R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-14-2011, 01:49 PM   #31
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 237
Default

AAA why didn't Frank only make this battery lower not shorter then we will not have this thread


Alf
alf.skaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 03:20 PM   #32
Tech Master
 
HarryLeach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton, VA, USA
Posts: 1,596
Send a message via AIM to HarryLeach
Default

I also don't think the rule is written very well for the possible intentions I read into it.

The first intention I read is to prevent current chassis from becoming obsolete due to specialty battery packs. "Future proofing" the current cars, if you will.

The second intention I read is an attempt to slow down design changes, which could drive costs up even more.


On the first, is this rule going to save people any money? Not for the guys that are going to buy newer cars whenever they want. Let's face it, you can't STOP people from spending money if they want to, just like most rule changes aren't going to make people spend money if they're competitive and/or content with their current gear. So, on the first part, IMO, it's a wash.

On the second, is this rule going to stop companies from designing 100% inline chassis configurations, like we all suspect is coming? Not likely. The CRC Gen Xi is already ahead of this rule since, from my understanding, a shorty battery can be run inline, or a regular battery can be mounted transverse, without repositioning electronics. You can't run a max sized 1s inline without moving stuff, but the rule leaves alternate mounting positions as allowable. Instead, I suspect a fully inline TC will have, as others have suggested, just enough chassis room to tape a max sized 2s pack on a chassis side to satisfy the rules, as well as allow guys with older gear to run a "conventional" layout.


For those guys wondering about the "as presented" portion of the rule, usually this refers to pre-race tech inspection. If you have to unbolt something, remove and reposition electronics, etc, it will fail the section of the rule about being able to fit a legal maximum dimension battery.

I'm not familiar enough with electric 1/10 buggies to comment on ROAR's intended enforcement on buggies that can use a max sized 2s brick, or saddle packs, or a shorty 2s with an alternate drive-line configuration. I would hope if your particular electronics arrangement and driveline configuration would allow either a max dimension saddle OR max dimension brick, you would satisfy the rules.


All in all, I would have expected ROAR to specify a minimum battery physical size along with this rule about accommodating maximum dimension packs rather than the wording they used.

Instead, it looks like we have another can of worms in rule interpretation and/or enforcement.
__________________
Privateer racing lots of stuff.
Remember kids, racing isn't fair!
HarryLeach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 03:46 PM   #33
Tech Lord
 
wingracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,861
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryLeach View Post

All in all, I would have expected ROAR to specify a minimum battery physical size along with this rule about accommodating maximum dimension packs rather than the wording they used.
It's too late for that. We already have several different sized shorty packs, setting a size would probably make some illegal. And having a max and a min still leaves you plenty of room to make a pack of a size no one else uses and design a car that only fits that pack.
__________________
Sean. Certified speed crazed mowron.
Team Shepherd USA
www.ashfordhobby.com
wingracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 03:48 PM   #34
Tech Master
 
HarryLeach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton, VA, USA
Posts: 1,596
Send a message via AIM to HarryLeach
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wingracer View Post
It's too late for that. We already have several different sized shorty packs, setting a size would probably make some illegal. And having a max and a min still leaves you plenty of room to make a pack of a size no one else uses and design a car that only fits that pack.
You're right, though it was too late when they specified maximum sizes with no minimum in the first place.
__________________
Privateer racing lots of stuff.
Remember kids, racing isn't fair!
HarryLeach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 03:54 PM   #35
Tech Prophet
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orange, Ca
Posts: 17,763
Trader Rating: 34 (100%+)
Default

The door is already open for that as you can make anything in the middle of what they have or some thing thin. Again look at what is out there and put a tolerance on it and you kind of bottle it in. Nothing in the current rules preclude you from making a different size battery they just force you to be able to use a full size pack as well.
__________________
TLR/Losi Team Driver
TLR/Losi | Tekin | DE Racing | Spektrum | Exotek | JBRL | Kolor Koncepts | OC/RC |Sticky Kicks | Imagine It Graphics | Casper-RC.com
TLR 22 4.0 SR, TLR 22T 4.0, TLR 22-4 2.0, Spektrum DX6R

WWW.CASPER-RC.COM TLR and Tekin setups
Casper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 04:28 PM   #36
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

Here is what I know:

We all know that rc aircraft were using lipo batteries and brushless motors years before the rc car industry finally "woke up" and saw the light and adopted said technology. Then a few years ago, as lipos and brushless began to get popular with rc cars, a major rc car magazine had a piece written by it's editor that with the advent of lipo batteries we were going to see the designs of rc cars change considerably, since lipo batteries can be made to be much, much smaller and lighter and take up way less space then the NIMH batteries. After all, we know that the basic design of rc cars revolves around the size and weight of two major components; the battery and the motor. We also know now that a lipo battery can be made considerably smaller in physical size and weight and still produce the power and runtime needed; and that a motor the size of a 380 can be made to produce the same sort of power as the standard 540 size. Yet because of the manufacturers resistance and ROARS medieval and archiac rules we still are forced to use 540 size motors and lipo packs that are built to the same dimensions as the NIMH packs that preceded them; the result being that overall rc car design has been retarded from proper growth; and if ROAR and the manufacturers are allowed to continue to do "business as usual", then we will see very little advancement in rc cars going forward. I predict that if something isn't done about this, then 10 years from now, rc cars will still look pretty much the same as they do now, as they did 20 years ago.

I am in favor of advancing rc car design and using new technology to create better car designs and better electronic components.

But for this to ever happen it means that we the buying public, we the racers who support this hobby need to be united and say to heck with ROAR and their ilk and let the manufacturers know that we want to see things loosened up and allow for proper and true advancement of rc car design. Or do we all want to see things stay as they have always been and just play it safe?

Not me!
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 04:44 PM   #37
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,587
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

The problem with the "anything goes" theory is that it spirals into a money and access game. Even if you can afford it, you might not be able to get it.

Since this is a hobby for the vast majority, who keep the doors open at race tracks, you have to consider what will allow the most people to enjoy and compete with their cars.

People get crazy when you tell them they have to buy a new speed control. How is going to 380 motors and whatever sized batteries going to be a popular move? There are still Mabuchi motor diehards out there for Pete's sake...
__________________
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 11-14-2011, 04:56 PM   #38
Tech Elite
 
Rick Hohwart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Lotus View Post
Here is what I know:

We all know that rc aircraft were using lipo batteries and brushless motors years before the rc car industry finally "woke up" and saw the light and adopted said technology. Then a few years ago, as lipos and brushless began to get popular with rc cars, a major rc car magazine had a piece written by it's editor that with the advent of lipo batteries we were going to see the designs of rc cars change considerably, since lipo batteries can be made to be much, much smaller and lighter and take up way less space then the NIMH batteries. After all, we know that the basic design of rc cars revolves around the size and weight of two major components; the battery and the motor. We also know now that a lipo battery can be made considerably smaller in physical size and weight and still produce the power and runtime needed; and that a motor the size of a 380 can be made to produce the same sort of power as the standard 540 size. Yet because of the manufacturers resistance and ROARS medieval and archiac rules we still are forced to use 540 size motors and lipo packs that are built to the same dimensions as the NIMH packs that preceded them; the result being that overall rc car design has been retarded from proper growth; and if ROAR and the manufacturers are allowed to continue to do "business as usual", then we will see very little advancement in rc cars going forward. I predict that if something isn't done about this, then 10 years from now, rc cars will still look pretty much the same as they do now, as they did 20 years ago.

I am in favor of advancing rc car design and using new technology to create better car designs and better electronic components.

But for this to ever happen it means that we the buying public, we the racers who support this hobby need to be united and say to heck with ROAR and their ilk and let the manufacturers know that we want to see things loosened up and allow for proper and true advancement of rc car design. Or do we all want to see things stay as they have always been and just play it safe?

Not me!
How do you feel about foam vs. rubber tires? And are you for or against spec tires?
Rick Hohwart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 04:57 PM   #39
Tech Master
 
HarryLeach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton, VA, USA
Posts: 1,596
Send a message via AIM to HarryLeach
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robk View Post
The problem with the "anything goes" theory is that it spirals into a money and access game. Even if you can afford it, you might not be able to get it.
Can't argue with the availability side of it, but "anything goes" does make for some interesting designs in the course of engineering evolution.

Quote:
People get crazy when you tell them they have to buy a new speed control. How is going to 380 motors and whatever sized batteries going to be a popular move? There are still Mabuchi motor diehards out there for Pete's sake...


I don't agree with much of what you say, but this sums up my feelings on the subject as well.
__________________
Privateer racing lots of stuff.
Remember kids, racing isn't fair!
HarryLeach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 05:03 PM   #40
Tech Elite
 
ShaunMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Loading...
Posts: 3,390
Default

If the battery has been approved and is legal for competition. It only makes sense that a car designed to accommodate said approved battery should be legal too. IMHO
ShaunMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 05:09 PM   #41
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

Then why did we ever allow lipos and brushless in rc cars in the first place? Using your argument; those things made pretty much obsolete the previous technology, and forced most to "pony up" the money to have them or be left behind. The hobby shop/track that I race at is pretty much ALL lipos and brushless now; finding NIMH and brushed there is almost impossible; they are not kept in stock, you have to special order them. I don't hear anyone complaining where I race!

I'm not exactly promoting "anything goes"; I'm saying that certain changes should be made to allow rc car design to grow and not be stagnant. If you allow smaller sized batteries and motors it allows the designers more freedom to create new and potentially better designs!

I believe that people will embrace new ideas and new designs; that is why so many of us frequent these forums looking for info about any new car and component designs that the manufacturers come up with. We like to see change, and not the "same old, same old" all the time. In fact, many complain if a so-called new car is nothing more than a simple refreshening of the previous/current car; we want to see something truly new and different!
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 05:26 PM   #42
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

Rick, as to "foam vs rubber" tires, I think that should be determined to some extent by the purpose of the class you are racing in. For example: My favorite class is F1, and there are those who favor foam and those who favor rubber. If all-out performance is your thing, then an F1 class that allows foam is the way to go. However, if you are more into scale appearance racing, as I am, then rubber is the way to go. Both have their place.

Spec tires serve a purpose in a class of racing designed to keep things as equal as possible. Full scale real F1 racing actually uses "spec" tires from Pirelli that all teams must use; these on the most sophisticated racing cars on the planet!

As to this whole tire issue, it really doesn't have a lot to do with the overall design of rc cars. Whether you use rubber or foam, or spec tires, will not really affect the overall design of the car as much as battery size and weight and motor size. Everything else about the design of the car is built around those two components.

Just to give you some background about myself and why I think the way I do:
I began rc car racing 25 years ago and for over 20 years before that I raced 1/32 slot cars. I am a lifelong fan of F1 racing as well as sports car racing, and the original Can Am series of the 1960s. My car design heroes where Colin Chapman, Jim Hall, Carroll Shelby, and Gordon Murray. I hope that you guys know at least some of those names. These were the guys that shaped modern car racing and were constantly "thinking outside the box" and "pushing the envelope" of car design.
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 05:44 PM   #43
Tech Elite
 
SpraydbySprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Conducting aggressive board meetings at my local track
Posts: 3,301
Trader Rating: 64 (100%+)
Default

I just skimmed through this thread, and noticed the mentioning of the Losi 22 in MM configuration being illegal. However, the 22 can accept a saddle pack in MM configuration, still making it legal for ROAR racing.

Check out the gallery, second pic.
__________________
How would I describe my holeshots?

Three words...

Ready... Steady... Confetti!!!! (gonna need a new one of those)
SpraydbySprague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 06:11 PM   #44
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 293
Default

I have been in the hobby for some 30 years off and on. I have been more in 1:8th Nitro than electric and of course 1:8th is an open class. Run what u brung!
In my lifetime I raced full size cars which included Formula Mazda, then to oval dirt with midgets and full size sprint cars in the 360 and 410 classes. In all of these classes we had different manufacturing producing tires and they were available for the racer to choose manufacturer. Having the different manufacturers advanced the quality of the tires and kept prices competitive.

I believe spec tires opens a can of worms. The spec tire company is chosen by the money being they paid to an organization or by special sponsorship given to someone who makes the rules. However the worst part is the racer will be presented with over priced tires that don't perform as well as other tires in the market. If the same tire is consistently used the quality of the tire will not grow as other brands. (I am referring to RC Market and not full size race cars since we all know the quality of the tire for RC will not place a life in danger!)

To me you should just have two classes. One for the rubber tire and the other for foam tire. As an example, if the class is stock then the racer can choose any rubber tire that falls in the rules regarding size (etc) as we have now. If the class is open then any foam tire can be used. But the spec tire has to be forgotten. There are many manufacturers trying to make a living and offer racers good products today and better products tomorrow. Any rule making that stymies growth in quality is not good for any market.

I am in the tire market for the RC Hobby. However my tires are not any good without a car, motor, battery, radio and etc. 2.4 in radios, brushless in motors, lipos in batteries, would not have been developed and grown in quality if we just choose one company made it spec. Or choose any motor manufacturer as long as it wasn't brushless. We would have stymied growth in the rc market.

I think having cars built for new battery size is okay as long as the other rules are kept such as wheel base and width and weight are maintain for each class. But don't stop the creativity of the manufacturer and any other products. The F1 cars (Full size) don't look the cars of the 60's and 70's. But I am an F1 fan that will be in Austin watching racing next fall. Indy cars found out what spec does for their series and will see a great emergence in 2012 with more chassis manufacturers, motor manufacturers, and body manufacturers and lower pricing to teams! Allow creativity and choice is all I am saying.

Just my 2 cents.
TM America is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 06:32 PM   #45
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

Well said, TM America
Team Lotus 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 06:20 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