R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-17-2011, 11:31 AM   #166
Tech Master
 
Xpress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dirt sucks!
Posts: 1,614
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eds24 View Post
This rule is ridiculous......I'm a strong believer in creativity and developing r/c cars which continue to gain performance. With this newest rule say good bye to any hope that we had of companies trying new designs and thinking out of the box and say hello to the dominance of cookie cutter cars continueing.
I think the A700 is pretty creative and it fits a full size pack and a 540 size motor.
__________________
"Desire is the key to motivation, but it's the determination and commitment to an unrelenting pursuit of laying it down - a commitment to excellence - that will enable you to attain the success you seek to beat ass."

-Espo
Xpress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 01:39 PM   #167
Tech Champion
 
Kevin K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: In a land of mini-mighty mental giants
Posts: 8,833
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to Kevin K Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin K
Default

This is the dumbest argument I have seen on here in a long time. Itís a ROAR rule you follow it if you want to race at ROAR events. Correct me if Iím wrong but donít all ROAR rules prohibit advancements in technology just by their own nature of being a rule? How does this rule effect things even more then say track width of your car? Or minimum weight of a carÖ..when someone could make a TC that is 190+mm wide and weigh in at 1100g. Is this fictional car manufacturer going bat crap crazy about the rules saying why does their car have to adhere to the 190mm max and 1380g minimum weight rules? No they know the rules set forth by ROAR going in and they follow them and build a car to be within spec of the ROAR rules. This new rule is just like all the other rules itís not going to stop anything more than the current rules or any rule does by its own nature of being a rule.

Also if you donít like ROAR step up and work with them to make it better. Or just sit back and keep throwing stones at them from behind your computer screensÖ..my guess is that there will be far more stones tossed ROARís way then people offering to help.
__________________
2013 USVTA World Champion of the World
MOTIV RC presents the Midwest All-Star Carpet Series....15th year running 2017/18!!!
USVTA National Championship....check it out!!!
Im only responsible for what I say NOT what you understand.

Last edited by Kevin K; 11-17-2011 at 04:39 PM.
Kevin K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 02:09 PM   #168
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,696
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eds24 View Post
As someone who is personally in the process of designing a touring car conversion kit designed specifically with the shorty lipos in mind im very frustrated with this new rule. Now my conversion kit most likely wont be able to be marketed to the general public but I plan running one at non- roar sanctioned events.
You could sue them, its the American way, its most likely Unamerican not to sue them,.
RogerDaShrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 02:20 PM   #169
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

LiPo in RC Cars is still in its infancy...development is still occuring at a breakneck speed so we still really have no idea what these batteries will be capable or how small they can be in the near future. Current LiPo dimensions are what they are because they were originally designed to fit in cars that ran NiCad and NiMh batteries. Those chassis designs are no longer a factor and so those battery dimensions are no longer relevant. Yes we will need some guidelines to chart a path for the future but we still need to allow for the development that will advance us in new ways...not get mired in the old.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 02:56 PM   #170
Tech Master
 
Xpress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dirt sucks!
Posts: 1,614
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin K View Post
This is the dumbest argument I have seen on here in a long time. It’s a ROAR rule you follow it if you want to race at ROAR events. Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t all ROAR rules prohibit advancements in technology just by their own nature of being a rule? How does this rule effect things even more then say track width of your car? Or minimum weight of a car…..when someone could make a TC that is 190+mm wide and weigh in at 1100g. Is this fictional car manufacturer going bat crap crazy about the rules saying why does their car have to adhere to the 190mm max and 1380g minimum weight rules? No they know the rules set forth by ROAR going in and they follow them and build a car to be within spec of the ROAR rules. This new rule is just like all the other rule it’s not going to stop anything more than the current rules or any rule does by its own nature of being a rule.

Also if you don’t like ROAR step up and work with them to make it better. Or just sit back and keep throwing stones at them from behind your computer screens…..my guess is that there will be far more stones tossed ROAR’s way then people offering to help.
...but what about the babies? You've got to think about the children......
__________________
"Desire is the key to motivation, but it's the determination and commitment to an unrelenting pursuit of laying it down - a commitment to excellence - that will enable you to attain the success you seek to beat ass."

-Espo
Xpress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 03:35 PM   #171
Team Tekin
 
Randy_Pike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Norcal
Posts: 9,702
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Send a message via Yahoo to Randy_Pike
Default

This is all lame...

The way I'm taking it is the rule is being put in place to establish a standard of sorts that will disallow a chassis that cannot accept a "standard" stick pack configuration at all. Now if the chassis has multiple configurations ala Dex210 or Losi 22 than the car is legal. Even though the car can be configured with a shorty pack because it was the option of the user to alter it.

If I'm correct than my only suggestion to ROAR is to rewrite the rule to establish more clarity.

Considering most of today's pan cars and TC cars all use tape to hold in the packs it would make no logical sense to have the rule mean anything else.

I suppose the capitalist in me would say that allowing a manufacturer to make a chassis that did only use a battery of proprietary configuration should be allowed. It in fact would then be up to the consumer to decide to buy or not to buy such a car or product. IT would then also be up to the aftermarket manufacturers that make batteries to make a suitable product for said chassis.

I will say that I am disappointed to see a ROAR official making light of actual concerns rather than taking what constructive criticism there is and putting it to good use(no matter how little of it there may be).
__________________
"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." Abraham Lincoln

Tekin,Protek,A-Main Hobbies,JConcepts,Avid RC,Yokomo,MIP,SikLidz,FactoryRC, www.randypikerc.com
Randy_Pike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 04:39 PM   #172
Tech Elite
 
Bob-Stormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glasgow, Montana USA
Posts: 3,518
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerDaShrubber View Post
You could sue them, its the American way, its most likely Unamerican not to sue them,.
lulz

Quote:
Originally Posted by InspGadgt View Post
Current LiPo dimensions are what they are because they were originally designed to fit in cars that ran NiCad and NiMh batteries. Those chassis designs are no longer a factor and so those battery dimensions are no longer relevant. Yes we will need some guidelines to chart a path for the future but we still need to allow for the development that will advance us in new ways...not get mired in the old.
Exactly, Maybe what we should do is simply ask somebody in the manufacturing "biz" some simple questions. Like, "what's the easiest shape to make, and the most COMMON". like nicad and Nimh were. Rather than reinventing the wheel, we simply USE THE WHEEL... Cell sizes were an industry standard, and not just our industry. Why are we mandating a shape based on a technology that's no longer used?

Here's us... "Hi, we don't use record players or records any more. Is there a way you can make my MP3 player fit this gargantuan hole in my living room? I don't want to get a new entertainment center, just figure out how to stuff this postage stamp sized equipment where my record player was..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy_Pike View Post
I suppose the capitalist in me would say that allowing a manufacturer to make a chassis that did only use a battery of proprietary configuration should be allowed. It in fact would then be up to the consumer to decide to buy or not to buy such a car or product. IT would then also be up to the aftermarket manufacturers that make batteries to make a suitable product for said chassis.
What wins on Sunday sells on Monday. I used to kind of believe that... Lately I believe, "What wins on Sunday is tirelessly debated for months". The debate starts on Monday.

If somebody manages to build a better race car... Congratulations, YOU BUILT A BETTER RACE CAR. That's kind of how this all works. as an example, Xray is going to have a new car next year anyway. Does it "Really" matter if the pack is different? If the car doesn't work, you're not going to buy it anyway. It's got to be better car.

All putting a crazy shape pack in your old car does, which has to meet all weight and dimension rules, is make you have to rebalance the car.

If you're buying a new car, what's $60-$80 for a new pack? It's a non-issue. Nobody has 20-30 packs like we used to do for nicad. And at the start of a new season, you were VERY likely to buy a new pack ANYWAY!

Let's ask somebody what the easiest shape is to make, the most COMMON shape. And THEN tirelessly debate it. Cars were designed around round cells because Black and Decker used 200 Billion of them a year. This made it cheaper for us.

Knowing what works for them, not for us, is the most common sense approach to the whole thing. IMHO.
__________________
www.stormerhobbies.com "Where the world shops for radio control."ô
www.facebook.com/stormerhobbies
www.twitter.com/stormerhobbies

looking for....vintage 1/10-1/12 pan, need Schumacher 1/12th cars and parts.
Bob-Stormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 04:57 PM   #173
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

Corallyman, maybe you should put your glasses on and go back and read my post again before you accuse me of things. I never said that the new Calandra car wasn't ROAR legal; I knew it was. I just said that it is popular, and may prove to be great; and that with the "shorty" pack it was at least a little different than the rest, and hopefully points the way for more fresh new ideas.

That is all I said about that car. Funny how of everything I did say in my post, you didn't say anything about; you just picked on me about the Calandra car, and you didn't even get that right!
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 05:06 PM   #174
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

Kevin K, I have contacted ROAR several times in the past to suggest ideas and "work with them" as you suggested. But they only politely replied a couple of times to me, and basically told me they would take it under consideration.

I never heard from them again

It's the same old bueracratic crap of THEY are the people with the power, and only THEY know what's right for the rest of us. So, don't confuse them with facts, because their minds are made up.
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 05:15 PM   #175
Tech Elite
 
DesertRat's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sniffin the 'Sauce Fumes
Posts: 2,711
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Debates are good for small-talk, but when the buzzer blares the winner is still the guy who put more track behind him in the six or more minutes you raced. I think Bob has a point where there is no need for everything to accommodate the same pack as LiPo's last hundreds of charges and you don't need 20 (thank God), and I really don't think that anybody should or even would actually be turned away or DQ'd on the basis of not being able to fit a "standard" pack. This could be some shit if they really wanted to push this, and it doesn't really do the hobby any good. Screw it, I will still run my JRXS-R (battery wont clear the back brace) at that ROAR regionals in January and NOBODY will call me out on it, guaranteed.
__________________
I race toy cars for fun. If I need to explain, you'll never understand.
Current rides: Diggity DC4 Chassis #10. Losi JRX-S Type R. Losi 22 4.0, CRC Xi (retired), CRC Altered Ego Aluminum Chassis. Associated B4 based dirt oval late model.
WTB: Carpet racing in Arizona.
DesertRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 05:17 PM   #176
Tech Master
 
Buckaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,503
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-Stormer View Post
lulz


Exactly, Maybe what we should do is simply ask somebody in the manufacturing "biz" some simple questions. Like, "what's the easiest shape to make, and the most COMMON". like nicad and Nimh were. Rather than reinventing the wheel, we simply USE THE WHEEL... Cell sizes were an industry standard, and not just our industry. Why are we mandating a shape based on a technology that's no longer used?

Here's us... "Hi, we don't use record players or records any more. Is there a way you can make my MP3 player fit this gargantuan hole in my living room? I don't want to get a new entertainment center, just figure out how to stuff this postage stamp sized equipment where my record player was..."



What wins on Sunday sells on Monday. I used to kind of believe that... Lately I believe, "What wins on Sunday is tirelessly debated for months". The debate starts on Monday.

If somebody manages to build a better race car... Congratulations, YOU BUILT A BETTER RACE CAR. That's kind of how this all works. as an example, Xray is going to have a new car next year anyway. Does it "Really" matter if the pack is different? If the car doesn't work, you're not going to buy it anyway. It's got to be better car.

All putting a crazy shape pack in your old car does, which has to meet all weight and dimension rules, is make you have to rebalance the car.

If you're buying a new car, what's $60-$80 for a new pack? It's a non-issue. Nobody has 20-30 packs like we used to do for nicad. And at the start of a new season, you were VERY likely to buy a new pack ANYWAY!

Let's ask somebody what the easiest shape is to make, the most COMMON shape. And THEN tirelessly debate it. Cars were designed around round cells because Black and Decker used 200 Billion of them a year. This made it cheaper for us.

Knowing what works for them, not for us, is the most common sense approach to the whole thing. IMHO.
Someone else gets it!
__________________
Tom Keith

Tekin & Sweep, thanks for all that you do for you know who!

Associated/T.O.P./Mugen/Fantom/Spektrum/Savox
Buckaroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 05:24 PM   #177
Tech Elite
 
EddieO's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,414
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Yeah, working with ROAR has really worked out well for a lot of us. When I was on the electric committee, the EXCOMM would rarely communicate with us and just pass rules. When we did have ideas, pretty much none of them made it anywhere.....

Look no further than Eric Anderson, who tried to work with ROAR.....how did that turn out?

I've sent countless emails to ROAR asking for the exact process they use to determine if a ESC is running timing and what equipment is used, along with setup. I have never recieved a response. I had to talk to Reto from LRP and Jim from Tekin to get the low down on how it works, but I still would like to know the official ROAR way......

Randy, I guess I am and many others are reading the rule different. The way I read it, if your car is presented at tech and cannot fit a max size battery in its current configuration without reconfiguring it or making mods, its illegal. Like most rushed ROAR rules, it poorly worded and highly likely to enforced incorrectly. If you read the ROAR facebook thread, they don't even know which cars it would currently impact. Sorry, but if you are gonna pass a rule, you should at least know if it makes a car like the Losi 22 illegal. We got guys on here saying the 22 is legal, the guys, along with Brent from AE on facebook saying the 22 is illegal.

And Robk....you can continue to single me out, that's great if it makes ya feel better. The point being is I am not the only one who thinks this rule is stupid....I have not had many issues with ROAR decisions the last few years, the only ones I have spoken out against was blinky, banning programmable ESC (which was never implemented to my understanding) and this.....shit, even in the facebook post the guy says they are removing the rules for my beloved brushed motors....brought a tear to my eye, but you don't see me complaining they did it.....why, because it makes sense to remove it....

Later EddieO
__________________
www.teambrood.com
EddieO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 05:34 PM   #178
Tech Master
 
linger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Retired
Posts: 1,132
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-Stormer View Post

Exactly, Maybe what we should do is simply ask somebody in the manufacturing "biz" some simple questions. Like, "what's the easiest shape to make, and the most COMMON". like nicad and Nimh were. Rather than reinventing the wheel, we simply USE THE WHEEL... Cell sizes were an industry standard, and not just our industry. Why are we mandating a shape based on a technology that's no longer used?
Hi Bob,
Great point. Since I was in the battery "biz" for a while, I can answer the part about using a standard size li-Ion or Li-Ion Polymer battery.

For round Li-ion - the standard size is 18650 (18mm diameter x 65mm length- you can thank SONY for that standard) or 26650 (26mm dia x 65 mm length). The problem with a round Li-Ion cell is that you cannot configure the cell as a "stacked" cell, where you have a multiple sets of anode/cathode pairs. You can only do a "jellyroll" type cell with just one anode/cathode pair. With this type of construction, high current is not possible with typical Li-Co2 chemistry. We can get "medium" current capability with li-phosphate and li-mn or spinel - but not enough for RC applications. A123 figured out how to get good current capability but their energy density sucks.

For prismatic li-po cell - there is NO standard size. With a prismatic cell, this opens up the possibility of a stacked cell - and thus very high current capability - which is great for RC racers. With no standard size, there is no "Wheel" so ROAR had to invent this "Wheel" - thus came the original old ROAR rule that make the first Li-po cells approximately the same size and configuration of NiMh and Nicad.
__________________
I used to be a spitter, now I'm a swallower. I graduated.
linger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 05:59 PM   #179
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,059
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Bob the standard Lipo size is very similar to what we are already using.

Look at RC flight packs for standard sizes, atm we have something that is slightly bigger in a hard case.


IMO we should not allow the shorter packs in the spec classes but they should be allowed in MOD/open classes (this is the point of the open class to push technology to find new better ways of going faster).

Then if they prove to work allow them in the spec classes in 12 months time, this also goes for all new technology advancements.

Last edited by frozenpod; 11-17-2011 at 06:07 PM. Reason: spelling
frozenpod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 06:19 PM   #180
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,696
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenpod View Post
IMO we should not allow the shorter packs in the spec classes but they should be allowed in MOD/open classes (this is the point of the open class to push technology to find new better ways of going faster).

Then if they prove to work allow them in the spec classes in 12 months time, this also goes for all new technology advancements.
THIS:

Which was exactly the point i made about 10 pages ago. Highly regulated Spec racing is the mechanism to use to keep costs down and the playing field even and its the place where most club racers race.

Mod on the other hand should be about pushing the envelope in all regards, in terms of speed and development. If mod is the pinnacle of 1/10 EP racing, it stands to reason that it should be on the cutting edge of tech and development and the governing bodies should be proactive in working towards that goal.
RogerDaShrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TLR 22 Racing Buggy Thread devnull Electric Off-Road 21236 02-26-2017 05:57 PM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 03:59 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net