R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-23-2008, 06:49 AM   #751
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 131
Default

I have an idea. What do you think about this configuration for a stock class...

-2S2P A123 cell (6V, 2200mAh)
-13.5 or 17.5 brushless
-racetime: 10 or 12min

You can't overgear your motor, because you need to drive 10min. Only 1 type of cells allowed, so you don't have to pay a lot of money to find the best. The batteries don't get destroyed when they are empty. Fast charging in 15min...
Der Dicke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2008, 10:26 AM   #752
Tech Regular
 
Buggy Brad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NewHampshire
Posts: 418
Default

I like that set-up, that's what I run now. The only hitch is that A-123's are not ROAR approved and I don't expect them ever to be, for club racing it perfect........BB
__________________
.....It's not a problem until it's on fire....
Buggy Brad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2008, 11:07 AM   #753
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowerOne View Post
I guess some people are a little short of facts, or simply don't race this class. My ESC - 22g, my receiver - 7g, available voltage booster - 12g. Total 41g. One cell - 68g. And that's before we start talking about the foot print of the cell against the footprint of the speedo. As John posted above - "sometimes I can't believe what people put on here..."

I have watched every control class since 1980 - about six of them by my count in electric alone - and none of them lasted more than a year. Despite what is said, people don't race Spec classes, especially those that control so much. Also, from a safety angle in Europe, 7.4v is a complete non-starter in Pan Car classes.
SlowerOne, Good Point on the Spec. Spec may sound fun, but after a while no one wants to race it.

Slower one as you pointed out, that your setup is a little short on mass to make up the missing 68g battery. My ranges for mass were very accurate for brushless ESC. Maybe spliting the NiMH pack for linked cars to be a 2+1 saddle pack may be easier to balance with lighter gear. 00~0. Since the missing mass is closer to the Center of gravity, placing a lesser weight farhter out may have enough leverage to keep from tweaking. Check if you ESC will fit in the empty battery slot standing up. If so, use a filller piece of graphite/kydex/birch/lexan so you can mount the esc. Depending on how you route your wires from the esc and servo and where mount the RX you may have enough leverage from that 15g to blance out the car without going to lead.


My 1:12 has already going lipo, so I am not going to personal worry about NiMH setups. I was trying to help those may want to continue to race NiMH in a 3.7V race class. I think I read that ROAR is asking battery makers to submit a 3.7V lipo, so I would think ROAR is considering making 3.7V a race class soon.
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2008, 12:30 PM   #754
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 649
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miller tyme View Post
No using a Rx pack is not cheating but there have been a few post on here where guys have reported noticeably higher RPMS when running a Rx pack, something is odd.
That's just it. It's not odd at all. Most speedo's have a radio priority circuit that limits power to the motor when the pack voltage gets low. Running a receiver pack/booster defeats this circuit and provides full power at low voltage. That's why the RPM (and punch) goes up. Not some backfeed.
Fred_B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2008, 12:50 PM   #755
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailranger View Post
SlowerOne, Good Point on the Spec. Spec may sound fun, but after a while no one wants to race it.

Slower one as you pointed out, that your setup is a little short on mass to make up the missing 68g battery. My ranges for mass were very accurate for brushless ESC. Maybe spliting the NiMH pack for linked cars to be a 2+1 saddle pack may be easier to balance with lighter gear. 00~0. Since the missing mass is closer to the Center of gravity, placing a lesser weight farhter out may have enough leverage to keep from tweaking. Check if you ESC will fit in the empty battery slot standing up. If so, use a filller piece of graphite/kydex/birch/lexan so you can mount the esc. Depending on how you route your wires from the esc and servo and where mount the RX you may have enough leverage from that 15g to blance out the car without going to lead.


My 1:12 has already going lipo, so I am not going to personal worry about NiMH setups. I was trying to help those may want to continue to race NiMH in a 3.7V race class. I think I read that ROAR is asking battery makers to submit a 3.7V lipo, so I would think ROAR is considering making 3.7V a race class soon.
You can't stand the speedo up, it won't fit under the shock! Sorry, but your idea really is just a non-starter.

If you want to run LiPo, as I have said a thousand times, create a class. Suggestions based on equivalence are a non-starter because there is no equivalence. If someone just said "it's 17.5/single cell LiPo" everyone could pile in and race it. These ideas get nowhere because people are not prepared to go one way for the greater good - everyone thinks their idea is best and sticks to it. It'll take a couple of years longer than it needs to to get the LiPo-loopy into 12th (and we could do with every driver in this excellent class!) because people won't go with one decent suggestion.

For us in Europe it will have to be 3.7v, and 10.5 is looking the most likely motor for Stock. Mod will just be a case of motoring up until you need a brush to sweep up your mistakes!!
SlowerOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2008, 01:42 PM   #756
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

Like I said, my 1:12 has already gone LiPO. The local guys want 13.5 so i'll run 13.5 with LiPO.

I would much rather run 10.5 with 3.7V, but 13.5 has been the motor of choice in my area for since Novak came out with it.
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2008, 01:46 PM   #757
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: anywhere I can race 2wd dirt,and 1/12 onroad in MI.
Posts: 3,405
Trader Rating: 39 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailranger View Post
Like I said, my 1:12 has already gone LiPO. The local guys want 13.5 so i'll run 13.5 with LiPO.

I would much rather run 10.5 with 3.7V, but 13.5 has been the motor of choice in my area for since Novak came out with it.
Problem is for roar events you know they will go across the board with electric motor rules(17.5=stock,and 13.5 =SS, etc) which I personally dont have a problem with since the lower speeds in stock would just mean a lighter tire bill and it being a touch more freindly for newbs.
__________________
*Vandal 4wd Late model*XXX-T sprinter*Micro scale specialties 1/24 'rock monster' crawler*MSS Micro-Rail*MSS Micro-Funny*MSS Micro-Outlaw*
2wdMod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2008, 04:16 PM   #758
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wdMod View Post
Problem is for roar events you know they will go across the board with electric motor rules(17.5=stock,and 13.5 =SS, etc) which I personally dont have a problem with since the lower speeds in stock would just mean a lighter tire bill and it being a touch more freindly for newbs.

I think you are right 2wdMod, ROAR will class 3.7V motors just like they already have. I can't speak for ROAR, but 17.5 would most likely be the stock class and 13.5 Super Stock. ESC's are getting smaller and the lipo's are lighter than NiMH so maybe 17.5 will be zippy with the lost weight.

The 3.7V class is just taking off so there are no custom chassis made fo 3.7V. SMC has proven that all that is needed is just drop in the new battery with a rx booster or battery and go racing. In the future I see changes to the center shock to allow clear the taller battery pack that I suspect will be set to 25.1mm by ROAR.

If ROAR allows mixed NiMH and LiPO's to race together this will call for new linked chassis desings, but not new T-plate cars. The logical solution for allowing NiMH would be just drop to 3-cell to match the voltage and everyone uses the same motor class. Like I mentioned about 3-cell NiMH maybe a dual purpose battery tray will allow 3-cell NiHM battery in the middle or LiPO to be laid flat. Since I see the max battery height being raise, the battery cell in the middle should not cause any issues with the shock. If NiMH would be allowed I do not see a change in weight. The 794g weigh limit would remain as most burshless 1:12 weigh about 860 and removing a 65~70g NiMH would drop the weight to 794. So just like sedans, you will see liPO plates or stack of lead on 1:12 if ROAR keeps NiMH on the books.
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2008, 01:32 AM   #759
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trailranger View Post
I think you are right 2wdMod, ROAR will class 3.7V motors just like they already have. I can't speak for ROAR, but 17.5 would most likely be the stock class and 13.5 Super Stock. ESC's are getting smaller and the lipo's are lighter than NiMH so maybe 17.5 will be zippy with the lost weight.

The 3.7V class is just taking off so there are no custom chassis made fo 3.7V. SMC has proven that all that is needed is just drop in the new battery with a rx booster or battery and go racing. In the future I see changes to the center shock to allow clear the taller battery pack that I suspect will be set to 25.1mm by ROAR.

If ROAR allows mixed NiMH and LiPO's to race together this will call for new linked chassis desings, but not new T-plate cars. The logical solution for allowing NiMH would be just drop to 3-cell to match the voltage and everyone uses the same motor class. Like I mentioned about 3-cell NiMH maybe a dual purpose battery tray will allow 3-cell NiHM battery in the middle or LiPO to be laid flat. Since I see the max battery height being raise, the battery cell in the middle should not cause any issues with the shock. If NiMH would be allowed I do not see a change in weight. The 794g weigh limit would remain as most burshless 1:12 weigh about 860 and removing a 65~70g NiMH would drop the weight to 794. So just like sedans, you will see liPO plates or stack of lead on 1:12 if ROAR keeps NiMH on the books.
That's a scarily ill-informed post...

Nothing has been said about any change of Rules, so in the main it is speculation given as fact.

The first fact is that there is no equivalence possible between NiMh and LiPo in 12th, and wherever LiPo has been sanctioned, it has been in a different class.

3-cell is a non-starter as one cannot balance the car out and maintain the current chassis designs and settings.

Where are the plans to raise the max. battery height, and why would that be done. Fact is there aren't any such plans, as informed people know that doing that will significantly change the handling of the 12th car.

The assumption that LiPo and NiMh cars will race together is also not correct. In the same way that we have different motor classes, this is just another class, but defined by batteries.

If only people would stop throwing in all this speculation, and simply unite around one class (say 3.7v/10.5 BL) and get on with it, 12th would be getting more drivers. As it is, posts like this will discourage anyone wanting to use LiPo in 12th. That they contain a misleading view is disappointing for many people who will now be put off the class.
SlowerOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2008, 11:44 AM   #760
Tech Champion
 
AdrianM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,914
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

This is what is worst about the internet. Years ago clubs would race whatever the local guys wanted to run. After a while enough pople would be running the same stuff and ROAR would notice then refine the rules local tracks came up with for the new class.

Now we have all this speculation and arguing. In the end, despite much loud talk and suggestions on line the club racers STILL will run what they want locally and in the end the cream will rise to the top naturally and that what we will race.

In the meantime trying to pin down rules prematurely is worthless and a little dangerous.
__________________
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 12-24-2008, 02:16 PM   #761
Tech Fanatic
 
trailranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 946
Default

good point AdrianM bout being speculative on rules. I guess I should have let the big dogs chew this out first. I did see a few mentions of post some rules and maybe the class would take off, so I posted what I felt would be a good compromise to most. I was putting a few suggestions on how to bring the two types of races onto the same page by instead of having different motors, both cars would run nearly the same voltage. I was only providing suggestions on pack sizes, motors, voltages and layouts to let others think about the possibilities and effects if those were rules. Forums are a good way to bring ideas to the top-of-mind of others so they can think critically for themselves.

As slowerone keeps pointing out about NiMH that it may be hard to balance out a 3-cell car, maybe if new rules are made for 1:12, NiMH should be dropped completely along with brushed motors and the LiPO pack be made to one size to limit hurdles in the future. I really do not see why 3.7V can not co-exists with the 4-cell classes for few years until 3.7V Brushless is a popular and supported race class. If sedans have copies of foam and rubber of the same motor classes at the same event, why not 1:12 allowed to have duplicate classes with 4-cell and 3.7V as duplicate motor classes. IMO this would be a better way to judge the popularity and performance the 3.7V as a replacement for 4-cell classes.
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti
trailranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2008, 02:48 PM   #762
Tech Addict
 
gubbs3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 619
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

Good post Adrian. I for one, have not made any comments about what should be done to change 1/12. I won't either.

What I really like to see is what people are trying out with their own cars. Toss in a lipo, 1s, 2s, or whatever... then try a few different motors. Tell us what the performance is like and run times you get. This is how change occurs. As Adrian said you can't speculate on rules. Rules evolve around popularity and technology.

I would really like to try the 1s lipo. A question I have though, rather than running a receiver pack, has anyone tried wiring in a single cell? We do this where I race to give the receiver 6v to speed up the servo, and it doesn't require a whole pack.

I have a diagram on how the cell gets wired in, but it's lost in the chaos somewhere.
gubbs3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2008, 06:26 AM   #763
Company Representative
 
ammdrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,583
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default

Generaly when you add a cell you are only boosting rec and servo . The speedo will need the bump also. Can be done but will have to be wired a bit diff. I would bet two cells and you would be there.
__________________
Team Tekin, Team Scream, Paint By Mike, Team Mölzer Mowery Racing, EA Motorsports, Speedmerchant, TQ Wire

MMR Direct Minneapolis World Class Indoor Race Facility.
On Road and Off Road racing year round.

www.molzermoweryracing.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/MMR/160679913944205?__req=9

Check out You Tube mmrswracing. Every qualifier and every main uploaded at the end of every race day.
ammdrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2008, 08:13 AM   #764
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ammdrew View Post
Generaly when you add a cell you are only boosting rec and servo . The speedo will need the bump also. Can be done but will have to be wired a bit diff. I would bet two cells and you would be there.
Not sure I'd want to do this - those cells are NiMh, so you'd need two chargers and two sets of spare batteries. The voltage boosters will come on stream soon (Novak's 5463 for example) that are small and need no maintenance. That's be my choice...
SlowerOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2008, 10:31 AM   #765
Company Representative
 
ammdrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,583
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default

could be done with single lipo cell also..
__________________
Team Tekin, Team Scream, Paint By Mike, Team Mölzer Mowery Racing, EA Motorsports, Speedmerchant, TQ Wire

MMR Direct Minneapolis World Class Indoor Race Facility.
On Road and Off Road racing year round.

www.molzermoweryracing.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/MMR/160679913944205?__req=9

Check out You Tube mmrswracing. Every qualifier and every main uploaded at the end of every race day.
ammdrew 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 04:03 AM.


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