Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road
Proposed R.O.A.R. rules change >

Proposed R.O.A.R. rules change

Proposed R.O.A.R. rules change

Old 01-13-2011, 08:27 PM
  #406  
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 216
Default

Originally Posted by Tekin Prez View Post
... We made an honest mistake in the very complex software, the other manufacturers found it for us, and we fixed it as soon as we were aware of it. Nothing more to it than that and again proving we do police ourselves and the public does not need to be concerned. People just need to know it was detected quickly, it is right now, and will not happen again. Thank goodness for updateable escís


Tekin Prez
I was hoping there would (finally) be an explanation given of how you could have accidentally included the "very complex software" needed to create advanced timing in your spec mode, but I see we still aren't getting one. I have lost a great deal of respect for Tekin in this whole matter. The ONLY bright spot of it all is that it was detected quickly by other manufacturers and corrected. Unfortunately, not all of my local tracks are requiring v212. Lame excuses given are that "some people had problems with v212" and "ROAR and/or Tekin never said that v208 had timing in it".

Having said that, I still tend to agree with those who support the "blinky mode" for 17.5 "stock". TC on-road needs a stock class with managable speeds for new racers. There also needs to be an in-between class for experienced racers, whether it's boosted 17.5, unboosted 13.5, or a combination of the two.

I would strongly suggest to ROAR that the penalty for illegal software should be similar to the penalty (from brushed motor days) for illegal motors from a manufacturer:

8.4.1.6 Any motor found to be in deliberate violation of any specification will result in the OEM
Importer/ Manufacturer/ Builder to have their products banned from any ROAR
approval for a period of one year.
Kevin Marcy is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 08:47 PM
  #407  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (45)
 
oldrcr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 796
Trader Rating: 45 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Kevin Marcy View Post
I was hoping there would (finally) be an explanation given of how you could have accidentally included the "very complex software" needed to create advanced timing in your spec mode, but I see we still aren't getting one. I have lost a great deal of respect for Tekin in this whole matter. The ONLY bright spot of it all is that it was detected quickly by other manufacturers and corrected. Unfortunately, not all of my local tracks are requiring v212. Lame excuses given are that "some people had problems with v212" and "ROAR and/or Tekin never said that v208 had timing in it".

I would strongly suggest to ROAR that the penalty for illegal software should be similar to the penalty (from brushed motor days) for illegal motors from a manufacturer:

8.4.1.6 Any motor found to be in deliberate violation of any specification will result in the OEM
Importer/ Manufacturer/ Builder to have their products banned from any ROAR
approval for a period of one year.
Not to back any company, software is not as easy as you make it seem to be void of mistakes. None of us can say what actually was the case with 208/212. Maybe it was that an access pointer to dynamic timing was buried in a single pixel on the software dashboard and could be accidentally put into play by a user? What difference does it make, it was deemed accidental and corrected. As for the penalty for a deliberate violation of any specification, I agree, nothing wrong with making that part of the rulebook. As with any case of potential violation, proof of it being deliberate would need to shown. I can't imagine any manufacturer would really want to flirt with a ban. It doesn't make good business sense to potentially lose a years worth of sales of all your products.

By the way, I'm going racing, at any speed, that is the fun part for me, and why I do this hobby. See ya on the track.

Last edited by oldrcr; 01-13-2011 at 09:05 PM.
oldrcr is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 08:48 PM
  #408  
Tech Master
iTrader: (6)
 
g12314's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicago, IL.
Posts: 1,294
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by skypilot View Post
to quote a scene from "Bazzling Saddles"
Your not suggesting with some of the above, that ALL the spec modes and esc's are equal are you, I can tell you for a FACT that the SP spec esc is NOT as good as a SP/TEKIN/NOVAK with spec software. end of that story
r
Funny, on our carpet track, the SP ESC in spec mode has no problem keeping up with any of the competitors spec mode ESC's. I've run 100's of laps testing with another racer who had a Tekin (V212) in his car and saw no difference based on the ESC... Difference based on our motor / gearing selection was obvious. I can always toss a Tekin in my car to see if it does make a difference, but based on the laps I've run I dont expect it to.

Regarding the Cirtix, I ran it outdoor in spec 17.5 against the others and never felt at a disadvantage.

Last edited by g12314; 01-13-2011 at 09:21 PM.
g12314 is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 09:11 PM
  #409  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
 
CypressMidWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 4,618
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by skypilot View Post
Your not suggesting with some of the above, that ALL the spec modes and esc's are equal are you, I can tell you for a FACT that the SP spec esc is NOT as good as a SP/TEKIN/NOVAK with spec software. end of that story
Kevin, you know I love ya right? Now here's my retort to the above statement.

Is it possible that the $60 speedo may not have the same quality of componentry, (fets, etc.), as the speedos that cost almost THREE times as much? I understand that an updatable ESC will cost more due to the need for the re-writing capability, but a difference of over 100% is unlikely. In the archaic brushed motor days, an M5 Novak looked just like an M1C without the current limiter. The M5 was $60, the M1C was $115. Ran 'em both, and the M1C was way quicker. Then came the Hyperfet, an M1C with better fets, faster still.

If the big SP is on par with the LRP/Novak/Tekin offerings, then I'd say that the whole "spec-blinky" thing is working pretty well. Chevy used to sell $10,000 Metros and $50,000 Corvettes. Guess which car was faster
CypressMidWest is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 09:16 PM
  #410  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (2)
 
DARKSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nashville-Memphis
Posts: 9,315
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

got to love VTA...thanks USVTA

25.5 Novak and limited esc's ...why not..

hey ROAR...add VTA to your classes and that can serve as your entry into r/c onroad racing...

thanks again USVTA...we finally got it right...

man this is alot to read if you miss a day..geez
DARKSIDE is online now  
Old 01-13-2011, 09:46 PM
  #411  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (45)
 
oldrcr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 796
Trader Rating: 45 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by DARKSIDE View Post
got to love VTA...thanks USVTA

25.5 Novak and limited esc's ...why not..

hey ROAR...add VTA to your classes and that can serve as your entry into r/c onroad racing...

thanks again USVTA...we finally got it right...

man this is alot to read if you miss a day..geez
Nice to see one company gets to win the lottery and be the only motor provider allowed in a class. Please, don't get me started.
oldrcr is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 09:59 PM
  #412  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (2)
 
DARKSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nashville-Memphis
Posts: 9,315
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

works for me...one less varible to deal with
DARKSIDE is online now  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:21 PM
  #413  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (43)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 867
Trader Rating: 43 (100%+)
Default

Somebody tell me what is wrong with this idea.....Theoretically everyone could win.
Have a "stock" and "super stock" class for each motor and let the regions and tracks decide what they want to run.
Examples:

Entry class 21.5 no boost and is "stock" 21.5
Next would be "super stock" 21.5 with boosted speedos
Then 17.5 no boost is "stock" 17.5
Next would be "super stock" 17.5
And the list goes on to say 10.5 and beyond which could be mod.
With the above, each track could decide what motor they want to run for the size track they have and average skill level driver of that track plus it would allow for the flexibility of those that want to play with the boosted speedos to do so and go a few ticks faster. It would also allow the guys that wanted to go "fast" and not want mess with the speedo to do so, but wouldn't make them have to learn all the intricacies of the boosted speedos to go fast. I hope I have explained this like I have it in my head which is sometimes the hard part....lol I DO NOT WANT THE BOOSTED SPEEDOS BANNED!!! I think that would be a joke, however, I also do not want people that can drive a faster car to be forced to figure out all the bells and whistles of the newer speedos to be competitive in the faster classes. It has to be kept so that the person with the average amount of time can be competitive - they pay the bills. I for one will not spend my limited, valuable track time trying to figure out the best settings on my speedo. I am going to be making laps!
mracer is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:26 PM
  #414  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (14)
 
skypilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,533
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by g12314 View Post
Funny, on our carpet track, the SP ESC in spec mode has no problem keeping up with any of the competitors spec mode ESC's. I've run 100's of laps testing with another racer who had a Tekin (V212) in his car and saw no difference based on the ESC... Difference based on our motor / gearing selection was obvious. I can always toss a Tekin in my car to see if it does make a difference, but based on the laps I've run I dont expect it to.

Regarding the Cirtix, I ran it outdoor in spec 17.5 against the others and never felt at a disadvantage.
I guess I should have added, your results may vary.

I have had the cirtix spec stock system, I raced with it, I kicked some ass with it. I loved it, I even tried to get the lhs/track to get some. they didn't, so the racers went on line and got it, they were happy, they liked the performance, then "new spec" software came out and those systems are on the shelf now. well some of them, the others just wanna run and don't care.

btw, this is the track I tested on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwTXUr2Ay3E
skypilot is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:40 PM
  #415  
avs
Tech Master
iTrader: (2)
 
avs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,175
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by mracer View Post
...however, I also do not want people that can drive a faster car to be forced to figure out all the bells and whistles of the newer speedos to be competitive in the faster classes. It has to be kept so that the person with the average amount of time can be competitive - they pay the bills. I for one will not spend my limited, valuable track time trying to figure out the best settings on my speedo. I am going to be making laps!
with all due respect, i think you are only reacting to a transient phenomena. the advent of dynamic or ramped timing, boost or whatever you want to call it is a relatively new option due to the arrival of consumer priced microprocessors and low cost digital signal processing capability. the impact of this is twofold:

1) reconfigurable hardware ESC's providing more performance with lower motor temperatures and lower reliance on battery voltage in the low turn spec motors.

2) a temporarily steep learning curve that everyone is still on. some of us are nearer the bottom or top than others. (this situation applies to consumers and manufacturers).

i submit that these algorithms will become commonplace among all mfgs. in time, and the optimal parameter values will settle down for a given class vehicle and motor configuration. (as long as the Luddites don't win)

this kind of innovation is exactly the kind of thing that makes this hobby interesting and infuriating but never boring.

in regards to the reduced 'throttle' feel that some have complained about with boost timing, i expect that the root cause will be recognized and the desired response characteristics will be recovered without resorting to flogging motors and batteries with fixed timing.
avs is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 11:28 PM
  #416  
Tech Master
iTrader: (2)
 
mikel33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,585
Trader Rating: 2 (75%+)
Default

my 2 cents.

I don't understand the 21.5 thing and vehemently disagree. If ROAR or a local track wants to have a slower class or novice class, why not simply mandate 0 timing on the motor and 0 in the esc? or a gearing restriction(that one's tough, I know).

I would like to see 17.5, 17.5 open, and mod. I feel there needs to be a class in between stock and open mod that is further from stock that 21.5 to 17.5.

I also don't see why a programmable speedo with zero timing would not be allowed in the 17.5 class. We need to figure out how to embrace technology, not run from it. That is a sure fire way to completely destroy on-road. I ran Tekin before turbo and timing boost, and would like to continue to run the product. If it conforms to the rules, why ban it? With all the scrutiny around this issue I am not too concerned with someone programming around the rules or letting software get out the doors with that kind of mistake. Label me a Tekin crusader if you want, but I am tired of hearing about v208.

I would also point out cost effectiveness. With 1 chassis I can race 2 classes with a 17.5 and programmable speedo. throw in a 13.5 or 10.5 and I can run mod. 2 classes with nothing but a handful of gears and 3 with 1 extra motor.

In the end, I hate going backwards. I race both restricted and unrestricted 17.5 and have no interest in restricted 21.5. This is TC, not usvta where they have a specific goal and idea for that class. There should be a TC class where a good club racer can step up and run faster before mod, never mind the fact that most of the carpet tracks in this country (at least around me)really aren't big enough to run mod unless you are a world class racer.

again, my 2 cents.

michael.
mikel33 is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 11:35 PM
  #417  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (50)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,010
Trader Rating: 50 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by mikel33 View Post
my 2 cents.

I don't understand the 21.5 thing and vehemently disagree. If ROAR or a local track wants to have a slower class or novice class, why not simply mandate 0 timing on the motor and 0 in the esc? or a gearing restriction(that one's tough, I know).

I would like to see 17.5, 17.5 open, and mod. I feel there needs to be a class in between stock and open mod that is further from stock that 21.5 to 17.5.

I also don't see why a programmable speedo with zero timing would not be allowed in the 17.5 class. We need to figure out how to embrace technology, not run from it. That is a sure fire way to completely destroy on-road. I ran Tekin before turbo and timing boost, and would like to continue to run the product. If it conforms to the rules, why ban it? With all the scrutiny around this issue I am not too concerned with someone programming around the rules or letting software get out the doors with that kind of mistake. Label me a Tekin crusader if you want, but I am tired of hearing about v208.

I would also point out cost effectiveness. With 1 chassis I can race 2 classes with a 17.5 and programmable speedo. throw in a 13.5 or 10.5 and I can run mod. 2 classes with nothing but a handful of gears and 3 with 1 extra motor.

In the end, I hate going backwards. I race both restricted and unrestricted 17.5 and have no interest in restricted 21.5. This is TC, not usvta where they have a specific goal and idea for that class. There should be a TC class where a good club racer can step up and run faster before mod, never mind the fact that most of the carpet tracks in this country (at least around me)really aren't big enough to run mod unless you are a world class racer.

again, my 2 cents.
michael.
zero timimg in the motor is not a level playing field and not an option for limiting speeds unless its all one manufacturers type and version of motor.

Motor makers have different amounts of timing as "zero" on a sticker or a mark, gearing would be the only option. Timing must be adjustable to allow all makes of motors.
Jaz406 is offline  
Old 01-14-2011, 12:47 AM
  #418  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (13)
 
ottoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 2,765
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Damn I am sure glad we quit racing after the IIC... reading this thread gave me a headache and convinced me we made the right decision
ottoman is offline  
Old 01-14-2011, 03:11 AM
  #419  
Tech Champion
 
tc3team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 6,151
Default

Originally Posted by mracer View Post
I disagree with this. I think there should be at least a beginner class, in a major racing class, i.e. stock tc and not TA, at all "big" events - whatever you want to call it i.e. novice, sportsman, or whatever the name. It is hard for the new guy to go to an event where he is the slowest one there and get a chance to drive and learn when he is constantly trying to stay out of the way, especially if he is trying to drive and not mess up the faster guys. I have been this guy and have watched others struggle with it. Newer racers go to big events to advance themselves and learn from faster guys and broaden their racing experience. And it is a pain in the butt to do when you are constantly a back marker in part because you are slower and don't want to mess up someone else's run and because you are not that good yet. When the newer racer goes to a big race, they mostly need help in the pits with car setup etc., but they need a class to apply that at that race without constantly being concerned about the guy that is lapping them. If they see they should bump up then that is up to them and the race director.
In the UK, back in the days of brushed motor classes, the BRCA done away with the 27t class and put its focus more into pro stock and mod classes.

27t was a VERY expensive class, it would not be uncommon to hear of motors and brushes being changed or skimmed after every run, best voltage nimh etc etc and it killed "stock" racing for the younger racers imo.

The sponsored or wealthy guys locked out all the top finishing positions, it was not an introduction for an up and coming younger or rookie racer to get motivated in.

Since then, a junior championship was created to get up and coming younger racers noticed, but it never got enough interest to keep it going.

I can only assume that big events can be intimidating to the newer or slower guys and hence the low booking in numbers it can generate.

Not really sure what my point is, but all I can say is that no matter how hard an organisation tries, sometimes it is still looking for a good answer to cater everyone.

Kudos to the guys that have been trying to come up with a solution, I hope it all works out for you.
tc3team is offline  
Old 01-14-2011, 06:39 AM
  #420  
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 103
Default

Have the people who are the makers of the rules ever concidered the future
and asked the manufactuers of batteries to put more effort into 6.6V LiFe
batteries! All governing bodies around the world need to grow a pair! and maybe concider them more.

Its also funny how with all the advances in speedies and motors and batteries that the SLOWEST class to go FASTER is Modified! and also its the smallest in driver numbers no matter where you race. Enjoyable to watch the best in the world do it! but last time I looked there was a small number of them to.

Maybe the govering bodies around the world SHOULD be looking at restructuring classes rather than capping the classes that have the most
drivers in them..... There is a lot of options out there to choose from, who has the biggest pair to guide this hobby we all enjoy.
ODEN is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.