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, 08:34 PM   #61
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,143
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

What if ROAR had done something about ESC timing back before the SPX was released? It was quite apparent by then that the arms race was in full swing. But instead it went unchecked, and spiraled out of control. A blinky mode 4 years ago would have prevented tons of headaches, money unnecessarily spent on new ESC's, etc.

So now, with the benefit of some hindsight, ROAR is trying to be proactive about (perhaps) the next big thing, and we're going to crucify that for them, too?
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 08:44 PM   #62
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hudson Falls, NY
Posts: 872
Default

You're a legend in your own mind punk! I'm probably old enough to be your father, show some respect! And don't call me "son"!
Team Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 08:45 PM   #63
Tech Addict
 
mdwaeracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 686
Trader Rating: 19 (100%+)
Default

Lotus, Really? Wow. Crying someone said a curse word. Hmm. Oh well.

Back to the discussion. I think all race organizations control their designs. Look at Nascar, IRL,F1. The first two all run the same chassis in their league. Motor size as well and in F1 they tell them which tires have to be ran like a spec tire or scrubs. So ROAR and IFMAR and any other sanctioning body tries to limit technology for cost and fun control.

It's harder to fix a problem after it happens than to head it off before it becomes a problem.

My.02$
__________________
TEAM ASSOCIATED Rc10, rc10B6D ,FUTABA , TEAM ORION, KYOSHO RB6.
mdwaeracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:05 PM   #64
Tech Elite
 
CypressMidWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 4,618
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdwaeracer View Post
It's harder to fix a problem after it happens than to head it off before it becomes a problem.
The "problem" is already A problem in this case. Sanctioning a product that meets the rules at the time of release means that the real problem is incomplete and vague rules.

If the rules are in place and someone creates an advantage that CLEARLY is within the rules, is it right to then ban that advantage, simply because the sanctioning body didn't understand that the rules weren't comprehensive enough?

Now you have companies that have invested time and money developing a LEGAL product, only to have someone ban it after it's release. Sorry, but that's just not right......
__________________
Team CRC, PowerPush, Access Race Place, US Indoor Champs, CD SUPERPRO, RK Designs, TxDSkingraphix, Cypress, Founder and lead instructor of the Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driver Training Program, enroll now.....
CypressMidWest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:10 PM   #65
Tech Fanatic
 
ChrisWolfson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 985
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to ChrisWolfson Send a message via Yahoo to ChrisWolfson Send a message via Skype™ to ChrisWolfson
Default

So for clarification - how about my 22 in the more common rear motor config? I run the aluminum battery brace in the back position with the shorty pack. Two foam blocks go behind and the shorty pack runs up against the brace. Even if I remove the two foam blocks, the standard size lipo doesn't fit in the same position the brace is in. I would have to unscrew the battery holder and move to the frontward holes for the battery brace and reinstall. Does this make my car "illegal" as presented because my battery holder is "fixed" with two screws in a rearward position? If so, I think the rule is worded extremely poor. If it simply means the 22 is fine since a lipo fits in the rear motor car and a lipo saddle fits in the mid-motor car, then ok. If it affects the way I choose to layout the accessories in my car - electronics, battery brace, etc., then I feel the rule is written poorly and needs re-considered.
__________________
TLR / Horizon Hobby / Spektrum / Tekin / JConcepts / MIP / B-Fast RC / UpGrade RC
ChrisWolfson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:13 PM   #66
Tech Elite
 
CypressMidWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 4,618
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndr0me View Post
What if ROAR had done something about ESC timing back before the SPX was released? It was quite apparent by then that the arms race was in full swing. But instead it went unchecked, and spiraled out of control. A blinky mode 4 years ago would have prevented tons of headaches, money unnecessarily spent on new ESC's, etc.

So now, with the benefit of some hindsight, ROAR is trying to be proactive about (perhaps) the next big thing, and we're going to crucify that for them, too?
Yep, persecute 'em!

You and I argued on the same side on the brushless changeover. It was all too apparent that we were headed into a software driven speed war. Of course I really didn't have a problem with it, because I actually liked it. I have purchased exactly 3 brushless esc's in total. I jumped off the sinking LRP/Novak ship as soon as Tekin released a user upgradable esc.

Now in a reactionary fashion, we've gone back to making it all about hardware. Motors, Rotors, and batteries. Have we fixed anything? Not really. Now rather than tuning the esc, we crank up the timing, or change the rotor, etc. Same deal, just different parameters.

The problem is, letting it go doesn't work. Changing it as soon as something new appears doesn't work either.

A clear concise set of rules, that lasts at least ONE FULL SEASON, would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
__________________
Team CRC, PowerPush, Access Race Place, US Indoor Champs, CD SUPERPRO, RK Designs, TxDSkingraphix, Cypress, Founder and lead instructor of the Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driver Training Program, enroll now.....
CypressMidWest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:35 PM   #67
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,143
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CypressMidWest View Post
A clear concise set of rules, that lasts at least ONE FULL SEASON, would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
Rule changes need to be made with racers in mind, and work to preserve parity as much as possible. If that negatively affects some company trying to gain an edge by exploiting a deficiency in the rules, bummer for them.

Products that threaten to erode the integrity of existing classes probably won't be legal for very long. That's how it goes in this hobby. Everybody should know that by now.
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:48 PM   #68
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,696
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
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.

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...
What utter rubbish, why should pro teams and drivers be held back in development just to Joe the Plumber who has never attended a state or national event ever can afford to buy a car.

Club racers keep clubs and tracks open because they love to race, you limit the costs to club racers by limiting the classes they can drive, not by restrictive rules that limit what the pro teams can do in regards to development and it would seem to me that this rule is just that, something that will restrict development.

We have spec racing and one manufacturer type club classes to keep things close and fun for those on limited budgets, so for those who either have the skills to compete at national or international events or have corporate backing, why limit what they can do in terms of car design, let them loose to do whatever in terms of design.

I raced motorcycles for a little over 20 years, the guys i raced with DREAMED of having access to pro parts and bikes, there was no expectation that they should have or that it was their right to have access to them, sometimes it would seem that RC tries to be some socialist utopia where everyone is equal.

Personally i think these new rules are bogus. Thankfully, i am just a club racer, so i am not effected by them.
RogerDaShrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:49 PM   #69
Tech Elite
 
CypressMidWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 4,618
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndr0me View Post
Rule changes need to be made with racers in mind, and work to preserve parity as much as possible. If that negatively affects some company trying to gain an edge by looking for a loophole in the rules, bummer for them.

Products that threaten to erode the integrity of existing classes probably won't be legal for very long. That's how it goes in this hobby. Everybody should know that by now.


How do you legalize the battery then? Oddly, I don't see how they failed to come up with min. pack dimensions in the first place. I mean if the manufacturers are smart enough to come up with the idea, you'd think the legislators would be smart enough to see it coming.

There are no "loopholes" in this rule. THERE ARE NO MINIMUM SIZE DIMENSIONS.

Changing the rules after the season starts is simply BS. You wanna ban it? Then it's only right to wait until the you publish new rules. If ya didn't have the sense to keep it out with the rules in the first place, then re-write the rules NEXT SEASON.

People have already purchased cars that meet the rules, now they change them. Yeah, that saves money.

The needs to stop. Hell, let's all go back to Gold Tubs, 12L's and SCR's.
__________________
Team CRC, PowerPush, Access Race Place, US Indoor Champs, CD SUPERPRO, RK Designs, TxDSkingraphix, Cypress, Founder and lead instructor of the Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driver Training Program, enroll now.....

Last edited by CypressMidWest; 11-14-2011 at 10:02 PM.
CypressMidWest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:56 PM   #70
Tech Elite
 
CypressMidWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 4,618
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndr0me View Post
Products that threaten to erode the integrity of existing classes probably won't be legal for very long. That's how it goes in this hobby. Everybody should know that by now.
Which is why companies are spitting out new batteries and motors on a monthly basis?

Legalize all products at the beginning of the season, for the entire season, in the spec classes. New product release mid-season? Fine for Mod or maybe even Superstock. 17.5 blinky maybe next year.

Pretty much solves the whole issue, and then all you have to do is keep buying the exact same stuff as you burn through it.
__________________
Team CRC, PowerPush, Access Race Place, US Indoor Champs, CD SUPERPRO, RK Designs, TxDSkingraphix, Cypress, Founder and lead instructor of the Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driver Training Program, enroll now.....
CypressMidWest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:57 PM   #71
Tech Fanatic
 
Infinite 12th's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California
Posts: 877
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

__________________
12th scale - The Jedi class...
Infinite 12th is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 09:57 PM   #72
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,143
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Meh, now that the trolling is over this thread is boring. Later!
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 10:11 PM   #73
Tech Addict
 
mdwaeracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 686
Trader Rating: 19 (100%+)
Default

I remember Penske going 1,2,3 at Indy and then getting his motor banned from racing. Split IRL and CART.
__________________
TEAM ASSOCIATED Rc10, rc10B6D ,FUTABA , TEAM ORION, KYOSHO RB6.
mdwaeracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 10:21 PM   #74
Tech Champion
 
liljohn1064's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Deerfield, WI
Posts: 5,583
Trader Rating: 17 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdwaeracer View Post
I remember Penske going 1,2,3 at Indy and then getting his motor banned from racing. Split IRL and CART.
Mercedes push rod motor?
__________________
John Higgins former student of The Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driving School. The "Team Principal".
liljohn1064 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2011, 10:50 PM   #75
Tech Elite
 
CypressMidWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 4,618
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdwaeracer View Post
I remember Penske going 1,2,3 at Indy and then getting his motor banned from racing. Split IRL and CART.
And Tony George's idea of "cost controlled" Indy Car racing just doesn't have the same level of prestige as the Old School CART days either, and for the most part, the High-Dollar multi-car teams still dominate. EPIC FAIL.

Racing breeds innovation. You can try to regulate the speed out, but it always comes back. Look at F1, reduced downforce, lower displacement, narrower tires, and they're faster now than ever.

We, of course, are still struggling to get a clarification on what constitutes a "chassis modification" that would prevent a car from using a full size pack.

I have seen Gen. Xi's run with a full-size pack. A shorty pack takes up less space, so even though I could run my car with the full size pack up the center, and the esc and rx on either side, am I forced to run the electronics in the outboard location with the shorty pack, even though it affords me the opportunity to move my electronics inboard? If so, I guess I could just run the shorty pack across the chassis, and the electronics inline, as that would show the ability to run the full size pack in the same location with no modifications, and still allow much of the full-on inline goodness.......

Of course, some might construe this as taking advantage of a loophole in the rules
__________________
Team CRC, PowerPush, Access Race Place, US Indoor Champs, CD SUPERPRO, RK Designs, TxDSkingraphix, Cypress, Founder and lead instructor of the Ian Ruggles Negative Reinforcement Driver Training Program, enroll now.....
CypressMidWest 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 04:16 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