jiml

iTrader: (3)

This may not be a bad idea. If a spec could be written for a speed control that does not allow timing adjustments, and no updateable software, and it can be made at a reasonable price, that just may be the answer. Novak has already stepped up, and Tekin is following.

The key would be teching, a clear way of knowing the speed control you're looking at is the right one.

Think about it, sportsman touring with 21.5 motors and no mechanical timing, with the speed control mentioned above, and Pro Touring, with 13.5 motors and any speed control. Now you have your clear delineation between fun runners and serious racers.

Either case, there's no way I'm giving up my flux capacitor!

skypilot

iTrader: (14)

so when all is said and done, it comes down to a name change for the stock class, 17.5 with programmable esc will still be there, it will just be called something else, then a new class will be created using spec esc's and motor and it will be called spec, sportsman, grand national trans am busch stock. or whatever.

and then, and then, and then, someone will start a thread and jump all over roar even thou they didn't create the class, followed by those that don't race on road, race the class, or still can't win..

tru dat homie

TeamB&B

iTrader: (5)

POST copied form the TCS thread:

This is a good start, but still only a half step. I like the fact that only brake strength and drag brake is adjustable. There is no option for punch, drive frequency, etc.

ROAR really needs to come out with a electronic schematic that is distributed to all the ROAR Stock Spec licensees. Then each company will make the same exact ESC based on the licensed schematic. Then the only difference in models are price, size, and maybe color. Also all cases should be tamper-proof. (Sounds more and more like NASCAR ) (Prevent hackers from resoldering a small Tekin RS in a large Novak GTB case)

The Speed Passion above has screws. Ummmm. The best tamperproof ESC case is an epoxy box.

Anything else is going to create a "Stock Club Race ESC of the month". For example, LRP is not going to come out with a Stock Club Race ESC that is slower than the Speed Passion mentioned above.

Anyway, glad that we haven't run Stock 17.5 for 2 years now.

Time to make a new batch of popcorn watching guys burning up 2 to 3 17.5 motors per day trying to go faster at the track after hitting every board and then coming on RCTech and saying that STOCK is too fast. What they are really saying is that they want everyone else to go slower.

rccartips

iTrader: (3)

maybe putting a chichane in the middle of a long straightaway will lessen (or even remove) the performance advantage of these newer escs.

a technical "drivers" track layout might easily solve all "equipment" issues. then we call all run in the same class and have more fun.

thanks.

svt-racer

iTrader: (4)

An ESC without advance timing feature and a brushless motor that has fixed timing, would go a long way to improving a stock class and bringing parity accross the field.

You would still suffer from the battery of the month phenomena as well as the motor of the month like it used to be in brushed motor 27T stock racing. But at least back then the stock motors had fixed timing and ESC's with advance timing were not available.

DARKSIDE

iTrader: (2)

here is what I see...dont know if anyone has hit on it or not....you only need 3 classes for ele on-road...

21.5 class...w/o adv esc...(VTA)

17.5 class...limit adv esc..Tekin 200, Lrp spx..ect....(tc,tc rubber, or rcgt)

open class...buy it run it...

and true nitro has the same issues...just not the same format...an 8th scale buggy is an 8th scale buggy...except whats running it pipe, motor, servos, tires..ect...

the only true solutions is for the main promoters of the "BIG" races to step up and put a lid on the esc war in stock/newbie/beginner classes...when ppl see that at Race "X" you have to run a GTB(example)...more clubs will run with that cause it will be what the majority will have at the national level...

what happens at the big races translates to the club level.....start at the top and the bottom will follow...most of the time...lol...good luck with it..

Wild Cherry

In no way can limiting the ESC tech make racing stock more affordable..
The opposite will occur instead ..

Manufactures will only produce faster versions of the Spec ESC

These so called Spec ESC's will be even faster than the latest ESC's we have now ....

good luck thinking Spec is the "solution" to stock.


Spec got us where are we now
and
has become a real "problem" ...


All we can do is base class's by experience , its the only real solution .....

niznai

Still haven'n found it?

Well, here it is. Just allow anything and everything and make it compulsory for people to have a certain weight (already in the rules) and stick to a certain voltage (already in the rules).

And here's the interesting new addition.

Make it compulsory for everyone to have an inline fuse to the motor at a certain value (say 35A). That way the power is limited no matter what ESC, timing, etc, etc. Simple, easy, cheap, easy to tech, no hacking possible. This way, if you advance the timing to get more top speed, you blow the fuse. If you gear too high to gain more speed, you blow the fuse, you ramp up timing to accelerate faster, you blow the fuse. You will have to set up your car and drive in such a manner that your current drain doesn't exceed the fuse rating or you're not going to finish too many races. That way if you cheat, you're going to eliminate yourself without any tech needed.
Even better, it will have flow-on effects which will bring cost down (the holy grail of spec racing).
Nobody will then spend money on a speedy or motor or what not if they're not going to be able to make use of it.
Car setup and driver skill are then going to be the only ways to gain speed.

But I think the main problem is that we are trying to apply old concepts (that worked with old technology) to new technology, and that doesn't work. Computers are everywhere and are here to stay. Limiting advance/ESC capability to alter it on the fly will shift software to playing with other tricks. We have to rethink our approach. The sugestion I made above, albeit seemingly funny goes back to basic physical principles, i.e. limiting the power available. And it doesn't need to be limited at a low level, so you don't need to think someone is trying to slow you down. Every club/competition can decide for themselves what maximum current they allow on their track/in their club rules. If you want a fast 17.5 stock class, bump it up a notch. If you want a slow class, take it down a notch. Easy.

skypilot

iTrader: (14)

'we' have that class, its called NOVICE, after that, its up to the racer to decide what class he races in.

how in the heck did spec get us to this problem, if there are NO 'specs'

jiml

iTrader: (3)

All the rules in the world won't mean a thing unless racers are willing to follow the spirit of the rules. You can argue the letter of the rule all day, in the end it's up to racers to race the class that is best suited for them and the hobby as a whole. If you have a $400 radio, a $500 touring car, a $300 speed control, and all the top motors and batteries you can get, you have no business running in Sportsman!!!

We need to make room for the guys who just want to go to their local track and have some fun. There are still plenty of classes for racers.

There is no stock. Trinity killed stock years ago.

ShaunMac

I thought is was the $500+ TC kits that were killing on-road. Oh wait... that was last month's excuse.

NovakTwo

You are correct to question fixed specs; one concern with spec products would be that they are all built to the same specifications. For instance timing can be added not only through PC adjustments, but also can be designed into the resident micro firmware.

A spec controller with a a small amount of built-in timing----say 5% or 10%---will have a significant advantage over speed controls designed with no timing and this may not be detectable.

As I have said before (many, many times....), the best solution for a spec controller would be manufacturers' offering stand alone, non-timing, non PC programmable escs. The manufacturers would be responsible (and accountable) for assuring customers and series directors that the controllers conforms to these rules.

This is definitely do-able. Other than USVTA, and maybe a few other series, "decision makers" are unwilling to decide. Lacking direction, the R/C industry is engineering its own demise. We, here at Novak, are definitely willing and capable of working toward this spec equipment goal.

Our dedication to this spec product segment should be obvious; we have been offering affordable, spec products/systems for well over a year. There is a simple solution--the spec products are available. But, there a lack of decisiveness.

All ROAR would have to do is set aside certain "spec/stock" events that require escs with the parameters outlined above, and mfgs could compete (within these guidelines) by offering the best products and after market parts and service for the price.

revo61

iTrader: (18)

The $500 tc's don't help.

hb D8 300
Vpec 300
Hitec 7985 and 5625 170
RX 100
fuel 30
total 900

T3 500
10.5 Team Orion 100
Sphere TC 200
Hitec 5645 55
2 lipos 150
rx 100
total 1105

malkiy

iTrader: (10)

That $30 for fuel may last you two race days at most ....

HoboShop

iTrader: (3)

Onroad has always been more expensive than offroad? If it's too expensive find a class that you can afford and have at it. That's like comparing the cost of f1 racing to stadium truck racing. Onroad products are faster that's why the cost more. If you put a offroad buggy engine in a 8 scale onroad car and think that you have a chance to win, your in for a big wake-up call. Race what you can afford and have fun things will level out in the long run.