R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-08-2008, 12:32 PM   #16
Tech Master
 
gijoe64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Corona, Ca
Posts: 1,435
Trader Rating: 30 (100%+)
Default

Hey here's an idea! Why don't the battery manufactures add weight to the lipos to match the weight of an 6 cell Nimh? Maybe a heavy case? This can be fixed but were still stuck on stupid
__________________
Raymon Robinson

ARC, LRP Go Blue!!
gijoe64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 12:48 PM   #17
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: All 48 states...
Posts: 2,053
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gijoe64 View Post
Hey here's an idea! Why don't the battery manufactures add weight to the lipos to match the weight of an 6 cell Nimh? Maybe a heavy case? This can be fixed but were still stuck on stupid
You forgot the no pun intended...lol! Regardless with lipo and bl tech being so new still and constantly evolving its all a guessing game. Personally I wouldnt worry about a minimum weight issue just yet as I see some car manufacturers eventually coming out with lipo friendly chassis......the one thing I would like to see changed which I feel will make the biggest difference. Would be for the BL motors to be made shorter so they dont put so much weight to the outside of the chassis. This I feel will be the biggest improvement to making balancing our cars much easier.
__________________
Schuurspeed / Aero-model / Gear One / LG1
www.OHRCR.com
Gitsum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 01:23 PM   #18
Tech Addict
 
Tubaboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Riverton, WY
Posts: 582
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

It was mentioned somewhere earlier that ROAR is reducing weights for 09 by 60 grams.

That should get rid of a decent chunk of lead.

PB
__________________
www.wyomingrc.com | www.wyomingmodelerspark.com
Tubaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 09:11 PM   #19
Tech Master
 
smoke81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 1,224
Send a message via AIM to smoke81 Send a message via Yahoo to smoke81
Default

I really wish ROAR would let the members vote on this stuff.
__________________
Dustin Layne
smoke81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 09:22 PM   #20
Tech Addict
 
Raffell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 741
Default

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). Thanks this explains a lot with a little.
__________________
RacingEntertainmenTofCaliforniA (RETCA)
Team Holy Rollers -Karting Division
Raffell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 09:39 PM   #21
Tech Elite
 
Jochim_18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CALI
Posts: 2,372
Trader Rating: 10 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
That is offset a little by the fact that the cars will be faster at a lighter weight. It is amazing what big a difference two identical cars at 100g difference in weight can do to the speed. A lot more then I thought it would be!
Weight make a lot of difference in race, Lighther car is always fast. But theres pro's and con's lesser weight on the car make it feel twitchy and heavier car is more planted.

I would say around 1400 gm will be perfect for electric sedan racing.
__________________
Localrcracing.com - Your premiere source of Radio controlled Racing in central California.

Visaliahobbies.com * SkyRC * casterracingparts.com
Jochim_18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 10:29 PM   #22
Tech Elite
 
artwork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Thornton, CO
Posts: 3,109
Trader Rating: 62 (100%+)
Default

It may seem like a big surprise but I do not agree with 90% of what people have said in this thread. I think the lowering of the weight anything below 1500 grams will be a problem. For me the issue it with keeping the car in balance from side to side not about the overall weight. In order to counteract the weight of the electronics that are on the left side of the car you must add weight to the right side of the car. If not simply the car will drive unbalanced. It seems to me like a lot of people in this thread don't mind driving a car that is unbalanced, but not me. I like the car to feel very similar right to left...especially when you go to snowbirds and they run the course backwards.

Until electronics are the same weight as a LIPO then the side to side balance will always be an issue for any traditional car.

Cars will continue to evolve I just think that ROAR has simply jumped the gun and should wait until there are more cars on the market that can benefit from the lower weight setup. I know companies are working on next gen cars that are LIPO friendly but I simply do not see any breaking into the market for 12-24 months.

All of you guys running round cells are really screwed!
__________________
Sanwa | R1 Wurks | Avid | 2mm Designs
artwork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 10:43 PM   #23
Tech Elite
 
SWTour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Coast...CALIF.
Posts: 2,873
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke81
I really wish ROAR would let the members vote on this stuff.
If they did votes on stuff like this you have to figure since only 202 MEMBER voted in the presidential re-election with a vote that counted...that a vote on a TOURING CAR issue would have probably only involved about 14-15 of those votes, so 8 voting members could have decided your fate ...

As far as the WEIGHT vs BALANCE and Handling issues...if lighter makes the car unbalanced and not work as well....well then I guess guys will ADD the needed weight for handling...but those others may choose chancing a lighter car and NOT having to add several ozs. of weight.

A lighter weight rules doesn't mean you HAVE to run that light, only that you can. If it turns out there is no benefit from it ...you bet your AXX guys will weigh what ever is needed to make the car work.



Remember THIS...when YOU complain about R.O.A.R.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Info taken from the ROAR Web Site at www.roarracing.com

2008 ELECTION RESULTS

228 votes cast out of 3934 members 5.8 % of membership -- Not counted were 21 ballots of memberships expired and 11 ballots of non-members

President

Dawn Sanchez 161
Gary O'Brien 41


Which is the result of ROAR members who care enough to vote. ROAR has done some good things under the watch of Dawn...but only 202 of 3934 bothered to cast a countable vote for re-election...
__________________
Joe Myers
R/C Racing since 1985 ~ Santa Maria, CA (Central Coast)
2001-2012 - South-West Tour R/C Oval Series...will the SWT be revived?
Things are headed towards a return of the SWT Series, but for
2017 the focus will be on the Encino Velodrome (and dirt oval racing)
SWTour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 11:28 PM   #24
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: All 48 states...
Posts: 2,053
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artwork View Post
It may seem like a big surprise but I do not agree with 90% of what people have said in this thread. I think the lowering of the weight anything below 1500 grams will be a problem. For me the issue it with keeping the car in balance from side to side not about the overall weight. In order to counteract the weight of the electronics that are on the left side of the car you must add weight to the right side of the car. If not simply the car will drive unbalanced. It seems to me like a lot of people in this thread don't mind driving a car that is unbalanced, but not me. I like the car to feel very similar right to left...especially when you go to snowbirds and they run the course backwards.

Until electronics are the same weight as a LIPO then the side to side balance will always be an issue for any traditional car.

Cars will continue to evolve I just think that ROAR has simply jumped the gun and should wait until there are more cars on the market that can benefit from the lower weight setup. I know companies are working on next gen cars that are LIPO friendly but I simply do not see any breaking into the market for 12-24 months.

All of you guys running round cells are really screwed!
I have to agree that running a unbalanced car is no fun. Roar definitely is jumping the gun a bit I feel they should wait and see what happens to lipos and bl systems and see if it tapers off. I am fine with the 1500 weight I dont think it will be any lower except for some events like the Snowbirds but as stated nothing says you have to be that weight. Im sure a balanced car will run more consistent then a unbalanced one...
__________________
Schuurspeed / Aero-model / Gear One / LG1
www.OHRCR.com
Gitsum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 12:26 AM   #25
mok
Tech Master
 
mok's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,075
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Send a message via MSN to mok Send a message via Skype™ to mok
Default

I agree with all the comments about it being too soon..
yes, it would appear on the surface that weight limits are an issue
but who knows how things are going to develop now that lipos are approved etc

Also, something that i consider when looking at minimum weights..

6 cell tub chassis.. hard to get to 1500gms as chassis weight is an issue
6 cell carbon fibre chassis.. already light, easy to be spot on with the weight but have to add lead etc

Under 6 nimh rules @ 1500 gms, carbon fibre chassis has no specific advantage over a tub chassis. The difference in weight between a carbon vs tub chassis could be as little as 30grams.

If that were dropped to 1400gms, all of a sudden carbon fibre chassis have weight advantage for the fact that tub chassis are almost impossible to get down to a race weight such as this. The difference in weight between the 2 chassis now would be over 100gms which is a huge difference on the track.

I say the spirit of rc would mean that its meant to be fun and competitive with no real advantage for those with extra $$ to spend. If you want this to remain, you need to leave the weight limits around 1500gms. If you want tub chassis to be uncompetitive and discourage low income entry level racers (who are the foundation of rc racing as far as i see) then drop the weight limits to around 1400gms and give every weight advantage back to a more expensive carbon fibre chassis.

As a newcomer, you're not going to hang around long when you realise its going to cost you $1000 to be competitive.

Just my 2 cents

-Mark
__________________
XRAY T3'2011 / TEKIN RS PRO / LRP X12 / HYPERION SWIFT G3 RACE PACKS / FUTABA S9551 / SPEKTRUM DX3R
www.epracer.com - www.precc.org.au - www.westcoastmodelrallyclub.asn.au - www.onroadrccarclubbunbury.org.au
mok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 12:50 AM   #26
Tech Addict
 
Adam?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: ohhh, that guy...
Posts: 639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitsum View Post
Im sure a balanced car will run more consistent then a unbalanced one...
Which gives that crappy old Losi even more opportunity to whip all the newer cars! It's like a bad dream...

I kid, it's a cool car, but I don't think a rule change that could possibly disadvantage every other car while giving a couple of others an edge is the right move.
Adam? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 01:37 AM   #27
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,305
Default

Crap, my club don't have minimum weight rules because it is too hard to enforce. Yes, too hard. That is why the guy with a CF car will have much more advantage than a TA05, which I drive. Heck, there is no excuse to lose against me that has almost a 100g of handicap I have pretty much all the lightweight things I can possibly have except the CF conversion, which goes against the idea of a tub car.

Anyway, at the club level racing, a lower weight limit will give more advantage to the people that have CF cars. Then all of a sudden, there is more of a reason why you need to buy an expensive car to compete? Where does this end?
redbones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 01:54 AM   #28
mok
Tech Master
 
mok's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,075
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Send a message via MSN to mok Send a message via Skype™ to mok
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbones View Post
Crap, my club don't have minimum weight rules because it is too hard to enforce. Yes, too hard.
Too hard? Thats crazy talk heh...
__________________
XRAY T3'2011 / TEKIN RS PRO / LRP X12 / HYPERION SWIFT G3 RACE PACKS / FUTABA S9551 / SPEKTRUM DX3R
www.epracer.com - www.precc.org.au - www.westcoastmodelrallyclub.asn.au - www.onroadrccarclubbunbury.org.au
mok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 04:45 AM   #29
Tech Adept
 
myan_gsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Melbourne, AUS
Posts: 121
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

There are so many advantages of running a car light, some of which mentioned above. Less tyre wear longer, run times,faster etc. Most tub cars are light enough with a lipo in them that it wouldn't be a disadvantage anyway. my TA05 minus weights is around 1390 with a lipo pack in it. On to batteries (dont want to wage war here)... From what i've seem from lipo thus far is far superior reliability. Not once racing at the club have i seen one fail (not to say they never do) but i've had a NMIH explode in my face which was rather unpleasant. Its time to get with the times i say and embrace these new technologies which will have positive impact on our sport. I do understand the importance of a balanced car, but no pain no gain right. Manufacturers will have to respond with the current rule changes and produce equipment suitable for OUR requirements, its only a matter of time.
__________________
---Tamiya 416X---Tamiya TRF416WE---Tamiya TA05R---Tamiya F104 Pro ---Tamiya F103R 15th Anniversary ---Tamiya F103---Tamiya F103GT---Tamiya TL01---

www.brccc.org
myan racing (coming soon)
myan_gsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yokomo MR-4 TC Thread Speedo Electric On-Road 2868 05-05-2015 03:38 PM
SVM SPEEDWAY.. Sun Valley, CA. RCRjuanabbe Racing Forum 5499 01-01-2015 01:03 AM
WTT: NEW SEALED Wii for R/C Heli, Plane, Car or Radio/Gear IDriveSlow R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 11 09-05-2007 05:38 PM
ROAR to 4 cell.... Advil Electric On-Road 1394 12-21-2006 10:50 PM
Where are the ROAR New Approvals? bvoltz Electric On-Road 201 11-23-2006 10:35 AM
IFMAR AGM in Collegno - Future of ISTC kentech Electric On-Road 751 08-04-2006 08:19 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 04:38 AM.


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