I will say this about traction compounds. I used Paragon for more years than any other compound and never had any issues. I actually loved the smell, lol. Then my track went to other coumponds, first they limited it to TQ orange, that gave me and a lot of other racers massive headaches. Then they switched to Jack the Gripper, that gave me the biggest dried boogers I have ever had and also nose bleeds. Now, with LGC and STX, I have none of those issues. Don't know what was in the other stuff, but it effected me.

traction compound thoughts
 

The traction compound discussion returns every few years, and it is always the same. A concerned racer asks a question and usually gets one of 3 answers:
1) I've used traction compounds for decades and haven't suffered any harm, so it can't be bad
2) The chemicals in traction compound are bad for you and we shouldn't use them
3) Even though the chemicals are bad, we are not using them occupationally, so we should be fine.

In my view, the only benefit of traction compounds is that they allow toy cars to go faster and reduce lap times versus what would be possible without them. Everything else is a negative. Acetone, Toluene, thinners, etc are bad for you, whether absorbed through the skin, or breathed in. They are obviously much worse occupationally, but breathing in fumes for an 8-10 hour day, and getting the chemicals onto your skin is bad for you.

Is it dangerous for an adult in the doses that we use? Is occasional second hand smoke dangerous? To some who have underlying conditions, it is. For others, not so much.

In the grand scheme of things, traction compounds will not kill you. But that is not the real issue. Why are we playing with harmful chemicals that induce headaches, rashes, and throat irritation while racing TOY cars? Furthermore, we don't even know what is in the traction compounds because they are trade secrets. Every other chemical solution you buy has to disclose the ingredients, so what makes toy car traction compound brewers different?

In my mind, purposefully exposing yourself to harmful compounds to go faster with a toy car is not smart. I am not even talking about the paint pan smell environment of tracks where everyone is using the compounds or even the negative effect it has on new racer attendance. I, for one, purposely limit attending large indoor races where everyone is using traction compounds because I don't like the smell or the mild headache after being at the track for the day.

The simple question is why would you expose yourself when you don't have to?

The traction compound debate is becoming a non-debate since most tracks have gone to odorless compounds and SXT 3.0 seems to be the most widely used product in this country. As I stated earlier, MSDS is available for most of these products or the chemicals contained in them. SXT 3.0 is pretty tame per the MSDS: http://www.hrpdealer.com/msds/sxt00030.pdf
A NFPA rating of 1 for health means using it on an irregular basis should not pose much concern. I do remember some of the other "odorless" compounds posing more risk than this, but again it's a moot point if SXT 3.0 is what all of us are using now. Just for reference Methyl Salicylate is a 2 for health.

For many of us that have been doing this for a while (30+ years for me), the smell of black can Paragon or any other oil of wintergreen based product reminds us of racing years ago. While I don't miss comm lathes, motor dips, changing motor brushes, six batteries for a club race night and discharging trays... I do miss the smell of the old tire additives.

I miss that smell as well. The biggest thing is, Paragon still works better than any other compound out there, in my opinion and a lot of others as well. So much so that I almost got kicked out of a race because my racing buddy was chewing wintergreen tobacco and I was eating wintergreen lifesavers when the track director was walking through the pits. He thought we were using Paragon, lol. The only thing that saved us was him actually smelling our wet tires, lol.

The smell of racing indeed

http://www.rctech.net/forum/attachme...92wfftop_s.jpg

Show off! :lol:

Just heard in the interview with Hagberg from IIC that IFMAR just approved a rule change to 2S for 1/12? Can't seem to find ANYTHING online about it?

Only thing I've been able to find is THIS INTERVIEW WITH HAGBERG 2S part starts around 1:30...

wondering the same thing

I haven't heard about any rule changes, but I do know that there has been a bunch of discussion about it. I find it amazing, and a bit disconcerting, that many people don't seem to understand the physics of the situation. If we are talking about open motors, then changing to 2s will have absolutely no effect on performance. But it is a way for manufacturers to sell new products to replace our "outdated" 1s equipment!

I think it may be about lowering the barrier to entry, and not needing a 1S specific ESC / booster / Rx pack? I dunno, but the concept of physics seems really foreign to a lot of people Howard! :lol:

Understanding Physics, I be happy if people had common sense again.....

I can understand how someone might think that. But with voltage boosters (to use with an existing 2s ESC) retailing for under $5, or 1s ESCs (with built-in voltage booster) retailing for less than $50, it's not much of a barrier for a newcomer. It IS, however, a major inconvenience to everyone that is already running 1/12 scale.

In any case, the change would probably be for mod only. Actually, allowing 1s or 2s (in the same size case) and any motor would be feasible, though I don't really see the point, since I doubt there are any newcomers that want to go directly into mod.

The most popular class in the USA is 17.5/1s, so going to 2s would require a 35-turn-ish motor to maintain the same speed. That would be changing things just for the sake of change (and so the manufacturers can make more money).

EDIT: There's lots of discussion about this over here: http://www.rctech.net/forum/electric...ed-1-12-a.html

How many new people are you going to attract to the class because they no longer need to spend $25 on a booster or receiver pack? It's not like they are going to be able to carry over their 2S batteries that fit into their touring cars or off-road cars, so there is no savings there. The stock class will need to go to at least a 25.5 motor or some new higher wind motor to keep speeds equivalent to 1s 17.5, so unlikely that a racer already owns a 25.5 motor from another class.

How many current 1/12th scale racers are you going to piss off because they now need to buy new 2s batteries and motors and maybe even a new speed control because they have a 1s specific one in their car?

Some clubs are already having a hard time attracting newcomers to 1/12th scale because 1s 17.5 is too fast. Some clubs are going 21.5 1s and doing well with it. What motor are we going to need to use to mimic this if we go to 2s?

I am dumbfounded that anyone thinks a move to 2s reduces any barriers to entry for the class. The ONLY thing that's going to carry over is maybe the 2s/3s esc you already own, but again you can already do that with a LiFe receiver pack or booster for under $25. You're still going to need specific batteries, motors, a servo and a foam tire budget. Furthermore, why are we concerned with the physics of it? Who cares if we get a little more efficiency out of the ESC and wiring by running the higher voltage? It's not like we are hurting for battery capacity or speed with 1s.

You completely missed the point of my post. I don't know WHY they amended/changed the rule, I was speculating. I don't disagree with anything you said.

Howard is talking about physics because a 1S/6000mAh pack contains THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY as a 2S/3000mAh pack, that's the point he is making. Going to 2S doesn't fix anything unless they limit capacity, motor winds, or blinky/boost. That is why the physics matter!

Limiting capacity in a Lipo class sounds like a recipe for disaster... that is unless you enjoy watching cars dump and the battery catch on fire. Not sure too many track operators would be too happy with that spectacle.