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
What's your input on 1/10 Electric Touring Min weight?
08-11-2009, 04:30 PM
#16
Tech Master
08-11-2009, 04:42 PM
#17
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.
08-11-2009, 09:02 PM
#19
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.
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.
Last edited by niznai; 08-11-2009 at 09:15 PM.
08-11-2009, 09:55 PM
#20
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.
08-12-2009, 02:40 AM
#23
Tech Regular
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.
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.
08-12-2009, 03:12 AM
#24
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.
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.
08-12-2009, 03:29 AM
#25
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.
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.
08-12-2009, 04:14 AM
#26
1450 sounds like a happy medium to me 
08-12-2009, 05:41 AM
#27
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.
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.
08-12-2009, 07:17 AM
#28
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.
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)
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).
08-12-2009, 07:49 AM
#29
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.
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.
08-12-2009, 08:18 AM
#30
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?
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?
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.