybe those micro motors would be better fit those bulky 540 brushless motors. Give the 1:12 racers time to adjust to the changes and the 1:12 race class will stay strong and stay fun.

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas! Don't forget to ask Santa for a 3.7V SMC LiPO for Christmas.
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1/12 forum ovalnator Electric On-Road 46181 Yesterday 02:42 PM
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 01:01 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