R/C Tech Forums

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

View Poll Results: What's your input on 1/10th tc minimum weight?
1420 grams 80 51.95%
1500 grams ( Current ROAR) 18 11.69%
1450 grams ( same as IFMAR) 56 36.36%
Voters: 154. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-11-2009, 05:30 PM   #16
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
What car and what size lipo?
Phi '09. I saw your other post about balancing the phi; I had the same issue. With the lipo tray, I could not balance my car at or around 1420 grams with a larger 5000+ lipo. Mabye there is another solution to the 40+ grams lipo tray.
samstheman2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 05:42 PM   #17
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samstheman2 View Post
Phi '09. I saw your other post about balancing the phi; I had the same issue. With the lipo tray, I could not balance my car at or around 1420 grams with a larger 5000+ lipo. Mabye there is another solution to the 40+ grams lipo tray.
I was thinking I could cut the middle out of the outside part of the tray. But until the weight is finalized and used everywhere I race I'm hesitant to do that. Plus not sure how much that would really save me. Maybe only 20 grams. Would still need to find 35 grams somewhere.
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 09:06 PM   #18
Tech Champion
 
liljohn1064's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Deerfield, WI
Posts: 5,582
Trader Rating: 17 (100%+)
Default

If the lighter weight means less breakage, I'd say sure to 1420. But I think I'd rather have a slightly beefier chassis, so 1450 as a world standard would be fine. Put the extra mass in the parts that need reinforcement. Definitely 1500 for TA!
__________________
John Higgins former student of The Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driving School. The "Team Principal".
liljohn1064 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 10:02 PM   #19
Tech Elite
 
niznai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,940
Default

I think this is not a real problem. If you want to race an overweight car nobody will stop you. Sure, top racers will chase the latest and greatest and try to be as light as possible but this can play against you very easily.

We have to keep in mind as well that Lipos are an atypical development in battery technology. I am not sure that future batteries will keep getting lighter at the same rate as lipos did (i.e. they came out right after Nimh which are rather heavy). I don't know for instance how LiFe batteries stack up against Lipos weight wise for similar charge capacities, but if they are the next big thing in battery technology and happen to be heavier, then a lot of people will have a lot of trouble keeping close to a reduced weight limit. This in turn might push manufacturers to lighten their cars and again top level racing will become a money competition.

That being said I think either of the weight limits mentioned here are acceptable and shouldn't make that much difference. The only possible situation where they will make a difference is in conditions of really low grip (rubber on carpet for instance) and then people are free to find their own way to deal with it. For relevance I would vote to keep weight specs to limits drafted by international bodies, but even these seem to not agree with each other.
__________________
Team Greasy Weasel

The best upgrade to any car is some driver skill.

Last edited by niznai; 08-11-2009 at 10:15 PM.
niznai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 10:55 PM   #20
Tech Elite
 
JimmyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 4,443
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

I like it (1420g). Got my Yokomo BD5 balanced with my TP5000 40C pack with 9551, 17.5 motor, Tekin RS Pro, and Spektrum rx.
__________________
M.J. McIntyre

Yokomo YRX12
Tamiya TB03
JimmyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 12:45 AM   #21
Tech Elite
 
SammyZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New England
Posts: 3,045
Trader Rating: 138 (100%+)
Default

i get my cars to balance perfect without using any weight, with body they scale out at 1250g

To bad its not legal
__________________
Hotbodies USA
SweepRacing USA
SammyZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 01:41 AM   #22
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia.
Posts: 1,343
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

It would be good to see any weight limit under 1500g. It would be nice to not need around 120g just to make my car legal, and its still under weight with out a transponder. Only 45g of that 120g is for balancing.
__________________
Team Associated B5m | Team Associated T5m | Team Associated TC6 | Team Associated TC5x
Scooter79rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 03:40 AM   #23
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: England
Posts: 417
Send a message via MSN to Bigger Brother
Default

Just to let you know, the IFMAR weight is 1450g but their current rules are for 5 cell NiMH - so not 100% relevant perhaps?

In the UK the biggest regional series (100+ entries for each of 8 events) is running 1450g weight limit. This seems to work very well, its fairly easy to make the car balance at this weight and requires perhaps 100g-150g of weight, depending on your LiPo size and the electronics you are using.

Seems to work and we are expecting this to become the 'standard' weight adopted across the UK next year.
__________________
Oli Meggitt | London, UK
.:. Essex Winter Series .:. CML Racing .:. ToniSport .:. Zen Racing .:. Moorespeed RC .:. OTM Racing .:. RC Racing TV .:. RIDE R/C Scoreboards
Bigger Brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 04:12 AM   #24
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,310
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

I have been told that OZ will be going to 1425g next year too. I am not looking forward to this as this will require me to change electronics and possibly ti screws to get the weight down enough to achieve my current f/r balance. The other negative is that entry level chassis like the tao5 are currently getting down to weight with lipos. This will not be the case with 1425g and certain electronics.

Lipo's brought forward an era of equal battery power and weight across all chassis and racers. It would be a shame to lose this equal playing field. And the increased lap speed of less weight will serve to spread the field further.
__________________
Blade: Andro Treiber H 79g AN
FH: Donic Bluefire M3 Max Blk
BH: Donic Bluefire M2 Max Red
Powered by Falco
Dragonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 04:29 AM   #25
Tech Addict
 
paraletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 553
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfire View Post
I have been told that OZ will be going to 1425g next year too. I am not looking forward to this as this will require me to change electronics and possibly ti screws to get the weight down enough to achieve my current f/r balance. The other negative is that entry level chassis like the tao5 are currently getting down to weight with lipos. This will not be the case with 1425g and certain electronics.

Lipo's brought forward an era of equal battery power and weight across all chassis and racers. It would be a shame to lose this equal playing field. And the increased lap speed of less weight will serve to spread the field further.
i agree i think that 1425 is to big a drop in weight i run a xxxsg+ and now with lipos its only just scraping in at the 1500g mark i think it would really make it a lot harder for the guys running older cars to be competitive
__________________
Losi XXX-S G+..................Tamiya M03.......................TOP Photon
Losi XXX-4 G+.................HoBao ST Pro electric........Losi Micro SCT
Losi XXX-CR....................Losi Mini Baja.....................Losi XX-4 W/E
ASSociated RC12L4
T.O.P PHOTON EX & Tamiya M05 - currently undergoing rigorous crash testing!
paraletic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 05:14 AM   #26
Tech Champion
 
tc3team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 6,151
Default

1450 sounds like a happy medium to me
__________________
Fusion Hobbies / www.horshamrc.org

The wife stops me being sane and the r/c stops me from going insane....
tc3team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 06:41 AM   #27
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by niznai View Post
I think this is not a real problem. If you want to race an overweight car nobody will stop you. Sure, top racers will chase the latest and greatest and try to be as light as possible but this can play against you very easily.

We have to keep in mind as well that Lipos are an atypical development in battery technology. I am not sure that future batteries will keep getting lighter at the same rate as lipos did (i.e. they came out right after Nimh which are rather heavy). I don't know for instance how LiFe batteries stack up against Lipos weight wise for similar charge capacities, but if they are the next big thing in battery technology and happen to be heavier, then a lot of people will have a lot of trouble keeping close to a reduced weight limit. This in turn might push manufacturers to lighten their cars and again top level racing will become a money competition.

That being said I think either of the weight limits mentioned here are acceptable and shouldn't make that much difference. The only possible situation where they will make a difference is in conditions of really low grip (rubber on carpet for instance) and then people are free to find their own way to deal with it. For relevance I would vote to keep weight specs to limits drafted by international bodies, but even these seem to not agree with each other.
The speed difference between a car at 1500 and 1420 will be significant. Noticeable by most drivers not just the top ones. It makes a bigger difference then you think. People who think cars will break less at 1420 are forgetting that the car will be going a lot faster. They will break just the same.
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 08:17 AM   #28
Tech Elite
 
seaball's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,303
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Send a message via Yahoo to seaball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
The speed difference between a car at 1500 and 1420 will be significant. Noticeable by most drivers not just the top ones. It makes a bigger difference then you think. People who think cars will break less at 1420 are forgetting that the car will be going a lot faster. They will break just the same.
fairtrace and schreff have run their losi cars at as much as 2 ounces over wieght (60g) and have tq'd and won national races in that trim (schreff accidentally grabbed a heavyweight body two years ago for his tq run in stock at the snowbirds). it's noticeable, but let's not go overboard.

but you're right about breakage. not because the cars are faster, persay, but because 90+% of crashes probably overshoot the yield point of the failing materials by 2-10 times the yield value of the material. therefore, a 5% difference in mass isn't inline with the magnitude of forces/impacts exerted durring a crash. forget the theory, and get real. when you come back with a broken arm, bent dogbone, and your chassis is twisted like a pretzel, i can tell you -80g wouldn't have saved you.

(it's as if people don't even remember how bad they wreck when they say half of this stuff)

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
I've been a big fan of what ROAR has been doing lately but I hope this doesn't become a standard rule.
as a big fan of roar, what roar races have you run lately? how will this rule affect you? is your local club that highly enforcing of roar rules?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV View Post
I like the 1420. However, I think the min weight for foam tire sedans need to be addressed. The rubber tire cars are now at the same weight.
this would be a purposeful move, i suspect. with 3-4mm lower chassis plates, thicker top decks, and the mandatory gbs (0.030") bodies, foam cars don't really come in much lighter than their rubber counterparts. i like the standard number for both classes, even if one is slightly easier to achieve than the other. the general idea is to simplify things (from finding places to add weight to memorizing one minimum number).
__________________
*** The Gate II - Home of Mike Wise ***
seaball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 08:49 AM   #29
Tech Elite
 
artwork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Thornton, CO
Posts: 3,112
Trader Rating: 62 (100%+)
Default

I just wish that they would leave the weight at 1500grams and make the cars a little heavier. Let's put some weight in making the cars more beefy and then getting to 1500 wont be such a chore. Instead what is happening is that cars are getting lighter and more fragile.

The cars being designed outside the US (which is almost all of them) are designed to run tracks with no hard boards. Most of the tracks have curbing and or dots. Here in the us we use the hardest boards ever made to design our tracks so we tend to see breakage that they never see in the design and testing .

simply, lets keep the weight at 1500 and work on creating better cars across the board. Anyone that has run a newer style nitro car know that it is possible, we just need the manufacturers to get on board.
__________________
Sanwa | R1 Wurks | Avid | 2mm Designs
artwork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 09:18 AM   #30
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaball View Post
fairtrace and schreff have run their losi cars at as much as 2 ounces over wieght (60g) and have tq'd and won national races in that trim (schreff accidentally grabbed a heavyweight body two years ago for his tq run in stock at the snowbirds). it's noticeable, but let's not go overboard.

but you're right about breakage. not because the cars are faster, persay, but because 90+% of crashes probably overshoot the yield point of the failing materials by 2-10 times the yield value of the material. therefore, a 5% difference in mass isn't inline with the magnitude of forces/impacts exerted durring a crash. forget the theory, and get real. when you come back with a broken arm, bent dogbone, and your chassis is twisted like a pretzel, i can tell you -80g wouldn't have saved you.

(it's as if people don't even remember how bad they wreck when they say half of this stuff)


as a big fan of roar, what roar races have you run lately? how will this rule affect you? is your local club that highly enforcing of roar rules?

The HPI Challenge doesn't have a weight rule so I've removed all excess weight on cars for that. I was significantly faster at the lower weights. To the tune of .2 a lap faster. So for me, a slightly above average race, it was pretty significant. Excess weight in the right places on certain cars might provide some benefits though. I know people were saying some VTA cars got faster with more weight so it's all about setup as usual.

Our track follows ROAR rules, as do most clubs it seems. They are the defacto standard for rules in the US, which is a great thing. Otherwise you couldn't easily travel to other tracks. Locally we have a lot of people who do race in ROAR events so they try to keep them in line to help those folks out. Would be ashame to practice one way and then race at a national event another. Wish I could have gone to the Nats this year. Still may if I can get a scheduling conflict resolved.
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



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.


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