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, 11:03 PM   #76
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,587
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndr0me View Post
You're a troll!
I sit at the feet of the master...
__________________
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, 11:38 PM   #77
Tech Master
 
CR0SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: EL Jebel
Posts: 1,498
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

From what I see the only car that might have problems with the new rule is the Exotek F1R with the uni-crank steering system. The servo is in the way of a regular size lipo fitting.

The 22 with the mid motor conversion accepts saddle packs. I do not see how this rule makes the 22 chassis illegal.
__________________
You know the guy that beat you at the last race? It was not because of his car, or motor, or battery, it is because he was a better driver. Now go practice so you can beat him.

Visit my Youtube channel for HD R/C videos. http://www.youtube.com/user/DHCross1
CR0SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 12:23 AM   #78
Tech Elite
 
WheelNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton, Ab
Posts: 3,210
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Send a message via MSN to WheelNut
Default

Should we do what is right for the manufacturers, or the racers? Seems like ROAR is siding with the racers.
__________________
•Brad Comis

Last edited by WheelNut; 11-15-2011 at 11:59 AM.
WheelNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 02:43 AM   #79
Tech Champion
 
tc3team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 6,151
Default

It makes me wonder if the BRCA are going to follow suit with this rule....
__________________
Fusion Hobbies / www.horshamrc.org

The wife stops me being sane and the r/c stops me from going insane....
tc3team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 04:50 AM   #80
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 251
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

It appears that this new rule is to prevent the design of a chassis that ONLY accepts a "special" or shorty pack. It appears from the wording and chatter on other forums, if the chassis accepts the standard "max" dimensions pack, it is legal.

The makes the CRC Gen-Xi completely legal in all configurations, shorty, inline and cross pack. For that matter, any other 1:12th car out now is legal with a 1s Shorty pack as well, each of these other chassis fit a full pack and therefore they are legal.

If a car is designed around a short pack and only a short pack, and serious modifications (dremel, drill) are needed to fit the standard pack, then this rule may come into effect.
Team CRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 06:13 AM   #81
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,865
Default

There are definite packaging advantages to using a shorty pack or even a 1/18th size pack.

ROAR seem to have kept the cat in the bag before most of us realised there was a cat in there.

Considering the mess that 1/10th scale has got itself into with motors and ESCs in "stock" class, I'd suggest that stopping the "custom pack" war before it has a chance to get started is a Good Thing.
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 06:53 AM   #82
Tech Master
 
Buckaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,503
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sosidge View Post
....... I'd suggest that stopping the "custom pack" war before it has a chance to get started is a Good Thing.
Even if such a rule were to sitffle growth and development in the area of chassis design and drivetrain arrangement?

Could I please have my house and car back, there's this nice cave and horse I would trade you!

If you spec a max, by definition you must also spec a min. To do otherwise in the technology turnover/development culture that we've enjoyed since the late 70's, and especially in the lat 10 years, is just plain silly. Without a min spec, you de facto leave it open to what's possible, and by omission in the rules set HAVE to accept it as legal until or unless such rules set is ammended.

Such a min/max, though comes with the responsibility to review annually based on what's possible, fairly and impartially. That last bit is something that ROAR has struggled with.

The helicopter and airplane community has firmly embraced the current tech, and look how it's prospered because of that simple fact!

The simple fact is that ROAR and the racing community is going to have to learn to grow progressively with technology as bushless motors get lighter, more powerful and effecient, batteries get smaller and achieve a higher energy density, and ESCs get more sophisticated.

Writing exclusive rules once the genie is out of the bottle is not a sign of good leadership, or even good stewardship in a rules body. Re: the ongoing push to eleminate boost and flashable ESCs. Shorty lipo rules are headed down that very same road!

It's a dim view and VERY sad commentary on ROAR if they think or write rules because of the belief that people are lemmings. In any case, it's been the human way to always want what's new, regardless of wether it's good or appropriate. Who is ROAR to decide how I or anyone else is going to spend our money for any given product, or for that matter, how any company is going to spend it's R&D, production, and marketing money? Just because a car/battery/motor is NEW doesn't somehow make anything that anyone purchased yesterday SLOW or unable to win. Heck, people are still winning races with batteries, motors, and chassis that are several years old. Look at all the new batteries, motors, and chassis that are fresh and have yet to win(substantively) and have basically faded into the background with all the other stuff in the catalog.

There will always be people with more money, there will always be people with more brains, and there will always be people with more money than brains. Caveat emptor.

The collective ostrich needs to pull it's head out of the sand.

If that doesn't happen, we risk advancing in lurching leaps(again)......just like we did getting from round cells and brushed motors to lipo and brushless. The most recent trend by the racing community to what's possible with current technology has NOT made it go away, or made racing any cheaper, nor made it more accessable to more people.

That alone should be the object lesson and a textbook example of "What not to do".
__________________
Tom Keith

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

Associated/T.O.P./Mugen/Fantom/Spektrum/Savox
Buckaroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 07:10 AM   #83
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Even if such a rule were to sitffle growth and development in the area of chassis design and drivetrain arrangement?

Could I please have my house and car back, there's this nice cave and horse I would trade you!
I'd rather pit in a cave and race horse-and-carts against 40 other people than live in a spaceship and race a new shape of battery every week against 4.
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 07:19 AM   #84
Tech Master
 
Buckaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,503
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sosidge View Post
I'd rather pit in a cave and race horse-and-carts against 40 other people than live in a spaceship and race a new shape of battery every week against 4.
...but you'd still argue over the breed of the horse, weight of the cart, and size of the wheel. And if that didn't get you anywhere, you'd argue over what the horse was fed the night before and start examining poop! Maybe you're racing with the wrong people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
There will always be people with more money, there will always be people with more brains, and there will always be people with more money than brains. Caveat emptor.

All I'm saying is that you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle, and you shouldn't be so naive as to believe that technology won't progress, with or without us!

If anything, rules bodies like ROAR should be on the forefront of exploring what is possible and working within the manufacturing community to foster such growth, not locking the form/fit/function of 2011 technology into a 1975 vision of what things should be. If ROAR can't figure out how to do this, then it's time for new leadership within or without ROAR.

Exclusion tactis only make it more difficult and expensive to adapt once it's accepted that the roll of the tide can no longer be resisted. By that time, it's too late to spec anything other than what's already on the market. The recent history of the adaptation of brushless, lipo, and flashable ESCs proves this out. Instead, ROAR should be helping to direct the development of said market for the BENEFIT of the racer and the race communtiy.

I'm looking for leadership from ROAR et al on what SHOULD be develped and made legal, not maintaining the status quo for the next decade.
__________________
Tom Keith

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

Associated/T.O.P./Mugen/Fantom/Spektrum/Savox

Last edited by Buckaroo; 11-15-2011 at 07:32 AM.
Buckaroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 07:48 AM   #85
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
...but you'd still argue over the breed of the horse, weight of the cart, and size of the wheel. And if that didn't get you anywhere, you'd argue over what the horse was fed the night before and start examining poop! Maybe you're racing with the wrong people.
I think perhaps you are racing with the wrong people. The people I race with don't have an issue with the general principle of rules, do their best within them, and enjoy the racing.

You seem intent on finding an advantage by extending the rules in a manner that is not needed.

The cars we race are a certain size and use components that are a certain size to power them. Despite your assertions, the rules serve to keep costs down and make the class accessible to many.

If you don't like it, create another class, don't whinge about how backwards this class is. I suspect you will be racing in a class of one.
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 08:11 AM   #86
Tech Master
 
Buckaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,503
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sosidge View Post
I think perhaps you are racing with the wrong people. The people I race with don't have an issue with the general principle of rules, do their best within them, and enjoy the racing.

You seem intent on finding an advantage by extending the rules in a manner that is not needed.

The cars we race are a certain size and use components that are a certain size to power them. Despite your assertions, the rules serve to keep costs down and make the class accessible to many.

If you don't like it, create another class, don't whinge about how backwards this class is. I suspect you will be racing in a class of one.
Ha , you're funny! You know nothing about me. I'm the one always wanting the rules to be clear, specific, and iron clad at my local club. ROAR eFF'd up by omitting min specs in a world where everything gets lighter, more powerful, and faster by orders of magnitude several times a year (smart phones, for example). That was, at best, naive.

All I want is for ROAR to acknowledge that development MUST happen to further the hobby, AND LEAVE A DOOR OPEN for it, if they're not simply going to actually do something smart like (gasp) LEAD the hobby into the future through targeted development. Instead, they keep abdicating that responsibility to the the fertile minds of the market and more creative racers.

If they keep slamming closed doors, ESPECIALLY doors that they left open (either through intent or through negligence), we're going to find ourselves in 2015 wondering why we haven't apapted smart phone blue tooth updateable small esc controlled 4 pole 380 motors and small lipo batteries that are more powerful and offer longer run times than our current 540 motors and huge lipos. And we're going to be wondering why the new stuff is cheaper than our old stuff, too! That's just the way ROAR 'lead' us through the change over from brushed/round cell to brushless/lipo.

In this instance, someone has simply done what ROAR left open to be done...made a battery that fits the needs of the race, and made a chassis that can take advantage of said battery in an overall package that shows that the current state of development has stagnated....and ROAR has moved to ban this line of development in all classes.

More than 5 years ago the flight community started working with manufacturers to scope the parameters of what they needed for burshless and lipo. They now enjoy reliable, fast, maintenance free products at significantly cheaper prices per performance factor than cars do, mostly because they continue to embrace smaller, faster, lighter.

We should be, too, in steps beter incremented than wholesale shifts in paradigm.

Sooner or later, we're going to get smacked in the face with smaller, lighter batteries, smaller and lighter and more powerful motors, and better cars. Here's the point you're ignoring....ROAR and all the other sanctioning bodies should be on the forefront of helping to develope this TO CONTROL COSTS and PROPAGATE TECHNOLOGY before our currrent purpose bulit mousetraps become outdated and more expensive because tech has passed us by, which it's currently poised to do as evidenced by every segment of the tech that we currently use.

If they have no plans to do as I've stated, they're again going to be directly responsible for the delay in wholesale adaptation and development of cheap, easy to use products for the racing community.
__________________
Tom Keith

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

Associated/T.O.P./Mugen/Fantom/Spektrum/Savox

Last edited by Buckaroo; 11-15-2011 at 08:21 AM.
Buckaroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 09:11 AM   #87
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Ha , you're funny!
I do my best.

Quote:
You know nothing about me.
True. Although your earlier posts implied you knew something about me, which is a surprise.
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 09:44 AM   #88
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 102
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

So is the attached legal??
Attached Thumbnails
ROAR Rule 8.2.3 regarding shorty packs-tc6-shorty.jpg  
Murray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 09:59 AM   #89
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketron View Post
the new rule does not affect (or shouldn't) existing chassis on the market.

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

ROAR just happens to have been the first to publicly publish a rule regarding this issue.
this. I read it as presented on tech inspection on raceday.


Quote:
Originally Posted by alf.skaar View Post
AAA why didn't Frank only make this battery lower not shorter then we will not have this thread
Alf
CG would have been better too. Low batteries is next due to these rules.

Hvordan gikk det i Vegas?
MatsNorway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2011, 10:03 AM   #90
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray View Post
So is the attached legal??
Not how i read this.

Must be able to fit a maximum sized battery or a template with the max dimentions as most batteries would be within that limit.

If they had a Limit on the chassie from factory they would need to outlaw every homemade car or give them a advantage due to the chassie being what ever the maker says it is.
MatsNorway 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 12:23 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