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 08-12-2009, 09:26 AM   #31
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 artwork View Post
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.
i campaigned this a while back as well. but expecting manufacturers to change their design for one market isn't that sound of a plan. couple that to the idea that our tracks are tearing up cars (and then we're bitching about the durability), and you may conclude that the source of the problem isn't the car design at all.

consider also, that as long as there is an electric sedan that is light, containing low rotating mass, and unspring weight, many racers will buy it for the advantages it presents (whether perceived or real). the racers that can run a clean race will not be bothered by the fragile design, and the racers that can't will follow suit anyway. in short, the market has to drive this design change. short of a rule written to qualify/approve rolling chassis types based on gross weight or some series of complicated durability tests, this vision seems idealistic.

but yes, if you can keep people from buying fragile cars that win, it could work. referencing the rdx sales on carpet in the two years after it was released, i'd say you have your work cut out for you.

again, there are racers and hobbiests. while we all need to get along, we needn't be writing racing rules around guys that don't like racing enough to spend the money to do it regularly, nationally, or competitively. i'm convinced, it isn't the money that keeps them away, it is their other priorities.
__________________
*** The Gate II - Home of Mike Wise ***
seaball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 09:34 AM   #32
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
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.
i understand the philosophy. what i didn't realize was your role as a spokesperson for these racers. as important as it is to be able to easily travel to other tracks, we never saw you at The Gate, nor the carpet nats, and not even at your home track the weekend chicky and i were down there supporting one of your trophy races.

i guess i keep wondering when i'm going to race with the guys telling us what the rules should be.
__________________
*** The Gate II - Home of Mike Wise ***
seaball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 10:03 AM   #33
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaball View Post
i understand the philosophy. what i didn't realize was your role as a spokesperson for these racers. as important as it is to be able to easily travel to other tracks, we never saw you at The Gate, nor the carpet nats, and not even at your home track the weekend chicky and i were down there supporting one of your trophy races.

i guess i keep wondering when i'm going to race with the guys telling us what the rules should be.
Im primarily an asphalt guy and race at Tri-State on Wednesdays. As far as I know Tri-State never had a trophy race. The same could be said of you though. The Hobby Shop probably has the biggest Electric TC thing going in Ohio and I haven't seen you there the 5 years we have been running it, but I've missed maybe a dozen races in that time. Junior is there, Kastl, Collins, etc. You should come down for the Ohio State Champs race in Sept (unfortunately I will be in Virginia babysitting my niece and newphew)

I'm not sure why the people that keep the hobby going shouldn't have a say in the rules? Because I've only been in the hobby a few years and don't want to get it handed to me at a National event then I shouldn't get a say of my opinion? If you want to exclude some chassis designs because of a weight rule then that is your opinion and its just as valid as mine IMO. I'm not saying mine is the right answer. I'm just saying the reasons why I don't like the change in the rules. My goal is to race in these events and be competitive so I don't see the problem with expressing my opinion.

Id love to see some regional ROAR races but I never hear of them. Do they exist still?
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 10:11 AM   #34
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,140
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaball View Post
consider also, that as long as there is an electric sedan that is light, containing low rotating mass, and unspring weight, many racers will buy it for the advantages it presents (whether perceived or real). the racers that can run a clean race will not be bothered by the fragile design, and the racers that can't will follow suit anyway. in short, the market has to drive this design change. short of a rule written to qualify/approve rolling chassis types based on gross weight or some series of complicated durability tests, this vision seems idealistic.

but yes, if you can keep people from buying fragile cars that win, it could work. referencing the rdx sales on carpet in the two years after it was released, i'd say you have your work cut out for you.
What about leaving the door open for alternatives though? There's surely a market for cars that are reasonably priced, very durable, and still competitive. Something along the lines of Tamiya's TA05, but where that extra weight can be used to beef up weaker parts without putting the car at a big weight disadvantage. By lowering the weight, we begin to close the door on that possibility, and maybe even encourage manufacturers to make lighter, more fragile cars.
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 10:15 AM   #35
Tech Elite
 
niznai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,940
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.
The speed difference depends on more than just motor power. Sure, all else being equal (disregard track layout) theory says the ligther car should go faster. But then considering the oversimplification about track layout you will see that only large open tracks will translate in significant differences in speed between lighter and heavier cars. But with a difference of say 100grams I don't think you'll a higher top speed or acceleration. Not high enough to beat somebody else's better speedo/motor/car design etc.

And about speed and crash, well, I think you're wrong again. Energy increases with speed squared whereas it only increases with mass linearly. So a 1% increase in speed translates in a much higher impact energy than a 1% increase in mass. And it's impact energy that does the damage not g forces, etc, etc.
__________________
Team Greasy Weasel

The best upgrade to any car is some driver skill.

Last edited by niznai; 08-12-2009 at 11:11 AM.
niznai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 10:38 AM   #36
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by niznai View Post
The speed difference depends on more than just motor power. Sure, all else being equal (disregard track layout) theory says the ligther car should go faster. But then considering the oversimplification about track layout you will see that only large open tracks will translate in significant differences in speed between lighter and heavier cars. But with a difference of say 100grams I don't think you'll a higher top speed or acceleration. Not high enough to beat somebody else's better speedo/motor/car design etc.

And about speed and crash, well, I think you're wrong again. Energy increases with speed squuared whereas it only increases with mass linearly. So a 1% increase in speed translates in a much higher impact energy than a 1% increase in mass. And it's impact energy that does the damage not g forces, etc, etc.
I encourage you to try it out on the track. I think you will find your lap times increase.

The speed increase will likely result in more crashes. As seaball pointed out its not like folks are crashing right at the force that breaks a part. They are crashing at a lot more then the force necessary to break a part.
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 11:23 AM   #37
Tech Elite
 
niznai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
I encourage you to try it out on the track. I think you will find your lap times increase.

The speed increase will likely result in more crashes. As seaball pointed out its not like folks are crashing right at the force that breaks a part. They are crashing at a lot more then the force necessary to break a part.
Crashing because of more speed has a lot to do with skill (assuming the field does not have one of those guys who take out everybody at random but on a regular basis) or better put, lack thereof. And as I said before the force exerted on various components in a crash depends on the energy that has to be dissipated in the crash and that depends as I said above on the speed squared and mass (but not mass squared). That's why more speed brings more destruction in a crash more readily than more mass. Sure, more mass and speed bring a lot more destruction.

And yes, I have tried it. Doesn't make a difference. I used to race an old car which just couldn't come below 1700grams with Nimh/nicd and won regularly in my class against modern hardware. But I put that down to our track layout where speed isn't that different between the fastest and the slowest class to begin with. That's why I said the track will make a big difference. Much bigger than 100 grams of weight (or in my case 200).
__________________
Team Greasy Weasel

The best upgrade to any car is some driver skill.

Last edited by niznai; 08-12-2009 at 11:51 AM.
niznai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 11:28 AM   #38
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
You should come down for the Ohio State Champs race in Sept (unfortunately I will be in Virginia babysitting my niece and newphew)
Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
My goal is to race in these events and be competitive so I don't see the problem with expressing my opinion.
the expression of your opinion is just fine. i was just seeking some kind of qualitative statement to associate with it. i think we're square.

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndr0me View Post
What about leaving the door open for alternatives though? By lowering the weight, we begin to close the door on that possibility, and maybe even encourage manufacturers to make lighter, more fragile cars.
i said some of the same things in a similar thread a year ago, but i've since felt like a compromise was in order, because we have a whole community of guys that, for some reason, just don't want to add the $6 of weight needed to get there. at 1420g, that's 80g lighter than where we're coming from. a lipo is what? 180g lighter? so, really it appears that the manufacturers have ~100g more to play with than we did a year ago (when we ran 6-cell). that seems to me like it's just what you're envisioning. reports from the reedy race were that the 1500g limit was excessive. anywhere between 85g and 185g were being added. when the next generation chassis come out, they will not have the motors hanging so far off and that will take care of the ballast needed just to balance the cars, and the 100g i'm talking about will seem like plenty. in the end, we're raising the amount of headroom that we have to work with over what we've had in many years...

we always want to argue about rules using examples that are rarely exhibited at the track. someone is always going to have to be slighted by the change in rules. if it's one guy in a hundred, i can live with that. if it's ten, i can probably live with that. in the real picture, the guy that runs the 5 year old chassis is rarely doing many of the 'free' things correctly enough to be competitive to begin with. (i didn't say never) if tires or compound has changed in that time, what setup does he use? does it still work right with a lipo sitting in the car? if the car is 5 years old, how old is the horsepower? to make rules around this unique racer seems a bit unreasonable. especially when we have classes specifically developed for this person (novice, spec, vta). inspect the habits of this racer, and 9/10 you will find that nothing about their program is competitive, right down to their excuses.

there's an angle for everything. but i think if you start to look at the mentality/philosophy of the various groups of racers, you'll start to realize that there elements of the hobby that separate it from the xbox/ps3, etc. i also think that these elements will disappear if we constantly serve the laziest, cheapest, and least motivated of groups. at which point, the next challenge will be finding a way to do this for less money than one of those consoles.

unfortunately, things always have to hit bottom before most of us succumb to compromise and get on board with a cohesive program.
__________________
*** The Gate II - Home of Mike Wise ***
seaball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 11:42 AM   #39
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaball View Post
the expression of your opinion is just fine. i was just seeking some kind of qualitative statement to associate with it. i think we're square.
, don't worry, we will meet someday Chris. No man hugs though. I've heard stories.

(I have a feeling this winter at a Grand Slam series race).
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 11:47 AM   #40
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,310
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

For those that don't know... Less weight equals higher average speed. When the brushless systems 1st became competative all the failures resulted in the 5cell rule. This rule supposedly allowed you to run one less cell with a lower weight limit to offset the reduction in power. Well that wasn't the case. On almost every track 5cell cars with less powe were up to 1/2 a sec a lap faster due to the higher cornering speed.

If you think less weight will reduce anything like wear or breakages then rethink that when you consider you will be going faster and turning more laps in the same race time.
__________________
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, 11:52 AM   #41
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Out of curiosity what is the reason for the change? Is it strictly people getting tired of adding weight to the car?

Also 50oz /3.125 pounds is 1417g
or8ital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 12:40 PM   #42
Tech Elite
 
artwork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Thornton, CO
Posts: 3,112
Trader Rating: 62 (100%+)
Default

until electronics move closer to the center line and get significantly lighter...it will always be a challenge to get the car in balance too. This is a problem that faces all cars.

A lighter car is actually harder to drive in my opinion, because the power to weight ratio is a lot larger. A lighter car can go faster in the hands of the right person (like others have said).

I personally think we here in the US need heavier stronger cars and slower motors or batteries. Many people that I see racing are struggling with even the power of 13.5.

Going faster with lighter cars will certainly kill an already struggling touring car market.
__________________
Sanwa | R1 Wurks | Avid | 2mm Designs
artwork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 12:56 PM   #43
Tech Elite
 
Rick Hohwart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by or8ital View Post
Out of curiosity what is the reason for the change? Is it strictly people getting tired of adding weight to the car?

Also 50oz /3.125 pounds is 1417g
Yes.

I personally feel that 5-cell was faster than 6 simply due to the progression of the cars and electronics, not the weight.
Rick Hohwart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 01:54 PM   #44
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 476
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

Maybe I'm missing the point, but the rule states that this is a minimum weight right? So how does a lower minimum weight lead to the exclusion of older chassis that are heavier? Is there a max weight as well? I can see that yes a lighter car can go faster, but as some folks have pointed out the track itself is the great equalizer, not all track layouts will allow cars to hit a higher top speed. I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. Make your car as light as you can with in the limits and try to maintain a balance. I doubt most folks will ever win or lose a race because their car was 3 grams heavier then the guy in front of them.
MonkeyFist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 01:54 PM   #45
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,360
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Hohwart View Post
Yes.

I personally feel that 5-cell was faster than 6 simply due to the progression of the cars and electronics, not the weight.
I wouldn't doubt that! The timing stuff you can do these days certainly makes 17.5 feel as fast as 13.5 did just last year. It certainly played a roll as well.
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 08:55 PM.


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