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, 06:20 PM   #181
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

Eddie and others. I'm sure I'm reading the rule different than you are. I guess I'm trying to give the guys at ROAR the benefit of the doubt that they were/are aware of the current line of cars from multiple manufacturers that allow for multiple configurations.

I've yet to see a minimum battery "plug" tool.

I do agree that the way the rule is currently written leaves too much room open to interpretation.
__________________
"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, 06:29 PM   #182
Tech Champion
 
liljohn1064's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Deerfield, WI
Posts: 5,583
Trader Rating: 17 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenpod View Post
Bob the standard Lipo size is very similar to what we are already using.

I think the post above your's is from a chemical engineering type. To me it sounds like there is no standard size a battery needs to be, but rather an attempt to conform to the shape of older tech of the 6 cells. As far as the future is concerned we should see what the battery and motor makers can build for us, then start shaping the future around that technology. If you build a class around the new tech, the hobby will grow. I personally don't care what the shape is, but a different shape can give me more current and a longer run time, I'll eventually buy in. As far as shorties, too late. They are already allowed. They are the same tech, just a different wrapper so to speak. It is the cell size/shape specific chassis that are not allowed.

And yes it should be for the bleeding edge mod classes.
__________________
John Higgins former student of The Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driving School. The "Team Principal".

Last edited by liljohn1064; 11-17-2011 at 06:33 PM. Reason: The Bleeding Edge
liljohn1064 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 06:55 PM   #183
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Wow I got quoted by Bob!

As for the whole spec thing...Most if not all the controversy around the shorty packs are in stock and 13.5 1/12th scale and TC...Stock is not Spec. Currently the shorty packs are really only viable in stock 17.5 and 13.5 as they have lower capacity and would dump in mod classes.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 06:57 PM   #184
Team EAM
 
EAMotorsports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 9,161
Trader Rating: 79 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to EAMotorsports
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liljohn1064 View Post
I think the post above your's is from a chemical engineering type. To me it sounds like there is no standard size a battery needs to be, but rather an attempt to conform to the shape of older tech of the 6 cells. As far as the future is concerned we should see what the battery and motor makers can build for us, then start shaping the future around that technology. If you build a class around the new tech, the hobby will grow. I personally don't care what the shape is, but a different shape can give me more current and a longer run time, I'll eventually buy in. As far as shorties, too late. They are already allowed. They are the same tech, just a different wrapper so to speak. It is the cell size/shape specific chassis that are not allowed.

And yes it should be for the bleeding edge mod classes.
Linger is the person that does all the ROAR Lipo approvals and testing. He is some sort of Engineer and probably knows more about lipo's than everyone on this board combined so He would know better than anyone about them.

He's a very good guy to boot.

EA
__________________
Contact Us
Team EAM, Our Facebook
Team EAM | Xray | RCAmerica | Hudy | APEX Raceway and Hobbies | RC Mission | Killer Concepts | AVID | Hobbywing.
EAMotorsports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 07:31 PM   #185
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linger View Post
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.
Which is understandable at the time since the cars were still designed around NiCad/NiMh cells. BUT now that NiCad/NiMh is gone from racing why are we still being shoe horned into the same sized battery packs? Now that shorty packs can have enough capacity for stock and 13.5 we need to start looking at cars designed only for those packs and probably even start re-evaluating our minimum weight rules again as well.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 07:33 PM   #186
Tech Champion
 
liljohn1064's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Deerfield, WI
Posts: 5,583
Trader Rating: 17 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EAMotorsports View Post
Linger is the person that does all the ROAR Lipo approvals and testing. He is some sort of Engineer and probably knows more about lipo's than everyone on this board combined so He would know better than anyone about them.

He's a very good guy to boot.

EA
I'd like to hear a lot more of what Linger (or any other chemical engineer) has to say about batteries. Like what would be the optimum size and shape of a battery, max current and max run time for a given cell composition. Especially if the cost of manufacturing can be reduced on top of it.
__________________
John Higgins former student of The Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driving School. The "Team Principal".
liljohn1064 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 07:34 PM   #187
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,059
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liljohn1064 View Post
I think the post above your's is from a chemical engineering type. To me it sounds like there is no standard size a battery needs to be, but rather an attempt to conform to the shape of older tech of the 6 cells. As far as the future is concerned we should see what the battery and motor makers can build for us, then start shaping the future around that technology. If you build a class around the new tech, the hobby will grow. I personally don't care what the shape is, but a different shape can give me more current and a longer run time, I'll eventually buy in. As far as shorties, too late. They are already allowed. They are the same tech, just a different wrapper so to speak. It is the cell size/shape specific chassis that are not allowed.

And yes it should be for the bleeding edge mod classes.

Yes it does sound that way.

RC flight packs are mass produced and built to suit the chemistry. They are similar in size and shape to mobile phone lithium batts not to mention camera lipos cordless phones ect. They are similar in many ways to the size and shape of our hardcase Lipos. Lipos fill up the gaps which were in the round cells.

I think we really are not far off the mark with the current batts but if they can be made smaller lighter and cheaper why not.

Have a look at the mass produced lipos in this link they are mostly dirt cheap and mass produced. They all have a somewhat common length width and thickness to the cells not far off what is inside the hardcases lipos we run now.

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...brands_29.html
frozenpod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 07:39 PM   #188
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,059
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InspGadgt View Post
Which is understandable at the time since the cars were still designed around NiCad/NiMh cells. BUT now that NiCad/NiMh is gone from racing why are we still being shoe horned into the same sized battery packs? Now that shorty packs can have enough capacity for stock and 13.5 we need to start looking at cars designed only for those packs and probably even start re-evaluating our minimum weight rules again as well.
Yep I agree but we could also look at using the increased capacity and running longer. We have been running 6 minute heats and 7 minute finals which has been great. Next year they are talking about going to 8 minute finals (I hope they do).
frozenpod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 08:08 PM   #189
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,588
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieO View Post


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

I am responding to you because you continue to push the argument. Just so everybody knows the losi 22 is NOT illegal. As a rear motor it takes a max size stick lipo, as a mid motor it takes a max sized saddle pack. How you arrange the electronics or use a smaller battery is up to you. Same with the guys posting the sedans that have a right side battery with the shorty pack and esc on the same size, that is fine. The custom car from the ETS is not fine, since only that shorty pack will fit. I contacted Technical Director Ron Schuur about the sedan scenario because when the rule was under consideration, it was worded a little differently, the "as presented thing" threw me off. It is the chassis that is the concern.

What gets me upset is the "ROAR = clownshoes" comments and the idea that ROAR is so stupid they are going to just outlaw a 5 year old car. Obviously everybody else is a bunch of geniuses, but anyone involved with roar is automatically a moron without the aid of logic or intelligence, or some sort of misanthrope who is waiting to foil all the best plans of the racing public. The fact that an attempt to standardize a dimension , just like the motors, or the width, or the weight, is met with so much derision baffles me. Even more amazing is that the change really doesn't affect anything commercially available right now. I really don't see why anyone would want to send home a guy with a jrxs or any other 6 year old car that may not fit a max sized battery. If you use some logic, Gil JR did not have a crystal ball to see this rule, and was not trying to get around it. The fact that it is undersized is due to it being old, not an attempt to use a custom pack.

At some point someone has to make decisions, and of course there will be people who don't agree. Unfortunately, rctech seems to be given to hysterics.
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 08:26 PM   #190
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,588
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy_Pike View Post
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketron View Post
Seaball has expressed the intention of the rule correctly, the new rule does not affect (or shouldn't) existing chassis on the market. But is a step to prevent new chassis being designed around specialty battery designs.

All the organizing bodies (including EFRA, IFMAR etc..) are working together to eliminate specialty battery sizes, to prevent what could lead to batteries being designed for specific chassis.

ROAR just happens to have been the first to publicly publish a rule regarding this issue.
<<<From the Technical Director


This is from several pages ago. The biggest issue seems to be that ROAr is stifling creativity. Roar also stifles motor creativity, width creativity, weight creativity, and many other creativities (is that a word?)

The rule simply states that the car must fit the biggest battery. You may use the smallest battery if you wish, and innovate a new electronics layout if that is your desire. Yet the next guy can just put the car together and put a battery in it, and race. I acknowledge that it creates a "box" to design in, but that's kind of the point.
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 08:59 PM   #191
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

So tell me, is the "box" going to stay the same for another 20 years, or are we ever going to be allowed to reinvent the "box"?

Basic overall car width and wheelbase and tire/wheel size SHOULD be regulated so that rc cars still look like real cars. But the chassis that resides under the car body shouldn't be so tightly controlled by battery and motor size and placement of such. There should be more freedom allowed; but that can never happen so long as ROAR and others force us to use only the one "box" design that they are pushing on everyone.

Enough of the "cookie cutter" chassis already!! All forms of rc racing are slowly but surely being turned into "spec racing" all under the delusion that it controls costs and makes it more affordable/usable for the average Joe. Well it has been my experience that the average Joe who walks in off the street and buys a car for himself and his kid, races for a year or two maybe, and then the kid finds something else he would rather do than race rc cars and he quits, kids today are very fickle; and then not long after, the father gives up since his kid isn't there anymore. Is that the group they are pandering to?

The die-hard racers stick with the hobby/sport because they love to race and they enjoy the technology and trying new cars and parts, etc. They are not afraid of change, but embrace it. Ask any real full scale auto racer if he wishes that race car design and technology would freeze at one level and never really change much. His/her answer would be HECK NO!! They love to drive new and different car designs; they are always looking for the next "new thing". The same is true with rc cars.
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 09:11 PM   #192
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenpod View Post
Yep I agree but we could also look at using the increased capacity and running longer. We have been running 6 minute heats and 7 minute finals which has been great. Next year they are talking about going to 8 minute finals (I hope they do).
That is an option...but 1/12th has always been 8mins...do we increase that to 12mins? Something to consider though...with lighter cars and the same time we should see a decrease in tire wear, for club racers that would be great...especially on asphalt.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 09:38 PM   #193
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,059
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InspGadgt View Post
That is an option...but 1/12th has always been 8mins...do we increase that to 12mins? Something to consider though...with lighter cars and the same time we should see a decrease in tire wear, for club racers that would be great...especially on asphalt.
I also agree I was just suggesting an alternative option to consider.

I am personally fond of lighter cars as you say less drive line wear, less tyre wear, break less parts on impact, less power for the same speed ect.

We have lots of options to move forward and IMO the only certaintly at this stage is that we need to move forward.
frozenpod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 10:40 PM   #194
Tech Elite
 
jlfx car audio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jackson,tn
Posts: 3,370
Trader Rating: 36 (100%+)
Default

U know the new electric car from tesla motors has its battery under the entire car to lower cg and not take up any space , just sayin... One day the rectangle battery must change to something more ideal for the job if u will. Instead of stacking those 2s2p packs on each other put them all flat and mount them flat on chassis then electronics... One day the box will be rebuilt but I would rather it evolve
__________________
Justin & Matt Lyons
Awesomatix USA, EA motorsports, Sanwa, Protoform, Avid, Gravity Rc , TSR!
a800s sanwa m12s
jlfx car audio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 10:47 PM   #195
Tech Master
 
LonnyJ1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ. USA
Posts: 1,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robk View Post
What gets me upset is the "ROAR = clownshoes" comments and the idea that ROAR is so stupid they are going to just outlaw a 5 year old car. Obviously everybody else is a bunch of geniuses, but anyone involved with roar is automatically a moron without the aid of logic or intelligence, or some sort of misanthrope who is waiting to foil all the best plans of the racing public. The fact that an attempt to standardize a dimension , just like the motors, or the width, or the weight, is met with so much derision baffles me. Even more amazing is that the change really doesn't affect anything commercially available right now. I really don't see why anyone would want to send home a guy with a jrxs or any other 6 year old car that may not fit a max sized battery. If you use some logic, Gil JR did not have a crystal ball to see this rule, and was not trying to get around it. The fact that it is undersized is due to it being old, not an attempt to use a custom pack.

At some point someone has to make decisions, and of course there will be people who don't agree. Unfortunately, rctech seems to be given to hysterics.
I have not been a ROAR member since I stopped travelling to bigger races. When I first joined, I had a 4 digit number. Roar was introduced as a way to standardize rules so you could travel to a race and know you wouldn't run into a new rule that barred you from racing. In those days most of the rules concerned how the cars looked. Scale, or at least semi-scale, appearance was the goal. That has certainly gone by the wayside. Otherwise ROAR has generally done a good job, but this rule was obviously rushed into place as a reaction to The CRC Gen Xi, and the possibilities it raised in design. You can argue it's intent all you want, but it will be enforced by people who could use it to ban cars they don't like or, worse, people they don't like. It is too vague, and very poorly worded. if ROAR wants to restrict the size of batteries and the design of cars, fine, it won't bother me. These days I only club race, mostly with old friends and though we loosely follow ROAR rules, we enforce or ignore according to our needs and whims. Nevertheless, this rule needs to be revised for clarity so it won't be misused. As is it will almost certainly be misused or ignored. Maybe ROAR should just go all in and ask manufacturers to submit cars for approval like most of the other stuff we use. Then you either have a legal approved chassis or you don't. This is the system NASCAR has used for years.
__________________
Lonny
LonnyJ1950 is online now   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 02:07 PM.


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