The reality is that there is no single solution in R/C racing that is going to be ideal for every track and every racer. Instead of trying to fix "stock" racing to be a one-size fits all class, the best solution is to promote the classes that are best for a specific track or a specific group of racers.

If stock feels slow at your track, the track director should help promote open mod. If stock is too fast for average racers at your track, the track director should promote slower classes (VTA or some of the slower TCS classes).

What we can take from this thread is some good ideas how to improve racing at our local tracks, but there is no need to change national/international classes.

Personally, I have no desire to race in a class like this, but if you really wanted to do it, I think it might be possible to do, using the sensor from a laser mouse to watch the surface fly by and have a device between the rx and ESC to control the max speed as well as maximum acceleration curve based on readings from that sensor.

Only if you find some way to stop drivers removing the tyres and stuffing bigger foams in there to increase the diameter to get more top speed for a given rpm.

Having a maximum wheel rpm limit is different. Unless your track is made of nothing but long straights and fast corners, or the rpm limit is set so low that you are driving around most of the track on the limit, you will spend very little time actually at the rpm limit and the rest of the time you would be looking at mod acceleration and performance.

You want to limit speed? Build a track layout with very short straights, say 30-40 feet, and let everyone loose with whatever they want. Higher turn motors become much more drivable when they can't run out of revs and low turn modifieds will get too hot.

Why limit top speed. It is not the straightline speed that makes our cars difficult to control. It is actually the acceleration that makes mod hard.

As an example, most drivers in our national 1/10 200mm nitro races have improved this year while we switched to a stock 'simple' .12 motor. Now comes the best part: due to the combo of motor and pipe the top speeds have gone up but the torque has been reduced. This has made the cars easier to control and thus has given cleaner and better racing.

So imo limiting top speed in mod (as someone else already poonted out this idea is) does not go well with novice racers. As everyone will always switch to the most badass combo available. Especially the beginners....

Limit the battery capacity. Tamiya has 2200mAh LiFe batteries that can be run down to zero capacity. :)

Classes like 17.5 Stock and 21.5 VTA etc already have limits on top speed, that limit is the point just before the magic smoke is released from the motor. All using RPM or Wheel Speed or FDR does, is move the class speed limitation from the motor to some other location where you might have more control over it.

In 17.5 Stock you have guys changing rotors every other round, others using motors for 1 or 2 runs and binning them, pro teams that are dynoing 100's of motors to find the best couple from a batch and other equally as crazy things all in the pursuit of 100ths of a second advantage over another guy.

So, if the goal and primary objective of stock racing is to provide a level playing field where all drivers are competing equally based on driver skill and setup ability, then removing the ability of the HAVES to gain advantage over the HAVE NOTS this way, goes a long way to achieving the prime objective of the class.

I don't like the idea . . . I don't think 'stock' racing is broke.

On VRC Pro if you race a spec class you will notice, motors are locked, gearing is locked, and heck half the setup is locked. There are still people who can flat out drive the crap out of those spec cars, and there is still a large range in ability. In fact to such an extent that I would be willing to bet most races are not decided on the motor / esc / battery of the month. The fast guys are going to be fast with a silver can motor and nicads.

If anything was to be done would be to create classes based on skill level not motors (ie just like nitro). There will always be sand baggers though so no system is perfect . . .

this solution will just make things more complicated, and tedious. Tech needs to be simple, and easy to enforce, and not ruin the actual racing. I don't see the OP proposition accomplishing any of that.

I agree with you, the 3 things that win races are driver skill, car setup skill and then probably tires. What all this really comes down to is PERCEPTION, the guys in the C and D mains want to have the perception that they are competing on an equal footing with the guys in the A main. What they do not want to admit to themselves is that, well, they suck and just do not have the skills to compete at such a high standard.

The greater perception of fairness the less likely you are of having bad aspects that currently exist in stock. Stock should be about driver and setup verses driver and setup, nothing more and nothing less, but currently there is an inherent bias in the system that favors certain groups of people over others, thus you have a perception that the racing results are not representative of driver skill and setup but are a representation of who can throw the most money at the problem.

what you're describing here is the fact that with more money (as a big team) you can get a competitive advantage, and that we haven't moved forward an inch since the good ole days of 27T closed cans stockers that were one-run-only. The solution to this is to simply prevent big dogs from running stock. This would de facto mean that stock turns back to a "novice" class - which is perfectly fine by me as this is the original concept of "stock", as opposed to what "stock" has become i.e. just another class.

We should all keep in mind that stock truly is for the slower, beginner drivers and that the system has drifted badly. There's a reason why stock is 10.5, 13.5, 17.5, 21.5, 23.5, 27.5, you name it, but never 3.5 or 4.5... And as the motors are "slow" and don't overpower the car, then people start looking for another advantage (speedo, batt, timing, ...)


Now - back to the topic - fixed RPM at the wheel, good idea but doesn't prevent playing around with inserts, but fixed topspeed is even better, I say rolling dyno with no resisting torque but with a 5lbs weight on the car (to prevent from smart esc's that phase faster under load than when free wheeling). Let the folks manage their low-rpm torque like they wish!

Better still: No more stock classes - kill stock, open for everyone.

Keep up the discussion, it's interesting :)

Paul

Could always go back to foams, that would kill the insert fakery. I prefer to race on foams than rubber anyways, $12 a set for a set of 4 foams and i get 3 club meets out of them + practice, $30-40 a set of 4 premount rubbers + traction compounds and tire warmers and they are lucky to last more than a meet before they drop off notably, and after 2 meets are useless.

Honestly I like the idea of creating classes like nitro . . based on skill not motor. Track can pick the motor that best fits anyhow . . .

I also like the sound of foams . . $40 set of tires that lasts 1 day . . man it hurts.

So you only get 1day on rubber indoor??? That doesnt make sense. or was it 3 days on foam outdoor. that is fishy too. I never got that much time on a set of foams. unless you never trued them and let them run to the rim. Then that changes the car every runas they were down

Finally found the link again from what I have mentioned before:

Story:
http://rccarprototypes.de/pages/news/news-2.php

pictures:
http://rccarprototypes.de/pages/news/news-5.php

So basicly a current/voltage meter calculated to a capacity. Low voltages and more capacity used than programmed will be detected.