The Case For Spec ESC Profiles
12-17-2009, 01:08 PM
#1
The Case For Spec ESC Profiles
ESC developers,
How possible would it be to work together to develop a profile for your respective ESC's that's as close as possible across all brands, still allows the normal range of adjustments to things like drag brake, but is locked down when it comes to how the motor is driven? Would it be possible to make your ESC's do something different visually when operating in this mode, perhaps a certain pattern of flashing LED's, or a certain color for an LED. Something to give a quick, easy indication that the ESC is operating in the spec profile mode?
I understand this is an imperfect solution, and tech could be circumvented with secret team firmware. However, it could go a long way toward easing pain at the club level where it matters the most. And while it might be impossible to truly tech firmware and profiles, for the most part, cheating in this manner would have to be facilitated by the companies that produce the firmware for their products, and I think we can expect them to operate with integrity.
ROAR,
Would you be interested in working with the manufacturers to find a way to sanction each company's spec profile so that it's approved for use? And, perhaps, for existing ESC's that don't have updatable firmware, maybe don't approve them for sanctioned use, but release guidelines for clubs on what profile for each ESC is the closest to whatever the standardized spec may be? That way people can at least continue to run them in these profile modes and keep things relatively close until they're ready to move to new hardware.
While this solution might not be perfect, and not 100% fool-proof in tech, it eases the pain greatly for the average racer. And it makes the ESC manufacturers responsible for making sure they and their drivers don't cheat. That's certainly an improvement over the current ESC of the month scenario we're currently in, and benefits the racers. It also gives us the opportunity to slow things down without buying new motors or ESC's in most cases, something that's clearly needed in the current spec classes.
How possible would it be to work together to develop a profile for your respective ESC's that's as close as possible across all brands, still allows the normal range of adjustments to things like drag brake, but is locked down when it comes to how the motor is driven? Would it be possible to make your ESC's do something different visually when operating in this mode, perhaps a certain pattern of flashing LED's, or a certain color for an LED. Something to give a quick, easy indication that the ESC is operating in the spec profile mode?
I understand this is an imperfect solution, and tech could be circumvented with secret team firmware. However, it could go a long way toward easing pain at the club level where it matters the most. And while it might be impossible to truly tech firmware and profiles, for the most part, cheating in this manner would have to be facilitated by the companies that produce the firmware for their products, and I think we can expect them to operate with integrity.
ROAR,
Would you be interested in working with the manufacturers to find a way to sanction each company's spec profile so that it's approved for use? And, perhaps, for existing ESC's that don't have updatable firmware, maybe don't approve them for sanctioned use, but release guidelines for clubs on what profile for each ESC is the closest to whatever the standardized spec may be? That way people can at least continue to run them in these profile modes and keep things relatively close until they're ready to move to new hardware.
While this solution might not be perfect, and not 100% fool-proof in tech, it eases the pain greatly for the average racer. And it makes the ESC manufacturers responsible for making sure they and their drivers don't cheat. That's certainly an improvement over the current ESC of the month scenario we're currently in, and benefits the racers. It also gives us the opportunity to slow things down without buying new motors or ESC's in most cases, something that's clearly needed in the current spec classes.
12-17-2009, 01:26 PM
#2
you're probably better off writing each party a letter/e-mail on this.
the people in the organzations/companies you are referencing that get to make these decisions know better than to open this up to a round table discussion with the savages on this board. ..
the people in the organzations/companies you are referencing that get to make these decisions know better than to open this up to a round table discussion with the savages on this board. ..
12-17-2009, 01:39 PM
#3
I don't see how it would ease the pain for anyone. You yourself note that it is too difficult to tech for and even if you could there are too many ways to circumvent it. Given that even at a club level people are going to circumvent it to gain an advantage. Which means you'll have to get an ESC that can circumvent it just to keep up...leaving us in the same boat that we are in now. This is something I warned about repeatedly before BL became accepted. But now that it is here, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak.
12-17-2009, 01:43 PM
#4
I think a spec profile would reduce the durability of equipment. If you remember back before the timing advancing and "turbo" brushless was all about throwing as much gear at the motor as you could and run it to the point just before it melted down. Do we really want to go back to that?
My vote is to stop changing the rules. Especially consider such a rule as described would require everyone buy a new speed control (for the visual different color LED)
My vote is to stop changing the rules. Especially consider such a rule as described would require everyone buy a new speed control (for the visual different color LED)
12-17-2009, 01:47 PM
#5
I don't see how it would ease the pain for anyone. You yourself note that it is too difficult to tech for and even if you could there are too many ways to circumvent it. Given that even at a club level people are going to circumvent it to gain an advantage. Which means you'll have to get an ESC that can circumvent it just to keep up...leaving us in the same boat that we are in now. This is something I warned about repeatedly before BL became accepted. But now that it is here, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak.
12-17-2009, 01:53 PM
#6
I think a spec profile would reduce the durability of equipment. If you remember back before the timing advancing and "turbo" brushless was all about throwing as much gear at the motor as you could and run it to the point just before it melted down. Do we really want to go back to that?
My vote is to stop changing the rules. Especially consider such a rule as described would require everyone buy a new speed control (for the visual different color LED)
My vote is to stop changing the rules. Especially consider such a rule as described would require everyone buy a new speed control (for the visual different color LED)
As for hardware, surely any existing ESC that's got updatable software can be programmed to blink an LED in a certain pattern. The color thing was just one idea, but every ESC I've seen in my life has at least one LED somewhere.
And for ESC's that don't have updatable software, don't they all have a profile 1 that doesn't have timing advance? That was why I was thinking, if someone owned this (like ROAR), they could release guidelines for existing ESC's on what profile most closely matches the spec. Just release it on their web site or something, there's not -that- many ESC's out there. GTB (profile 6) LRP TC Spec (profile 2) and so on.
As far as changing rules goes, this proposal really doesn't require anybody to buy new hardware at the club level, and in fact could make their older ESC's viable again. No new motors, no new ESC's, no ESC of the week, old gear is good again. Who loses?
12-17-2009, 01:58 PM
#9
I was going to ask that same question. I'm sure turn out is down at my track but I think that is due to the economy. But I don't think I've heard any discussion about rules or equipment specs causing an issue. I mostly hear that on this site. So I'm curious if it more prevalent elsewhere.
12-17-2009, 02:14 PM
#12
Clearly RC's problems transcend the current scenario with ESC's, and we can't really blame the decline on this particular issue. However, it's certainly not helping.
For one, we're pushing to make the cars faster in spec classes, which as we all know is not good for racing. The trend means people need to buy new ESC's, or slower motors, or 1S batteries, or whatever is next to slow things down. It also means a lot of ESC's that don't have updatable software become obsolete, or that those that do, but have inadequate hardware must also be replaced. And it doesn't have to be that way. We have it within our power to stop that right now, with the hardware we've got, bring speeds back into the realm of being reasonable, and ease the pain for racers.
And while we're at it, we can dissuade companies from using prototype hardware or software in spec classes at big races. It violates the spirit of the spec classes in every way, and certainly has an impact on racer attendance. Look at the discussions surrounding the BRL series, and its banning of certain ESC's to see that racers don't want to play this game. And why should we? In the end, it's completely unnecessary, and does nothing but give companies a way to one up each other to sell more hardware to racers that don't need it.
For one, we're pushing to make the cars faster in spec classes, which as we all know is not good for racing. The trend means people need to buy new ESC's, or slower motors, or 1S batteries, or whatever is next to slow things down. It also means a lot of ESC's that don't have updatable software become obsolete, or that those that do, but have inadequate hardware must also be replaced. And it doesn't have to be that way. We have it within our power to stop that right now, with the hardware we've got, bring speeds back into the realm of being reasonable, and ease the pain for racers.
And while we're at it, we can dissuade companies from using prototype hardware or software in spec classes at big races. It violates the spirit of the spec classes in every way, and certainly has an impact on racer attendance. Look at the discussions surrounding the BRL series, and its banning of certain ESC's to see that racers don't want to play this game. And why should we? In the end, it's completely unnecessary, and does nothing but give companies a way to one up each other to sell more hardware to racers that don't need it.
12-17-2009, 02:22 PM
#14
Clearly RC's problems transcend the current scenario with ESC's, and we can't really blame the decline on this particular issue. However, it's certainly not helping.
For one, we're pushing to make the cars faster in spec classes, which as we all know is not good for racing. The trend means people need to buy new ESC's, or slower motors, or 1S batteries, or whatever is next to slow things down. It also means a lot of ESC's that don't have updatable software become obsolete, or that those that do, but have inadequate hardware must also be replaced. And it doesn't have to be that way. We have it within our power to stop that right now, with the hardware we've got, bring speeds back into the realm of being reasonable, and ease the pain for racers.
And while we're at it, we can dissuade companies from using prototype hardware or software in spec classes at big races. It violates the spirit of the spec classes in every way, and certainly has an impact on racer attendance. Look at the discussions surrounding the BRL series, and its banning of certain ESC's to see that racers don't want to play this game. And why should we? In the end, it's completely unnecessary, and does nothing but give companies a way to one up each other to sell more hardware to racers that don't need it.
For one, we're pushing to make the cars faster in spec classes, which as we all know is not good for racing. The trend means people need to buy new ESC's, or slower motors, or 1S batteries, or whatever is next to slow things down. It also means a lot of ESC's that don't have updatable software become obsolete, or that those that do, but have inadequate hardware must also be replaced. And it doesn't have to be that way. We have it within our power to stop that right now, with the hardware we've got, bring speeds back into the realm of being reasonable, and ease the pain for racers.
And while we're at it, we can dissuade companies from using prototype hardware or software in spec classes at big races. It violates the spirit of the spec classes in every way, and certainly has an impact on racer attendance. Look at the discussions surrounding the BRL series, and its banning of certain ESC's to see that racers don't want to play this game. And why should we? In the end, it's completely unnecessary, and does nothing but give companies a way to one up each other to sell more hardware to racers that don't need it.
12-17-2009, 02:25 PM
#15
This past summer and even this winter with a new indoor carpet program, we are experiencing record turnouts,
what and where exactly is the problem that needs fixxing?
what and where exactly is the problem that needs fixxing?
