Spec/Handout Speedo thoughts
04-17-2012, 09:55 AM
#136
I didnt read all the pages but I think it would be a good idea.
each year there seems to be a newer faster motor. The start of the carpet season it was all about the D3, then the revtechs came out. Right there is a $180 in motors.
each year there seems to be a newer faster motor. The start of the carpet season it was all about the D3, then the revtechs came out. Right there is a $180 in motors.
04-17-2012, 09:55 AM
#137
Race modified.
04-17-2012, 09:57 AM
#138
04-17-2012, 10:04 AM
#139
Duo1's were pretty much the standard. The Novak Ballistics fared pretty well too. Most tuners oem'd the Trinity stuff, so it was more prevalent. Which "must haves" are you referring to? Hell at last year's Indoor Champs D1's were still VERY competitive in boosted classes.
But as I said, the point is moot because "blinky" is the new mandate. The only boosted class left is Mod.
But as I said, the point is moot because "blinky" is the new mandate. The only boosted class left is Mod.
04-17-2012, 10:05 AM
#140
Good point, I gather from what I have personally seen, motors seem to fade after around a year of use anyway (well mine has), heck most guys seems keen to sell off motors after a couple of events regardless.
04-17-2012, 10:12 AM
#141
I'll just echo what EAMotorsports has said.
Fixed RPM is meaningless. Because if you can make your car get up to that RPM faster, you will have an advantage. That means that batteries and motor tweaking within the RPM rules become even more critical.
The construction rules alone work. They are easy to scrutineer. The problem is that the construction rules for stock motors were too loose initially, and it may well be too late to tighten them up without causing major upheaval and dissatisfaction.
Fixed RPM is meaningless. Because if you can make your car get up to that RPM faster, you will have an advantage. That means that batteries and motor tweaking within the RPM rules become even more critical.
The construction rules alone work. They are easy to scrutineer. The problem is that the construction rules for stock motors were too loose initially, and it may well be too late to tighten them up without causing major upheaval and dissatisfaction.
The construction rules don't work. It is why there are some motors or batteries that are just enough faster that in the right hands are impossible to beat. Yes, I do understand that coming off a corner faster makes speed difference more apparent. I have been racing every different kind of car, scale to 1/1 for over 40 years now. This not a new debate.
04-17-2012, 10:20 AM
#143
What EA said though may be a clue to a possible solution, motor brands release a fixed 10 degree replacement timing board, must be say bright red, easy to identify with a quick check?
Not that a fixed end bell won't get things a bit more even, but the battery wars will ensue. Its not as bad as with the round cells a few years back, but those that can find a battery that stays closer to max voltage longer, will have an advantage. There will always be the aura of the team drivers having those. Why not, it sells more product.
Not that a fixed end bell won't get things a bit more even, but the battery wars will ensue. Its not as bad as with the round cells a few years back, but those that can find a battery that stays closer to max voltage longer, will have an advantage. There will always be the aura of the team drivers having those. Why not, it sells more product.
04-17-2012, 10:21 AM
#144
I hope I misunderstood that comment.
I understand the intent of that idea. But in all practicality - as you know there are even more variations of how to go fast with mod. In theory - for the 17.5 classes you need a 17.5 stator and have a selection of 2-4 rotors.
Sure that someone can always pick what the fast guy is running but at the end of the day - a mod racer still has to have a good sample of different winds and rotors. Those costs are exponential. Well more expensive than the 17.5 option above. The half-life of everything else beyond the motors, ESC, kits, tires and parts is also the result of mod racing.
To cover every wind and half wind from 4T to 10.5T with X amount of rotor options. That doesn't sound like a sustainable program unless you have a van full of equipment or as the old school motor guys know silver cases of special 'unobtainium'. And yes, I am sure that there are times that the bigger teams run 'of-the-shelf' stuff - but if that was the case with Volkers performance several races ago where he couldn't keep an ESC alive for more than 6 minutes - I am not sure that is good marketing story for 'of-the-shelf' product with durability for mod.
To simply say 'run mod' and avoid the drama is an easy way out. There is a reason why the base of racers have moved to the classes away from mod. It wasn't so they wouldn't have to run against the Hohwarts, Haynes, Fairtraces, PL, Heberts; it is because they realized that to run at that level and performance requires a commitment beyond practice and knowledge - but one of $$$ and access. The later two things add the most expense.
Late add - if I were a motor manufacturer or esc company I would find it opportunistic to supply this type of race effort for the sole reason of disrupting the marketplace and becoming the default. Sure a lot of product sold never hits the track but sensibly - if you never heard of a brand again because their product line would never get a mention in the A main of a race. It wouldn't matter if it was spec or not. Guess what people are going to remember the next time they walk into their LHS.
I understand the intent of that idea. But in all practicality - as you know there are even more variations of how to go fast with mod. In theory - for the 17.5 classes you need a 17.5 stator and have a selection of 2-4 rotors.
Sure that someone can always pick what the fast guy is running but at the end of the day - a mod racer still has to have a good sample of different winds and rotors. Those costs are exponential. Well more expensive than the 17.5 option above. The half-life of everything else beyond the motors, ESC, kits, tires and parts is also the result of mod racing.
To cover every wind and half wind from 4T to 10.5T with X amount of rotor options. That doesn't sound like a sustainable program unless you have a van full of equipment or as the old school motor guys know silver cases of special 'unobtainium'. And yes, I am sure that there are times that the bigger teams run 'of-the-shelf' stuff - but if that was the case with Volkers performance several races ago where he couldn't keep an ESC alive for more than 6 minutes - I am not sure that is good marketing story for 'of-the-shelf' product with durability for mod.
To simply say 'run mod' and avoid the drama is an easy way out. There is a reason why the base of racers have moved to the classes away from mod. It wasn't so they wouldn't have to run against the Hohwarts, Haynes, Fairtraces, PL, Heberts; it is because they realized that to run at that level and performance requires a commitment beyond practice and knowledge - but one of $$$ and access. The later two things add the most expense.
Late add - if I were a motor manufacturer or esc company I would find it opportunistic to supply this type of race effort for the sole reason of disrupting the marketplace and becoming the default. Sure a lot of product sold never hits the track but sensibly - if you never heard of a brand again because their product line would never get a mention in the A main of a race. It wouldn't matter if it was spec or not. Guess what people are going to remember the next time they walk into their LHS.
04-17-2012, 10:24 AM
#145
I would say....Brand A to be the spec ESC (1 brand 1 model), then brand B to be the spec motor with sealed/locked/alter-less endbell design motor (1 brand 1 model)....brand C to be the spec tires (1 brand and multiple models due to indoor and outdoor surface)...open chasiss.
Of course, it is a dream talk....but USVTA has been running rules like that for years, and it works out pretty darn good. I specificly like the NOVAK 25.5 (1 brand 1 model) rule...and the tires (1 brand 1 model) rule.
Of course, it is a dream talk....but USVTA has been running rules like that for years, and it works out pretty darn good. I specificly like the NOVAK 25.5 (1 brand 1 model) rule...and the tires (1 brand 1 model) rule.
04-17-2012, 10:28 AM
#146
I agree, but wouldn't it be nice with drivers that were ready for that?
Would you want to be taken out in an early qual. or practice round because someone was way out of their element? If they had decent set-up and throttle control, they would be better equipped to be out there. Stock should not be a practically full throttle all the time class. It should be teaching more throttle control. If it can also keep more racers, lower costs and better learning curve, and help add new ones too, we all benefit that there will be more places to race. More racers means more need for support, tracks and manufacturers. Good for all of us.
Just my 2 cents.
Would you want to be taken out in an early qual. or practice round because someone was way out of their element? If they had decent set-up and throttle control, they would be better equipped to be out there. Stock should not be a practically full throttle all the time class. It should be teaching more throttle control. If it can also keep more racers, lower costs and better learning curve, and help add new ones too, we all benefit that there will be more places to race. More racers means more need for support, tracks and manufacturers. Good for all of us.
Just my 2 cents.
04-17-2012, 10:35 AM
#147
You guys are looking to make all these rules and limits and all you're going to accomplish is head ache and pain.
The real question still isn't being asked. Are you simply trying to slow the cars down? Or are you trying to make everything equal and the same? Mind you the latter will NEVER occur in the real world. There are far too many tolerances between parts to make it work out in the production world.
If you're looking to make things even you should be looking at technology as help, not hindrance.
Racing is about finding a performance advantage ANYTIME there is one to be found. Look at any form of real racing. At any given time every nut, bolt, body panel, tire, wheel, engine,etc are all under scrutiny...
You put enough rules and regulations onto a class or form of racing and you will also eliminate the fun from it also.
This is a problem that should have been presented to ALL of the manufacturers in an open discussion by the sanctioning bodies. If there is/was a problem then it should have been brought up to all mfg's so a mutual "fix" could be found. Again, look to real racing for ideas... If it feels like we've been down this road before, it's because we have
The real question still isn't being asked. Are you simply trying to slow the cars down? Or are you trying to make everything equal and the same? Mind you the latter will NEVER occur in the real world. There are far too many tolerances between parts to make it work out in the production world.
If you're looking to make things even you should be looking at technology as help, not hindrance.
Racing is about finding a performance advantage ANYTIME there is one to be found. Look at any form of real racing. At any given time every nut, bolt, body panel, tire, wheel, engine,etc are all under scrutiny...
You put enough rules and regulations onto a class or form of racing and you will also eliminate the fun from it also.
This is a problem that should have been presented to ALL of the manufacturers in an open discussion by the sanctioning bodies. If there is/was a problem then it should have been brought up to all mfg's so a mutual "fix" could be found. Again, look to real racing for ideas... If it feels like we've been down this road before, it's because we have
04-17-2012, 10:45 AM
#148
You guys are looking to make all these rules and limits and all you're going to accomplish is head ache and pain.
The real question still isn't being asked. Are you simply trying to slow the cars down? Or are you trying to make everything equal and the same? Mind you the latter will NEVER occur in the real world. There are far too many tolerances between parts to make it work out in the production world.
If you're looking to make things even you should be looking at technology as help, not hindrance.
Racing is about finding a performance advantage ANYTIME there is one to be found. Look at any form of real racing. At any given time every nut, bolt, body panel, tire, wheel, engine,etc are all under scrutiny...
You put enough rules and regulations onto a class or form of racing and you will also eliminate the fun from it also.
The real question still isn't being asked. Are you simply trying to slow the cars down? Or are you trying to make everything equal and the same? Mind you the latter will NEVER occur in the real world. There are far too many tolerances between parts to make it work out in the production world.
If you're looking to make things even you should be looking at technology as help, not hindrance.
Racing is about finding a performance advantage ANYTIME there is one to be found. Look at any form of real racing. At any given time every nut, bolt, body panel, tire, wheel, engine,etc are all under scrutiny...
You put enough rules and regulations onto a class or form of racing and you will also eliminate the fun from it also.
To answer your question - I *think* the advocacy is for leveling the field, reduce complexity of competition and perhaps cost reduction.
Full scale evolve much quicker - and obviously at a greater cost to the teams, manufacturers and partners that compete in those series.
I think the point of using the technology to help is a good point. Let the manufacturers continue to evolve, develop their product and price points and at the major races throw a 'blackbox' in between ESC and Motor that has enough intelligence throw away the special algorithms, modulations frequencies and govern power delivered to the motor. Our own version of a restrictor plate.
04-17-2012, 10:58 AM
#149
You guys are looking to make all these rules and limits and all you're going to accomplish is head ache and pain.
The real question still isn't being asked. Are you simply trying to slow the cars down? Or are you trying to make everything equal and the same? Mind you the latter will NEVER occur in the real world. There are far too many tolerances between parts to make it work out in the production world.
If you're looking to make things even you should be looking at technology as help, not hindrance.
Racing is about finding a performance advantage ANYTIME there is one to be found. Look at any form of real racing. At any given time every nut, bolt, body panel, tire, wheel, engine,etc are all under scrutiny...
You put enough rules and regulations onto a class or form of racing and you will also eliminate the fun from it also.
This is a problem that should have been presented to ALL of the manufacturers in an open discussion by the sanctioning bodies. If there is/was a problem then it should have been brought up to all mfg's so a mutual "fix" could be found. Again, look to real racing for ideas... If it feels like we've been down this road before, it's because we have
The real question still isn't being asked. Are you simply trying to slow the cars down? Or are you trying to make everything equal and the same? Mind you the latter will NEVER occur in the real world. There are far too many tolerances between parts to make it work out in the production world.
If you're looking to make things even you should be looking at technology as help, not hindrance.
Racing is about finding a performance advantage ANYTIME there is one to be found. Look at any form of real racing. At any given time every nut, bolt, body panel, tire, wheel, engine,etc are all under scrutiny...
You put enough rules and regulations onto a class or form of racing and you will also eliminate the fun from it also.
This is a problem that should have been presented to ALL of the manufacturers in an open discussion by the sanctioning bodies. If there is/was a problem then it should have been brought up to all mfg's so a mutual "fix" could be found. Again, look to real racing for ideas... If it feels like we've been down this road before, it's because we have
SO its obvious that they are doing something right over there that we are not. Different mentality? Perhaps but it all adds up.
Ive never been to a race where everyone had the same speed down the straights in stock and racing came down to actual setup, driving and just plain luck in some instances. This is what it should be.
I dont mention anything here about slowing down the cars. Tolerances to far to make them equal? Maybe for some companies but the tolerances on the stuff used there seemed pretty damn close to me out of 96 cars!
Let the racers dictate what they want to run by setting the standard and put the rules in place....not the manufactures dictate what the racers must race with new electronics and or software every few months.
EA
04-17-2012, 11:00 AM
#150
I hope I misunderstood that comment.
I understand the intent of that idea. But in all practicality - as you know there are even more variations of how to go fast with mod. In theory - for the 17.5 classes you need a 17.5 stator and have a selection of 2-4 rotors.
Sure that someone can always pick what the fast guy is running but at the end of the day - a mod racer still has to have a good sample of different winds and rotors. Those costs are exponential. Well more expensive than the 17.5 option above. The half-life of everything else beyond the motors, ESC, kits, tires and parts is also the result of mod racing.
To cover every wind and half wind from 4T to 10.5T with X amount of rotor options. That doesn't sound like a sustainable program unless you have a van full of equipment or as the old school motor guys know silver cases of special 'unobtainium'. And yes, I am sure that there are times that the bigger teams run 'of-the-shelf' stuff - but if that was the case with Volkers performance several races ago where he couldn't keep an ESC alive for more than 6 minutes - I am not sure that is good marketing story for 'of-the-shelf' product with durability for mod.
To simply say 'run mod' and avoid the drama is an easy way out. There is a reason why the base of racers have moved to the classes away from mod. It wasn't so they wouldn't have to run against the Hohwarts, Haynes, Fairtraces, PL, Heberts; it is because they realized that to run at that level and performance requires a commitment beyond practice and knowledge - but one of $$$ and access. The later two things add the most expense.
Late add - if I were a motor manufacturer or esc company I would find it opportunistic to supply this type of race effort for the sole reason of disrupting the marketplace and becoming the default. Sure a lot of product sold never hits the track but sensibly - if you never heard of a brand again because their product line would never get a mention in the A main of a race. It wouldn't matter if it was spec or not. Guess what people are going to remember the next time they walk into their LHS.
I understand the intent of that idea. But in all practicality - as you know there are even more variations of how to go fast with mod. In theory - for the 17.5 classes you need a 17.5 stator and have a selection of 2-4 rotors.
Sure that someone can always pick what the fast guy is running but at the end of the day - a mod racer still has to have a good sample of different winds and rotors. Those costs are exponential. Well more expensive than the 17.5 option above. The half-life of everything else beyond the motors, ESC, kits, tires and parts is also the result of mod racing.
To cover every wind and half wind from 4T to 10.5T with X amount of rotor options. That doesn't sound like a sustainable program unless you have a van full of equipment or as the old school motor guys know silver cases of special 'unobtainium'. And yes, I am sure that there are times that the bigger teams run 'of-the-shelf' stuff - but if that was the case with Volkers performance several races ago where he couldn't keep an ESC alive for more than 6 minutes - I am not sure that is good marketing story for 'of-the-shelf' product with durability for mod.
To simply say 'run mod' and avoid the drama is an easy way out. There is a reason why the base of racers have moved to the classes away from mod. It wasn't so they wouldn't have to run against the Hohwarts, Haynes, Fairtraces, PL, Heberts; it is because they realized that to run at that level and performance requires a commitment beyond practice and knowledge - but one of $$$ and access. The later two things add the most expense.
Late add - if I were a motor manufacturer or esc company I would find it opportunistic to supply this type of race effort for the sole reason of disrupting the marketplace and becoming the default. Sure a lot of product sold never hits the track but sensibly - if you never heard of a brand again because their product line would never get a mention in the A main of a race. It wouldn't matter if it was spec or not. Guess what people are going to remember the next time they walk into their LHS.
Modified is not for everyone. But when you race it you remove a lot of the things that people are complaining about. You choose how fast you want to go, not stuck with how fast your equipment allows you to go. And what you don't have.
FYI I have used the exact same 5.0 motor/rotor since the Reedy motor was released a year ago.