R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-19-2011, 07:57 AM   #211
Tech Champion
 
TimPotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Boynton Beach Fl > Randoph NJ
Posts: 7,481
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to TimPotter
Default

Nice "Knee Jerk" rule. What I do not get, is that we have to buy saddle packs for cars that were designed for them ? Is this not the same thing ?
__________________
Clean Title & Escrow|p3|TRF|Tamiya|SerpentAmerica|FSEARA|Team Butter|RC 3|Munno |RCTECH #29|EAMotorsports|BMI|Novak|SpeedPassion|RadioPost
TimPotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2011, 04:28 PM   #212
Tech Champion
 
skypilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,524
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumper View Post
This statement is 100% wrong.

We talked to ROAR. When this rule was made, it had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with on-road. Nothing. It was all about off-road. The shorty pack is legal. The Gen XI is legal. So enough already. There is no longer a need to continue to beat a dead horse for weeks on end. I can't take it anymore.

Maybe everyone needs to turn off their computer or try going to a track and racing. Leave your misinformed opinions at the door, pay your entry fee and have some fun.

Enough already.
OH, so just cause you say the CRC is legal, and Mr. Frank says its legal and Roar says its legal, I'm suppose to actually pay attention and not say its illegal, yea right... this is the internet you know.
__________________
semi retired..
skypilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2011, 04:40 PM   #213
Tech Elite
 
Bob-Stormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glasgow, Montana USA
Posts: 3,518
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

you know, I was just thinking about it. Nobody really complained when we took cell slots out of the 1/12th chassis' for lipo. and then more or less designed the cars to use the brick. routed in nice little pockets for them, or what have you.

and we all went back to connectors...

Nobody complained about different weight motors when we were balancing pods. Some pods balance better with different motors. Does that obsolete the pod? Are some pods an advantage.

Did it kill anything when we went from 2 hole to 3 hole rims in 1/12th as the industry standard?

and how is having a pack specific to the car, any different than having rims specific to a car? you go from Losi to Associated hoping to swap over wheels, you're not gonna find a positive result. how is that different? And wheels and tires are a bigger out of pocket expense than a lipo pack.

We're in the race car business. And this is racing, like it or not. If somebody designs a better package... DANG IT, they designed a better package, and what we had "might" not be as effective.

I can tell you this effects Stormer Hobbies, WAY more than you can imagine. We could go from stocking 200 different (2s) packs now, to maybe 300. But that's how it is. And that's not 200 packs total, that's 200 different part numbers of packs.

"Yea, you're just saying that so you can sell more packs"
. Well, don't forget you have the one pack you're worried about... we'll have over 1000. And when a new pack comes out, guess what, we put the older style on sale, the guys that don't want to change save even more money while we blow them out at a loss.

Even though a change like this will cost us Stormer Hobbies, a LOT. IF you're not going to mandate things like wheels so that a platform doesn't obsolete, I don't know how you can particularly push for a pack restriction.

Where was the ruling when we went from 14mm offroad hex's, then 17mm hex's, then 23mm hex's.

Are we going to eventually have a hard fast rule about center of gravity? Some vehicles are higher, some are lower... is that fair? Is one obsoleted over the other?

I dunno, just rambling. I might even be contradicting myself. That's the nature of a good ramble.
__________________
www.stormerhobbies.com "Where the world shops for radio control."™
www.facebook.com/stormerhobbies
www.twitter.com/stormerhobbies

looking for....vintage 1/10-1/12 pan, need Schumacher 1/12th cars and parts.

Last edited by Bob-Stormer; 11-19-2011 at 06:20 PM.
Bob-Stormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2011, 05:37 PM   #214
Tech Fanatic
 
bakaguyjean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atsugi Japan
Posts: 823
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

I love my shorty pack,I can use it in every car I have from the last 30 years. Shorty Lipo packs are not new. I have been using mine for 2 years all ready. For me large two cell packs are dead. Make the races longer,something like 15 minutes then I might need a large 2 cell Lipo.
bakaguyjean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 11:12 AM   #215
Tech Master
 
Landscaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,937
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Brandon from live rc sums it up pretty well here is a copy from his website


11/20/2011

By Brandon Rohde


LiveRC.com


In case you haven't been following all the drama in the R/C industry, let me introduce you to the latest topic of Internet bitching: ROAR has created a new rule requiring all future chassis designs in electric off-road to fit a full size battery. This essentially disallows vehicles or hop-ups to be designed specifically for the new 'shorty' packs. Let me be the first to say, when I read this rule I vomited in my mouth a little bit. Like many people, my first thought was that this stifles innovation. But after a lot of thought and a lengthy phone conversation with current ROAR President Steve Pond to voice my opinion, I'll be the first to admit that my initial reaction was a bit premature, and I am now in full support of ROAR with this decision. Before I explain why, let's take a look at the official rule that has been posted by ROAR:

Rule 8.2.3
All chassis in all electric classes (except those specifically noted) MUST accept batteries up to the maximum dimensions allowed for its application. The legality of a chassis will be determined as presented to technical inspection. Chassis that require a configuration change, and/or a modification to fit a battery of maximum dimensions will not be considered legal, and the racer will be disqualified. Foam blocks/spacers are permitted to secure any size battery in its position, but the aforementioned spacers may never be attached to the chassis. The only exception is 1/8 off-road where it’s common to use two battery packs to achieve the maximum 4S configuration, or to use a single 4S battery, which has a different specification. Only under these circumstances will the fitting of either configuration be considered legal, but the production chassis must still conform to batteries of the maximum allowable dimensions.

At first glance, it seems like this rule is designed to prevent radical new changes in chassis designs. As a hard core racer myself, I was bummed about this. I like innovation. However, there is a lot more behind the rule than this. Bear with me as this may get a bit lengthy. But hopefully by the time you get to the end of this article, you will see the light on why ROAR has made this bold decision.



First off, let me state the obvious. This rule sounds simple, but the wording of it leaves some room for interpretation by the reader. To clarify my questions, I went right to the top and talked to the ROAR President, Steve Pond. I don't know if there are plans to further explain the rule, or if it will stand as written. But for any obvious questions, I asked, and he answered.



The first thing Mr. Pond wanted to point out is that ALL current platforms are legal. This rule affects nobody at this time. It is a preventative measure as our industry moves forward. The purpose of this rule is not to stifle innovation. It is to prevent electric off-road from experiencing a decline in popularity due to increased expenses because of a lack of standards. As it stands right now, electric off-road is seeing huge growth with the advent of brushless/LiPo and new manufacturers hitting the market. Without a standardized set of rules regarding battery technology, manufacturer's have the option of designing cars or modifications specifically for battery sizes that they offer and sell. I'm not going to call out any companies as having plans to do this. But let's look at this hypothetically. TLR owns Xcelorin, Kyosho owns Orion, and Team Associated owns Reedy. This leaves the three biggest chassis designers with the option of designing a chassis that will only fit their specific battery specs. Other battery manufacturers may jump on board by releasing batteries to fit the specs for each individual chassis, but this ultimately leaves us with multiple different battery options that fit only one specific chassis. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is an absolutely horrible scenario. First, hobby shops will have to stock way too many different batteries. Second, it will be extremely expensive for someone to switch brands. No longer can you switch chassis for $250 and keep the same electronics. Now you need to tack on an additional $200+ to get yourself two new LiPo packs for racing. The reasons go on and on. But the bottom line is that without a standardized set of specifications for battery sizes, the industry will inevitably shoot itself in the foot as we have seen time and time again and kill a class that is currently thriving (insert your rip on how foam tires killed the touring car class in the USA here).



Next, Mr. Pond made a refreshing remark to me. "This rule isn't forever," he said in a 'like-duh' teeny bopper dialect. This rule is in place until a new set of standards are in place, which more than likely will be established over the next year or so. Now, let me showcase my mind reading power to everyone who is reading this. You are asking, "Why didn't ROAR just establish a new minimum dimension?" Well, that too has a very simple answer. You just need to take a breath, turn off the caps lock, take a break from the "ROAR sucks" post that you are in the middle of writing on RCTech, and read on. The reason that ROAR is not creating a minimum dimension is because there has been no set of standards discussed between manufacturers at this time. At the time of writing this article, you can count on 1 hand the number of 'shorty' packs that have been approved by ROAR for competition. Before ROAR establishes a new standard, it is important to get all manufacturers involved to come up with the dimensions that will be used. Furthermore, setting a minimum dimension still leaves open the possibility of 15 different size packs from different companies. I already stated why that is bad. Also consider this; shorty packs are new and in their infancy. Chances are, some company is already working on a 'super-shorty' pack. Instead of making a minimum dimension, ROAR and the manufacturers need to sit down at the poker table with some cigars and brews (hopefully expensed back to each representatives employer), and determine a new set of fixed dimensions for smaller batteries. Once we have that standard set in stone, this chassis rule can then be removed for good. At that time, ROAR can establish fixed dimensions for batteries instead of maximum dimensions. Once that is done, there is no need for this chassis rule anymore since the chassis will obviously need to fit the new size packs. Until that time, this rule needs to be in place to prevent the cars being designed to custom battery pack dimensions.



Next, let's move on to some of the questions I had regarding this rule. These answers are right from ROAR, not someone elses interpretation of the rule. For my own vehicles, I run Team Associated. In my B4, I have recently been playing around with an inline electronics configuration. In this configuration, I have the ESC mounted flat on the chassis, then a 'shorty' battery (held in place with tabs on the battery bar), then the receiver in front of the battery, and the transponder in front of my servo. By ROAR rules, is my car legal? Technically, you can't drop a full size battery pack in the car, so I thought all my recent testing was going out the window. Much to my delight though, this is 100% legal. According to Mr. Pond, the battery tray must fit a full size pack. But if I mount my electronics in there, that is totally fine, with a few exceptions. First, ONLY electronics can be put in the battery tray. Second, they must be mounted in a 'non-fixed' form. This means that servo tape or Velcro® is OK, but gluing them in place, or mounting them on a tray that is screwed in place is not OK. This is simple enough. Let me say this again in very simple terms: electronics, and only electronics (ESC, battery, receiver, servo, transponder) may be mounted in the battery tray. No bolt-on units (queue the Pamela Anderson jokes) may be put in the battery tray. The reason that no bolt-ons are allowed is because this would allow a chassis designer to make a large tray that is ultimately designed for a completely different purpose with the use of a simple add-on piece. All they need to say then is, "The battery fits before we added this transmission right here."



Now, how about you TLR drivers? You have the option of putting your battery holder forward for full size packs, or moving it back for 'shorty' packs. Unfortunately, the battery mount is bolted to the chassis, so you cannot run the spacer in the back position. Does this suck? Yeah, kind of. But the location of the battery mount will make virtually no difference in the way your car handles if you keep it forward and use a block of foam. Yes, I know it is an inconvenience, but its a small price to pay to keep this class growing strong until a new standard is established.



Lastly, what is the rule regarding saddle packs? Well, all of the above rules apply. A saddle pack is an accepted standard size. If your car is designed for saddle packs, then you need to have space for dual cells of equal size that match ROAR's max dimension for a saddle pack. You can mount your electronics in this space if you want, but nothing else. So yes, the TLR 22 and CML C4.1 are both legal with saddle packs.



So, there you have it. My psychic powers are now telling me that you are seeing the reasoning for this rule. And if you don't, I then predict that you either used to race the foam touring car class (I admit, I was one for a brief stint), or you think that stock class racing should still allow boost and no ESC rules. If you are one of the latter, I digress and I'll save that rant for another day.



Share your comments below and let us know what you think about the new rule.



Happy racing, and I'll see you at the track.

-Brandon
__________________
Mugen Mbx7, Mugen Mbx7E
Sweep Racing Tires
http://www.roarracing.com/
Landscaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 12:12 PM   #216
Tech Elite
 
J.Gonzalez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: connecticut
Posts: 2,409
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumper View Post
Or (as was brought up by a couple of high level mod guys in Vegas) start making the batteries smaller! Less run time. Maybe have a little strategy to the race. Road racing has turned into tractor pulling, just pin it and hope for a full pull. Dumping needs to come back. The cars need to slow down anyways. We need less mAh, not more.
I also miss the days of slower modifed 1/12 and dumping...can remember many races when everything change in last 30 sec...hero to zero!

I started racing a bit of 1/8 onroad the past couple years and strategy part is so important and secondly so much FUN on tracks were fuel mileage vs lap time is a battle...be nice to enjoy that in electric also.
J.Gonzalez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 12:32 PM   #217
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,140
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Doesn't dumping a LiPo typically destroy it?
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 02:31 PM   #218
Tech Elite
 
EddieO's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,414
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

While its fine and dandy that Mr. Pond has taken the time to explain the rule....it still doesn't overcome the fact is poorly written and still VERY likely to get interpreted incorrectly at the lower levels.

It doesn't help when even the AE Team Manager read it to say the Losi 22 was illegal and then the ROAR rep said it was....

If ROAR wanted to stop a potential problem, which seems to be the case, they could of done a MUCH better job at writing the rule and explaining it to the public. Would of gone a long way to say "No current chassis is illegal in this". Though after reading Brandon's post, still sure looks like the 22 has an issue unless you use it different than it was designed.

Syndrome, no dumping a LIPO won't kill it....you've dumped when you hit the cutoff....

Later EddieO
__________________
www.teambrood.com
EddieO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 02:55 PM   #219
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,059
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Landscaper View Post
Brandon from live rc sums it up pretty well here is a copy from his website


11/20/2011

By Brandon Rohde


LiveRC.com


So, there you have it. My psychic powers are now telling me that you are seeing the reasoning for this rule. And if you don't, I then predict that you either used to race the foam touring car class (I admit, I was one for a brief stint), or you think that stock class racing should still allow boost and no ESC rules. If you are one of the latter, I digress and I'll save that rant for another day.



Share your comments below and let us know what you think about the new rule.



Happy racing, and I'll see you at the track.

-Brandon
Interesting comments. Firstly the manufactures listed above still use Lipos built by someone else with there brand name on them and secondly the rule is poorly written and has lead to considerable confusion.

I would also follow up by saying that as per my previous posts in 12 months time we will see is what works as I suggested for the spec classes don't allow them at this stage but for open/mod IMO leave the doors open to allow manufactures to develop alternatives and find out what works best and then in 12 months time we can develop a standard.

I am also one of the latter and boost is what we run locally and I am happy to hear your rant when ever you have time.
frozenpod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 03:23 PM   #220
Tech Elite
 
Bob-Stormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glasgow, Montana USA
Posts: 3,518
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

I'm resisting a LONG post... gonna collect my thoughts.
__________________
www.stormerhobbies.com "Where the world shops for radio control."™
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 11-21-2011, 04:17 PM   #221
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,696
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-Stormer View Post
I'm resisting a LONG post... gonna collect my thoughts.
Where did you leave them Bob?
RogerDaShrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 05:43 PM   #222
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
Where did you leave them Bob?
Specifically? I'm not sure. (I'm sure my wife knows... you married guys will back me up on that.)

humor aside, it's complicated, and then it's not. I just want to point out something in the fewest words possible.
__________________
www.stormerhobbies.com "Where the world shops for radio control."™
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 11-21-2011, 10:17 PM   #223
Tech Elite
 
Bob-Stormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glasgow, Montana USA
Posts: 3,518
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

Here we go.

Firstly, if it's a rule, and it's there now, for better or worse there you have it. If you don't like the people in charge making those decisions for you, then run yourself and make changes. It's always easier to be an armchair quarter back. And I'm including myself in that.

So if it's there, we likely can't change it, all we can do is discuss it and if there is enough disapproval, it might lead to a different outcome later in a similar scenario.

"...First, hobby shops will have to stock way too many different batteries...."
That is a very ignorant statement. Not that it's not true, but that we ALREADY stock to many packs, this won't change that at all in my estimation. But that's the nature of choice. If we change to a new standard, we will whittle out the old, and have the same number of packs. If it takes 300 now, it will take 300 later. Hobby shops with to many packs?!... 600+ vehicles, that's not a concern though. 2 of each, Just two, that seems like a reasonable number for a shop, only $360,000.00 That shouldn't be a problem for anybody. Stack 'em up 2 kits high on the ole' shop counter, get them on display! Hmm, I seem to need a counter 700 feet long. heck with that, we've got batteries to work on!

These numbers for Tower and Amain could be high or low. I'm not particularly good at using either site, as you might guess. But I think they are accurate enough to prove the point. "Stock to many packs..." that ship sailed maybe 15-20 years ago.

Lipo packs at Stormer Hobbies (292 different ones).
http://www.stormerhobbies.com/cgi-bi...ode=0&showt=on

Lithium car batterys at Amain (114 different ones).
http://www.amainhobbies.com/index.ph...-Car-Batteries

Lipo car packs at Tower (100+).
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...CGEINT&P=ML&S=

At that point 3-4 more packs is NOT going to make a lick of difference. Might even help some places. You don't need all 292 packs, you could get by with just the 1 pack. Wrap around that for a second.

I don't feel we need the rule, and here's why. Bottom line ROAR wants standards in offroad. Fair enough. Standards always iron themselves out. But not for the reasons you might think. Be honest, do you really know how we ended up with brushless?

"...manufacturers might spec a pack that is unique to their car! So when a person changes his car his pack might not work in the new car, this will cost him/her more money.."
Let's assume our only goal is to get racers to the track, not appease some kid in an alley smashing his Stampede into a vert ramp. (he'd have to buy all new stuff anyway when he started racing, so that's a non-issue).

So this wouldn't effect anybody new. They'd have new stuff.

So when this Joe racer sells off his old car, if his new car uses a different pack, any particular reason he wouldn't sell his old packs with the car and GET NEW PACKS for the new season anyway? He's willing to sell his old car to get a more competitive car, and can get his money back on his old packs... So, what's the difference between getting yourself a new pack and getting yourself a new pack? you put a new pack in the old car, you put a new pack in the new car, there is no difference financially. And if the rims don't swap, he'd sell those too. Along with the spare diffs and suspension arms and shocks and springs that don't interchange.

There isn't one part on any competing brands cars that interchange in the first place (no need to nit pick that statement). Using offroad as an example. How did we end up focusing on the one part we assume we're gonna pick up a new one of every now and then anyway? you have a new car, you eventually get a new pack.

"the pack might be an advantage in some way, they could design a better car that only uses that pack and obsolete your current pack.". Am I missing something on this? Isn't every race car that's ever been manufactured, in ANY industry full size or scale, by any race car company, designed to be the best, and to knock the tar out of their competitors sales and obsolete their design? Which ironically includes their OWN design from last year? Isn't that how you make a better race car? isn't that the only reason you want a newer race car? not because it's new, but because it's supposed to be better? Or fits your needs better? Man, this car is a turd, but look how good that pack fits in there... I'm gonna buy that car! Nobody will intentionally buy a car they feel is inferior for it's intended purpose just because of the pack shape.

Do the suspension arms off the Losi 22 fit the B4.1? Nope. Is that unfair or going to cost anybody any money... in any way? Completely different designs. No, and you don't expect them to. Same with every other part on the car, down to the body. and this isn't a matter of 2 cars for offroad.

Stormer Hobbies as of my last check, lists 286 offroad vehicles. That's just offroad vehicles. There is some overlap with body colors, but you get the idea. 286 offroad vehicles. Has anyone ever complained about Ford parts not fitting Chevy? Or 2004 mustang parts not fitting 2010 mustang? It's the nature of progression. and in our case, the nature of racing.
http://www.stormerhobbies.com/cgi-bi...ode=0&showt=on

Is it unfair, in any way, that none of those 286 suspension arms interchange? Or that a slash body doesn't fit yadda...yadda..? between competing manufacturers, is there even one chassis that fits each vehicle? Nope. every piece for every car is different.

That's how race cars are made. And how they are designed by people who's only goal is to build a better mousetrap and wipe away the sales of every other manufacturer. Hudy, is not the least concerned that he might take (whatever brands) sales with his new design? That's how he wants it to happen. That's how they all want it to happen, that's why you do it.

Have you ever seen a race result that wasn't a spec series, where every car in it was from the same manufacturer? Nope. how would this change that fact?

"...TLR owns Xcelorin, Kyosho owns Orion, and Team Associated owns Reedy..." If there was ANY advantage to ONLY allowing your stuff in YOUR chassis, we'd have already seen it. It is ineffective for Associated to spec their stuff into ONLY their chassis as there are 285 other offroad chassis's they've now locked themselves out of. And even if they did, there would be about a 2 week delay until the aftermarket made an adapter to allow Associated speedos in other vehicles. That's the nature of racing.

Bottom line on that one, they don't dare, it would foolhardy at best and cost them dearly in the marketplace. just like the shortcourse industry, all on it's own, has settled on a hex size for rims that is more standardized. As a manufacturer you "COULD" make your own unique stuff. BUT that would take you out of the hunt with the people that make a living making rims and tires. AKA, has 70+ short course tires to make your truck better. As a manufacturer can you ignore that? Include Jconcepts and Proline (over 100 each).

Somehow, the most bizarre of tire sizes became standard 2.2"-3.0" This had nothing to do with any sanctioning body. It's what happened all on it's own. Somebody was using it, made it, and it became accepted, and that was that. And now it's so standard, you'd be a fool to try and change it offer up something different.

I feel that surely these kinds of things need to be monitored. But you want to find yourself without income as a manufacturer? make your stuff less mainstream and make it less interchangable. "Hi, we're Tekin, and we made the RX8 to only fit the Venom Gambler...HA! Take that Novak..." All changing pack shape is gonna do is allow certain things to be easier to make and maintain. And as long as you have to make or maintain a minimum weight, the whole pack issue is just a question of where on the chassis you put the weight. And it's possible that maybe we have the wrong shape in the first place.

"...the industry will inevitably shoot itself in the foot as we have seen time and time again and kill a class that is currently thriving (insert your rip on how foam tires killed the touring car class in the USA here)..."

Foam tires killed the class? just foam tires? What made the class "less popular" is how hard it is to do. Foam tires just amplified how poorly you drove compared to guys like Burch who could use the extra power and traction in a perfect linear fashion. While you're car now flipped end over end at the end of the straight because you didn't spend the 4 hours in between heats rebuilding your car from the chassis plate up. I don't run foam touring because I don't have the time. I need a class where I can be a bit more lazy in my pit work and wrenching. No forgiveness in foam touring. Same thing with Blinky and open speedo. I don't have all day at the track to figure out what I did wrong with the speedo. I barely have time to even get the car on the track. And I'm not the only guy, and all on it's own, Blinky is preferred, just like rubber tire touring. Racer entrys tell you the story on where they want to play. Some are honest about it. Like myself. I appear to be to busy (read lazy if you like) to do a decent job at foam touring. So I find myself enjoying classes like the Tamiya mini, and 1/12th Blinky. I'm busy, we are all busy. just like Nitro truggy and buggy. Very demanding. I love it though. I just don't have the time I'd like to put into it. and it seems from race results I've seen, I'm not the only guy.

Just casual debate. I don't mean anything personal by any of it. I feel ROAR is important, I feel standards are important. It's possible that maybe this ruling was a bit "hasty". I have no desire to be ROAR president, I'm quite comfortable doing the Monday morning quarterback program. Also, from what I've witnessed in the past, no matter what I did, or said, people would assume that any rule that was controversial would in some way benefit us. Put ANY motor manufacturer in charge of ROAR and watch the fallout, speculation and conspiracy theory.

600+ vehicles, 300+ packs of batterys. when a new car comes out, we dump the old one. still 600 of them. Old packs become less popular, we dump them and pick up the new. Still 300 packs. Guy buys a new car, he's gonna get a new pack if he needs it, and sell his old one to recoup his money. not much change in price in that scenario. Nip the whole thing in the bud, just put up a dimension for a pack. My minds been swimming for hours with ideas on how to improve a car with velcro and servo tape. Don't think it won't happen. Anybody that's ever designed a car is already laughing at this. It's like it's a challenge. It's like every debate I've ever had with my spouse... I didn't even want a new lawn mower until you told me I couldn't have it.
__________________
www.stormerhobbies.com "Where the world shops for radio control."™
www.facebook.com/stormerhobbies
www.twitter.com/stormerhobbies

looking for....vintage 1/10-1/12 pan, need Schumacher 1/12th cars and parts.

Last edited by Bob-Stormer; 11-22-2011 at 12:00 AM.
Bob-Stormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2011, 10:57 PM   #224
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,696
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Great post Bob, i have been waiting all day for it to. And dont be concerned about how long its going to be, your posts always contain some jewels that spark the imagination.

Like you, im lazy, I raced motorcycles for 20 odd years, the first 10 ultra competitive, where between raced i was tinkering with something always trying to gain an advantage, later on, it was for fun and unless i broke something i never put a spanner to the bike other than for regular maintenance.

Now that my body is broken and abused, i race RC, and while i like to tinker at home in my own time on the cars, at the track i want to throw the car on the track, race, have fun and between races change batteries. That's it for me, i am not looking for that last .01 of a second lap time, i just want to have fun and enjoy myself. I started in nitro and moved to EP for that every reason, to much work between races keeping the car in tip top order.

And i know that i am not the only one who wants to do things like this, make it fun and they will come, i think that's something that a lot of people have forgotten.
RogerDaShrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 12:06 AM   #225
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,586
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

I guess I am going to be a big jerk, but here it goes...

The idea that foam tire racing is too hard for the masses was correct. The idea that soft racers bailed on the class because they didn't have the dedication or talent is about half right. The cars got too hard to drive because nobody did anything about it when they should have.

Foam tires became popular, ironically enough, because rubber tire was a total cluster F. 4 or 5 different rim hardnesses, innumerable types of inserts, and then the tires, not to mention air gap, vent holes, S3's, building H23's with a lathe, blah blah...

So eventually, the premount handout tire became popular, but as that was happening, foams caught fire. Foams didn't "go off" after X number of runs, and they actually lasted a pretty long time. Not to mention, you could save small tires for big events when the traction went way up. So maybe you needed a truer, and you had to watch out for chunks, but honestly it was better than trying to keep tires on your car at what was often $40+ a set. A lot of people used at least a new set of rubber tires a week.

For a while, it was great, you just bought plaids and purples. But here's where things go off:

*Softer tires I remember seeing 35's on mod cars at the 2003 nats. Then magentas, then by the end pinks, which brings us to..

*The end of the dual ring tire. After the second Vegas race, everybody figured out you could run 4 magentas, which made the cars harder to drive and also way more sensitive to tweak.

*Wraps and 52mm rims. I raced the 2007 Nats at CEFX with a $0 tire bill, since I saved all my 54-55mm tires from club racing. I just skimmed them straight. Who knows if it contributed to my remarkably mediocre finish, but it was cheap fun. Wraps meant you either had to buy the "patented" (as it turned out, not really) Jacos, which no body else sold, or weasel enough out of someone custom making them. Even after the big rims came out, the thing that did not change was the fact that you couldn't do what I did at the nats. Since the tires had to be cut down to 57mm most of the time, and often less than that if you were serious, you were getting far fewer runs than the 50mm rim.

*.020 bodies. The body tuck could be fixed with the rearward facing body post for the most part, but the reactivity of the car also increased, once again making the car harder to drive.

What would have fixed most of this? A spec purple and plaid with a stripe like the WGT cars. Unfortunately, no body wanted to hear about this for various reasons. It was attempted by the Grand Slam folks, but at too late a date.

Maybe this battery rule is unnecessary, but I don't see how it hurts anything. What hurts things is just letting them spiral out of control. Oval racing made a decision to go to 4 cell at one time, which a lot of people doubted, but they could be like 1/10 pan and be functionally dead. While obviously still constantly debated on this forum, I still say blinky saved on road from what was going to be a really big mess.

People do vote with their feet, and that's because it's supposed to be a fun hobby, even at the higher levels. I agree with Bob on that point for sure. I just think that there has to be vigilance because the gray areas will always be exploited, and without anything tangible on the line for the average person, they will walk away instead of becoming frustrated.
We need to the average guy to keep racing alive and to keep track doors open.
__________________
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
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 08:12 AM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net