R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-19-2005, 11:44 PM   #46
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 4,148
Trader Rating: 28 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to Scott Fisher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndr0me
So, back to the issue at hand. Let me see if I've got this right.

IB and GP has been working with ROAR to limit the size of their cells so they fit within the current rules scheme. ROAR increased that size, basically to give their competitor (IP) the ability to use their cells in R/C as well. IP, unlike the other two companies, was unwilling to compromise on their cell size, so instead, ROAR changed the rules to accommodate them. Is that about right?

How does that look to IB and GP, who have apparently been loyal to ROAR by making cells to fit within their rules scheme?

I guess that guy from Pole Position will be happy now.
You are a little bit off. Roar is a part of Ifmar. Ifmar is made up of four blocks of which Roar is one. Roar, Efra, Femca, and Famar make up the four blocks of Ifmar. Efra is to Europe, as Roar is to the USA and Canada. As I said these four blocks make up the 4 blocks of Roar. The executive committe of Roar decided on the most recent ballot (deadline to vote was Nov 14th) to have a ballot question asking if Roar should adopt Ifmar's battery rule allowing batteries to be 44mm long. It was up to the members of Roar to allow the change or to keep things the same. While very very very very very very few roar members voted, the decision to change roars rule was voted in at about a 3-1 margin.
__________________
| Capricorn | Ybslow | Proline-Protoform | Johnny Bravo Racing | Desoto Racing | Murnan Modified | Matrix Tires | Powermaster Fuel |
Scott Fisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 12:27 AM   #47
Tech Lord
 
syndr0me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 5280 Raceway
Posts: 13,140
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

It would be interesting to get an idea of how many real dollars this will cost. If such a small percentage of people voted, and it's something that could have such a large impact on racing as we know it, perhaps the ExComm needs to intervene, if it's possible, and set this straight. I haven't heard much of anybody here on R/C Tech say this is a good thing. I would say this community is a very good indication of what racers want.

We know the system is flawed. I suppose complaining about it is just beating a dead horse, but it seems any system that could potentially allow such a small percentage of the racing population to ratify such a major rules change needs to be replaced immediately.
syndr0me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 12:29 AM   #48
Tech Champion
 
C_O_jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wa.
Posts: 9,055
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

syndr0me. I think your missing Eddie's point.
The way I read it, he is not against new inovations, but how to regulate them.
Read his coments about brushless, he's saying that the speedos can be hacked and how do you check that?
As far as making a fortune on batterys, I have seen the amount of time it takes just to sort and package them, then pay the emploees a salary, advertise and ship them, there aint that much profit. If there was, there would be a heck of a lot more people selling them. Just look how much the price has come down since 3300's first came out, I remeber paying close to a $100 for 1.169's now we can buy 3800's at 1.200+ for around $65.
From what I remeber on the ROAR balot, it was to bring us to the same as IFMAR specs.
Fred Forg
__________________
Bacon is Meat Candy
C_O_jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 12:54 AM   #49
Super Moderator
 
Grizzbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sand Springs, OK
Posts: 3,063
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndr0me
So, back to the issue at hand. Let me see if I've got this right.

IB and GP has been working with ROAR to limit the size of their cells so they fit within the current rules scheme. ROAR increased that size, basically to give their competitor (IP) the ability to use their cells in R/C as well. IP, unlike the other two companies, was unwilling to compromise on their cell size, so instead, ROAR changed the rules to accommodate them. Is that about right?

How does that look to IB and GP, who have apparently been loyal to ROAR by making cells to fit within their rules scheme?

I guess that guy from Pole Position will be happy now.
Might be more than just him, I think there's another new potential player in the battery wars, called Elite(that's the manufacturer, not a matcher). I've been testing a pack of their cells for a few weeks now, & they really seem to be a competitive cell(they have SERIOUS punch, & these aren't even zapped or voltage-enhanced or anything like that, but they're keeping up on track with GP3700's & IB3800's that have VERY good numbers). Only thing that had been a problem was that their length is over the old limit(I think they're something like 43.92mm long, but I'm not 100% sure, just know they're over 43mm). But with this new change, they could become legal now(& I do hope someone will submit them for approval). Considering all this, I think maybe the matchers should have a SERIOUS look at this cell(you can get info on them from cheapbatterypacks.com, that's where I got the pack from, & they have some hard info about them on their website) & see what they can squeeze out of them.....
__________________
Bob Seay
Tamiya TRF417, TA05v.2, TRF211XM, M-05ver.2R, XRAY X12, Associated B5m Factory Lite

Go Pokes!!!
Grizzbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 02:46 AM   #50
Company Representative
 
Danny/SMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Elkton, VA
Posts: 3,097
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

This cell is the same as the IP3800 which is actually the Grepow 3600UP cell. We tested samples a few months ago ad they were good but not as good as the high voltage high capacity IB3800. We reccomended to Grepow to shorten the cell and send us samples but they told us that they would stay at 43.5mm and above.



ROAR needs to get in touch with EFRA and IFMAR to figure this out.

If the rules are 44mm look for IB to relase a 44mm cell.
Danny/SMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:29 AM   #51
Tech Elite
 
PitCrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle Indoor Raceway
Posts: 2,129
Default

Well, from the charts on CBB.com, the Elite cell looks like it might be something to look at.

Also, considering it weighs 63.47 grams -vs- 65.74 for the IB3800.

I'm wondering how long it will be before we are running the 4/5sc cells. They look like they can handle the load, with a bit lower voltage, but they weigh so much less. Don't think you can't make runtime on 2200mah in stock at least.

Maybe I'll try it, just for fun!
PitCrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 06:34 AM   #52
Tech Elite
 
RCknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,273
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default bigger cells, better numbers...bla..bla...bla...

My question is how durable are the cells getting? I'm already told that the IB cells are holding good numbers, but the cells are not lasting very long. Personally, I could care less about the size, I want a battery that keeps good numbers AND it's durable. I hope the future Lipos will get the job done.
RCknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 06:46 AM   #53
Tech Fanatic
 
Scrubb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 834
Default

Roar simply matched their battery specs to Ifmar battery spec. Does anybody know what the battery specs are for the other three racing organizations? If Efra, Femca, Fadmar, and Ifmar all have a 44mm rule, then Roar racers have been at a disadvantage to the rest of the R/C world. So who is forcing the battery manufacturers to increase battery case size anyway?

Did anybody (like Eddie, or Danny or anybody else in the battery matcher business) post a thread to vote against the change? If they did i must of have missed it. Complaining now is too little to late.

Nobody has mentioned Sanyo, i think thats funny, maybe they could have a competitive 44mm cell now.

Oh well, as a racer who didn't vote, i don't care. Just like the majority of racers (and Roar members), i'll simply wait to see what the matchers give the pro racers to win, then base my buying decisions on that. Who knows, maybe Trinity will put a halfway decent looking shrink wrap on the 44mm cells.
Scrubb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 07:24 AM   #54
Tech Addict
 
Herc Driver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 526
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

And then we wonder why new folks arent interested in joining this hobby...
Herc Driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 07:59 AM   #55
Tech Elite
 
EddieO's Avatar
R/C Tech Charter Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,414
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

I am not complaining that it passed.....

I just think it should of been a decision made by excomm in this case. regardless of which way they chose to go.......one made in conjuction with IFMAR and EFRA or whoever.......

I find it weird that they ammend who can and can't run for president/vice president on their own.....but as for a highly techincal rule, that needs to be a worldwide accepted standard.....they leave it up to the generally un-technology and un-politically informed membership....

Besides, a battery seller, why would I complain about selling more batteries???


Later EddieO
__________________
www.teambrood.com
EddieO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 08:30 AM   #56
Tech Fanatic
 
Scrubb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 834
Default

well, i think we all know that the president vice preident rule change had very specific motives behind them.

how many racers, pro or amatuer know how many mm long their batteries are? Who cares? I've been racing for 23 years and everybody tends to know what cells are legal and which ones are not by what is run at the big name races, because they are teched there. The whole membership of Roar, which is mostly amateur racers, dosen't care what battery length to run because it dosen't really effect them immediately or substaintually. Think about it. How often does SMC Br00d, Trinity, Reedy, Orion or anybody else give amatuers new cells to test and try? Amateurs buy what works, what works is figured out by matchers and their sponsered drivers. Eddie is 100% correct in the fact that it was left up to the ignorant. But then, the rules should follow Ifmar to begin with, so their should not have been an issue to start.

"And then we wonder why new folks arent interested in joining this hobby..."

That is because local hobby shops don't advertise because of expense, and mainstream media does not promote R/C because their is not money in it. I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't know about competitve r/c car racing and would love to start if they only new it existed close to their location. I have no problem getting people to join the hobby in my area dispite my opinion about a lame battery issue created by a misguided unpopular organization that should never had been an issue to begin with. New racers want to drive cars, not measure battery length.
Scrubb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 08:40 AM   #57
Tech Elite
 
CRASH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,715
Trader Rating: 26 (100%+)
Default

Really what difference does it make? We as racers will buy them and use them. Some people will buy them just because they have to have the newest and best, but the majority of us will buy them as needed. There are people out there still running 3300s and being competitive.

If they want to continue to increase cells why not increase race time? If the cells can handle it, then why not?

Later,
CRASH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 08:46 AM   #58
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 235
Default

most of the arguments are coming from battery matches, ifmar should govern all other racing bodies in all countries and go by ONLY ifmar rules no more arguments.. .02
Bobby J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 08:49 AM   #59
Tech Fanatic
 
Scrubb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 834
Default

Motor makers keep saying Roar rules constrict their ability to make motors that will go as fast with the lifespan that you used to. Basically, with current motors, you would have to buy them twice as often. Thats expensive.

And track owners complain that it would make the race program too long, and that would be same as losing money without rasing race entry fees. Nobody wants to work that long anyway, from a track employee point of view.

Good points raised in other threads.

Honestly, at a local level, longer races means more cars breaking before the race ends. And a race finishing with one or two cars sucks.
Scrubb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:17 AM   #60
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 185
Default Scrubb etc....

For every new motor we manufacture and I am sure other manufacturers do as well....costs us more money to improve the motor. So every year or every other year we lose a lot of our profit because we all choose to follow the ROAR rules of price restrictions.......In my opinion now....it seems like the motor community is the only group of manufacturers following this.....

Then out of nowhere.....the ROAR executive committee...not the membership voted to allow brushless run with brushed motors....this at a time when even larger brushless manufacturers trying to promote their motors could not even field a main event heat at their races....didnt make much sense. The reasoning by the 1/8th on road Executive Committee was that "ROAR needed to comply more to IFMAR"

WHY?

How many people who actually race these cars as a hobby for enjoyment go to the IFMAR World Championships.....the races used to be made up of 120 of the best races around the world. Now if the race is not in the USA...it is the 80 top racers in the world...etc.etc.
ErnieP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New ROAR rules Rfury Georgia Racing 9 01-16-2008 12:58 PM
Roar Rules rollagen Nitro On-Road 1 08-06-2007 06:04 PM
ROAR battery rules Dougg Electric Off-Road 2 01-02-2007 06:30 PM
? on ROAR rules gator Electric On-Road 2 11-23-2002 12:13 AM
ROAR rules LooseCannon Nitro On-Road 18 09-08-2002 11:03 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 05:29 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